New Build - 4k Future Proof - £2k budget

Plec said:
I'm scared to have an opinion, especially as he has his panel still to buy, as we could end up writing the definitive thread for the basic foundation build for an incremental, biyearly upgrade (which admittedly, Ryzen has catered for within its socket). And @Minato will be building a zen-3 based unit by the time we've baboozled him for 20 more pages :D (although he would only have the budget for 2080 over the 2070Super i think he's decided on)

Agree with you in principle - @Journey summarised it well earlier in the thread. I tend to look at the OP and try to judge their likely upgrade tendencies - @Minato's history errs on the side of comfortable shoes - i.e. he may not upgrade unless there's water leaking in and even then he may only resole (GPU).
Click to expand...


Lets be honest, for gaming no one is going to need to upgrade from a 3600 for a long time anyway. I could understand if he'd mentioned video editting or somethign a bit more CPU intensive but the 3600 just seems to tick all the boxes. And by the time its irrelavant, the 3700x won't be far away from either. (in before PS5 will utilise 9484989484 cores).

Its going to be ashame to have to chuck out the 5700XT in a year or two because it doesn't hit 60fps which we all know is the magical number for gaming to be palatable at any resolution. At 4k, the 3600 won't hold him back for a very very long time, the 5700Xt is. And I feel bad because he's spending A LOT of money so should at least be able to run a GPU which will give him a fighting chance at his desired resolutions.

I think a 2070 super or 2080 would be good choices for sure. Even a 1080ti.

Advice re: future proofing, the panel (i.e. a 21:9 instead of a 4k) will make Minato's setup more future proof than a 3700x will.
 
aoaaron said:
CPU's seem to exponenitally be improving year by year. GPUs not so much so I'd rather have the GPU horse power, especially if we're going to be gaming at 4k.
"4K 144Hz monitor like the Acer Nitro in future,"
Who in their right mind will think the 5700XT is anywhere near "future proof" for that?
Click to expand...
aoaaron said:
Its going to be ashame to have to chuck out the 5700XT in a year or two because it doesn't hit 60fps which we all know is the magical number for gaming to be palatable at any resolution. At 4k, the 3600 won't hold him back for a very very long time, the 5700Xt is. And I feel bad because he's spending A LOT of money so should at least be able to run a GPU which will give him a fighting chance at his desired resolutions.
Click to expand...

see below ;)

Minato said:
Fair shout, although as mentioned earlier the graphics card is the one component that I actively plan to upgrade over the lifespan of this build. So getting a card that's almost as good but cheaper if it means another part is noticeably better is a worth it trade imo.
Click to expand...
 
tamzzy said:
see below ;)
Click to expand...

Fair enough! Missed that.

@Minato , I personally don't see the logic in prioritising replacing GPUs over other components. GPUs will lose their retail value pretty fast and will be the most limiting factor in the next 1-2 years for you hitting 60fps at decent settings, especially at 4k. I get that a GPU is easiere to physically replace, but planning to upgrade and chuck out a £400 GPU is just a bit nonscensical IMO. I'd much rather swap out a £200 CPU than a £400 GPU. We've AT LAST in PC building come to a stage where we have an amazing value for money processor at the low end after years of Intel torture where they bent us over every year and charged through the roof for incremental upgrades. I can't understand why someone wouldn't take advantage of the 3600 unless they needed the cores now.

I guarantee when you boot up Cyberpunk and see the 5700XT struggling to maintain a decent FPS at 4k or 3440 you will be pretty upset. The 3600 will be sitting there at 40% usage or the 3700x at 30% usage (very very rough guestimations lol) either way.




______________________
I'd even argue that if Minato really does want to upgrade GPUs every year or so, then he will be better off saving the £200 from the 3600 to 3700X and just saving up for the next GPU Nvidia or AMD decide to overprice and shove down our throats.

As much as I love the AMD value in graphics cards compared to Nvidia, they CLEARLY are not interested in helping us who want 4k or 21:9 yet.
 
@aoaaron - he may be considering the RTX 2070Super - hard to tell from the way he signed off.
Minato said:
Going with the Gigabyte 2070 SUPER Gaming instead would be £1,633.85.
Click to expand...

