• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"I Need a New PC!" 2017 The Ryzing of Kaby Lake and NVMwhee!

Frostman

Member
Hello everyone! I will be getting a new HD soon, but the Sata cable from the PSU won't be able to reach it, in the 3.5' slot. I'm looking into a cable extension but can't help questioning how reliable and compatible they are?

I've read stories online of problems when involving different cables/Extensions etc, so thought it was worth it to question here. Has anybody had any experience with this?
 

forrest

formerly nacire
Yeah I think Volta will end up being what 1080 Ti is now - $700-$800. Obviously it'll perform better - question is just how much better - but if you're willing to spend that much now, then you could wait 6 months and get an even better card. My rule is within 6 months I'll usually wait.

If you don't wait, I say still shoot for the Ti now.

Yeah waiting for Volta sounds really tempting. At this point I have to wonder though, is it really 6 months out? Will that just be for founders editions of the cards? How long until 3rd party companies start putting out their versions of the cards? What will pricing and availability be like when they do get released?

I'll probably just go into a bit of a holding pattern and keep up with any news/leaks/rumors that may lead to a more educated decision on waiting/not waiting. I will say as someone who has an Ncase M1 build that my MSI GTX 970 sits in, the idea of an upgrade MSI 1080(ti), with the same physical dimensions is very tempting. My guess is worrying about the Volta cards not fitting is probably wasted energy, but I'm curious how the new chips will affect final dimensions.
 

ZZMitch

Member
Hey GAF, what do you think of this build? Price is in CAD.

https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/ZZMitch/saved/HHk6XL

- Case: 94.50 - NZXT - S340 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case
- GPU: 648.50 - Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Turbo OC Video Card
- CPU: 259.99 - AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor
- PSU: 89.98 - SeaSonic - G 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply
- RAM: 169.99 - G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory
- SSD: 179.99 - ADATA - Ultimate SU800 512GB 2.5" Solid State Drive
- Motherboard: 109.99 - Gigabyte - GA-AB350-GAMING 3 ATX AM4 Motherboard
+
OS: 102.78 - Windows 10 64-Bit
Total: 1657.70

This is my first time building a PC so I am pretty nervous and want to make sure all the parts work together and stuff. PC partpicker says they will be compatible but I want to make sure by posting here! I am particularly cautious about the motherboard because it seems cheap.. I am hoping to spend around 1600 CAD (+ tax) but would be willing to go up a bit if needed.

My monitor is 1080p/60hz at the moment. I believe this build should allow me to play pretty much everything at max setting 60 fps yes? I may upgrade to a better 1440p monitor at some point and this should handle that as well I believe.

Also one thing I need to confirm is WiFi connectivity since I don't have access to an ethernet connection. Do I need to buy some sort of Wifi adapter as well?

Thanks for the help.

edit: changing up the motherboard to Gigabyte - GA-AB350-GAMING 3 ATX AM4 Motherboard https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product...aming-3-atx-am4-motherboard-ga-ab350-gaming-3. Looks like people like it better and only a few dollars more.
 
If I were in the market for a GPU today (I'm not), I'd not be waiting for Volta, assuming I had the cash on-hand. If Volta launches in March (~6 months from now), we'll have another few weeks or more until 3rd party cards come out... and who knows how the availability will be. That's not even mentioning that the performance may not be a huge leap, especially seeing as how Vega failed to really put any pressure on Nvidia. I just don't see the need for Nvidia to do anything drastic right now.
 
D

Deleted member 22576

Unconfirmed Member
Does anyone run a mouse through a USB hub?
Thinking about reorganizing some things and would like to do this, but am worried about loss of fidelity or something..
 

FHIZ

Member
Also one thing I need to confirm is WiFi connectivity since I don't have access to an ethernet connection. Do I need to buy some sort of Wifi adapter as well?

Unless your motherboard comes with a wifi antenna included, you'll have to find another solution. You can either get PCI wifi cards or a USB wifi adapter. I got a motherboard that came with wifi for this exact reason, but if you had to go with one of the other two alternatives, I think PCI cards are generally more reliable than USB adapters.
 

ZZMitch

Member
Unless your motherboard comes with a wifi antenna included, you'll have to find another solution. You can either get PCI wifi cards or a USB wifi adapter. I got a motherboard that came with wifi for this exact reason, but if you had to go with one of the other two alternatives, I think PCI cards are generally more reliable than USB adapters.

Okay thanks for the info.

With how my set up works I will have a laptop open next to my desktop (pretty much as a second screen). Could I run a short ethernet cord from my laptop to my desktop?

edit: will probably just pick up one of these PCI cards as you said. https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B007GMPZ0A/
 

ss_lemonade

Member
Also one thing I need to confirm is WiFi connectivity since I don't have access to an ethernet connection. Do I need to buy some sort of Wifi adapter as well?
You could use an android phone if you wanted to. Just have it connect to your desired wireless access point, plug it to your PC via usb and enable USB tethering on the phone. An adapter or motherboard with wifi support would obviously be more convenient though
 

ZZMitch

Member
Well since I didn't have any complaints and one of the sales on the items I had on my list was ending I went ahead and pulled to trigger! Everything should be here within a week or so hopefully.

I am going to check with my school and see if I can somehow snag a cheap copy of Windows 10 (they sell it for $13 for staff... wonder if TA + PhD student would be enough to get that price haha)
 
Well since I didn't have any complaints and one of the sales on the items I had on my list was ending I went ahead and pulled to trigger! Everything should be here within a week or so hopefully.

I am going to check with my school and see if I can somehow snag a cheap copy of Windows 10 (they sell it for $13 for staff... wonder if TA + PhD student would be enough to get that price haha)

Good stuff. What are you doing your phd in?
 

ZZMitch

Member
Good stuff. What are you doing your phd in?

Broadly it's about using satellite imagery to monitor forest health in southern Ontario. This computer is mainly for gaming but it will be helpful for doing some of the more intense imagery analysis stuff when at home as well.
 
Broadly it's about using satellite imagery to monitor forest health in southern Ontario. This computer is mainly for gaming but it will be helpful for doing some of the more intense imagery analysis stuff when at home as well.

Rad, sounds fun. What school? I did my PhD at Western.
 

ZZMitch

Member
Rad, sounds fun. What school? I did my PhD at Western.

University of Toronto Mississauga!

Just moved here recently after spending 2 years at Queens for my Masters. I remember they don't like Western there. Saw some undergrads with Wuck Festern shirts on every so often haha.
 

aznpxdd

Member
What's the best option in terms of a small gaming system that belongs under the TV? Something similar to the Zotac Zbox EN1070 or MSI Trident 3. While I know they are not the best value-wise, I really just need something that's real slim that can max out 1080p gaming in the living room.
 

hoserx

Member
Third party seller lol

Haha, yeah. That being said , $281 is a pretty good price for the 7700k (amazon's price.)

One thing I've never noticed is this:

"Works with Windows 10 Only"

What the fuck does that even mean? Haha. What a load of shit.

edit: oops, this is the 7700 not the 7700k. My bad.
 
Don't waste your time buying an i7-7700 for $20. It is either a scam and will just waste your time as you deal with getting a refund from Amazon or it is a piece mistake and the order will be cancelled any.

My two cents, anyway.
 

Pokemaniac

Member
So now that the i7 8700k is confirmed for October 5th, anyone have any idea when that might go up for pre-order? Wondering if I should watch for that during work today.
 

m29a

Neo Member
I'm not too familiar with these third party sellers. Are they just gonna send an empty box or are they gonna cancel orders? I thought it would be safe even if I ended up cancelling because it's through amazon, not something like ebay.

From what I've read, what they do is take your information and do whatever they want with it. That's the whole concept. Otherwise it'd be a waste of time on their part. This happens fairly often with expensive items on Amazon.
 
Winner winner chicken dinner

My 580 8GB pre-order has been invoiced at £102
Expected dispatch 1 month

Amazon price error that happened at some point I don't know about!
 
Lots of Coffee Lake news out today. Release date is October 5th. Full reviews and benchmarks go up October 5th as well. I won't be replacing my Ryzen 1700, but I'm excited to see the benchmarks.
 

B0HICAH

Neo Member
Current PC specs:
MSI Armor 1060 6GB
Intel 7600k i5
Corsair Vengeance 16gb RAM (2X 8GB)
ASRock Z270 ProM

Goal: 144hz gaming

Hey there folks. I'm looking for a GPU and Monitor upgrade in the next few months. I've pretty much decided on grabbing a 1070ti if those rumors turn out to be true. If not I'm going to go with a 1080.

I'm currently running on a 1080p/60hz screen and I want to upgrade. Preferably to a 1440/144hz monitor that will last me a while. Would a 1070ti (or 1080 if the 1070ti doesn't exist) be good enough to run games at high/ultra settings on a 1440/144 monitor or should I settle for a 1080/144 screen?

Thank you for your advice.
 

ISee

Member
Current PC specs:
MSI Armor 1060 6GB
Intel 7600k i5
Corsair Vengeance 16gb RAM (2X 8GB)
ASRock Z270 ProM

Goal: 144hz gaming

Hey there folks. I'm looking for a GPU and Monitor upgrade in the next few months. I've pretty much decided on grabbing a 1070ti if those rumors turn out to be true. If not I'm going to go with a 1080.

I'm currently running on a 1080p/60hz screen and I want to upgrade. Preferably to a 1440/144hz monitor that will last me a while. Would a 1070ti (or 1080 if the 1070ti doesn't exist) be good enough to run games at high/ultra settings on a 1440/144 monitor or should I settle for a 1080/144 screen?

Thank you for your advice.

144Hz at 1440p needs high end tier of hardware. You'll need a better CPU und GPU for that. I'd recommend a 7700k and at least a 1080 for 1440p/100+ at medium-high settings in modern AAA games. If you want high-ultra settings you'll need a 1080Ti.
 
Current PC specs:
MSI Armor 1060 6GB
Intel 7600k i5
Corsair Vengeance 16gb RAM (2X 8GB)
ASRock Z270 ProM

Goal: 144hz gaming

Hey there folks. I'm looking for a GPU and Monitor upgrade in the next few months. I've pretty much decided on grabbing a 1070ti if those rumors turn out to be true. If not I'm going to go with a 1080.

I'm currently running on a 1080p/60hz screen and I want to upgrade. Preferably to a 1440/144hz monitor that will last me a while. Would a 1070ti (or 1080 if the 1070ti doesn't exist) be good enough to run games at high/ultra settings on a 1440/144 monitor or should I settle for a 1080/144 screen?

Thank you for your advice.

I'm not even sure a 1080 can do Ultra+1440p+144Hz consistently. I'd be surprised if a 1070 Ti can... But you'd need to wait for benchmarks.

If you stick to high settings instead of ultra, a 1080 will be great for what you're wanting. We really can't say much about the 1070 Ti without seeing benchmarks, but my guess is that you'd be disappointed with the result considering you'll probably be able to get a 1080 for $50 more.
 

B0HICAH

Neo Member
I'm not even sure a 1080 can do Ultra+1440p+144Hz consistently. I'd be surprised if a 1070 Ti can... But you'd need to wait for benchmarks.

If you stick to high settings instead of ultra, a 1080 will be great for what you're wanting. We really can't say much about the 1070 Ti without seeing benchmarks, but my guess is that you'd be disappointed with the result considering you'll probably be able to get a 1080 for $50 more.


Oof, this isn't what I was hoping for haha. Would a 1080 be fine for 1080p/144hz at high/ultra? I can stick with my current resolution but want to hit 144hz if possible. I'd like the GPU to last me at least two years so I suppose using a standard resolution like 1080 will help with longevity. Thank you!
 
Oof, this isn't what I was hoping for haha. Would a 1080 be fine for 1080p/144hz at high/ultra? I can stick with my current resolution but want to hit 144hz if possible. I'd like the GPU to last me at least two years so I suppose using a standard resolution like 1080 will help with longevity. Thank you!

Double-check benchmarks for the specific games you want to play with a GTX 1080. Witcher 3 for example will be a lot harder to run at 1440p than Overwatch.
 

ZZMitch

Member
Lots of Coffee Lake news out today. Release date is October 5th. Full reviews and benchmarks go up October 5th as well. I won't be replacing my Ryzen 1700, but I'm excited to see the benchmarks.

So as someone who is just getting into the PC building scene... this is Intels response to Ryzens current line of CPUs?

Looking at the prices (from https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...-desktop-processors-faster-gaming-performance) it looks like the...

i7-8700, with six cores / 12 threads and clocked at 3.2GHz (with a boost of up to 4.6GHz) for approximately $303 USD is the "equivalent" to the Ryzen 5 1600? It at least seems so from the info there. Why is it much more expensive then (I just bought the 1600 for about $210 USD)? Is it the better overclocking speed or something else we don't know about until benchmarks?

Just trying to learn how this all works haha.
 

enewtabie

Member
Oof, this isn't what I was hoping for haha. Would a 1080 be fine for 1080p/144hz at high/ultra? I can stick with my current resolution but want to hit 144hz if possible. I'd like the GPU to last me at least two years so I suppose using a standard resolution like 1080 will help with longevity. Thank you!


You could play 1440p at high frames but not consistently 144hz with a 1070. Depends on the games. I play 2560x1440p on Ultra/High on every game I play(got a good lottery pick I think) BF1 plays in 100s, Gears in 100. PUBG however only plays 60-70 on High.
I'm running a water cooled 6700k though.

With the 1080ti available, I would definitely chose that if at all possible.
 

JWiLL

Banned
Oof, this isn't what I was hoping for haha. Would a 1080 be fine for 1080p/144hz at high/ultra? I can stick with my current resolution but want to hit 144hz if possible. I'd like the GPU to last me at least two years so I suppose using a standard resolution like 1080 will help with longevity. Thank you!

I have a 1080 and a 1440p/144hz G Sync and it's a fantastic combo.

You don't get the full 144hz in most games with Ultra settings, but with G Sync it doesn't matter. I highly recommend doing that over 1080p/144, 1440p with high refresh rate is amazing.

The 7600k should be fine as it overclocks extremely well, but if you want to future proof a bit more go with the i7. I don't know if there's any price difference, but maybe look at a 6700k as it's pretty much in line with a 7700k at the same clocks, and you'll get better thermals. That's what I'm using and it's been a beast so far.
 
So as someone who is just getting into the PC building scene... this is Intels response to Ryzens current line of CPUs?

Looking at the prices (from https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...-desktop-processors-faster-gaming-performance) it looks like the...

i7-8700, with six cores / 12 threads and clocked at 3.2GHz (with a boost of up to 4.6GHz) for approximately $303 USD is the "equivalent" to the Ryzen 5 1600? It at least seems so from the info there. Why is it much more expensive then (I just bought the 1600 for about $210 USD)? Is it the better overclocking speed or something else we don't know about until benchmarks?

Just trying to learn how this all works haha.

This is Intel's response, yes. I use the word "response" loosely, as it seems like Intel likely had this somewhat planned anyway, although there are definite indicators that this line was a bit rushed forward by Intel due to being modesty caught off-guard by the success of Ryzen.

