How to construct a project under $2000?
How to construct a project under $2000?
Approximate Purchase Date:
Mostly this week and next for sales. But I won't have a chance to actually assemble and test the buld until January, as I'll be quite busy all next month.
System Usage:
My current build is venerable: 480-190-440 mm LxWxH case with GTX 970 and i7-4790K. (Still within minimum spec for a lot of new 3D games!) That's for an idea of geometries; my tower shouldn't be much bigger than this. The purpose is the same as before: High-mid-tier future-proof gaming and general tasks for the long-term.
Budget Range:
The overall budget with monitor is not expected to exceed $2000 including tax, similar to my legacy build.
OS:
I have a PID-verified W10 Pro OEM key lying around, will take advantage of the free upgrade to W11.
OC:
Modest, if any. I'll look at XMP/EXPO and whatever the manufacturer profiles and reccs suggest.
Location:
NE US
The red headings are the ones I don't need advice on.
CPU:
The Ryzen 9900X looked interesting, being available on Amazon for $380 compared to $330 for the Intel 14700K. One problem with AMD5 sockets is that the motherboard selection seems to be more expensive than for LGA 1700. On the AMD side, I have a hard time telling what the performance differences should be between the 9700X, 7900X, 7700X and even 7600X3D, and the 9900X. If I can save up to $100, shouldn't I? 7800X3d is available for the same MSRP as the 9800X3D, so that is out of the question, and I don't want to pay the new X3D premium. I don't take the high-range Intel offerings into much consideration for their higher purchase and operating cost, including for better cooling. The Ultra series seems to be a bit less suited for gaming than the AMD alternatives, and the 265K currently only matches the 9900X on price point. But note that the 14900KF is actually also similar in price to the 9900X right now ($400 Newegg vs. $380 Amazon). Here is a list of all models I'm considering. Remember that all of them may roughly be at the same (Amazon) price point this week, with the 7700X ~$50 cheaper and the 9900X ~$50 more expensive.
14700K
7600X3D
7700X
7900X
9700X
9900X
In the past, I would have just looked at cores and clock speed, but that's not adequate for paring this spread. From benchmarks I've seen, 9900X often does worse than 9700X, both often do worse than 7000 gen, and 7900X often does worse than lower models in the same generation, X3D notwithstanding. What gives? My superficial impression was that the 9900X ought to be a bit better than the 14700K overall, with less lifetime power draw making up for higher purchase cost. Maybe the core configuration with higher-end AMD models is just too problematic? Tom's for its part recommends the 9700X or 14700K. At about the same price level, I would go for 9700X just because of the Intel 14th Gen stability issues. But then I see comments such as "buying a Ryzen 7 9700X for $329 over a $269 Ryzen 7 7700X (or a cheaper 7700) is unthinkable." So then 7900X for the same price as 9700X? But 7900X would have the same problem as 9900X with the core complexes. Ultimately, is there a good reason not to settle at the
9700X
at this price point and just make sure it's uprated for power draw?
CPU Fan
:
Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 S
GPU
:
Both 4070S and RX 7900GRE are available under $600 for now. The Galax looks to be an interesting 4070S. What's good for QoL about the 4070S is its compact size: the 7900GRE would require me to remove internal bays from my top case pick (see below) to fit. Their benchmarks are so close, or advantage the 4070S, that I'm OK with paying a modest premium for Nvidia. But my final decision on either card and submodel will also depend on ongoing price drops in the coming days.
MOBO:
I need the most help here. LGA1700 is simplest procedurally, as Z790 offeres a lot of relatively-affordable options. With AM5, I'm unsure which of
these chipsets
would be most suited for me. Besides being able to physically AND technically accommodate the CPU, GPU, and RAM and M2 speed, USB support is important to me. My requirements are: built-in wifi; bare minimum 4 USBA rear ports, preferably 6 with a good mix of gens; minimum 3 pr 4 system fan connections, 4 or 5 preferred; at least 3 SATA connections; preferred price range $100-200. Non-screw/lock-in M2 slots are a nice feature if available.
