EPTSomething based on Ryzen 3000 (released 7/7) is a good bet https://www.anandtech.com/show/14407/amd-ryzen-3000-announced-five-cpus-12-cores-for-499-up-to-46-ghz-pcie-40-coming-77
and at least a midrange GPU but i'm not sure as to which
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 692
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
Something based on Ryzen 3000 (released 7/7) is a good bet https://www.anandtech.com/show/14407/amd-ryzen-3000-announced-five-cpus-12-cores-for-499-up-to-46-ghz-pcie-40-coming-77 and at least a midrange GPU but i'm not sure as to which | ||
KwarK
United States44289 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44289 Posts
https://tl.net/forum/tech-support/426532-computer-build-upgrade-and-buying-resource-thread?page=203#4052 This is what I am planning to get now. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Q3G3B67/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 The price looks good, it looks like it'll let me run a VR headset (two may have been ambitious, do they even make local multiplayer VR games?), and while I did successfully build the last PC I wasn't confident about not fucking it up. Is there anything worth salvaging from the last one? I figured I could probably swap some of my 3x8GB RAM sticks in, reuse the monitors, and throw the hard drive into a case as an external. Didn't know what to do, if anything, with the graphics and the mobo. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
GPU and Mobo are old and not very useful or worth much As for putting parts in a new prebuilt, i'm not sure what could be done. That one looks okay but unexceptional - no SSD stands out and the case/PSU in it is probably cheaped out to save money. Graphics card is decently fast but not high end. There's a big new CPU gen coming in a month and some graphics card refreshes too so it's probably worth waiting 'til then. Either way i think there are some higher quality builders out there although i can't name any off the top of my head, some have been covered on tech media like gamersnexus and linus tech tips of youtube. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11990 Posts
As Cyro mentioned, i wouldn't build a PC without an SSD nowadays. The QoL of booting your PC and loading stuff faster is certainly worth it. Assume that that thing has a very cheap motherboard, cheap PSU, cheap cooling setup. Even if you don't want to build it yourself, it might be better to build a part list yourself, and just let the shop build it for you (I think many do that for cheap). Or at least try to figure out exactly which parts are in there, or buy something that doesn't hide information about things like PSU or Mobo from you. Everything that is not explicitly mentioned in the description is the cheapest variant of the thing which they could find. Which usually isn't what you want, especially in the case of a PSU. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
As Cyro mentioned, i wouldn't build a PC without an SSD nowadays. The QoL of booting your PC and loading stuff faster is certainly worth it. I've gone all-SSD on the drives that are always plugged into my system. Even if you're not using them Windows is pretty stupid about when it absolutely has to hang your system for 5 seconds to spin up a HDD. Even the lower end systems that i build have 250GB ssd's these days since the price has come down so much. Even if you don't want to build it yourself, it might be better to build a part list yourself, and just let the shop build it for you (I think many do that for cheap). Ya there are plenty that have: A: Prebuilts that list most/all parts and are similar to what somebody would actually build piece-by-piece B: System configurators that let you select many/all parts and have somebody build for you. In the UK for example the main one is www.overclockers.co.uk | ||
|
zekiY
United States11 Posts
If the info is needed, I pretty much have the same build as I did here, but upgraded to a GTX970 a couple years ago. https://tl.net/forum/tech-support/426532-computer-build-upgrade-and-buying-resource-thread?page=260#5198 | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11990 Posts
Either you buy a mainboard kind of similar to the one you already had to replace the old one, and leave everything else be (cheap) Or you buy a new set of mainboard, CPU and RAM as an upgrade. (expensive) | ||
|
zekiY
United States11 Posts
After looking around it seems it is definitely the time to go 16 gb of RAM. Any reason why I would hold off on that? How about a ryzen 2600 vs a 9400f? Equal in pricing but it seems that AMD might require more expensive RAM for better performance. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