There is no clear comparison to the Ryzen 1600 unfortunately, but I'd say your assessment is generally correct. It seems like the i7-8700 would be that comparison, but the 8700 can't be overclocked (the "k" at the end of Intel CPUs indicates if the CPU can be overclocked or not), so even though it matches the Ryzen 1600 in number of cores/threads, my guess is that an overclocked Ryzen 1600 will generally outperform the un-overclockable 8700. Hard to say without benchmarks.

So, the reason Intel CPUs cost more is 1) Intel has generally had significant market share leadership, so they can get away with it, 2) a lack of competition from AMD, and 3) because Intel's CPUs on a per core basis tend to be faster than AMD's Ryzen line on a per core basis. This is especially a true statement for the "k" series of Intel CPUs which can be overclocked. I'm not so confident that the 8700, which can't be overclocked, will really compete with the Ryzen 1600... and even if it does, it'd need to be quite a bit better to justify the >$100 price difference.

Basically, you're essentially correct with your post, except that the 8700 cannot be overclocked because it isn't an "unlocked" (i.e., "k") processor. The 8700k, however, is unlocked and thus it can be overclocked. It'll be a beast of a CPU I am guessing, but whether the price of the 8700k can be justified is yet to be seen. Gotta wait for dem benchmarks.
 
So I'm having some trouble picking out parts for my GF's computer for an upcoming surprise birthday/christmas present. I have carefully figured out a couple of the basics for things she would like in her first desktop without her knowing: 1) she would like to be white 2) she would like the box to be small. I have decided not to get her a graphics card yet because she gets her gaming fix via switch and she mainly needs a solid working desktop for school. Here's what I have picked out knowing this:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ZzdvXH

I really want to get her that Phanteks Evolv mini tower, however, I'm already a little bit above my budget of $500 and I don't want to push it. I essentially want to build her the fastest PC possible that allows me to get that case for less than $500. Any ideas on where I could cut some costs? The cheaper the better, really.
 
This is Intel's response, yes. I use the word "response" loosely, as it seems like Intel likely had this somewhat planned anyway, although there are definite indicators that this line was a bit rushed forward by Intel due to being modesty caught off-guard by the success of Ryzen.

There is no clear comparison to the Ryzen 1600 unfortunately, but I'd say your assessment is generally correct. It seems like the i7-8700 would be that comparison, but the 8700 can't be overclocked (the "k" at the end of Intel CPUs indicates if the CPU can be overclocked or not), so even though it matches the Ryzen 1600 in number of cores/threads, my guess is that an overclocked Ryzen 1600 will generally outperform the un-overclockable 8700. Hard to say without benchmarks.

So, the reason Intel CPUs cost more is 1) Intel has generally had significant market share leadership, so they can get away with it, 2) a lack of competition from AMD, and 3) because Intel's CPUs on a per core basis tend to be faster than AMD's Ryzen line on a per core basis. This is especially a true statement for the "k" series of Intel CPUs which can be overclocked. I'm not so confident that the 8700, which can't be overclocked, will really compete with the Ryzen 1600... and even if it does, it'd need to be quite a bit better to justify the >$100 price difference.

Basically, you're essentially correct with your post, except that the 8700 cannot be overclocked because it isn't an "unlocked" (i.e., "k") processor. The 8700k, however, is unlocked and thus it can be overclocked. It'll be a beast of a CPU I am guessing, but whether the price of the 8700k can be justified is yet to be seen. Gotta wait for dem benchmarks.
Supposedly the 8700 will do 4.3 GHz on all cores. If that's true it should be a fair bit faster than the ryzen 5, I would think.
 

ZZMitch

Member
This is Intel's response, yes. I use the word "response" loosely, as it seems like Intel likely had this somewhat planned anyway, although there are definite indicators that this line was a bit rushed forward by Intel due to being modesty caught off-guard by the success of Ryzen.

There is no clear comparison to the Ryzen 1600 unfortunately, but I'd say your assessment is generally correct. It seems like the i7-8700 would be that comparison, but the 8700 can't be overclocked (the "k" at the end of Intel CPUs indicates if the CPU can be overclocked or not), so even though it matches the Ryzen 1600 in number of cores/threads, my guess is that an overclocked Ryzen 1600 will generally outperform the un-overclockable 8700. Hard to say without benchmarks.

So, the reason Intel CPUs cost more is 1) Intel has generally had significant market share leadership, so they can get away with it, 2) a lack of competition from AMD, and 3) because Intel's CPUs on a per core basis tend to be faster than AMD's Ryzen line on a per core basis. This is especially a true statement for the "k" series of Intel CPUs which can be overclocked. I'm not so confident that the 8700, which can't be overclocked, will really compete with the Ryzen 1600... and even if it does, it'd need to be quite a bit better to justify the >$100 price difference.

Basically, you're essentially correct with your post, except that the 8700 cannot be overclocked because it isn't an "unlocked" (i.e., "k") processor. The 8700k, however, is unlocked and thus it can be overclocked. It'll be a beast of a CPU I am guessing, but whether the price of the 8700k can be justified is yet to be seen. Gotta wait for dem benchmarks.

Okay great thanks! So what do they mean by this bit from the 8700 description: "with a boost of up to 4.6GHz"

I interpreted it as how much you could overclock it but I guess that means something else if it cannot be overclocked?
 
Okay great thanks! So what do they mean by this bit from the 8700 description: "with a boost of up to 4.6GHz"

I interpreted it as how much you could overclock it but I guess that means something else if it cannot be overclocked?
That's how much it'll boost for a single core. For 2 cores, 4.5ghz, and for a workload using mores cores than that 4.3ghz. Basically it's easier to get high clocks when you don't have to ramp up all your cores.
 

ZZMitch

Member
That's how much it'll boost for a single core. For 2 cores, 4.5ghz, and for a workload using mores cores than that 4.3ghz. Basically it's easier to get high clocks when you don't have to ramp up all your cores.

Ah so it is the "Max Turbo Frequency" then? Which on the 1600 is 3.6Ghz I believe.
 

steadfast

Member
So I'm having some trouble picking out parts for my GF's computer for an upcoming surprise birthday/christmas present. I have carefully figured out a couple of the basics for things she would like in her first desktop without her knowing: 1) she would like to be white 2) she would like the box to be small. I have decided not to get her a graphics card yet because she gets her gaming fix via switch and she mainly needs a solid working desktop for school. Here's what I have picked out knowing this:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ZzdvXH

I really want to get her that Phanteks Evolv mini tower, however, I'm already a little bit above my budget of $500 and I don't want to push it. I essentially want to build her the fastest PC possible that allows me to get that case for less than $500. Any ideas on where I could cut some costs? The cheaper the better, really.

Power supply is way overkill for that build. Check out Seasonic or Corsair.
 
Man I haven't stepped into one of these threads in a while... probably quick question.

I've got an OC'd 4670k to 4.5ghz stable. I've been eyeing a 1080ti for a few days, coming from a 980ti. I probably don't need to upgrade CPU too right? Benchmarks tell me my CPU isn't too far off and probably isn't worth the extra $600ish, considering I'd have to basically start from the ground up. I haven't been following CPU advancements at all for a few years now. This PC is only used for gaming.
 
Man I haven't stepped into one of these threads in a while... probably quick question.

I've got an OC'd 4670k to 4.5ghz stable. I've been eyeing a 1080ti for a few days, coming from a 980ti. I probably don't need to upgrade CPU too right? Benchmarks tell me my CPU isn't too far off and probably isn't worth the extra $600ish, considering I'd have to basically start from the ground up. I haven't been following CPU advancements at all for a few years now. This PC is only used for gaming.

That CPU won't likely bottleneck your 1080 Ti. You should be all clear.
 
Top Bottom