New PC build - advice needed

Will

Will

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Posts
8,197
Location
%tmp%
Hi all,

My nephew is considering building a PC for the first time, and has sent me the specs. I haven't built a PC before, so I need a bit of help on confirming compatibility and any other advice on building with these specs.

Processor: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Processor (8C/16T, 36 MB Cache, 4.4 GHz Max Boost)
Motherboard: Aorus B450 AORUS ELITE (Socket AM4/B450/DDR4/S-ATA 600/ATX)
Graphics Card: Gigabyte Aorus GeForce GTX 1660 OC 6G
PSU: Aerocool Integrator 600W Power Supply, 80 Plus Bronze, Up To 85% Efficiency, 12cm Black Fan, For Mainstream Systems | Black
Case: Corsair Carbide Series 275R Mid-Tower ATX Gaming Case - Black
RAM: Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 3200 MHz C16 XMP 2.0 High Performance Desktop Memory Kit, Black
SSD: SanDisk SSD PLUS 1 TB Sata III 2.5 Inch Internal SSD, Up to 535 MB/s


Thoughts?

1) How can I check compatibility for the different parts?
2) Any alternative parts for similar overall cost that might be a better fit?
3) Any other advice for building this spec PC?
 
Hi Will,

I'm not going to try to answer most of this, but two thoughts I have:

1) The motherboard supports M.2. I would suggest switching the SSD to use M.2 rather than SATA.
2) Remember to add in some thermal paste to the order unless your nephew already has some.
 
That's a good shout - for some reason I was thinking a 1TB M.2 SSD was going to be prohibitively expensive, but it seems you can get some for similar.
 
Hi, Will!

My 2 cents:

1. Switch to a non X version of the CPU. AMD is not too good when it comes to OC-ing and you won't feel this in terms of performance.
2. I'd personally go for a more efficient PSU from a brand like Corsair or EVGA. Nothing wrong with this, tho.
3. I agree with Richard on the NVME. Just be careful if it's going to be some intensive workload as they can die. I've seen it happen on smaller capacity (256 GB) models.
 
Yeah, most likely gaming, as well as video editing. Video editing will probably be the most intensive thing done on the PC.

Price point is the biggest limitation.

I'll take a look at the site.
 
I agree with Mihael, don't skimp on the Power Supply. I've had both Evga and Corsair in past gaming systems with a ton of fans and lighting and they lasted the life of the machine, one of the EVGA's I turned into a bench power supply.

There is nothing wrong with AMD, I simply prefer Intel. Budget considerations, you will get more bang for the buck with AMD.

He may be disappointed with the GTX 1660 if he's "hardcore".

The rest look good.
 
This would be my recommendation for about the same budget:

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X 3.8 GHz 6-Core Processor (£209.97 @ CCL Computers)
Motherboard: Asus PRIME B450M-K Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (£75.39 @ CCL Computers)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory (£73.48 @ Ebuyer)
Storage: Western Digital Blue 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive (£103.18 @ CCL Computers)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6 GB DUAL EVO OC Video Card (£262.68 @ CCL Computers)
Case: Fractal Design Focus G Mini MicroATX Mini Tower Case (£52.47 @ Scan.co.uk)
Power Supply: SeaSonic CORE GM 500 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply (£70.47 @ Scan.co.uk)
Total: £847.64
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-05-08 14:04 BST+0100

Rationale...