The ryzen 2000 series is being replaced with much better (and sometimes even cheaper, iirc) CPU's in a month | ||
|
zekiY
United States11 Posts
Right now I'm looking at this for ram https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B2Y1N8B/ Actually i could probably wait and snag a 3600x when it gets released. Any specific type of motherboard I should get now for that? I've seen tomahawk b450 thrown around as an option. Some recs to wait for the new motherboards but I need the replacement sooner rather than later. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On June 05 2019 11:32 zekiY wrote: Right now I'm looking at this for ram https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B2Y1N8B/ Actually i could probably wait and snag a 3600x when it gets released. Any specific type of motherboard I should get now for that? I've seen tomahawk b450 thrown around as an option. Some recs to wait for the new motherboards but I need the replacement sooner rather than later. If you need the replacement before the 3600x release then you'd be getting a 2000 series CPU, no? For future compatibility.. it's unfortunately complicated and i can't give good recommendations | ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
On May 25 2019 04:30 Cyro wrote: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-amd-storage-test-mds-zombieload-ridl-fallout,6146.html More performance losses with recent security mitigations, up to a 41% qd1 IO performance loss compared to unpatched. That puts AMD well in the lead for IO performance. Why do they quote the geometric mean as the number to pick? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On June 07 2019 07:53 Craton wrote: Why do they quote the geometric mean as the number to pick? No idea  | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
| ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
edit: some googling leads me to cooler master TX3 evo, guessing this is pretty much the only viable option | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
![[image loading]](https://images.anandtech.com/doci/14525/David_McAfee-Next_Horizon_Gaming-3rd_Gen_Ryzen_06092019-page-011.jpg) They used to have 65-70ns memory access latency before but now it's down to 40ns with higher end RAM, same as Intel. Meanwhile they've reduced L1 latency about 1.15x, reduced L2 latency by 1.5x, reduced L3 latency by 1.2x and doubled the L3 cache capacity. edit: A new interesting note about memory clocks for ryzen 3000: ![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/301664805998166016/588581842127683585/TravisK_DonW-Next_Horizon_Gaming-Ryzen_Deep_Dive_06092019-page-017.png) 1: They seem to be clocking very solidly, shouldn't be hard to use fast RAM. 2: The infinity fabric (link between ccx's and dies on the package) runs at the same frequency as the memory up to 3733mhz. At higher memory speeds, instead of disallowing memory over 3733mhz entirely they allow you to run it at half of the memory speed in order to increase the memory speed further without running the IF faster than it can handle. That means that speeds just slightly above 3733mhz (like 4000mhz) are probably bad to run as downclocking all of that other stuff on the CPU itself will probably hurt you more than it helps. You can technically run them but probably shouldn't. 3733 should be the "optimal" performance unless perhaps you're looking at speeds like 4500mhz for bandwidth heavy applications but there are almost no 24/7 end users doing that - the RAM, motherboard and sometimes even the voltages required to do it are prohibitive. -- edit2: That amount of L3 is pretty disgustingly high. Intel has a unified pool of 2MB L3 per core (any core can access any of it) so they total of 12-16MB of L3 on their 6-8 core chips. The ryzen 3000 12-core (which looks like the showstopper over here) has a dual chiplet, quad-ccx setup. L3 cache can be shared between cores but only within a given CCX. As there are 3 cores enabled per CCX, each set of 3 cores has a cache pool of 16MB L3 to work with; there are four of those, thus 64MB total L3 on the CPU. That's 5.33MB per core! That 12 core CPU can have four separate threads each in their own CCX eating 16MB of L3 each while my entire 8700k has a total of only 12MB of L3. The 16 core (up from 12 core) CPU will have the fourth core of each CCX enabled but it won't have any more L3 cache - it'll be 16MB per 4 cores now, instead of 16MB per 3. The IO, cache and memory performance will stay the same as the 12 core. Many tasks/games won't scale well from 12c24t to 16c32t so I'm anticipating that a rather limited set of workloads will be worth the price increase for general users. | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
| ||
| ||
