› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Buying New PC - Upgrading old

MrMonolitasMrMonolitas Member UncommonPosts: 263
edited June 2023 in Hardware
Hello everyone,

Long time no see. I am here again, looking for advice.

I need to let down my second PC to someone else. That requires me to build a brand new PC.

Budget: 2300; I would prefer fitting everything around 2000.

I am looking into building a PC for my dual monitor setup (240 1080p + 4K).

The following picture will show my idea of an upgrade path.




Case: It does not matter much, to be honest. I have Meshify 2, and currently I am not very happy with the front mesh; it is so dusty and it seems impossible to clean it. It is most important to fit all components.

Motherboard: This choice is a bit more difficult for me. I don't require many special features, and I do not overclock much as well. Most important would be having wifi onboard and 5.0 pcie, just for future sake. Looking forward hearing your opinion on this.

CPU: 7800x3D, because it's fast and i like ryzen. High demand does not make it easy on a price, any other options? 
CPU Cooler: I've heard very good things about Noctua, but if I can save money, great.
GPU: I still haven't decided on the GPU to go with. 4090 would be the most appealing GPU. I am sitting still on my RX580 Sapphire; it has lasted me for years and is a very good GPU, but it started struggling a bit. I always planned to upgrade it down the line, but I never did in 6 years now. Of course, the price will make it or break it. This would be a 100% used GPU, and I can potentially get it for 1,200

Another option would be the Sapphire Pulse 7900 XT, which would set me back around 700–800 pounds. But the performance would take a huge hit.

Ram: 32 Gb I am very happy with this amount, and I am not planning to go lower than that. The most important would be speed. 6200 GHz is what I am looking at.

PSU - Anything that can handle 4090. I assume 850W that has gold 80+ would be more than enough. For my Meshify build, I went seasonic; it died midway but they have replaced it. I heard about this new feature for PSI ATX 3.0. Is it worth looking into it? Or is getting a cheap 850 W gold-rated PSU the way to go?

SSD 4.0 pcie, 80 quid That's fine; plenty of them


I have used https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/W33xDq. but the price is really wacky and over the budget.

Over all, I want to go with the AM5 platform just because they have the same promise they had with AM4's long support. I can now upgrade my old CPU to 5800x3D and have another 5 years of runtime.
So, let me know your opinion about this idea of getting a brand new PC. Upgrade paths and choices I would love to get your advice regarding all of this.


«1

Comments

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,989
    Motherboard: This choice is a bit more difficult for me. I don't require many special features, and I do not overclock much as well. Most important would be having wifi onboard and 5.0 pcie, just for future sake. Looking forward hearing your opinion on this.
    If I were you, I'd buy just PCIe 4.0 motherboard to go together with the PCI 4.0 SSD you're planning to get: On the logic that upgrading to faster SSD doesn't give you better framerates, which means you're not very likely to bother with that kind of upgrade before it comes time to do next major computer upgrade. And when you do next major computer upgrade you're likely to need new motherboard for CPU compatibility anyway.

    If you'd be happy with PCI 4.0 motherboard you could get one of the B650 boards, which could save you quite a lot of money.

    If you're planning to get PCI 5.0 motherboard because you anticipate that the 1 TB SSD you're planning to buy won't have enough space, then I'd just get 2 TB PCI 4.0 SSD right away. The cost saving for getting a B650 motherboard instead of motherbard with PCI 5.0 support would be about enough to offset the cost increase of getting 2 TB SSD instead of the 1 TB you've planned.

    PSU - Anything that can handle 4090. I assume 850W that has gold 80+ would be more than enough. For my Meshify build, I went seasonic; it died midway but they have replaced it. I heard about this new feature for PSI ATX 3.0. Is it worth looking into it? Or is getting a cheap 850 W gold-rated PSU the way to go?
    The new 12VHPWR connector that comes with ATX 3.0 would be for you nice to have since you're planning to buy a GPU with that connector. But you can also use adapter (included with the GPU) if a PSU without that connector is significantly cheaper.

    For your build I'd likely try to get ~1 000W PSU. The 850W you're planning to get is ok for your build, but it doesn't have much extra room if you want to upgrade the computer with more power hungry parts in the future.

    I have used https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/W33xDq. but the price is really wacky and over the budget.
    That build is missing case. You may also need to buy case fans if whatever case you buy doesn't have them.
    MrMonolitas
     
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,499
    A lot depends on what you think about a video card.  I generally recommend that you at least double the performance of your old card if you're upgrading.  A much cheaper Radeon RX 7600 would roughly get you there.  That doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't get something faster.  A Radeon RX 7900 XT is perhaps five times the performance of your old card.  A GeForce RTX 4090 is perhaps closer to eight times the performance of your old card.

    That doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't go for an enormous upgrade.  If you want to go all-in on ray-tracing today, then you pretty much need that top end performance.  But it does mean that you should understand that that's what you're looking at, and there are some other cards that are still fast but much cheaper.