Poor ol' @Minato - he's probably all tucked up, dreaming happy thoughts of finally committing to a build configuration that we all agree on and he's going to wake up to this :D

Although, @aoaaron, your widescreen experience will come in handy, as i have token experience with these and @Minato's head may certainly be turned from his initial 16:9 aspect ratio spec.

Not sure about @tamzzy(?) - pretty sure @orbitalwalsh will have played with a few.
 
@aoaaron i've argued the case for and against the 5700xt vs 2070super (and above)
essentially gpu performance (not necessarily value) increases much faster relative to a cpu's intergenerational performance...
for example 980ti < 1070 < 2060, essentially what was high end 4 years ago is mid-range now...

comparing price/perf
Code: 
card model:    performance %:    price £:     price % of 2080 super:      price/performance ratio relative to 2080S:

5700XT            79                400            55                                 1.43
2070 super        88                519            71                                 1.23
2080              94                630            86                                 1.09
2080 super        100               729           100                                 1.00
2080ti            116               1050          144                                 0.80
 
tamzzy said:
@aoaaron i've argued the case for and against the 5700xt vs 2070super (and above)
essentially gpu performance (not necessarily value) increases much faster relative to a cpu's intergenerational performance...
for example 980ti < 1070 < 2060, essentially what was high end 4 years ago is mid-range now...

comparing price/perf
Code: 
card model:    performance %:    price £:     price % of 2080 super:      price/performance ratio relative to 2080S:

5700XT            79                400            55                                 1.43
2070 super        88                519            71                                 1.23
2080              94                630            86                                 1.09
2080 super        100               729           100                                 1.00
2080ti            116               1050          144                                 0.80
Click to expand...


Its not really a matter of price/performance ratio though.

IMO its that magical number of being able to hit 60fps at 4k or 21:9.

I'd totally agree with price performance charts if we were gaming at 1440p or 1080p because it would be the case of 80fps vs 120 fps vs 150fps vs 200fps.. and at some point it just doesn't matter, especially with freesync/gsync.

However at 4k on AAA games, the difference between a 2080 and 5700Xt could be 10fps, which commonly is the difference between playable and unplayable. And only settings tinkering so much can remedy that (trust me, I had to do it on my 4k TV and it was a pain). I wish we weren't at the threshold of being able to reach 4k, but sadly we are. Nvidia have left us on the edge. I'd much rather have a card much more likely to be over that edge than under it.

As I said before (not sure if I said it clearly), price:performance, the 5700Xt is amazing at 1080p/1440p. At higher resolutions, it will give great price:performance but I'm reluctant to say it'll give us the smooth experience we need in PC gaming because of the sad fact that we're hovering around the 50-60fps (ignoring the 2080ti) at 4k.


You're right about GPU performance increasing compared to CPU performance and I agree. but I just don't think CPU performance NEEDs to increase past what it is for gaming at present. We barely have any games using our CPUs to 100% and thats unlikely to change next gen until at least a couple of years into development cycles for studios. I honestly struggle to see, given OP's use cases, any valid reason for the 3700x vs 3600 other than "future proofing" which we all know doesn't exist in the PC world.




I have an 8086/32GB RAM/2080 at present.
Have I ever used my 8086k in gaming to 100%? No. I've gamed at 4k and 21:9 and its never even been close to being pushed.
Has my 2080 been whirling around at full speed? Heck yes. Its JUST kept up with 4k, and in very demanding games, may need settings adjustment at 21:9. I don't think Cyberpunk or any upcoming AAA games are going to make things any better.
Lets not get started on the RAM which has never gone above 12GB...
 
Last edited:
Plec said:
CSL and FF
Click to expand...
:D indeed

aoaaron said:
However at 4k on AAA games, the difference between a 2080 and 5700Xt could be 10fps, which commonly is the difference between playable and unplayable. And only settings tinkering so much can remedy that (trust me, I had to do it on my 4k TV and it was a pain).
Click to expand...
4k is overrated, and currently most gpus don't have the grunt to run it at max settings. yes you can turn the settings down, but what's the point of a high fidelity low-res polygon? lol
1440p high refresh rate is the best bang/buck/combi currently
i've said it in numerous threads, one won't notice the detail difference in fast paced fps when comparing 4k to 1440p when running at the same detail settings...but will definitely notice the difference in fluidity
 
aoaaron said:
I'd totally agree with price performance charts if we were gaming at 1440p or 1080p because it would be the case of 80fps vs 120 fps vs 150fps vs 200fps.. and at some point it just doesn't matter, especially with freesync/gsync.