RAM:
2x16GB. After some reading I'm doubtful as to whether there is any benefit, or even a detriment, to RAM above 6000MHz speed. I do note that the price differentials between 5200 MHz and 6000/6400 are not necessarily large. As I understand it, few motherboards are rated to employ these speeds out of the box, but turning on XMP or EXPO will fix that with little manipulation. So for example (Amazon $):
GSkill Trident Neo 6000: $113 (-$3 RGB OR -$20 RGB with 36 Latency)
GSkill Trident Neo 6400: $120 (-$5 TZ5NR - what's the submodel difference?)
XPG Lancer 6400: $115
Corsair Vengeance 6400: $110
So the higher-latency Trident Neo 6000 for $90 makes the most sense. For being the cheapest option, Tom's benchmarks show basically no performance loss for the higher latency, and it sounds like the major brands converge on the same performance for the same frequency.
PSU:
Corsair RM850e Gold?
I haven't spent much time on this, but maybe my current 750W build lasted so long because there wasn't much more than 50% utilization by cumulative TDP rating, so a 850W upgrade might be worth it. There isn't much of a price premium over 750W, and many of the options cluster around
$100
. Besides all the standard stuff, I just need at least a couple of - preferably 3 - SATA connectors, which almost any PSU should still have. One question would be whether it's advantageous to choose an ATX 3.0-standard PSU, when the GPUs I'm considering don't require it. Will it benefit GPU performance to have a 12VHPWR connector instead of two 8-pins?
Case:
I like the design and size of the Fractal Define R5. It even has a 5.25 bay for optical drives, which is a requirement. One potential advantage of the R5 is more support for 140mm fans. But I would also prefer front-loading USB ports instead of top. 2 USB minimum, 3 or 4 system fan minimum. Velcro straps for cabling? Antec P101 Silent is an alternative. As is the Coolermaster N400, for an example of a fronted USB/button interface and loads of fans. (For the N400, please disambiguate the following:
Case Fans:
What are good case fans 120/140mm for $10-20 each? Two top fans, a bottom or side fan, and a rear fan seem like enough.
These seem
pretty good and cheap though. I can probably buy fans at the end of the process.
SSD
:
WD Black 850X 2TB, already received with heatsink. Can return if a better deal appears, but it's a bit of a questionable practice.
HDD:
WD 6TB 7200 RPM/128 MB cache or Seagate BarraCuda 5400RPM/256 MB cache
I'm not sure which of these would be better performance-wise - the higher RPM, or the larger cache. Which boosts speed most here? Really, I'm not even sure I should get an HD at all. The very fast HP Gen4 NVMe FX900 Pro is $200, and slower Gen4 at $180-90. But there are multiple used commercial 6/8TB HDD models with both high cache and RPM for $100 or less. There's even this
10TB refurb
with high RPM and cache for <$100. that's less than half the price range for 4TB NVMe such as the WD Black, or even the FX900 Pro, above. A storage NVME would be very nice, but a solid HDD can easily bulk me up indefinitely (as my current one has), whereas if I really need it, there will probably be 6TB NVMe on the market in the $100-200 price range within a couple of years. Also, my suggested cases have loads of 3.5-inch bays to be taken advantage of. The bottom line is I don't need more than 4TB right away, but will eventually. I can probably also carry over my veteran 3TB Toshiba to use for backups.
Monitor:
I have two QHD options in mind, one $100 with tax, but I'd like to hear: Is there a point to 180 Hz over 100 Hz? The former is $150 with tax. I don't have any pretentions to being a competitive gamer or professional video editor, and I have poor eyesight.
The CPU choice is a complex discussion. Perhaps the performance differences between the new 9000 series against the 7000 chips is confusing to you because, funnily enough, the new ones are remarkably similar to the 7000 series in terms of real world 1440p gaming performance. In terms of bog standard 8 core 7000 and 9000 series chips, the important question you need to answer is where you will be spending money. If you are playing at 1440p resolution, where the GPU is going to be slammed significantly harder than the CPU, it's really a matter of which performance class you are willing to settle on. If every penny you save on your CPU is getting put into a more powerful video card, the
Ryzen 7700X
will be more than enough for a long time. I wouldn't buy a CPU at any performance tier above the 7700X unless you are willing to shell out for a X3D product, because the benefits are not going to outweigh the cost.
