Just go with the 2070 in that case. While buying Used from a reputable seller is generally not an issue, it is a gamble.
This is a fun build in an awesome case, you did a decent job managing all those cables. I definitely am interested in that case.
I had Horizon Zero Dawn in there - abbreviated to HZD ;)
HZD is probably my most favorite game of all time, I loved it!
Last of Us? PS3 release or 4? Not played that one in years. Good game, yes.
Shadow of Colossus? A classic, is the remake on PS4 worth it?
Nioh? Awesome title, brutal like Dark Souls. Never played it on PS4 but did play it on PC/Steam.
Uncharted: Forgot about this, bought number 4 still not played it. Guess I will get around to it. Number 2 and 3 were great on the PS3.
While the Kabylake i5-7600K is a fast and great gaming cpu, Intel have mostly discontinued what is now a two gen old chipset. Those that are available new are more expensive than they were back in the day. In theory the i5-7600K has a slight edge in gaming over the Ryzen5 2600. The Kabylake i5 here is easily overclocked and has crazy fast single core / thread performance. For applications outside gaming, it is quite weak and easily beat in workloads by the Ryzen. As for choice, Ryzen all the way, it is a current platform, supported, and you have a variety of motherboards to choose from. The i5-7600K is a relic from the past now, a great gaming CPU still but on a limited and non supported platform. Motherboards that are available new are limited in choice and crazy expensive. The Ryzen is a no brainer choice. Performance wise, the Ryzen 5 2600X comfortably beats the i5-7600K as well and price wise it is probably cheaper than a new i5. No brainer choice here my friend.
Bottlenecks? Not something that should be an area of concern, both CPU's have plenty under the lid to keep up. If you play 1440p and above, they will perform similarly. Bottlenecks are a misunderstood term and no modern CPU with 4 or more cores will act as a major bottleneck for your system in regards to gaming.
Yeah, $700-$800 for a GPU is a lot. No idea how much a 1080Ti is but maybe scope out eBay for one. You get RTX 2080 performance less the Ray Tracing (which, tbh, you do not need). If it is cheaper than a RTX2080, might be worth a look. Otherwise, yeah, 2070 is an awesome GPU and worth investing in.
Oh yeah, cannot beat the PS4 exclusives, GOW, Bloodbourne, and HZD are possibly the greatest games this generation along with perhaps BOW on Switch. Spiderman was killer also. Too many PC folks forget how good some of the console exclusives are. As for topic at hand, an RTX 2080 Ti is ideal, 2080/1080Ti good as well. However, if you are happy with 30fps-60fps, you might get away with a 2070 and not sacrifice much in terms of settings. A 2060 would be pushing it but still doable - certainly you will get playable frame rates.
That is kind of you to say. We are all basically scientists, just working with different data sets :D Of course, Engineering/Physics/Finance correlate on many levels - data, modelling, and it's interpretation/application.
LOL, no, but I keep myself an informed citizen in a variety of topics outside my specialization. I do not live amazingly far from you, I live and work in VA and do visit NYC occasionally. About a 6hour'ish drive. I will definitely PM you if I am in your neck of the woods.
In your boat, you could tentatively look at the x299 platform. I, for my number crunching, have usually gone with Intel's more specialized platform, not so much for the core counts, but features - RAM, PCIe lanes, and the CPU cache is a part of that since the X series of chips is generous here. If you have not ordered the 9900K yet, you could look towards the 9900X instead. It is slightly slower than the 9900K but it no slouch when it comes to single threaded performance and I believe it has 10cores/20threads and overclocks very handsomely if you take the time to liquid cool it. Of course, platform is slightly overkill, and 10 cores is definitely more than you need. Option is there, will cost more than i9-9900K, but when it comes to professional equipment, money spent is money made. A liquid asset that is a tax deductible.