    There's also the question of what you think about power consumption.  A GeForce RTX 4090 is a 450 W card.  Are you okay with a 450 W card burning that much power under gaming loads?  Maybe you are, and I'm not trying to tell you that you shouldn't be.  But I'm not okay with that kind of heat, and I do think that you should at least be aware that top end cards use a lot more power than they used to.

    There's also the issue of used versus new.  If you're looking at buying a used card from a friend and know that the card is in good condition and hasn't been abused, that's one thing.  If you're looking to buy a card from a random stranger online, you risk that someone wants to get rid of the card because something is wrong with it.  The mining craze has mostly settled down, so it's less risky than it used to be.  But there's still a risk there.
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,989
    Quizzical said:
    There's also the issue of used versus new.  If you're looking at buying a used card from a friend and know that the card is in good condition and hasn't been abused, that's one thing.  If you're looking to buy a card from a random stranger online, you risk that someone wants to get rid of the card because something is wrong with it.  The mining craze has mostly settled down, so it's less risky than it used to be.  But there's still a risk there.
    Used cards are always a risk, but if he can get RTX 4090 25% off then it's likely worth the risk. At least if the card is still under warranty.
     
  • AcorniaAcornia Member UncommonPosts: 281
    If your heart is set on a PCIe 5.0 motherboard, I subjest getting an asroc x670e steel legend am5 motherboard.  I found it to be the best pcie 5.0 mid range priced that provided every thing I needed.

    CPU I would go with a AMD Ryzen 9 socket AM5 class cpu bepending on what you need and price.

    For ram I went with (pardon the caps copied the order header)

    CORSAIR Vengeance 64GB (2 x 32GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR5 5600 (PC5 44800) Desktop Memory Model CMK64GX5M2B5600C4

    that gives you that best speed for the price.

    PCIe 5.0 M2 just now hitting the market, so go with the one you find best for you.

    For now I would use the onboard graphics build into the motherboard unless your hart is set on something like the RTX 4000 class video cards.

    Also look in places like newegg and other vendor sites.


    Hope this gives you some ideas on you up coming build.

    MrMonolitas
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,499
    edited June 2023
    Ryzen 7000 series CPUs only support up to 5200 MHz memory, and even then, only if you use two modules rather than four.  If you use four memory modules, they only support up to 3600 MHz memory.  If you buy memory clocked higher than that, it might just work.  But it also might just not.  At minimum, I'd be very skeptical of paying extra for memory clocked higher than 5200 MHz.  The large L3 cache of the 7800X3D also makes memory bandwidth matter less than it otherwise would.

    You should also be aware that you don't necessarily have to get a power of 2 on memory anymore.  The DDR5 specification allows for chips that have 3 times a power of 2, so there are 24 GB and 48 GB modules out there.  If you're happy with 32 GB of memory, that's fine, but do be aware that if you want to upgrade memory in the future, you'll be looking at replacing that 32 GB with two new modules, not just adding two additional modules.

    There are some enterprise uses that genuinely need the extra bandwidth of a PCI Express 5.0 SSD, but consumer use generally doesn't.  For consumer uses, even a SATA SSD is generally fast enough.  I would recommend getting an M.2 2280 NVMe over PCI-E SSD over SATA now that there isn't really a price premium for it anymore, but even PCI Express 3.0 X4 SSDs are quite fast.

    As for PCI Express 3.0 versus 4.0 versus 5.0 on an SSD, I'd ignore that and instead look at the rated specs.  A PCI Express 4.0 SSD that runs at speeds attainable on a PCI-E 3.0 SSD doesn't glean any real benefit from the faster interface.  Don't pay a huge price premium for the high end SSDs at a given capacity though, as even 3 GB/sec sequential speeds and 500k IOPS is quite fast for real-world use.  In particular, the new PCI Express 5.0 SSDs are a waste of money.
  • MrMonolitasMrMonolitas Member UncommonPosts: 263
    edited June 2023
    If I were you, I'd buy just PCIe 4.0 motherboard to go together with the PCI 4.0 SSD you're planning to get: On the logic that upgrading to faster SSD doesn't give you better framerates, which means you're not very likely to bother with that kind of upgrade before it comes time to do next major computer upgrade. And when you do next major computer upgrade you're likely to need new motherboard for CPU compatibility anyway.
    Good insight. I was looking into the future with pcie 5.0, but again, if I get a card that will last me for years to come, I won't be thinking about an upgrade, and by the time I need to, I will probably need to get another motherboard for ''new features''. But also, look at me sitting on AM4 platform planning to upgrade new graphics card and CPU. In another 5-6 years I expect hardware manufacturers fully utilize pcie 5.0 and probably it would allow me in far future get another squeeze from the motherboard. I really need to sit down and think about it. 
    The new 12VHPWR connector that comes with ATX 3.0 would be for you nice to have since you're planning to buy a GPU with that connector. But you can also use adapter (included with the GPU) if a PSU without that connector is significantly cheaper.

    For your build I'd likely try to get ~1 000W PSU. The 850W you're planning to get is ok for your build, but it doesn't have much extra room if you want to upgrade the computer with more power hungry parts in the future.
    Is the main difference is the connector? then it probably is not really worth getting it.