On another note, Intel has supposedly fixed their suicidal 13th and 14th gen CPUs as of October, but time will tell if they really found a permanent fix. Am I willing to shell out 300+ dollars on a CPU that shouldn't have had this problem in the first place? My answer is no. Yours might be different. Regardless of which brand you go with, remember than Ryzen's X and Intel's K chips do not come with a box heatsink. Either step down to the 7700, or thow in a tower cooler. This
Thermalright Peerless Assassin
is a ridiculous amount of cooling performance for the price, and will keep the 7700X performing optimally. Alternatively, you could reuse an old cooler you have on hand if you can order the AM5 mounting hardware from the manufacturer. They will typically send these parts out free of charge.
AM5 boards were certainly expensive at launch, but you can find adequate boards for around 100 bucks, and can find great ones for around 200 dollars if you want more features and flexibility. For the sake of this guide, I am assuming you went with the recommended 7700X. Unless you are doing some wicked overclocking, buying into something like X670 and X870 is simply a waste of your money. Modern motherboard VRMs will be more than adequate for the majority of CPUs, and performance difference will be imperceptible. With all that said, a solid 200 dollar board for me would be something like the
MSI MAG Tomahawk B650
. Plenty of expansion, PCIe slots, lots of IO, and clean (in my opinion) aesthetics.
You are on the right track in terms of memory, but you need to ensure you have low enough latency for Ryzen. This
G.Skill Trident Neo 6000
is 100 bucks, has 6000 speeds, and a CAS latency of 30. These are all important values, but the First Word Latency is a big one too, which basically measures the timings of the DIMM. For Ryzen, you really want to be shooting for no higher than ten miliseconds, and this kit meets that metric. If you have some extra cash and you want to spring for something nicer to squeeze as much performance out of your 7700X as possible, this
G.Skill Neo 6400
has lower First Word latency and higher speeds. If it was me, I would pay the extra twenty bucks for the 4% performance improvement.
The
WD Black 850X
is fine, as long as the SSD you are buying has high write endurance and comes with a DRAM Cache, you can't really go wrong. I personally prefer Samsung, and I'm okay with paying a little more for their reliability track record, but again, the 850X will serve you well.
The
WD Black 6TB
is honestly a better deal than I expected, and you're only saving about 15 dollars if you step down to the 4TB model, so this would be a decent choice. If you need the capacity only a hard drive can provide, I would not go any slower than 7200.
The
Corsair RM850e
is an excellent choice for a PSU, but you are paying a little extra for the Corsair brand. You could opt to save some money by going with a different brand, or going with a 750 watt PSU, which will already be more than enough, but that's up to you.
I'm the kind of guy who has a hard time spending money on things I don't really need, and considering the Cooler Master N400 is the cheapest case out of the bunch and ticks most of your boxes, I would say its adequate. As far as fan choices,
Arctic fans
are the obvious choice in terms of bang for buck. There are fans that are way quieter, or move way more air, but expect to pay three or four times the price.
That leaves about 750 bucks for a video card, with an additional 250 for a monitor. Considering how much room is left in your budget, I would grab the
RTX 4070 Ti Super
, unless you plan to use zero of Nvidia's proprietary features. If you like and plan on using DLSS, Ray Tracing, Nvidia Reflex, or Nvidia Broadcast, then that is the clear choice. If you don't want to spend nearly 800 dollars on a video card, the
AMD Radeon 7900XT
is a compelling option, trading blows with the 4070 Ti Super, while costing nearly 150 dollars less. If you want the Nvidia route and still want something cheaper, the
4070 Super
is a decent option, but will not perform as well as the 7900XT in terms of rasterized games.
For your reference,
here
is the completed list. Feel free to ask any questions or clarifications. Hopefully I didn't go overboard with the explanations.
Thanks for the advice.
Tom's
happened to bench both the higher and lower latency submodels of the GSkill Trident Neo 6000, and there really seems to be no difference. In that case, saving $20 is an easy choice. As for upping to 6400, other reviews I've seen indicate that on the CPUs and MBs I'm considering, there is no benefit of 6400 against 6000. While $25 to Trident Neo 6400 is not that much, it is equivalent to the CD/DVD drive I want. After all, $2000 is my ceiling, not a target.
Given that both 7900GRE and 4700 Super are currently retailing, and may continue to, in the neighborhood of +/-$550, I don't want to spend extra hundreds for a bit more capacity and may as well put it to savings. For example, the most demanding ask I made of my old GTX 970 was heavily-modded Skyrim. I'm not doing 4K gaming, but I'm willing to give 1440p a shot.