Awesome, get some use out of that GPU, put it through the paces. It will crunch any Linear Algebra type math problem like no tomorrow. It eats the numbers, literally. Most folks buy GPU's to render graphics for video games (rendering involves heavy use of Matrix Calculations, eigenvalue computations, linear transforms, tensor products and so on). Basically - all the tools they use to produce graphics are tools incalculably useful to us that create mathematical models and need our computers solely to crunch numbers :D . The GPU will make a much bigger difference than a CPU upgrade.
i9-9900K is a good purchase. Importantly for you, it gives you the chance to multitask on one machine. You can push 6 cores and still have 2 to do other tasks such as compile a report and so on. Work in finance? I am an engineer and work in Signal Processing/Estimation/Information Theory areas - primarily for application in Wireless Communication Systems. I could probably handle myself mathematically in the area of finance (much of my work is in estimation and prediction) although it is definitely a job more suited to a double major Math plus Economics with maybe a minor in accounting. Way outside the box for me, not so much the math, but the Economics. I have friends that work in your sector, tough job, tough hours, awesome pay and promotion/tenure opportunities.
Oh yeah, just reread the OP's opening statement, 8086K, you are correct, it does seem like this is his current computer. For what he is doing, I do not believe there is anything faster than an OC 8086K outside of perhaps the i9-9900K. I highly doubt the i9 would make a significant difference to his simulation speed. Most of these simulation tools we use to crunch numbers do not scale well past around 6 cores. I would say RAM would make a significant difference, depends on scaling. I jumped from 2666 to 3600 and the simulation speed was markedly improved. I did not rigorously test my rigs though since my job keeps me busy to the point I rarely have time to play around. My "scientific pc's" both at work and at home were built on the x299 platform, 128GB DDR4 @ 3600MHz, use the i7-7820X, a Titan V on my work build, my own computer at home I installed Vega Frontier Edition. Based on my GPU usage, I could probably get away with a GTX1070. My RAM is also a bit overkill, not hitting at higher than 64GB, can hover above 32GB but below 64GB. Often, depending on task, can even get away with 16GB.
5 years is way too long to predict how a GPU will respond to games then. Even the mighty 2080Ti might not be able to render titles at 1080p ultra at 60fps. We do not know how Ray Tracing will take off. We do not know how powerful consoles of this age will be (most AAA games are developed for consoles first and foremost and then rough ported to PC), there are lots of variables here. Right now, as things stand, yes, the RTX 2060 should be more than up to the 1080p task for 99.9% of titles that are due for release next two years. How things look 5 years from now, we will have to wait and see...
Using today as an example, the GTX 680 was an incredible card in 2013 when one may have bought one, 5 years later in 2018 and now 2019, it is looking a little lightweight when playing the latest AAA titles like Final Fantasy XV, Assassin's Creed Odyssey and so on. You can still game at 60fps if you set to medium, but at ultra, it is a slog... Of course, in 2013, the 680 was a champ at 1080p gaming and killed it. Not so much today though...
@ dcdansk, For your line of work, assuming you are also using Matlab/C/C++/Fortran/Python etc etc along with Excel for your number crunching needs, you need a processor that has at least 6 cores and blazing fast single thread speeds. You can run your algorithms on 4 cores and have two free cores to multitask. I would say, do not look lower than the i7-8700K for your needs. i7-8700K/i9-9900K are two choices I would look at. Either will do the job. BTW - if you are going to be inverting a lot of matrices, I would recommend getting a GPU in there. I am an Engineer (work in the Information Theory and Signal Processing Area) and can tell you a GPU made a huge difference to my number crunching. A GPU is far more than just something that is used to render Video Games. At the end of the day - Video Games are like algorithms - lots of Linear Transforms. Get a good i7 - 8700K processor and a GPU for your build. Along with 32GB of RAM. This build will not be cheap, but the reward will be you will be more productive for your company. It is win win, not zero sum game...