  • CPU - The Ryzen 5 3600X will perform pretty much the same in games as the 3700X, and will outperform the equivalent priced i5 9600K from Intel in 90% of workloads - the i5 is a 6 core/6 thread part, whereas the Ryzen 5 is a 6 core/12 thread part and they're clocked pretty similar. I've got the 3700X and am very pleased with it. It's overkill for pretty much everything I do (although comes in super handy when compiling code!). The Ryzen chips also come with a good quality stock cooler that performs quite a lot better than the Intel one. Stock cooler comes with thermal paste pre-applied, but good to have some spare if you mess up the installation.
  • Motherboard - reasonably priced, B450 chipset which is AMD's mainstream chipset. I have basically the same motherboard but in ITX form and it's been rock solid
  • Memory - any 16GB set of 3200Mhz RAM will be fine - this was good value. No real reason for the Corsair set over anything else
  • Storage - The SanDisk SSD you linked to in your first post is a very old SSD design now (about 4yrs old) and is pretty poor performing over time. A few friends of mine have them and they're not great. The WD Blue 3D NAND is a much newer design (WD own SanDisk nowadays). I've put on in my Mum's system and it performs excellent - no issues. The performance benefit from using an NVME SSD isn't that noticable - I moved from an 850 EVO to an NVME SSD a while back and didn't really notice a performance increase, despite the theoretical max speed of the new NVME drive being about 4x my old SATA SSD. SATA is fine still. Don't forget, M.2 doesn't necesarily mean faster - you can get SATA and NVME M.2 SSD's. M.2 is just a form factor. That WD SSD comes in both M.2 and 2.5" variants of the idential drive. Samsung would be my other go-to brand for SSD, got a few of them knocking around and all work fine.
  • GPU - The 1660 SUPER is a revision of the original 1660 and performs quite a bit better for basically the same price - no brainer. In fact, it almost matches the more expensive 1660Ti in most games. If they wanted more power, a good upgrade would be the 2060 SUPER
  • Case - No real reason other than it's compact (chose a mATX motherboard, so mATX case) and Fractal Design cases are pretty good quality. This case has a nice mesh front as well so lots of room for airflow and dust filters to keep the inside clean. More airflow is always better, and it also comes with two half-decent fans installed out of the box.
  • PSU - Seasonic make great PSUs, and have for years. Lots of other companies (EVGA, Corsair etc) use Seasonic to manufacturer thier PSU internals. 80+ Gold rating is a minimum nowadays, and this has a 0rpm fan when under low load (fan stops spinning when the PSU isn't under heady load). Other options would be 80+ Gold units from EVGA and Corsair.
Don't forget to add on ~£100 for a Windows 10 licence.

Really, the main difference in my list is saving £60 on the CPU and putting it towards a better GPU, which will have a much bigger impact in gaming performance.

A side note - I don't like buying PC components from Amazon any more, have had some poor packaging and sub-par experience in the past. In the UK, I'd recommend Scan or CCL. EBuyer is alright as well, although they use Yodel for deliveries and I doubt I need to explain the issue with Yodel :p
 
Why an AMD CPU instead of an Intel?

Same with video - is the Gigabyte GeForce compatible with Intel or ATI?

I prefer Intel-everything because I see AMD and ATI show up in BSODs much more frequently than Intel.

Does he need wifi or is he plugging into Ethernet directly from the modem using the onboard Ethernet capability?

If no wifi, he'll have to be able to run the Ethernet cable to the modem, so the modem should be close to the system.

John
 
jcgriff2 said:
Why an AMD CPU instead of an Intel?

Same with video - is the Gigabyte GeForce compatible with Intel or ATI?
Click to expand...
AMD has released CPUs in the last few years that are significantly more powerful than Intel for the same price or less. Intel have been struggling to manufacture their latest generation of CPUs for the last few years (their 10nm process has been plagued with manufacturing issues) and they haven't been able to keep up in terms of performance. I have absolutely no doubt Intel will come back with some very strong CPUs in the next fews years and be competitive again - they have so much money to spend on R&D - but right now, Intel just doesn't make sense for most consumer builds as you can save a lot of money and get more performance with AMD. The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar

These 3xxx series CPUs from AMD did have some stability issues at launch, but they've been on the market for 10 months now and are very stable. Have no issues with mine.

That Gigabyte card is an NVidia GPU - GeForce == NVidia.
 
PCPartPicker is great because it ensures components are compatible. That said, motherboard makers almost always maintain QVLs (qualified vendors lists) for CPUs and RAM on each motherboard's webpage. These are lists of CPUs and RAM they have tested to ensure compatibility. You should buy one of the listed CPUs. For RAM, there are just too many RAM makers and RAM models for board makers to test and list them all. So you don't have to buy listed RAM but you should buy RAM with the same specs as listed RAM to ensure compatibility.
 
I definitely agree with Stephen here. AMD CPU is the way to go. Intel does not make any sense now, in terms of price/performance.

AMD GPUs and their drivers are a complete mess and I'd avoid them until something better and more reliable comes along. nVidia is the way to go and has been for a while.
 
I am not sure it is fair to suggest an entire brand is better than another brand. All blanket statements are false (and yes, I understand the irony of that claim).

I still generally prefer Intel, personally. I think it important to consider the over all price of a computer. Once you factor in the price of the motherboard, RAM, graphics card, case, PSU, drives, monitor(s), keyboard, mouse, speakers, Windows license, applications, I won't say the price differences in CPUs becomes insignificant, but certainly less significant. Spread the difference over the normal 3 - 5 year life expectancy of the computer, and and that difference becomes even less significant.

Of course, one can easily cherry pick a pair of examples that makes one stand head and shoulders above the other. But I also note price per performance is NOT the most important criteria for many builders and buyers.

No doubts others will be able to show charts that are the complete opposite of the one following. But that just illustrates my point. It depends on what you are looking for, personal preferences - and maybe, for some, a bit of brand loyalty thrown in.

Toms Hardware, CPU Hierarchy: Intel and AMD Processors Ranked, April 5, 2020.

My conclusion is that both makers make excellent, reliable, CPUs. And with a little planning and careful research, one can build a great computer with either platform.

***

I agree with the comments about getting a quality PSU from a reputable maker. I like EVGA or Seasonic Gold certified supplies. I don't like Corsairs except for their top tier lines. Don't waste your money on Platinum or Titanium unless you find one that is on sale for a price you cannot pass up. It typically would take years to make up in energy costs the extra price for those higher certified PSUs. PCPartPicker does a pretty good job of sizing up your PSU requirements.

Or you can take the time to research each component and total up their demands, or you can use a PSU calculator. The only one I use and recommend is the eXtreme Power Supply Calculator. Use it to determine your minimum and recommended power supply unit (PSU) requirements. Plan ahead and plug in all the hardware you think you might have in 2 or 3 years. This might include extra hard drives, a bigger or 2nd video card, more RAM, etc. I recommend setting Computer Utilization to 16 hours per day and CPU Utilization to 100%. These steps adjust for capacitor aging and ensure the supply has adequate head room for stress free (and perhaps quieter) operation. These steps also add a little buffer for unplanned future upgrades or added hardware demands.

Note that all PSU calculators pad the results - the last thing they want to do is recommend an underpowered supply. While Outervison's pads the results too, it is the most conservative in part because it is so flexible and extensive in its options - a very good thing. What I also like about this one is it has a regular staff of researchers to keep it current as new devices come out. If they have missed one, a quick email to their support typically gets it listed in a day or two.

So budget for a quality supply, but the supply should be one of the last purchases - so you can size it up correctly after you select your other components and determine (or factor in) their power requirements. Buying too big a supply is NOT better - though it typically does not hurt anything but your budget.

The eXtreme Power Supply Calculator will recommend the minimum size UPS too. A larger wattage UPS will provide a longer battery run time and/or support additional hardware too, such as your network modem, wireless router, monitor(s) and even phone.

I personally feel a quality PSU and quality case form the foundation for a computer that can last through years of evolutions and updates. And I also Fractal Design cases for that. I recommend the R6. It is an outstanding mid-ATX case. While the Focus G Mini is an excellent case, it limits you to a µATX or Mini ITX size motherboards. Should your nephew decide in 3 or 4 years he wants to upgrade to a standard ATX motherboard, he will be forced to buy a new case. But with a quality mid-tower case like the R6, he can put an ITX or µATX in it today and an standard ATX (or even an eATX) tomorrow. Not to mention a wide assortment of case fans, tall CPU coolers or even radiators with no worries about space.

I admit the R6 is more expensive, but I tend to think strategically - that is, long term. That said, Fractal Design has a Focus G Mid Tower that is the same price as the Focus G Mini, but supports an ATX board too.
 
Digerati said:
I am not sure it is fair to suggest an entire brand is better than another brand. All blanket statements are false (and yes, I understand the irony of that claim).
Click to expand...
Very fair point - certainly was a bit strong of me to make that statement!

Intel CPUs do still come out on top for "pure gaming" performance. But if you want to do anything else other than game, then the extra cores offered by AMD can really help. AMD is really doing well in the high-end consumer space right now, and it's great to have some real, genuine competitive CPUs from them. It's great to see AMD matching or beating Intel in most benchmarks, a position they haven't been in for, well, about a decade.

Best CPUs for Gaming: April/May 2020
Awards: Best CPUs of 2019 for Gaming, Video Editing, 3D Modeling, Overclocking, & More
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X Review: Gaming Sweet Spot? - PC Perspective
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X Linux Performance Review - Phoronix

On the subject of overall cost, an interesting point to consider is upgradability. AMD are really pushing to keep their new CPUs working with older motherboards, something Intel is notoriously bad at doing (normally only supporting one or two CPU generations on one chipset). AMD's old 350 series chipset still compatible with their current CPUs - 3 generations later. We'll see how long this lasts, but this was definitely a personal consideration when I switched to AMD.