Speaking of which, do you have any thoughts on the
monitor options
I presented, the 100 Hz vs 180 Hz?
The WD 6TB link is mostly unavailable now. My questions about cache vs. RPM stand, but more importantly, for savings alone should I go for the previously-linked GST Ultrastar He10 Enterprise? It's a 10TB refurb with high cache and RPM, just $80. With this and other sizy refurb options in the same price range, I could even get two and set up RAID for more security, though I would still have the original drive, after all.
...
CPUs just got even more complicated: Amazon price drop on 7900X to $300. On the other hand, Microcenter is offering
this bundle
of 9700X, Gigabyte B650 GAMING X AX V2, and G.Skill Flare X5 32GB DDR5-6000 (equivalent to GSkill Trident Neo) for just $430, which is a savings over individual components of at least $150. The drawback is that the
Gigabyte MB
is not quite perfect on RAM, and moreover only supports 3 system fans. A mobo upgrade version adds $50.
Moreover, there's a
similar bundle
with 7800X3D for $650, which is also basically within my $2000 budget ($1300 with GPU and tax, + case/PSU/fans/storage/monitor). The motherboard is Asus Rog Strix B650-A, which is clearly good.
There's even a bundle with 7800X3D and 7900XT, but it's actually disadvantageous by prorating the 7900XT to $700, where it's currently less than that for some vendors. But I don't think I want the trouble of adopting 7900XT.
PCPartPicker Part List
CPU:
*
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 4.2 GHz 8-Core Processor
($459.00 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler:
*
ID-COOLING FROZN A620 PRO SE 58 CFM CPU Cooler
($29.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard:
*
MSI MAG B650 TOMAHAWK WIFI ATX AM5 Motherboard
($179.99 @ Amazon)
Memory:
*
TEAMGROUP T-Create Expert 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory
($81.99 @ Newegg)
Storage:
*
MSI SPATIUM M482 Eco-Pack 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive
($89.99 @ MSI)
Video Card:
*
MSI SHADOW 3X OC GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER 16 GB Video Card
($749.98 @ Newegg)
Case:
*
Montech AIR 903 BASE ATX Mid Tower Case
($59.88 @ Newegg)
Power Supply:
*
MSI MAG A850GL PCIE5 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply
($84.99 @ Amazon)
Monitor:
*
MSI G272QPF E2 27.0" 2560 x 1440 180 Hz Monitor
($169.99 @ MSI)
Total:
$1905.80
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by
PCPartPicker
2024-11-28 03:56 EST-0500
Let's explore your initial worry. I thought 2000 USD was the range you were aiming for, and that’s where I got confused because of a misinterpretation of your message. If your goal is to get the most value for your money, you should skip the 6400 memory kit and choose the G.Skill 6000 instead. As discussed before, as long as the First Word latency stays at ten or lower, you’re all set. Spending around 100 dollars on a solid 32GB fast memory is perfectly suitable within your budget. We’ll discuss how the bundles you mentioned affect this.
It appears you’re aiming to keep spending under 600 dollars on a graphics card, which makes sense. Most of what I said before still holds true. With your target of around 600 dollars, I’d recommend the 4070 Super if it falls between the 7900 GRE and the 6400 series. I know you’re trying to save every penny, but the 4070 Super offers improved AI Upscaler, enhanced Frame Generation, superior Ray Tracing, plus features like Nvidia Reflex. If you’re certain you won’t notice any drawbacks, you can save 50 dollars and still enjoy the 7900 GRE. Still, the 4070 Super remains a safer pick between the two options.
Regarding RPM versus cache, it really depends on your needs. For example, comparing a drive with 5400 RPM and 512MB of cache to one with 7200 RPM and 256MB, when copying a 10GB file, the latter will always start faster. As the cache fills up, the first slows down significantly, while the second keeps up better. You’ll notice this in Windows when performance drops during file transfers. A larger cache is better for quick read/write bursts, whereas higher RPM shines for continuous writes. Since most game loading involves sustained writes, a faster drive with less cache usually performs better overall.