BTW - you do not need more than 8 cores for what you are doing. A Threadripper will do nothing for you other than add in cost and power. Go with 6 core or 8 core Intel. You could potentially get away with a 4core/8thread CPU but you want to multi task. Go with 6 core CPU to give you the flexibility. Oh yeah, nothing wrong with Ryzen 2600X or 2700X. Both have the cores useful to you where they count, and offer good single thread speed. Not quite as fast as Intel but I am not certain it is something you will notice - could be as trivial if a simulation takes 10 minutes with Intel, it will take 10 minutes 30 seconds with Ryzen. Worth a thought.
The OP said he is works in finance industry. He is not greedy for wanting a good machine. I recommend you research what people in the finance industry do. It is likely that the OP will need to use his computer to do number crunching via simulation of predictive models. Basically do things such as: Time Series Analysis, Adaptive Prediction, State Space Modelling / Kalman Filtering, Hidden Markov Modelling, and so on... These can require serious computations since many prediction algorithms have to invert Matrices. Inverting a Matrix is no trivial thing, particularly if the OP's model is a high order ARMA one - i.e. 100 x 100 State Matrix. Ouch! Also, OP will have to run Monte Carlo simulations - basically, an infinite "for loop/while loop" until the error count is reached for accuracy. A faster CPU gets the answer quicker. Also, the OP is likely going to be using one computer. While his simulations are running, he probably has to do other tasks. A multicore fast single threaded processor is essential for his needs. The Core i3 or Ryzen 3 are trash for his line of work.
The i7 9700K and i7 8700K are also excellent chips and more cost effective than the i9-9900K, They are top tier gaming CPU's for sure and if your focus was gaming, then they would be my recommended chips. Workstation CPU's? Yes no question they are pretty good here as well but if you are building a Workstation on a budget, I would think 8c/16t is a better choice. The Ryzen 2700X is cheaper than the Intel i7's and has the cores/threads where it counts. It's only performance competitor is the i9-9900K which is nearly double the price!
Ryzen 2700x + RTX 2080-Ti + 32GB DDR4-3200 = 1.800 EUR
is definitely superior to
i9 9900k + RTX 2080 - 32GB DDR4-3200 = 1.500 EUR
But if you do not need the GPU power, you could replace the RTX 2080 Ti with something lower and save money.
Do not get me wrong though, the i9-9900K is an awesome chip. In the 8 core domain, it is the best of the bunch. But the Ryzen 2700X is not pulling far behind and is much cheaper.
Build and keep what you have until you switch to a platform supporting DDR5. This will not have widespread adoption for quite a number of years yet, what you build will be good for the forseeable future, at least in the 4-5 year pipeline.
Ryzen 5 2600 is a far better CPU. Draws parity with i7-6700 on single threaded front. No advantage anywhere for Intel on this one.
Ryzen 5 2600 a no brainer here. Nothing wrong with Skylake chips, they are still great, but they were released nearly 4 years ago. Sometimes it pays off, economically and performance-wise, to move with the times.
Thing is, there is not a huge difference in performance between 2700X and 9900K - at least not in a manner that is blatantly obvious in real time. An enthusiast bench-marker may escalate the difference between the chipsets, where under rigorous examination there is no question the 9900K is the better chip over 2700X. However, typically, we use the chips in real world applications, and for the vast majority of worskstation or gaming uses, the 2700X is not found wanting against the 9900K. The 2700X is an extremely potent chip and more than enough for 99.9% of applications out there. Overclocked, the difference between it and stock 9900K is fairly negligible. Enthusiasts may be able to justify spending double the money for a chip offering, at best, a 10% speed improvement over single and multi-core/multi-threaded workloads. For most, the 2700X is the sensible smart money purchase. If budget is tight, it is better to get the 2700X and a better GPU / better RAM than the 9900K trading off for a worse GPU or worse RAM. Expansion/Upgradability regarding CPU chipset should not be a big factor, what you buy mobo wise and cpu wise should have a use that extends between now and 4 years in the future. The introduction of DDR5 RAM in 2020 and widespread adoption by 2022 is going to see many of us move to completely different chipsets in any case. Aim by 2022/2023 you will do your next upgrade.
Not even for a 2080Ti.
May be a bottleneck at 1080p, but that wont be for very high frame rates >> 60fps.
You are good..
Intel were long favored over AMD for emulation due to single core/thread speed. Nowadays, with Ryzen, this is moot. Considering that the humble Pentium G4560 runs Dolphin and PCSX2 well, the Ryzen chips have little to no issues here. They are essentially equal to Intel in this task - equal as in a user will run most of the emulator-compatible games at full speed with an appropriate GPU.
If you want 4K Ultra for FFXV the bad news is nothing exists at the moment that will run this reliably at 60fps or over. It is what it is, a very demanding game. To get over 45fps, it will cost a lot of money, easily $3.5K when all is said and done. You will minimally want 16GB 3000MHz + RAM, an i7 Coffee Lake or Ryzen 7 2700X, and RTX 2080Ti. The GPU will determine what frame rates you will get, a 2080 for instance will not hit much over 45fps on Ultra. The RTX 2080Ti will barely hit 55fps on this game., for me it is hovering low 50's but I am not OC'ing the GPU.
Get what you can now. Tech is always moving forward. If not Ryzen 3, then Intel's next gen, if not this, then Ryzen 4, so on and so forth. A CPU is not like a GPU, next gen will not be significantly better. The difference between 2080Ti and 1080Ti is large, the difference between Ryzen 1700X and 2700X is nowhere near as large, as will be the difference between 2700X and 3700X. A nice bump, 5 - 15 percent, that is it. The only reason why many are excited about the 3rd gen Ryzen is that it will mark the first time in a long time that AMD will, chip for chip, outperform Intel's chips. Whatever the case may be, the differences, manifest in real word, are usually small. A few percent. Ryzen 2nd gen is good enough now. Think this way - Ryzen 2700X is around 5 - 10% weaker than the i9-9900K. In real world it hardly matters. Ryzen 3700X will be around 5 - 10% stronger than i9-9900K. 10 - 20% improvement? A big deal in the CPU world, in real applications, not really that much of an impact. Gaming, hardly any difference. Some encoding/rendering applications, maybe the difference between waiting 1 minute and 1 minute and 10 seconds. You are good getting the Ryzen 2700X right now.
"The motherboard M.2 slot #1 shares bandwidth with a SATA 6.0 Gb/s port. When the M.2 slot is populated, one SATA 6.0 Gb/s port is disabled." The Motherboard manual will tell you which Sata port is disabled when you install an M2 drive (usually Sata # 0), then when you connect your 3.5" HDD and/or 2.5" SSD to the Sata ports, just do not use the Sata port disabled, i.e. use Sata #1, #2 etc instead. This is a normal warning, not to worry.
Build wise, you could roll with Intel's x299 platform. Your $2500 budget would be a little stretched here but for workstation based loads, it is hard to knock the chipset for features and PCIe lanes. The smart money says Ryzen 7 2700X should be where you invest however. When OC'd, it outperforms or draws parity with most 6-10 core Intel chips in pretty much all applications outside of gaming for a lot less money (and even in gaming, Intel's advantage is slight to the point it may as well be negligible).
Learn something new everyday, thank you for the information. Looking at the information online, it looks like the X series is the same thing as non-X. Sounds like an AMD scam going on, charging more for the same thing.
While Ryzen 7 2700X is a nice step up on the i7 4930k, I still do not think it is considerable enough. Spec wise, your PC is still good and will remain good for a while yet. I personally would hold out for Ryzen 3700X or next gen Intel before upgrading.
Regarding Ryzen, the X means unlocked - i.e. you can overclock the chip. The 2700X is the next iteration of the 1700X, same number of cores and threads but slightly faster in single threaded and multi threaded applications. Much like the difference in performance between, say an i7-4790K and an i7-7700K. Not huge, but nice.