    Regarding the wattage, would a few SSDs or HDDs increase the wattage so much that I would need 1000 psu?
    There's also the question of what you think about power consumption.  A GeForce RTX 4090 is a 450 W card.  Are you okay with a 450 W card burning that much power under gaming loads?  Maybe you are, and I'm not trying to tell you that you shouldn't be.  But I'm not okay with that kind of heat, and I do think that you should at least be aware that top end cards use a lot more power than they used to.
    No, of course I am not okay with card burning so much. But the performance in rendering, speed, and everything else You could potentially play with undervolting if necessary.

    I am fully aware of the risks of the used market. Mining craze is finished and I believe used market is in better spot than ever before. And the fact that the 4090 keeps its price just shows that it is capable of everything you throw at it. I don't really care about ray tracing that much. Although I have no real-life experience with it, I can't help but think it's a gimmick.

    I would not be buying NVIDIA for that anyway. 


    As for PCI Express 3.0 versus 4.0 versus 5.0 on an SSD, I'd ignore that and instead look at the rated specs.  A PCI Express 4.0 SSD that runs at speeds attainable on a PCI-E 3.0 SSD doesn't glean any real benefit from the faster interface.  Don't pay a huge price premium for the high end SSDs at a given capacity though, as even 3 GB/sec sequential speeds and 500k IOPS is quite fast for real-world use.  In particular, the new PCI Express 5.0 SSDs are a waste of money.
    Good insight, I will take a look at the performance pcie 3 and 4 offers, comparing the price.

    For now I would use the onboard graphics build into the motherboard unless your hart is set on something like the RTX 4000 class video cards.
    That is a good idea when you still cant decide what to get I guess.





    I also enjoy multitasking, and I had read that x670e dual-chiplet motherboards would help a little bit with that. Is it a gimmick as well or something to think about while motherboard shopping.



  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,989
    For now I would use the onboard graphics build into the motherboard unless your hart is set on something like the RTX 4000 class video cards.
    That is a good idea when you still cant decide what to get I guess.
    Motherboards do not have their own onboard graphic cards, they only have support for an integrated graphic card that CPU may have. Ryzen 7800x3D doesn't have integrated graphic card, which means as long as you go with that CPU you must have a discrete graphic card or the computer won't work.

    Also all integrated graphic cards available today for PCs are so bad, that for gaming purposes your old computer with RX 580 would be faster.

    Regarding the wattage, would a few SSDs or HDDs increase the wattage so much that I would need 1000 psu?
    No. HDDs generally use less than 10W under load and SSDs use even less. That advice about power was so that you'd have more freedom for future CPU and GPU updates.

    Main change for ATX 3.0 standard is just the new power connectors. If you don't care about that, then you don't need to care whether your PSU is ATX 3.0 compliant or not.

    MrMonolitas said:

    I also enjoy multitasking, and I had read that x670e dual-chiplet motherboards would help a little bit with that. Is it a gimmick as well or something to think about while motherboard shopping.
    X670E would give you PCIe 5.0 support for both GPU and NVMe drives, whereas X670 has only PCIe 5.0 support for NVMe drives, and most B650 motherboards have only PCIe 4.0 support (B650E has PCI 5.0 support).

    I think PCIe 5.0 support for GPUs would be more worthwhile than PCIe 5.0 support for NVMe, but I don't know if either of them is really worth the price unless you're planning to stay on top of the tech and do future upgrades in a couple of years.

    Other than better PCIe 5.0 support, the X670E is pretty much equal to X670.
     
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,499
    Vrika said:
    For now I would use the onboard graphics build into the motherboard unless your hart is set on something like the RTX 4000 class video cards.
    That is a good idea when you still cant decide what to get I guess.
     Ryzen 7800x3D doesn't have integrated graphic card, which means as long as you go with that CPU you must have a discrete graphic card or the computer won't work.
    Actually, Ryzen 7000 series CPUs do have an integrated GPU.  It has two compute units, with roughly the architecture of the Radeon RX 6000 series.  For comparison, the bottom of the like RX 6400 has 12 compute units, and the last discrete GPU that AMD made with only two was the Radeon HD 6450, way back in 2011.

    You're right that it's not what you'd want to use for demanding games, but I've actually been using the integrated GPU in my new computer while waiting for discrete GPU prices to drop.  Of course, I don't play games on that computer, but still use my older one that has a Radeon RX Vega 64.
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,989
    Quizzical said:
    Vrika said:
    For now I would use the onboard graphics build into the motherboard unless your hart is set on something like the RTX 4000 class video cards.
    That is a good idea when you still cant decide what to get I guess.
     Ryzen 7800x3D doesn't have integrated graphic card, which means as long as you go with that CPU you must have a discrete graphic card or the computer won't work.
    Actually, Ryzen 7000 series CPUs do have an integrated GPU.  It has two compute units, with roughly the architecture of the Radeon RX 6000 series.  For comparison, the bottom of the like RX 6400 has 12 compute units, and the last discrete GPU that AMD made with only two was the Radeon HD 6450, way back in 2011.

    You're right that it's not what you'd want to use for demanding games, but I've actually been using the integrated GPU in my new computer while waiting for discrete GPU prices to drop.  Of course, I don't play games on that computer, but still use my older one that has a Radeon RX Vega 64.
    Sorry, my mistake. I remembered wrong.
     
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    My 2c for what it's worth:

    NVMe of any flavor is good but the real world benefits of PCI 3 vs PCI 4 vs PCI 5 amount to a rounding error. It's hard to tell even with old SATA SSD vs PCI NVMe in real world stuff - the biggest differences are really only in the benchmarks. A ~good~ PCI 3 SSD will beat out a marginal PCI 4 SSD anyway in everything except burst speed benchmarks (and sometimes even that).

    The only thing you are really getting with the higher performance PCI 4 and the new PCI 5 stuff are giant heat sinks on the SSD itself. Which is .. bleh. And the difference in real world use is not even noticable.

    Also, I would not prioritize WiFi on the motherboard. If you get it, cool, but it's very cheap and easy to add after the fact - USB adapters are very inexpensive and are going to work as well, if not better than anything on the motherboard - as well as being easily upgradeable if you get a better router that supports faster standards.

    I'm very much against the current iteration of the 12VHPWR connection that nVidia is using - I think it's a very poor engineering design. I know a lot of people have said that all the melting are user error - but I think that's just another way of saying "badly designed". I wouldn't pay anything extra for it, and I'm hoping they decide to eat some crow and come out with a new revision that's a bit more robust and less prone to "user error"

    Other than that - I think everything you have mentioned is a good start, and advice from others is good as well.
    ValdemarJ
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,499
    Ridelynn said:
    I'm very much against the current iteration of the 12VHPWR connection that nVidia is using - I think it's a very poor engineering design. I know a lot of people have said that all the melting are user error - but I think that's just another way of saying "badly designed". I wouldn't pay anything extra for it, and I'm hoping they decide to eat some crow and come out with a new revision that's a bit more robust and less prone to "user error"
    If too many otherwise competent users are melting hardware by making the same "error", then it's a bad design.  Which might be your point.
    Ridelynn
  • SplattrSplattr Member RarePosts: 577
    You mentioned in one of your comments that you feel ray tracing is a gimmick. Ray tracing does give better lighting, but when you are busy shooting at crap on the screen, you don't really notice the pretty reflections in the puddles anyway.

    Looking at your current PC that you are giving to someone else, it seems like you aren't the kind of person to do a lot of upgrades - you buy top-tier and stick with it as it gets older until it's time for a new purchase.

    With that in mind, I have to agree with the others that are saying PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 are probably not worth it. For SSDs, you are talking fractions of seconds to a few seconds difference between PCIe 5 --> PCIe 4 --> PCIe 3 --> SATA. It just isn't the same leap in performance you get from going from a mechanical drive to an SSD. I would actually suggest looking for a bigger SSD given current game install sizes, even if it means going with a "slower" overall transfer speed. Of course, if you do more than gaming, then that could change things depending on how much productivity work you do.

    As for DDR4 vs DDR5, you again aren't gonna see much difference. And if you do go with DDR5, the gains between 5000 and 6000MHz won't be a game changer either.

    I think your biggest question mark is which GPU to go with. Yes, a 4090 is a rip-roaring beast, but if ray tracing isn't a huge deal for you then going with a good AMD card is a cheaper option that is going to give similar performance across the board.
    ValdemarJ
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,989
    edited June 2023
    Splattr said:
    For SSDs, you are talking fractions of seconds to a few seconds difference between PCIe 5 --> PCIe 4 --> PCIe 3 --> SATA. It just isn't the same leap in performance you get from going from a mechanical drive to an SSD. I would actually suggest looking for a bigger SSD given current game install sizes, even if it means going with a "slower" overall transfer speed. Of course, if you do more than gaming, then that could change things depending on how much productivity work you do.
    I think SATA SSDs should be avoided: Nowadays you can find decent PCIe 3.0 SSDs so cheap that the savings for going to much slower SATA just aren't worth it.

    For example at the moment you could get 1 TB version of Intel 670p at $40, and it would give up to 3 500 MB/s read speeds
      https://www.newegg.com/intel-1tb-670p-series/p/N82E16820167474?Item=N82E16820167474
    It's so cheap that at that price it doesn't make much sense trying to save a couple of extra dollars by going for SATA SSD that can't ever do more than 560 MB/s because of SATA's speed limitations.

    Post edited by Vrika on
     
  • JeromeCruz4456JeromeCruz4456 Newbie CommonPosts: 3
    edited July 2023
    Did Some Heard about Threads? Read the interesting article on here about allthreadsinfo.
    Post edited by JeromeCruz4456 on
  • ValdemarJValdemarJ Member RarePosts: 1,417
    Vrika said:
    Splattr said:
    For SSDs, you are talking fractions of seconds to a few seconds difference between PCIe 5 --> PCIe 4 --> PCIe 3 --> SATA. It just isn't the same leap in performance you get from going from a mechanical drive to an SSD. I would actually suggest looking for a bigger SSD given current game install sizes, even if it means going with a "slower" overall transfer speed. Of course, if you do more than gaming, then that could change things depending on how much productivity work you do.
    I think SATA SSDs should be avoided: Nowadays you can find decent PCIe 3.0 SSDs so cheap that the savings for going to much slower SATA just aren't worth it.

    For example at the moment you could get 1 TB version of Intel 670p at $40, and it would give up to 3 500 MB/s read speeds
      https://www.newegg.com/intel-1tb-670p-series/p/N82E16820167474?Item=N82E16820167474
    It's so cheap that at that price it doesn't make much sense trying to save a couple of extra dollars by going for SATA SSD that can't ever do more than 560 MB/s because of SATA's speed limitations.


    I disagree that sata is useless. There is a place for both and most apps will run the same on either. I have a 2TB Samsung 980 Pro nvme/pcie, and then 2 older 1TB 8xx sata drives. If I think something is heavy i/o then I put it on the nvme drive. Everything else goes on the sata drives. Windows is of course on the faster drive. Having 4TB of cheap fast space is nice.

    For my use, hdd are for NAS, not PC anymore.
    Bring back the Naked Chicken Chalupa!
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,499
    ValdemarJ said:
    Vrika said:
    Splattr said:
    For SSDs, you are talking fractions of seconds to a few seconds difference between PCIe 5 --> PCIe 4 --> PCIe 3 --> SATA. It just isn't the same leap in performance you get from going from a mechanical drive to an SSD. I would actually suggest looking for a bigger SSD given current game install sizes, even if it means going with a "slower" overall transfer speed. Of course, if you do more than gaming, then that could change things depending on how much productivity work you do.
    I think SATA SSDs should be avoided: Nowadays you can find decent PCIe 3.0 SSDs so cheap that the savings for going to much slower SATA just aren't worth it.

    For example at the moment you could get 1 TB version of Intel 670p at $40, and it would give up to 3 500 MB/s read speeds
      https://www.newegg.com/intel-1tb-670p-series/p/N82E16820167474?Item=N82E16820167474
    It's so cheap that at that price it doesn't make much sense trying to save a couple of extra dollars by going for SATA SSD that can't ever do more than 560 MB/s because of SATA's speed limitations.


    I disagree that sata is useless. There is a place for both and most apps will run the same on either. I have a 2TB Samsung 980 Pro nvme/pcie, and then 2 older 1TB 8xx sata drives. If I think something is heavy i/o then I put it on the nvme drive. Everything else goes on the sata drives. Windows is of course on the faster drive. Having 4TB of cheap fast space is nice.

    For my use, hdd are for NAS, not PC anymore.
    Cheapest SSDs on New Egg, by capacity:

    1 TB:
    PCI-E:  $37
    SATA:  $34

    2 TB:
    PCI-E:  $70
    SATA:  $65

    4 TB:
    PCI-E:  $186
    SATA:  $148

    You're really not saving very much money by going with a SATA SSD.  Back when PCI-E drives were new and SATA cost half as much for a given capacity, it made sense.  It doesn't make so much sense now.
    Uwakionna
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,989
    Quizzical said:

    Cheapest SSDs on New Egg, by capacity:
    ...
    If we add HDDs to the comparison for large drives, we'll get:

    1 TB:
    PCI-E:  $37
    SATA:  $34

    2 TB:
    PCI-E:  $70
    SATA:  $65
    HDD: $28

    4 TB:
    PCI-E:  $186
    SATA:  $148
    HDD: $50
     
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,989
    edited July 2023
    ValdemarJ said:

    I disagree that sata is useless. There is a place for both and most apps will run the same on either. I have a 2TB Samsung 980 Pro nvme/pcie, and then 2 older 1TB 8xx sata drives. If I think something is heavy i/o then I put it on the nvme drive. Everything else goes on the sata drives. Windows is of course on the faster drive. Having 4TB of cheap fast space is nice.

    For my use, hdd are for NAS, not PC anymore.
    I didn't mean that SATA SSDs would be useless: If you already have one, you should keep using it.

    What I meant is that you should normally not buy SATA SSDs because if speed matters then PCI-E can give you large speed increase at only small price increase, whereas if speed doesn't matter then HDDs are the cheapest option.
     
  • ValdemarJValdemarJ Member RarePosts: 1,417
    edited July 2023
    Quizzical said:
    ValdemarJ said:
    Vrika said:
    Splattr said:
    For SSDs, you are talking fractions of seconds to a few seconds difference between PCIe 5 --> PCIe 4 --> PCIe 3 --> SATA. It just isn't the same leap in performance you get from going from a mechanical drive to an SSD. I would actually suggest looking for a bigger SSD given current game install sizes, even if it means going with a "slower" overall transfer speed. Of course, if you do more than gaming, then that could change things depending on how much productivity work you do.
    I think SATA SSDs should be avoided: Nowadays you can find decent PCIe 3.0 SSDs so cheap that the savings for going to much slower SATA just aren't worth it.

    For example at the moment you could get 1 TB version of Intel 670p at $40, and it would give up to 3 500 MB/s read speeds
      https://www.newegg.com/intel-1tb-670p-series/p/N82E16820167474?Item=N82E16820167474
    It's so cheap that at that price it doesn't make much sense trying to save a couple of extra dollars by going for SATA SSD that can't ever do more than 560 MB/s because of SATA's speed limitations.


    I disagree that sata is useless. There is a place for both and most apps will run the same on either. I have a 2TB Samsung 980 Pro nvme/pcie, and then 2 older 1TB 8xx sata drives. If I think something is heavy i/o then I put it on the nvme drive. Everything else goes on the sata drives. Windows is of course on the faster drive. Having 4TB of cheap fast space is nice.

    For my use, hdd are for NAS, not PC anymore.
    Cheapest SSDs on New Egg, by capacity:

    1 TB:
    PCI-E:  $37
    SATA:  $34

    2 TB:
    PCI-E:  $70
    SATA:  $65

    4 TB:
    PCI-E:  $186
    SATA:  $148

    You're really not saving very much money by going with a SATA SSD.  Back when PCI-E drives were new and SATA cost half as much for a given capacity, it made sense.  It doesn't make so much sense now.
    It's true prices have dropped right now and it's a great time to pickup an nvme drive. I'm not saying it isn't. Get one or two, I did, but that doesn't mean sata drives should be categorically avoided. It's bad advice.

    For one thing, most boards only have 2 nvme slots.

    For another a lot of sata ssds are built on more durable nand tech. Not always true, but a lot of newer nand technologies have lower durability for faster or bigger drives.

    Spreading out the load between drives makes sense and increases each drives longevity.

    By now most people have spare sata ssds that can be moved to a new system.

    In most workloads consumers and gamers won't notice a difference between what is running on nvme and sata ssd. I bet you most people with both drives couldn't tell you on what drive the game or app is installed or if it's running on sata or nvme.

    Very large drives come with some tradeoffs so trying to stack large drives on your two nvme slots while your GPU is trying to saturate the pcie bus with 4K ray tracing (I know the op isn't into ray tracing) seems counterproductive. It also misses the point of balancing bus throughput on your rig.

    Also the prices you quoted are pretty misleading unless you want to put junk drives in your rig. I hope you wouldn't recommend the cheapest PSU on New Egg as an argument. With SSDs you get what you pay for.

    That's why I think sata ssds shouldn't categorically be avoided. It is a good time to buy a few extra nvme though, won't argue that. I hope it lasts a decent while.
    Bring back the Naked Chicken Chalupa!
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,499
    ValdemarJ said:
    For another a lot of sata ssds are built on more durable nand tech. Not always true, but a lot of newer nand technologies have lower durability for faster or bigger drives.

    ...

    Also the prices you quoted are pretty misleading unless you want to put junk drives in your rig. I hope you wouldn't recommend the cheapest PSU on New Egg as an argument. With SSDs you get what you pay for.

    That's why I think sata ssds shouldn't categorically be avoided. It is a good time to buy a few extra nvme though, won't argue that. I hope it lasts a decent while.
    Hold on there.  Do you really think that the cheap SATA SSDs are going to be built using premium NAND?  SATA SSDs are prime candidates for the cheapest QLC NAND that the vendor can find.  Higher quality NAND is more expensive, and is reserved for higher priced drives that connect over some version of PCI Express.

    I'm sympathetic to not wanting the cheapest, shoddiest SSD that you can find.  But that's pretty much what you're getting with a SATA drive.  The effort at building higher quality SSDs is all put toward higher performance drives that are more expensive, usually using M.2 NVMe over PCI-E for consumer products or U.3 for enterprise.
  • ValdemarJValdemarJ Member RarePosts: 1,417
    Quizzical said:
    ValdemarJ said:
    For another a lot of sata ssds are built on more durable nand tech. Not always true, but a lot of newer nand technologies have lower durability for faster or bigger drives.

    ...

    Also the prices you quoted are pretty misleading unless you want to put junk drives in your rig. I hope you wouldn't recommend the cheapest PSU on New Egg as an argument. With SSDs you get what you pay for.

    That's why I think sata ssds shouldn't categorically be avoided. It is a good time to buy a few extra nvme though, won't argue that. I hope it lasts a decent while.
    Hold on there.  Do you really think that the cheap SATA SSDs are going to be built using premium NAND?  SATA SSDs are prime candidates for the cheapest QLC NAND that the vendor can find.  Higher quality NAND is more expensive, and is reserved for higher priced drives that connect over some version of PCI Express.

    I'm sympathetic to not wanting the cheapest, shoddiest SSD that you can find.  But that's pretty much what you're getting with a SATA drive.  The effort at building higher quality SSDs is all put toward higher performance drives that are more expensive, usually using M.2 NVMe over PCI-E for consumer products or U.3 for enterprise.
    Samsung sata drives are not shoddy. If you think so, prove it. Claiming all sata ssd are shoddy is about as ridiculous as suggesting the 4060 is a good card... oops nvm.
    Bring back the Naked Chicken Chalupa!
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,499
    ValdemarJ said:
    Quizzical said:
    ValdemarJ said:
    For another a lot of sata ssds are built on more durable nand tech. Not always true, but a lot of newer nand technologies have lower durability for faster or bigger drives.

    ...

    Also the prices you quoted are pretty misleading unless you want to put junk drives in your rig. I hope you wouldn't recommend the cheapest PSU on New Egg as an argument. With SSDs you get what you pay for.

    That's why I think sata ssds shouldn't categorically be avoided. It is a good time to buy a few extra nvme though, won't argue that. I hope it lasts a decent while.
    Hold on there.  Do you really think that the cheap SATA SSDs are going to be built using premium NAND?  SATA SSDs are prime candidates for the cheapest QLC NAND that the vendor can find.  Higher quality NAND is more expensive, and is reserved for higher priced drives that connect over some version of PCI Express.

    I'm sympathetic to not wanting the cheapest, shoddiest SSD that you can find.  But that's pretty much what you're getting with a SATA drive.  The effort at building higher quality SSDs is all put toward higher performance drives that are more expensive, usually using M.2 NVMe over PCI-E for consumer products or U.3 for enterprise.
    Samsung sata drives are not shoddy. If you think so, prove it. Claiming all sata ssd are shoddy is about as ridiculous as suggesting the 4060 is a good card... oops nvm.
    Samsung SATA SSDs are also more expensive than some nice NVMe over PCI-E SSDs.  Here's the cheapest 1 TB Samsung SATA SSD on New Egg:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-870-evo-series/p/N82E16820147793

    And it's more expensive than this one:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-980/p/N82E16820147804

    Similarly, here's the cheapest 2 TB Samsung SATA SSD on New Egg:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-2tb-870-qvo-series/p/N82E16820147782

    And it's the same price as this one:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-plus-2tb/p/N82E16820147744

    In both cases, the PCI-E alternative has better NAND, better performance in pretty much all ways, and isn't even more expensive.  Getting a SATA SSD to save money only makes sense if you actually save money by getting the SATA SSD.  And that's going to rule out Samsung as an option.
  • ValdemarJValdemarJ Member RarePosts: 1,417
    Quizzical said:
    ValdemarJ said:
    Quizzical said:
    ValdemarJ said:
    For another a lot of sata ssds are built on more durable nand tech. Not always true, but a lot of newer nand technologies have lower durability for faster or bigger drives.

    ...

    Also the prices you quoted are pretty misleading unless you want to put junk drives in your rig. I hope you wouldn't recommend the cheapest PSU on New Egg as an argument. With SSDs you get what you pay for.

    That's why I think sata ssds shouldn't categorically be avoided. It is a good time to buy a few extra nvme though, won't argue that. I hope it lasts a decent while.
    Hold on there.  Do you really think that the cheap SATA SSDs are going to be built using premium NAND?  SATA SSDs are prime candidates for the cheapest QLC NAND that the vendor can find.  Higher quality NAND is more expensive, and is reserved for higher priced drives that connect over some version of PCI Express.

    I'm sympathetic to not wanting the cheapest, shoddiest SSD that you can find.  But that's pretty much what you're getting with a SATA drive.  The effort at building higher quality SSDs is all put toward higher performance drives that are more expensive, usually using M.2 NVMe over PCI-E for consumer products or U.3 for enterprise.
    Samsung sata drives are not shoddy. If you think so, prove it. Claiming all sata ssd are shoddy is about as ridiculous as suggesting the 4060 is a good card... oops nvm.
    Samsung SATA SSDs are also more expensive than some nice NVMe over PCI-E SSDs.  Here's the cheapest 1 TB Samsung SATA SSD on New Egg:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-870-evo-series/p/N82E16820147793

    And it's more expensive than this one:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-980/p/N82E16820147804

    Similarly, here's the cheapest 2 TB Samsung SATA SSD on New Egg:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-2tb-870-qvo-series/p/N82E16820147782

    And it's the same price as this one:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-plus-2tb/p/N82E16820147744

    In both cases, the PCI-E alternative has better NAND, better performance in pretty much all ways, and isn't even more expensive.  Getting a SATA SSD to save money only makes sense if you actually save money by getting the SATA SSD.  And that's going to rule out Samsung as an option.

    Nice cherry picking comparing QVO where it's convenient, but that doesn't support your claim that sata SSD are shoddy. They aren't and you certainly didn't prove that claim.
    Bring back the Naked Chicken Chalupa!
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,499
    ValdemarJ said:
    Quizzical said:
    ValdemarJ said:
    Quizzical said:
    ValdemarJ said:
    For another a lot of sata ssds are built on more durable nand tech. Not always true, but a lot of newer nand technologies have lower durability for faster or bigger drives.

    ...

    Also the prices you quoted are pretty misleading unless you want to put junk drives in your rig. I hope you wouldn't recommend the cheapest PSU on New Egg as an argument. With SSDs you get what you pay for.

    That's why I think sata ssds shouldn't categorically be avoided. It is a good time to buy a few extra nvme though, won't argue that. I hope it lasts a decent while.
    Hold on there.  Do you really think that the cheap SATA SSDs are going to be built using premium NAND?  SATA SSDs are prime candidates for the cheapest QLC NAND that the vendor can find.  Higher quality NAND is more expensive, and is reserved for higher priced drives that connect over some version of PCI Express.

    I'm sympathetic to not wanting the cheapest, shoddiest SSD that you can find.  But that's pretty much what you're getting with a SATA drive.  The effort at building higher quality SSDs is all put toward higher performance drives that are more expensive, usually using M.2 NVMe over PCI-E for consumer products or U.3 for enterprise.
    Samsung sata drives are not shoddy. If you think so, prove it. Claiming all sata ssd are shoddy is about as ridiculous as suggesting the 4060 is a good card... oops nvm.
    Samsung SATA SSDs are also more expensive than some nice NVMe over PCI-E SSDs.  Here's the cheapest 1 TB Samsung SATA SSD on New Egg:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-870-evo-series/p/N82E16820147793

    And it's more expensive than this one:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-980/p/N82E16820147804

    Similarly, here's the cheapest 2 TB Samsung SATA SSD on New Egg:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-2tb-870-qvo-series/p/N82E16820147782

    And it's the same price as this one:

    https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-plus-2tb/p/N82E16820147744

    In both cases, the PCI-E alternative has better NAND, better performance in pretty much all ways, and isn't even more expensive.  Getting a SATA SSD to save money only makes sense if you actually save money by getting the SATA SSD.  And that's going to rule out Samsung as an option.

    Nice cherry picking comparing QVO where it's convenient, but that doesn't support your claim that sata SSD are shoddy. They aren't and you certainly didn't prove that claim.
    Fine then.  There are still a handful of SATA SSDs on the market that are good quality.  And they're typically at least as expensive as some decent PCI-E SSDs.

    I picked the cheapest Samsung SATA SSD on New Egg.  If you want to avoid QLC NAND, you can, but then you're going to pay even more.  At that point, you're paying a premium price for a SATA SSD.  What's the point of that?
  • IceAgeIceAge Member EpicPosts: 3,203
    Hello everyone,

    Long time no see. I am here again, looking for advice.

    I need to let down my second PC to someone else. That requires me to build a brand new PC.

    Budget: 2300; I would prefer fitting everything around 2000.

    I am looking into building a PC for my dual monitor setup (240 1080p + 4K).

    The following picture will show my idea of an upgrade path.




    Case: It does not matter much, to be honest. I have Meshify 2, and currently I am not very happy with the front mesh; it is so dusty and it seems impossible to clean it. It is most important to fit all components.

    Motherboard: This choice is a bit more difficult for me. I don't require many special features, and I do not overclock much as well. Most important would be having wifi onboard and 5.0 pcie, just for future sake. Looking forward hearing your opinion on this.

    CPU: 7800x3D, because it's fast and i like ryzen. High demand does not make it easy on a price, any other options? 
    CPU Cooler: I've heard very good things about Noctua, but if I can save money, great.
    GPU: I still haven't decided on the GPU to go with. 4090 would be the most appealing GPU. I am sitting still on my RX580 Sapphire; it has lasted me for years and is a very good GPU, but it started struggling a bit. I always planned to upgrade it down the line, but I never did in 6 years now. Of course, the price will make it or break it. This would be a 100% used GPU, and I can potentially get it for 1,200

    Another option would be the Sapphire Pulse 7900 XT, which would set me back around 700–800 pounds. But the performance would take a huge hit.

    Ram: 32 Gb I am very happy with this amount, and I am not planning to go lower than that. The most important would be speed. 6200 GHz is what I am looking at.

    PSU - Anything that can handle 4090. I assume 850W that has gold 80+ would be more than enough. For my Meshify build, I went seasonic; it died midway but they have replaced it. I heard about this new feature for PSI ATX 3.0. Is it worth looking into it? Or is getting a cheap 850 W gold-rated PSU the way to go?

    SSD 4.0 pcie, 80 quid That's fine; plenty of them


    I have used https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/W33xDq. but the price is really wacky and over the budget.

    Over all, I want to go with the AM5 platform just because they have the same promise they had with AM4's long support. I can now upgrade my old CPU to 5800x3D and have another 5 years of runtime.
    So, let me know your opinion about this idea of getting a brand new PC. Upgrade paths and choices I would love to get your advice regarding all of this.


    https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/sMDnk9

    This is my list for you.

    You don't have to buy the 4090. Its .. too expensive and an 4070ti will hold you just as much as an 4090 and can run everything there is today, especially with DLSS 3.0.

    I just build a computer almost like that one, but I added a better motherboard ( Asus ROG Z790-H ).

    Also I couldn't select DDR5 in the above list, for .. don't know what reason, even tho' this motherboard, supports it : Asus TUF GAMING Z790-PLUS WIFI D4 ATX LGA1700 Motherboard so I added DDR4 as the price is almost the same as DDR5 5600.


    Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
    Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!

Sign In or Register to comment.