This doesn’t drastically affect raw gaming speed, though. Once the drive loads, most assets are already in memory and video RAM, so it’s not a priority. Generally, going with a 7200 RPM drive offers better overall performance than a slightly faster one for small files. Enterprise drives are great for heavy data handling or security systems, but they’re not ideal for everyday gaming or mixed tasks.
If you can access Micro Center and grab the bundle, go ahead and buy it—especially if you’re okay with the motherboard. Even if not, spending about 50 dollars on an upgraded board is still cheaper than my setup, plus it includes a newer CPU and faster memory for less cost.
The second bundle with the X3D chip sounds appealing, but it’s better to stick with the first option and invest in a more capable card, which will boost performance—especially at 1440p.
A common oversight when building a PC is neglecting the monitor. If you’re spending nearly two thousand dollars on your system, you should invest significantly more in a good monitor. You’ll want one that matches your PC’s capabilities. I’ve never heard of KTC, and I’m not confident it will exceed its price point. A better match would be the
AOC Q27G3XMN
— a 27" Mini LED panel with high refresh rate, strong contrast, and decent response times. If that’s a bit over budget, the Dell G2724D is a reasonable choice for your price range. But if it doesn’t fit, you might consider reducing your GPU or CPU budget.
Alternatively, you could save a few dollars by choosing a more affordable motherboard, fewer fans, a cheaper case, or less storage.
I'm facing some challenges that don't fully align with my needs, but I'm nearing a decision as we discussed. As mentioned earlier, I'm considering the 4070S. The upcoming sales period—such as Cyber Monday—will likely influence my final choice, including any submodels. Perhaps the launch of next-generation GPUs in January could create fresh opportunities within the return window. While I'm not the most enthusiastic about this shift, I plan to commit to a product that will serve me well for the next ten years.
The high-resolution display is still a priority—something above 24 inches would be ideal, depending on what fits comfortably in my peripheral vision. I've relied on monitors like this since the end of the XP era. Even a 24-inch QHD at 100 Hz would represent a significant improvement for me. However, investing heavily in high refresh rates and large sizes might not yield much advantage over my natural visual perception. For instance, my DLSS performance comparisons haven't shown any noticeable pixel-level gains. This doesn’t mean I’m blind; it just indicates my diminishing returns are far less than those who insist on 4K X00 Herz.
I still appreciate the jump from Skyrim Ultra settings to Ultra textures with HD. Of course, with the current budget, I can afford to splurge an extra $50 for a higher refresh-rate model, though it matches the price of your recommended Dell 27". But I’ll test this idea by visiting the local Micro Center and experimenting with bigger screens to see what feels right.
Based on my research, the 9700X bundle seems like the most efficient option, offering longevity and performance. Some EXPO and power unlock features should help it surpass or match the 7800X3D in most tasks, including demanding games. The main hurdles will be assembling and initializing everything next year. Overall, I expect the final cost to fall between $1800 and $1900, adjusted for taxes, assuming this bundle performs well alongside the available GPUs.
I'm reviewing the Fractal Define 5 ($10 more than N400) to assess its comfort features. It includes two 140mm fans. The motherboard provides four system fan headers, which seems adequate as a standard setting. Would it be better to set the remaining two fans to 120 or 140mm (such as Arctic P14), regardless of the case?
The case's fan arrangement shows one fan on the back-front-top-bottom position. Should I stick with that layout?
There is also a built-in low-med-high SATA fan controller switch. Should I connect it and use it, or should I leave it for software control?
It mainly comes down to whether you prefer positive or negative air pressure. For even airflow, place two fans at the front to bring in fresh air, then one at the back, followed by another on the top left, as far back as possible inside the case. Since both inlets and outlets are pulling and pushing air, this setup keeps the flow balanced—managing dust buildup (negative pressure) and maintaining adequate airflow (positive pressure). Ideally, use the biggest fan you can fit in those four spots, such as a 140mm model. A bigger fan moves more air at lower speed, resulting in a quieter operation. The drawback of using larger fans is higher replacement costs if they fail, though the price gap between 120 and 140mm is small. If you decide to add more fans later, consider a simple fan splitter connected to a motherboard header, or opt for a fan hub for a cleaner look. Remember, all fans connected via a splitter will follow the same fan curve from that single header.
The distinction lies in positioning: placing the second rear fan beside the side window versus aligning it at the top left. As for the 3-speed fan controller, what are your thoughts?