However at 4k on AAA games, the difference between a 2080 and 5700Xt could be 10fps, which commonly is the difference between playable and unplayable. And only settings tinkering so much can remedy that (trust me, I had to do it on my 4k TV and it was a pain).
Click to expand...
See, this cements my belief that 1440p is still the sweet spot for the average gamer - price/performance/combined with future graphically brutal title releases.

I agree with your card recommendation for considering 4K - but would argue that it also acts as a deterrent for recommending it for ~£1500 builds when they could have smooth, unhindered game-play at 1440p.

Although @Quartz will argue you can play on substantially lower spec cards - and still have an immersive experience, so clearly it's very subjective.
 
tamzzy said:
:D indeed


4k is overrated, and currently most gpus don't have the grunt to run it at max settings. yes you can turn the settings down, but what's the point of a high fidelity low-res polygon? lol
1440p high refresh rate is the best bang/buck/combi currently
i've said it in numerous threads, one won't notice the detail difference in fast paced fps when comparing 4k to 1440p when running at the same detail settings...but will definitely notice the difference in fluidity
Click to expand...

Not disgreeing with you. But OP said he wants a 4k Acer Nitro monitor.

I personally think the sweetspot for PC monitor gaming HAS to be 21:9 1440p gaming. It offers an aspect ratio and level of immersion unparallelled by ANYTHING the console community can offer (they can shove their 65inch+ TVs up their...) and the only thing bettering it is 32:9 (low support) and VR (limited games).

I think anyone building a rig and buying a panel now has to consider a 21:9 monitor. It turns gaming from feeling cramped into a spacious comfortable experience.

Resolution/pixel density wise, I completely agree with you. 1440p is the best for price/performance/fluidity and ultimately experience.. However I think 21:9 is the way to go, which still puts you into the territory where you will favor GPU power over price:performance.
 
aoaaron said:
Resolution/pixel density wise, I completely agree with you. 1440p is the best for price/performance/fluidity and ultimately experience.. However I think 21:9 is the way to go, which still puts you into the territory where you will favor GPU power over price:performance.
Click to expand...
We have all reached an accord - and one that hopefully @Minato will find appealing. :)
 
Plec said:
See, this cements my belief that 1440p is still the sweet spot for the average gamer - price/performance/combined with future graphically brutal title releases.

I agree with your card recommendation for considering 4K - but would argue that it also acts as a deterrent for recommending it for ~£1500 builds when they could have smooth, unhindered game-play at 1440p.

Although @Quartz will argue you can play on substantially lower spec cards - and still have an immersive experience, so clearly it's very subjective.
Click to expand...
tamzzy said:
:D indeed


4k is overrated, and currently most gpus don't have the grunt to run it at max settings. yes you can turn the settings down, but what's the point of a high fidelity low-res polygon? lol
1440p high refresh rate is the best bang/buck/combi currently
i've said it in numerous threads, one won't notice the detail difference in fast paced fps when comparing 4k to 1440p when running at the same detail settings...but will definitely notice the difference in fluidity
Click to expand...


Yup totally agree. Sadly, in my experience of using a 1440p 21:9 panel, I think he will still need the Nvidia grunt power over the amazing price/performance ratio of the 5700XT. The AAA games are still pushing me on my 2080 to sometimes maintain 60fps (even with setting optimisation in games like KCD).

21:9 vs 16:9 is really just after Minato but as he mentioned GTA V.


The truth is for GPUs at the high end, you just can't win this generation. Luckily for Minato, AMD have given anyone building this generation a free pass with the 3600. I built my rig last year which surely has to be the WORST generation to build a PC where I was stuck between an RTX 2080, peri-mining 10xx series cards and an 8700k or 8086k or overpriced 2700Xs with expensive AF RAM. I felt like crying.
 
aoaaron said:
21:9 vs 16:9 is really just after Minato but as he mentioned GTA V.
Click to expand...
The guy demonstrates GTA V and doesn't drive around - but perspective was noticeably larger in cockpit. And views/FOV would be more in keeping with true FOV/peripheral vision.

*Question - do you have to move your head a lot in FPS games that utilise the full screen? Also, when a game is played n 16:9 does it look/feel odd?