1588974802965.png


Aside - I can't trust anything that comes out of Tom's hardware anymore after they published this article telling people to go and "just buy it" and spend their money on NVidia's new GPUs when they hadn't even been released (they were only available for pre-order at the time). Just Buy It: Why Nvidia RTX GPUs Are Worth the Money. Tom's hardware isn't what it used to be Internal struggles at Tom's Hardware go public
 
The configuration you posted costs about £967.

£60 - Seasonic CORE-GM-500 500W 80+ GOLD (semi-modular - ATX)
(£75 - Seasonic CORE-GM-650 650W 80+ GOLD (semi-modular - ATX))
£66 - Corsair Carbide 275R Mid-Tower (ATX)
£80 - ASRock B450 PRO4 (ATX)
£111 - SanDisk SSD PLUS 1 TB Sata III 2.5 Inch Internal SSD, Up to 535 MB/s
£120 - windows 10 home (from microsoft.com - Buy windows 10 home)
£130 - Corsair CMK32GX4M2D3000C16 Vengeance LPX 32GB (2x16GB)
£143 - Zotac ZT-T16520F-10L GAMING GeForce GTX1650 OC 4GB GDDR6
£155 - AMD Ryzen 5 3600
(£178 - Ryzen 5 3600X)
(£256 - Ryzen 7 3700X)

Total:
£865 (with Ryzen 5 3600 - £15 more with CORE-GM-650 psu: £880)
(£888 with Ryzen 5 3600x - £15 more with CORE-GM-650 psu: £903)
(£966 with Ryzen 7 3700x - £15 more with CORE-GM-650 psu: £981)


Another graphics card is ASUS PH-GTX1660S-O6G Phoenix GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER OC Edition 6GB GDDR6 High Performance Gaming, but it costs £240. It's gddr6, unlike Gigabyte Aorus GeForce GTX 1660 OC 6G, that's gddr5.
With this one:
Total:
£962 (with Ryzen 5 3600 - £15 more with CORE-GM-650 psu: £977)
(£985 with Ryzen 5 3600x - £15 more with CORE-GM-650 psu: £1000)
(£1059 with Ryzen 7 3700x - £15 more with CORE-GM-650 psu: £1074)


I.e., I'd like these ones:
Read More:
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Tekno Venus said:
...
  • Storage - The SanDisk SSD you linked to in your first post is a very old SSD design now (about 4yrs old) and is pretty poor performing over time. A few friends of mine have them and they're not great. The WD Blue 3D NAND is a much newer design (WD own SanDisk nowadays). I've put on in my Mum's system and it performs excellent - no issues. The performance benefit from using an NVME SSD isn't that noticable - I moved from an 850 EVO to an NVME SSD a while back and didn't really notice a performance increase, despite the theoretical max speed of the new NVME drive being about 4x my old SATA SSD. SATA is fine still. Don't forget, M.2 doesn't necesarily mean faster - you can get SATA and NVME M.2 SSD's. M.2 is just a form factor. That WD SSD comes in both M.2 and 2.5" variants of the idential drive. Samsung would be my other go-to brand for SSD, got a few of them knocking around and all work fine.
Click to expand...


You must be talking about NVMe that are SATA and not NVMe PCIe!

SSD Series - MX500
Form Factor - m2_2280
Sequential Read - 560 MB/s
Sequential Write - 510 MB/s
Capacity - 500GB
Interface - SATA 6.0GB/s
Click to expand...

SSD Series - P1
Form Factor - m2_2280
Sequential Read - 1900 MB/s
Sequential Write - 950 MB/s
Capacity - 500GB
Interface - PCIe G3 1x4 / NVMe
Click to expand...

For example a WD Back SSD will blow the Crutial above...

WD_BLACK SN750 NVMe
Capacity 500GB
Interface PCIe Gen 3
Dimensions (L x W x H) 3.15" x 0.95" x 0.32"
Sequential Read Performance 3430MB/s
Sequential Write Performance 2600MB/s
Form Factor M.2 2280
Click to expand...
 
