Yes you should be able to at least run all cores at 5 - 5.1GHz. For higher overclocking work, i.e. driving 5.2GHz and over, you might have to invest in a custom loop. I have not owned a 280mm AIO but did own the 240mm incarnation. i9-9900K got too hot once I went over 5.1GHz. That said, i7 runs cooler.
It is not unreasonable to think that next gen consoles are going to draw blood with the best PC's today. I expect the next gen of consoles to be like it was when the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out. Both consoles put a hurting on the best PC's of the day, it took around $5000 in today's money just to reach parity. It took 2 to 3 years for PC's to catch up - at least for the average consumer who did not SLI. So yes, I fully expect the new Xbox and PS4 to have at least Radeon VII equivalent GPU, probably will be a custom GPU with 2080TI level or even slightly more (not much more though). Your 4K numbers are optimisitc, not going to happen. You can double the performance of the 2080TI and still not hit 120fps at 4K for some titles. We are not talking about Fortnite. We are talking games with next gen level of realism and realistic physics/AI. To expect console to do 4K 120fps with fully Ray Traced scenes as well, not a chance, zero in fact. We are years away from that. 4K 60fps and some ray traced scenes. The Xbox One X was the test, the PS5/new Xbox will be the realization. Still though, to answer your original question, yes the GPU's of today are going to be underpowered for the AAA titles that will come out on the new consoles in 2021. That does not mean the games will not run. Rather, the gamers/hobbyists will adopt new hardware (which they do every generation anyway) while those that do not can adjust settings to run everything smoothly.
Not a huge difference between Intel and Ryzen anymore running at stock settings. However an unlocked Intel chip, a solid cooling solution, and a little luck on the silicon lottery will net you a very nice performance gain. The i7-9700K even with a strong overclock will not beat the Ryzen 3700X over an 8 core workout but will certainly be 10% or more faster at single core. At stock settings the Ryzen 3700X is about similar to the i9-9700K single core speed (within 5% or less). If you are not going to overclock get the Ryzen chip, if you are going to overclock, Intel will be your chip.
1060 / 1660 is where I would be looking for this build. RX 570/580/590 as well. Unless you are getting a bargain for the GTX 1070/1080 it makes no sense cheaping out everywhere to make up deficits for a slightly higher end GPU. Whatever the case, look at upping RAM to 16GB (for only $20 more than 8GB) and you definitely want a 128GB/250GB SSD to boot the system. Not sure you getting a good deal on that 5400RPM HDD, WD Blue 7200RPM 1TB can be got for $40.
RTX 2080 TI or RTX Titan at the moment, neither will hit anywhere near that fps on some titles, even in SLI.
On the other hand, less demanding games such as Fortnite you will be good to go with an RTX 2070. RTX 2070 will also net 60fps plus on more demanding games.
My recommendation => RTX 2070.
If you are willing to pay more, the RTX 2070 Super might be worth a look.
Monitor - Resolution / Refresh Rate? Without it we can start at the GT1030 and go all the way up to Titan RTX.
Would be a shocker if it were. Likely between 2080 TI and 2080.
Apply discrimination to content you find out there. I have read all kinds of things regarding the new consoles. The latest is 8K gaming at 60fps even with Ray Tracing enabled. Another cited the CEO of Sony suggesting 4K gaming at 120fps. It is all BS. Even accounting for Sony and Microsoft taking massive hardware losses, there is no chance that such technology will be on a console for $500. The random musings citing anyonymous sources are in reality two or three generations away. Not next gen.
While Ray Tracing is a real technology and area of R&D, it will be a feature that can be applied by developers for the new consoles. It does not mean AAA titles will be sporting fully ray traced scenes at 4K Ultra running at the smooth 60fps or 120fps being touted [if there were such scenes I would bet on FMV versus real time rendering]. Rather, like today, some scenes will have some Ray Tracing in them. Of course, for publicity sake, Sony and Microsoft are going to sell this to the masses. Like advertizing that milk will make your bones strong or Slimfast will give you lean muscle mass (ignoring that you actually have to exercise).
If you are worried about longevity then the Ryzen 7 2700X will not become obsolete any faster than Ryzen 5 3600. The Ryzen 5 3600 is a faster chip in some applications. If performance in these applications were deeply concerning, you would have saved up for a better CPU than the Ryzen 5 3600/ 7 2700X. You did research, certainly enough to establish a hierarchy/pecking order and where your needs fit in. Gaming wise, unless you plan throttle a 240Hz 1080p monitor, arguing which is better is an exposition in trivia. Next year, year after, it is fair to say the Ryzen 5 3600 is going to tumble down the pecking order. It is what it is, nature of this industry, engineers are paid to conduct R&D, the fruit of their labor eventually shows up on the market. You establish a requirement for the here and now and then purchase accordingly. I do not see how a Ryzen 5 3600 in a casual gaming situation can break the deal over a Ryzen 7 2700X forcing you to return your equipment. If I had a Ryzen 7 2700X, you would actually have to compensate me to the tune of $200 to do what you are thinking of.
Emulation wise, there are only a few that require hardware specifications like you are planning- Cemu, Citra, Dolphin, PCSX2, CXBX, Xenia, and RPCS3. I was doing Arcade Emulation on a PC as old as a Pentium 3/Voodoo 3 around the millenium. An i3 dual core processor with HD 3000/4000 graphics is an order or two of magnitude more powerful than what I originally had. The most demanding emulation withArch might be the Naomi or Dreamcast, both well within range of a dual core processor clocked at 3.4GHz. The SNES emulation part, which is cycle accurate, will likely be beyond your CPU's ability to emulate at full speed. But there exist other SNES emulators that will on a 1GHz single core processor. You do not need cycle accurate emulation for the SNES. Even the SNES Mini, which is an official Nintendo product, does not accomplish this level of precision.
I would say the Dell Inspiron 3847 itself, no addons, no extra RAM or GPU, will play the vast majority of arcade titles out there, at least the vintage ones pre 2000'ish at their native resolutions. I can get Soul Calibur running at/close to full speed on a Laptop i3 from 2011.
Conversely, to build an emulation rig capable of covering all consoles / acrade units at 1080p, you are basically looking at a machine specced similarly to a mid range gaming rig today. I would not attempt PS3 emulation with anything less than an i5-7600K. Same goes for Wii U - it takes Ryzen or quad core intel CPU's to get this at full speed.
Gaming? 9900kf @ $430 is a no brainer choice in my opinion. While the 3900X beats it in many/most workloads, even in some gaming scenarios, the overclock potential with the 9900kf cannot be denied. Now if you had workloads that you rated more important than gaming, particularly workloads that scale performance wise with cores, that would change the choice outcome entirely....
Outside of GT710/730 etc cards, a modest GPU is still going to cost $100 at retail. With the 2600 you absolutely will need it, with the 2400g you will not. Quite honestly if your Nephew is just using it for school homework and light gaming, a six core CPU is overkill. The 2400g may have two fewer cores but it has an APU that will display on a monitor and is powerful enough to cover most light gaming/eSports scenarios. If you have not bought the R5 2600 yet it is not too late to backtrack. If you have bought the R5 2600, go with the $100+ RX560 in that case and be slightly over budget. Use eBay to streamline cost if need be.
Get it replaced. Occasionally you can remove the GPU, use the integrated graphics to see display and install windows. Then plug in GPU and voila... I am guessing the CMOS chips that power the HDMI port are out. They are not very resiliant and can be hurt by ESD.
No you will not need to do that. These GPU's will be more resilient than most give credit. You will be fine with the 5700XT. There have been hotter cards squeezed into smaller cases in the past.
Not really but if the price is right and you sell the RX 480 then perhaps. Example - 1070 for $200, sell RX 480 for $130. Net cost = $70. Not a terrible move. You will gain higher settings, that is about it. Worth $70? Hard to say, ultimately you will be the one looking at your monitor while you play ;)
Cases I personally like with good airflow and also white.
Large Case/Full Tower:
Thermaltake View 71 Snow 4-Sided Tempered Glass E-ATX
Mid - Tower Case:
BitFenix Enso Case White, Tempered Glass Window Side Panel
Corsair Carbide Series Air 540 (CC-9011048-WW) Arctic White Steel High Airflow ATX Cube Case
I have never heard of problems with this card. If it fits your aesthetic of your case go ahead and get it.
If the following holds true:
You are primarily using for gaming and are not interested in pushing the limits of a 240Hz monitor.
You want a well rounded good performing CPU but will not lose sleep if it is 10-15% below the best performing CPU for gaming.
Then you should buy the 2700X.
Not enough of an upgrade in my opinion. You will be able to push up settings at current resolution or drop settings at next resolution bump. Rock and Hard place. Wait another generation where RTX 3060 [assuming Nvidia stick to naming convention] launches or jump towards the RTX 2070 out now. My 2c.
If you are not upgrading your current monitor for the forseeable future the GTX 1660TI will more than fit your bill. So will the 1660 come to think of it. All the titles you mention will run like a charm at 1080p. Some newer 1080p titles, particularly those that hit the market when the new Xbox/PS5 come out, will likely have much more demanding gaming engines and getting smooth 60fps at high settings might be a challenge. That is in the pipeline though, particularly when the next gen of consoles have a tentative 2021 release.
For the price, hard to beat the 2700X right now IMO.
ASRock A320M AM4 mATX motherboard? Yes 2700X will work on it. Ideal solution, no, but it would be easiest to just use assets you already have.
Future Proofing? Impossible to say. Tolerance and expectations vary wildly from user to user. CPU might be 10 years to the good for your Grandma. Conversely you will not have any difficulty finding a user here that drops his/her hardware for new every six months (or whenever a new chipset hits the market). Different strokes for different folks.
I would say one of GTX 1660TI or RTX 2060/RTX 2060 Super. Also AMD wise, the 5700 / 5700 XT will net the desired result.
Older generation as well, i.e. Vega 56/64 or GTX 1070/1070TI/1080 will do the job.
I would personally go for the 5700XT for your build. Just pick out a PC case with lots of air movement since the components will run hot.
At $400 for the 3800X I would have to say no. Get the 3700X. At that price range I would consider the move to 3900X if you are really after a better processor and can live with diminishing returns. Conversely, performance wise, you could see an improvement streaming with 3900X. With the 3800X not too much.
That was a good choice.
I recommend that you contact the company and see if it is still in production. That card is not in stock for the US. You might have to consider an importer.
For the price of the Ryzen 3 1200, Newegg are selling the Ryzen 5 1600 for only around $30 more. GPU wise, the Rx 580 is a good deal for a 1080p 60hz plus gaming rig. Add $30 to your budget and you are good to go.
If you stick with yor hardware and monitor, get the RTX 2060 regular version or super (your choice). Will perform similar to GTX 980 TI -win some lose some depending on games.
i9-9900K will give a bump up while streaming. Just gaming alone? Not much, particularly if you are just going to reuse your motherboard with 9900K running at stock settings. Need Z370/390 to really make this chip come alive. I would stick with what I have for now.
From coffee lake under $200 but better than i7-3770K (the best you can get for your chipset), i3-8350K and i5-9400. The i3-8100 also will outscore your current i5 CPU but will not beat the i7-3770K.
However at this budget you should probably consider Ryzen. If you move to a modern CPU you will have to get a new motherboard anyway. Sadly there will always come a day when we have to retire our older chips.
Parts list linked my bad for not clicking it. Yes in this case the i7-3770/3770K will present a meaningful upgrade. You will be able to find processor used on eBay. You will not be able to overclock the K CPU with your motherboard but if you end up getting it, it will have a small boost over the 3770. I suspect being vintage parts the prices between two are going to will be similar. This is as far as you are going to go with this chipset, anything better you will need to upgrade to Intel Coffee Lake or Ryzen 2nd/3rd gen and purchase the related motherboard.
Depends on your monitor. You are not going to see frame rates beyond what your monitor can provide. If I assume 1080p/144 or 165Hz then 2600X is fast enough for the majority of titles but potentially not all. There are going to be games that will stutter and drop frames no matter what. Smooth/consistent 144fps/165fps is no guarantee for some titles. Your rig is plenty powerful enough for 1080p but you cannot be foolproofed on every game released and due to be released.
For your socket it would have to be Sandy or Ivy Bridge CPU's you could pick up used on eBay. I do not know if you have the top CPU of that generation. I will guess you have i5 or i7. The new CPU's out there today need different motherboards.
3600X will be faster for gaming than the 2700X. You should factor in motherboard when pricing the CPU's as well. As for bang for buck? About even although Ryzen 7 2700X is selling for $200 if you look around and there are B450 boards that are very nicely priced.
To be frank just about any CPU you buy today will have absolutely no problem keeping up with modern titles 60fps minimum. Even selecting an i3-8100 or a Ryzen 3 2200G will gaurantee 60fps or better in gaming. Pretty much. All you need to do is worry about a GPU for the resolution you want to target.
Optimal performance on the other hand, cannot advise further. Your question does not contain enough detail or gaming requirements for us to help you past giving generic advise.
With your usage scenarios, the i9-9900K or Ryzen 7 3700X/3800X will fit well. Former? Similar price as 3900X, performs as well or slightly better than it in gaming, not as powerful in apps that scale with cores and threads, but overclocks very well and there are a plethora of motherboards and Ram combinations to play with. No real caveats, the i9-9900K is an amazing chip. Over to the 3700X, for a new CPU, I am not sure there has ever been a better deal for the performance you get than this chip - at least at MSRP. What chip, in the history of PC building, has ever hit close to the top end of a competitor's consumer lineup and retailed at 30% below that top CPU's price? Then there are previous generation deals and right now the 2700X is an amazing deal, 15% slower but nearly 33% cheaper than the 3700X and over half the price of the i9-9900K.
You actually cannot go wrong here. Whatever CPU you purchase will be a beast. I would personally go with the Ryzen 9 3900X but my use scenario's include applications way more demanding the gaming. If just gaming, you can streamline your budget - buy the cheapest of the chips recommended and spend more on the GPU. Strictly gaming, the best CPU is probably still the i9-9900K. Overclock that one nicely and it is a monster piece of silicon performance. Worth paying $480 for it? Well...... subjective, very subjective...... 3700X here for the win....
Depends on games. Some games you could do that with much less a GPU, others the RTX 2080 TI in SLI will fall well short of that target.
5700XT, for the vast majority of games, will be a good choice for your requirements. Just do not expect every game to top 100fps ultra settings. Most certainly will, some, no.
Intel? New architecture, shrink transistor size, and spend a bundle on marketing. Pretty much guaranteed. Should see something concrete sometime next year. Intel panicking? Depends? A former collegue of mine works at Intel in R&D and he is not panicking. Shareholders might though...
Be forewarned if you do not really game the Ryzen 3700X and 2700X will need a GPU anyway - no way around it if you want to see something on your monitor. Intel CPU like i7 - 9700K/8700K makes sense here. If you do game and have modest requirements (but requirements that exceed what Intel HD graphics offer), then you will want a GPU. In this case do consider the $200 Ryzen 2700X. 8 cores, 16 threads. While 15% or so slower than the 3700X, it is no slouch and you will not spend an arm and a leg on a motherboard either. Win win and you have a nice new PC.
There are a zillion people out there telling you the way you must be or the way you must think. You do not have to take "media content providers" opinions as gospel. Let them have whatever opinion they want. I can do my own research and draw conclusions that are relevant to me.
I see a scenario where AMD have been fine tuning and improving their designs iteratively since Ryzen was released in 2017. Intel meanwhile are stuck with Skylake architecture since latter 2015 when it was devised. Here we are now in 2019 and AMD have, by and large, reached some kind of parity with Intel, winning in some areas, losing in some areas. How this ever got the propaganda it has now boggles the mind. AMD's performance improvement was expected yet many folks are taking it as revolutionary when it is nothing of the sort.
Ultimately one should be pragmatic. This is your equipment, your hobby, you should be motivated by choices that perform the task(s) you wish in the most timely or efficient manner as possible. If that points to an AMD CPU, then roll with that. If Intel, invest in that direction. If they perform similar, draw straws or rock paper scizzors. Of course budget will play it's hand.
Lets say you have a PC and are happy with it. Lets say it is a comtemporary one built around an Intel platform. Lets say benchmarks show the Intel CPU you have trades blows with an AMD one on applications of personal interest and loses to AMD on some applications that are of no interest to you. Owing to peer pressure or fashion, you decide, at great cost, to move over to an AMD platform. Is this a wise decision? My personal opinion is it is your money you can do whatever the heck you want with it. I would say you are wasting your money but again, your choice to do so. I would have a very different opinion if you used my money to do so.
The 5700 or RTX 2060Super will service your needs.
Quick suggestion - you can buy a K series and not overclock. It is a misnomer to suggest that you only buy K if you intend to overclock. At stock settings the K does indeed outperform the non K by a few percent. Caveat - higher cost. Positive - easier to resell when moving chipsets.
Outside of driving a display, I will assume you are wanting a GPU for gaming. If so, let us know your monitor specifics - particularly resolution and refresh rate. Your GPU should be selected around this rather than around CPU. If not gaming or gaming merely an application, let us know what software will be utilizing the GPU. Will help narrow down the field.
1050 TI is low power and will draw all it needs direct from the PCIe x16 slot. Actually quite nice since you have one less cable to manage.
I would not say pointless for gaming but certainly is akin to using a sledgehammer to knock a nail into wood. The 3600X on AMD side or 8700K on Intel side is good enough for gaming for the forseeable future, above this we hit diminishing returns. That said who knows where developing teams pile resources in future. It used to be 4 cores was the median, that could well shift to 6 or 8 cores in the next couple of years. More widespread adoption of the platform will see development utilize it. 12 or 16 cores, sure why not, but totally non essential for gaming and be aware right now you may actually lose performance than gain. I have a 9980Xe and it for sure performs worse than the 9900K in gaming. Not much worse but still worse.
This is great stuff to know. Thanks for the info here much appreciated.
luchelibre gave good advise. Yes the RAM is compatible also. The 4790K can also be overclocked handsomely with the right cooling set up. You might push up to a 25% or 30% performance bump. What you gain in core speed will not overcome physical limitations of 4cores/8threads, if an application scales with cores/threads, then the gains here versus core speed will be more meaningful.
To be honest unless you need the performance boost from multi threading, applications like gaming generally scale perfectly well with physical cores with single core speed being an important metric. In this respect Intel holds and advantage. Multithreaded applications will favor chips with this feature built in. It is up to you since I do not think you can go wrong with either. Streaming will favor the Ryzen if this is going to be a strong feature of your PC. Right now, with all the talk of Ryzen 3000 series, I do not think they are a great deal at this time. This will change as we see more boards hit the market.
In that case go for it. Nice fast CPU and benchmarks looking very good.
Yeah I liquid cool most my gear, Nvidia Founder Edition yield more choices for cooling blocks ;)