They are both good cards that perform well at 1080p. The RTX 2060 has massively lower power draw though, I would go that route. At 2K, Vega 64 better but 2 years is a long time for PC tech, there will be better and cheaper 1440p options by then. At 1080p, particularly modern AAA titles, your GTX 760 is a little lightweight although largely workable with tweaks to settings. I definitely recommend moving towards the 2060 for now.
Yup pretty much this. Good card for some workloads and it cuts a nice little niche for those that want to avoid paying a premium for a professional card. For PC gaming, it just does not make enough inroads into Nvidia's virtual monopoly of the high end GPU market catered towards this application. Bottom line, if one requires a card for gaming, this should be low down on the bucket list. For 4K rendering/encoding, it is one heck of a decent purchase given the price of Nvidia's Pro Cards.
Nope, go ahead and build your rig. You are good.
Wow, never would have thought Gaming and Athlon came in the same sentence. Not sure Intel HD 630 is up to this caliber. I guess this product must line up with the 2200G and 2400G, just a cheaper version.
Nice build, looks really cool. You definitely went all Rammo on this one @ 32GB, pun intended :D
High probability there is a driver issue, missing DLL's, or both. You can troubleshoot both and update computer as necessary. Quite a strong chance your computer is running those apps straight off HD graphics. Make sure the HDMI cable to your monitor is connected to your GPU.
4770k has 4core 8 thread, hyperthreading enabled. It is a good cpu. Yes, it is not the fastest CPU, not even close, but even at nearly 6 years old it has enough grunt to be completely viable today.
i7 7700K, which has same number of cores and threads, does not bottleneck anything with a modern GPU. Runs games without breaking sweat. Not a zillion miles behind an i9 for vast majority of games out there. True, i7 Kabylake is about 25% or so faster than your i7, but 4770k even with regulation 1600MHZ DDR3 will not be the difference between playable and unplayable frame rates. It is slower than a modern i7 with DDR4 but will only be a bottleneck at absurdly high 1080p frame rates. GPU will still be the limit for 1440p and 4K for the vast majority of titles.
Sure, the i9 and Coffeelake i7 smoke the older 4770k and will certainly deliver higher fps with more modern faster DDR4. Does not mean your chipset will be the difference between a game being playable or unplayable.
Move onto a new chipset when DDR5 becomes standardized and common (not for a couple of years yet). For now keep what you have and enjoy it. It is fast enough, even for a powerful GPU like a 2080.
Remember this, nobody complains that a Ryzen 5 2400g, which is a very modern chip, is no good for gaming. According to this,
your i7-4770K is not a million miles behind. A few %. Your chip is fine.
CPU has been discontinued although still gets a small production run. There is demand for it due to the x299 platform requiring a bios update for many motherboards for the newer chips. If you are new to x299, then, unless you get the manufacturer to ship an updated bios chip, you need an older cpu to update the motherboard in order to install the newer chips. The i7 7820k is not even a very good CPU but it works with every mobo out there that supports the platform. Now is actually a very poor time to invest in Intel's x299 chipsets, it is basically dead and on life support.
Right now, what you have is pretty good and not worth upgrading right now - at least if all you use your PC for is gaming and browsing etc.... You will get to the point, when mainstream boards start supporting DDR5, or a higher end GPU comes out that will be strongly limited by your current chipset, then an upgrade path will present itself. Your i5-4670 is not at that point yet.
If you want to game at 1440p without dropping below highest settings, just be forewarned there are some games that will only barely squeeze above 60fps let alone 100+ fps for an RTX2070. I personally would not look below an RTX2080/GTX1080Ti as things stand at that resolution. At 1080p, RTX2070 will prove gameworthy but again, there are one or two games that will not run as fast as you think with settings maxed out. But your wiggle room at this resolution is considerably higher.
I personally would jump into 1440p gaming and complement my PC with a RTX2080.
Any chance you can upgrade the CPU and RAM on that motherboard? If you could, for instance, bump that 8GB to 16GB dual channel (even if DDR3), and perhaps score a used i7-4790K, then the GTX 1070 would rock that build and you would have a tremendous upgrade. If your options/upgrade path is limited, I would say the time to build a new PC has come.
I would just get the i7-8700K. It is an excellent gaming CPU and is a fairly capable chip for light-medium threaded workloads. It is nowhere near being defunct for gaming, not even close. Forget the i9-9900K for now, it benchmarks better than the i7-8700K but in real world performance you will hardly tell the difference. In circumstances where the difference is noticeable, then the application in question would likely be workstatation based and the Threadripper would be the chip for you. As things stand, nothing you are doing needs anything higher than the i7-8700K.
Exhaustive, thorough, and says everything. Awesome comment!
I have owned a couple of XFX cards before, no issues to report, A-OK. Look nice as well.
MSI and Gigabyte are great. Cannot go wrong with either here. Good luck with the rest of build.
Extremely neat and tidy, clean and precise. Would not be surprised to see this featured at some point in future.
Yeah Bestbuy for instance will usually have a few MSI models and at least one good "higher end" MSI. They are nice laptops. Same goes with Asus ROG. Do not ignore Razer either. If you are willing to live with 500GB of storage, they are good Laptops although will blow your budget apart (hint, last season model could get one down to around $1500).
I have owned two Alienware Laptops. While very nice looking, some caveats:
- both models I owned, stock supply not enough, battery drains while gaming even plugged in wall.
- bios absolutely stinks, horrible, useless.... will not matter if you do not tweak with gear....
- Alienware comes with a lot of bloatware, horrible Tobii Eye Tracking, I ended up uninstalling 99% of the drivers and software that comes with one.
- keyboard not very robust. Just had to replace keyboard on mine after one year of use. Same happened with the older model I had.
- Alienware is heavy, very heavy, and runs extremely hot. Numerous crashes, over both models I have owned, when CPU gets goosed passed 90c. GPU is prone to switch off due to heat as well. Games crash more often than they do on a PC.
TBH, Alienware is a pretty cheap low quality laptop. Customer Service is excellent. Caveat => I have used this customer service a lot over the life of both my laptops.
MSI? Go this route. MSI good. HP Omen, if no try, no buy. It is a big investment, you have got to be happy with what you buy.
Futureproofing a little for your son is a good idea. While it would be fairly straightforward, for $300, to tick all his gaming boxes right now, you never know what game will be the next fad and how it will eat up hardware performance.
CPU wise, keep as is, no need to change.
If 8GB of RAM, upgrade to 16GB if possible.
GPU wise, GTX 1060 6GB or RX 580/590 is where I would be looking.
That should set your Son up for a good while.
$300 budget will be pushed a little.
If not for gaming, then get last gen pascal card, perhaps 1060 6GB and you should be set. If gaming, RTX 2060 falls close to your budget.
The 1060 6GB will give a nice bump up in performance but for me personally, I would not look at anything lower than an RTX 2060 - budget dependent.
Not so much what you get out of the CPU, more the chipset. From this perspective X399 gives you many more options over Z390 for instance. In terms of speed, if gaming is going to be the main application, just get the cheaper Z390 motherboard. While Ryzen TR will outperform Intel on multi-core multi-threaded workloads it is not like you will not 3D render well on the i7-9700k. Gaming wise, no brainer, Intel comfortably ahead of TR here.
Both Laptop's you cite are good well known brands. I have not owned either but did play around with an HP Omen and it was quite good - my main complaint was the screen was a little wobbly on the hinge. Keyboard was fine, to be expected.
Me personally, browse through Xotic PC or one of these sites and see if you find contemporary models featuring an RTX 2060 for your budget. You may as well go with newest tech.
Swapping out RAM? Yes you can do that but for the few dollars you save you will end up reinvesting more (upgrading from 8 to 16 will incur two 8GB sticks at > $100). Just get 16GB model and be done with it.
yeah 4GB is enough
This is a small case, a lot smaller than my own Ncase M1. Pretty cool you managed to pack that much power in it. Awesome build. What is the case BTW? Looks like something Lazer3D would build.