Tekno Venus said:
AMD is really doing well in the high-end consumer space right now, and it's great to have some real, genuine competitive CPUs from them.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. And yes, competition in this area is great - especially for consumers. We need AMD to keep nipping at the heels of Intel and we need Intel to keep worrying and looking over their shoulder. Without competition (and the threat of being leapfrogged - again), there will be no innovations and advancing of the state of the art.

As far as Tom's hardware, well, what can I say? I said others will be able to show charts that report the opposite and sure enough, it happened.

It is like "Which browser is best?". You name a browser and I am sure there is a report that puts it at number one. Look at all the #1 new TV shows there are! Or how every brand pickup truck is #1. Or how every anti-malware program is the best.

That said, I think your links show a clearly biased trend. If you look at the charts in the GamersNexus link, for example, Intels are on top of the majority - often dominating the top positions. Yet what is the author's picks? AMDs.

If you look at their "Best Gaming CPU", it clearly reeks of disappointment and reluctance that they have to give the award to two Intels :( claiming one "isn't particularly worth buying" and "not many people need this level of performance". See how the CPU that offers the "highest possible framerates" is "boring" because it "isn't a 2019 CPU". What? :rolleyes: And how the 9900KS is a 2019 but it "doesn’t much count since it’s literally a 9900K that’s been binned". There's just excuse after excuse for why the superior Intel doesn't count and should not be considered better.

How much more biased can a reviewer get? And that site is supposed to be trustworthy?

I note review sites ALL THE TIME recommend or discourage products based solely on pre-release versions of the products they review - name an industry and they do it. And to condemn Toms forever for something that happened almost 2 years ago??? An event that involved the same author BTW. That to me is exactly the same as claiming an entire brand is better than another.

And is a 2020 "CPU" chart to be summarily dismissed because a different reviewer messed up a "graphics card" review 2 years ago just because they were on the same site? Really? If I give bad advice to a hardware problem in the hardware forum, is all advice in the Window Update forum, or indeed all of Sysnative to be summarily dismissed?

Has Anandtech never made a mistake? Tweaktown? Woody's? AMD? Toyota? Tesla? Boeing? Are people and companies (and anybody associated with them) never to be forgiven for making a mistake? If so, then I dare say it would be best to move into a cave and live totally off the grid.
 
SleepyDude said:
Hi,

You must be talking about NVMe that are SATA and not NVMe PCIe!

For example a WD Back SSD will blow the Crutial above...
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you're saying here, although I think you might be confusing NVME with M.2 - which is frustratingly easy to do as manufacturers don't always make it clear.

M.2 drives come in two variants - SATA and NVME. SATA and NVME are just communication protocols - NVME is just newer and is the successor to SATA, the same way SATA was the successor to IDE. The first crucial drive (MX500 M.2) you quoted is a SATA M.2 drive, so speeds are limited by the SATA interface (6Gbps). NVME drives communicate over PCI-E, which is much, much faster. The only reason that the SN750 is faster than the P1 is just that is uses faster components - both communicate over the NVME protocol using PCI-E. It's possible to get drives that use NVME in other form factors, including PCI-E cards and U.2 drives (common in servers).

Whether the M.2 slot on the motherboard supports SATA, NVME or both is up to the manufactuter. For example, my motherboard has an M.2 slot on the top which supports both NVME or SATA M.2 drives, but the one underneath only supports NVME drives.

Good videos explaining this:

 
Tekno Venus said:
Not quite sure what you're saying here, although I think you might be confusing NVME with M.2 - which is frustratingly easy to do as manufacturers don't always make it clear.

M.2 drives come in two variants - SATA and NVME. SATA and NVME are just communication protocols - NVME is just newer and is the successor to SATA, the same way SATA was the successor to IDE. The first crucial drive (MX500 M.2) you quoted is a SATA M.2 drive, so speeds are limited by the SATA interface (6Gbps). NVME drives communicate over PCI-E, which is much, much faster. The only reason that the SN750 is faster than the P1 is just that is uses faster components - both communicate over the NVME protocol using PCI-E. It's possible to get drives that use NVME in other form factors, including PCI-E cards and U.2 drives (common in servers).
Click to expand...

I'm referring to this statement:
The performance benefit from using an NVME SSD isn't that noticable - I moved from an 850 EVO to an NVME SSD a while back and didn't really notice a performance increase
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that because moving from SATA to PCIe will give more speed.
 

Has Sysnative Forums helped you? Please consider donating to help us support the site!

Back
Top