F1/racing sims must be a laugh if done properly - may take a look... (although i need separates so i could never get one - but may look for one for the kids in future.)

aoaaron said:
The truth is for GPUs at the high end, you just can't win this generation. Luckily for Minato, AMD have given anyone building this generation a free pass with the 3600. I built my rig last year which surely has to be the WORST generation to build a PC where I was stuck between an RTX 2080, peri-mining 10xx series cards and an 8700k or 8086k or overpriced 2700Xs with expensive AF RAM. I felt like crying.
Click to expand...
:/
 
Plec said:
The guy demonstrates GTA V and doesn't drive around - but perspective was noticeably larger in cockpit. And views/FOV would be more in keeping with true FOV/peripheral vision.

*Question - do you have to move your head a lot in FPS games that utilise the full screen? Also, when a game is played n 16:9 does it look/feel odd?

F1/racing sims must be a laugh if done properly - may take a look... (although i need separates so i could never get one - but may look for one for the kids in future.)


:/
Click to expand...
it feels perfect. on 21:9 every game I've played feels better than 16:9.

16:9 feels cramped and squashed and like a game.
21:9 feels like im playing a film.

32:9 is REALLY where its at but sadly has a lot more variability.
 
Plec said:
Poor ol' @Minato - he's probably all tucked up, dreaming happy thoughts of finally committing to a build configuration that we all agree on and he's going to wake up to this :D
Click to expand...

LOL My EXACT reaction :D:D:D. But I don't mind because it was an excellent discussion to read and learn from, and a result of you lads putting in sincere effort in my behalf. I'll re-read and reply to all the monitor stuff later once the system is ordered.

aoaaron said:
@Minato , I personally don't see the logic in prioritising replacing GPUs over other components. GPUs will lose their retail value pretty fast and will be the most limiting factor in the next 1-2 years for you hitting 60fps at decent settings, especially at 4k. I get that a GPU is easiere to physically replace, but planning to upgrade and chuck out a £400 GPU is just a bit nonscensical IMO. I'd much rather swap out a £200 CPU than a £400 GPU. We've AT LAST in PC building come to a stage where we have an amazing value for money processor at the low end after years of Intel torture where they bent us over every year and charged through the roof for incremental upgrades. I can't understand why someone wouldn't take advantage of the 3600 unless they needed the cores now.

I guarantee when you boot up Cyberpunk and see the 5700XT struggling to maintain a decent FPS at 4k or 1440 you will be pretty upset. The 3600 will be sitting there at 40% usage or the 3700x at 30% usage (very very rough guestimations lol) either way.
Click to expand...

So based on your facts being correct, especially bolded ^, this was an extremely convincing argument. @tamzzy said before when I asked him that upgrading the CPU is very easy nowadays because AIOs aren't a pain to to disconnect. My ONE concern with the 3600 is certain threads i've seen, THIS being the latest one where it appears to have some issues with the MSI Tomahawk MAX motherboard. But hopefully those are just rare problems and OcUK will snuff those out during the build, and they wont magically crop up again after the 3 year warranty has expired.

Current build:

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £1,583.85 (includes shipping: £0.00)
​

Went with the Gigabyte (4 yr warranty) over the Zotac (5 yrs) because reading elsewhere I found loads of report that the Zotac sounds like a jet engine compared to the Gigabyte.

Do we have a consensus? @tamzzy @Plec @orbitalwalsh @aoaaron :p
 
Minato said:
Went with the Gigabyte (4 yr warranty) over the Zotac (5 yrs) because reading elsewhere I found loads of report that the Zotac sounds like a jet engine compared to the Gigabyte.
Click to expand...
personally i'd get the zotac amp extreme edition as it's the same price...it's their version on steroids.
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/zota...ddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-11h-zt.html

Minato said:
Do we have a consensus?
Click to expand...
can't go wrong with what's picked so far, as i've said, with your budget, there's many ways to skin a cat
 
tamzzy said:
personally i'd get the zotac amp extreme edition as it's the same price...it's their version on steroids.
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/zota...ddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-11h-zt.html
Click to expand...

The louder fans/coil whine won't be an issue? I had the Zotac in the basket originally but the better reviews for the Gigabyte made me change over. Happy to change back though if the Zotac is overall better - i'd just rather a slightly slightly slower card that lasts well past the 3 year mark than a faster one that doesn't :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom