Launch Date 10/07/2019
Seems to have been a paper launch.
Note that 5 SSDs in RAID 5 might make sense (especially if they were 1TB or so each). You should get most of the speed of 4 SSDs in RAID0, but also have parity in case one drive fails, and they way SSD prices work it might even be cheaper than a 4TB SSD (although they'd probably have to be NVMe drives to match a NVMe 4TB drive in speed, and that might get tricky).
In reality, just get the drive size you need in SSD (NVMe if possible) and get a bigger (and hopefully cheaper) rotating drive for backup.
I'd expect a Sabrant Rocket to be faster than two SSDs in RAID0 before overhead. Maybe not, but there's also more risk with RAID0 (lose one and you have to reinstall everything from backups. You do have backups, right?). And I really expect the RAID overhead to be built around HHD expectations and getting single ms delays would be "good enough".
I'd love to see a threadripper (or similar) with a big SSD RAID, though.
According to the above specs, recommended means optimal.
According to the above specs, recommended means optimal.
How does that work? Wouldn't be like assuming such a GPU was "optimal" for a 2560x1440@80Hz monitor (numbers are for Occulus S)? I'd expect a bit more oomph wouldn't be wasted.
Supposedly, a $70 730GT will do it (https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-730/specifications), but I couldn't find it on the boards specifications.
A ~$90 1030GT will certainly do it (4k@60Hz). I think the current AMD ALUs (2200G/2400G/3400G) are similar to the 1030GT in performance.
Note that with these boards (especially the 1030GT) you almost certainly want to avoid the DDR4 (DDR3 for 730GT) editions (they lose half their performance waiting for slow memory). https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Q4648d/asus-geforce-gt-1030-2gb-video-card-gt1030-2g-csm
claims to have GDDR5 in the pcpartpicker stats.
I'm assuming your processor can do 60Hz (on your game of choice), but you might want to make sure...
Is the issue that the output (cable or whatever) simply can't drive better than 24Hz? That might be a cable issue. I know that I have to turn off high dynamic range (set the GPU to emit 8:8:8 instead of 10:10:10) and set HDMI to HDMI2 (on the TV side) or I get 30Hz. Also make sure your TV can accept 60Hz, I was lusting over 4k TVs for years but didn't want to get stuck with 30Hz (accepting 60Hz is a somewhat new thing for TVs, and typically an issue of the HDMI input).
But for turn-based-strategy, I'm guessing that moving the mouse is annoying at 24Hz, not the actual look of the graphics. I'd expect that just going to a 580/570/480 (although I'd recommend getting the 8G in case you want to do anything else at 4k) route would make the most sense.
(I wrote this bit with basic assumptions and didn't read "media and turn based strategy". Also some things (probably later Civ games and Kerbal Space Program) are often CPU limited. That CPU isn't going to take awhile for decent AI decisions or heavy math simulations).
new 580(8G): ~$145 (first hit on pcpartpicker). Said to hit 4k@30Hz on not-so-modern fps gaming
new Vega56: ~$260 (under $200 used on ebay) I'm using one for exactly that. SkyrimSE does 60Hz (with most of the switches full on), but I haven't stressed it with much new stuff...
1080 (used, buy it now prices on ebay) around ~$300
Then I'd look at the GPU+monitor. I doubt the CPU is holding you back.
Upgrading the CPU is unlikely to change your gaming experience at on a 60Hz monitor (outside of the odd single-thread limited game. I play a lot of Kerbal Space Program, and it is CPU limited). I'd guess that programming would benefit, but would probably also benefit from more memory.
Trying to look into the future is tough, especially if you aren't upgrading the GPU+monitor at the same time (you won't notice the CPU improvement for gaming until then, and then likely only if you really care about high-twitch/high frequency gaming). On the other hand, we probably haven't ever had a point in computing where you could say "yes, there probably won't be any huge changes in the next five years. Probably." Frequencies are almost unchanged (AMD is slowly catching up to Intel's limits), numbers of cores may be skyrocketing, but software is slow to use them.
I'd also think twice about cheaping out on a motherboard. While I don't think PCIe4 will be relevant in the next couple of years, you may find it much more important 3-5 years from now. With Micron gaining the ability to sell 3dXP (Optane) on their own, the extra speed might be all but necessary.
Logically, I'd recommend you stand pat. Personally I was in a similar case (although with a Bulldozer CPU, so perhaps a better excuse) and upgraded anyway. Just understand that the only benefit you will likely notice is the chance to try to code to all those threads (I highly recommend producer/consumer systems. Semaphores will simply lead to a mess of hiesenbugs).
If you absolutely must overclock, athlon3000 is unlocked (and supposed to be $50). Unfortunately "OC unlocked" motherboards for that chip likely cost much more than the chip, and it only has two cores. But it is unlocked at 3.5GHz. Not sure how you would call it "relevant".
Often AMD chips come in "nn00" and "nn00X" models, where the non-X has overclocking headroom. The 2700 (non-X) appears to be have a reasonable boost clock, but it only boosts the first core, unlocking it and cranking up all cores together can help with high-thread conditions.
And the real problem is that AMD really doesn't leave that much on the table overclocking wise. You'll need a overclocking motherboard and upgraded fan, and that probably kills the whole point of an inexpensive CPU. For HTPC I'd just search for a Ryzen 'G' ALU and go with it (you might see if any have enough cooling for overclocking, I haven't looked at them other than to realize that they have pretty good value for HTPC types of things).
On the Intel side, this traditionally described a few killer unlocked pentiums. Unfortunately the 14+++++nm shortages have all but killed them, and you might as well look to AMD for anything unlocked. Of course they were typically at best 2 core with 4 threads, so you might as well look to the Athlon3000G for that type of thing (I'd still expect the Pentiums to overclock far higher).
Some other issues with that "build" (the CPU appears pretty strong).
No SSD? I'd expect an 8400 to have a PCIe M.2 slot available, if it doesn't there's always SSD SATA (I hope. I've seen some Dells where you could do it only by sacrificing the HDD).
The GPU is probably the weak link. Just don't expect miracles moving up from a RX580, that board does well for its age and cost and nvidia isn't compelled to lower prices on faster boards. If you are already pushing out 144fps, you certainly have more than enough CPU (regardless of what is using up the other 5 cores).
I'd look to adding a SSD first (assuming you haven't already), but don't expect any actual fps to change (it speeds up more "normal desktop" usage and the odd level load in games).
This is more a great solution to a laptop with a single drive slot and a need for a 2TB drive (without the cost). It should look a lot more like a SSD, but isn't ideal for "real" HDD tasks (like dumping multi-GB videos off the SSD quickly). If you only want 2TB, it looks like a good way to go.
8TB, $130. Shuck it (you might need to tape a pin or cut a wire) or leave it in the enclosure for backup. $16.25 per TB is just unreal. And if you are already filling terabytes, it looks even better.
On the SSD side, things get a bit tricky. After looking at the anandtech article szjmryk linked, I recommend the Sandisk Ultra 3d (although pcpartpicker shows it at $200) SATA board (and leave a M.2 slot for when PCIe4 prices get sane).
Filling your last M.2 slot with a PCIe-3 NVMe doesn't sound good (although PCI-e adapters aren't that expensive) when you have a PCIe-4 motherboard. But I wouldn't want to buy a PCIe4 NVMe card right now.
Do you have experience with Linux and gaming? I broke down and bought a windows license (when they were all but giving them away to get people to change with win8) because of difficulties with Linux gaming. Although using (at the time) a nvidia card didn't help. As far as I know, only wifi systems have any Linux compatibility issues (ok, I don't ever expect to get my Windows Mixed Reality headset to ever work under Linux. But I don't have any Linux applications that could use an Occulus or Vive VR headset anyway). So that's a total of 2 non-Linux compatible devices (VR plus my first DSL modem [very buggy and replaced even while using Windows]) and I think one (an old QIC tape drive) that worked in Linux (and DOS) but not windows.
You might want to look into "shucking" an external drive. I'd recommend WD Elements units, but I've heard that they aren't nearly as competitive outside the states (HDDs shouldn't be that much more that the SSD).
That is going to be really hard to beat. I'm not even seeing your choices showing up on pcpartpicker (and if you need wi-fi on that system, just buy the B450 already - you can't beat that. Although I'll rant and rave and say an ethernet cable is far superior for a desktop). You'll have to pay more (or dig deeper) for better options. So I'm not saying "just pay a little more", but "it's Black Friday week already. Check here and see if they've dropped even more".
One possibility is to go to something like this: https://www.newegg.com/p/1VK-0001-4S0R5?Item=9SIA596A010000&Description=refurbished%20desktops&cm_re=refurbished_desktops-_-9SIA596A010000-_-Product
You then need your RX570 card and you are good to go for almost $200 less (easily add the Seagate hybrid for more storage [and backup, that SSD has to be old], the thing already has some SSD). Difficulty, the CPU was released in 2011 and the computer can't be much newer.
2013 model. Add RX570, SATA SSD (it has a 1TB HDD), and wi-fi (assuming you need it).
2015 CPU. Needs DDR4 ram, GPU, SSD (has 500GB HDD). May require some kludging to insert SSD (something about "hard drive trays included with hard drives"). No significant advantage (I came up to $477 without SSD, assuming a $40 SSD that leaves $18 (enough for wifi?). Not worth the hassle of a 4 year old computer). At this point I gave up looking at refurbs.
You have some really strong choices. The following aren't because I expect you to buy them, it is because I simply can't beat them at that price.
Storage is probably the biggest place to see huge gains are prices close to what you have listed. One often overlooked choice is here:
Yes, even now it is more than $25 higher than your choice, but it also has 8 times the storage. Don't assume "NVMe speeds" from a 250GB HP EX900 either, it likely competes with regular SATA at that size. The Seagate hybrid gives you the "SSD+rotating rust" solution without having to buy two drives (or transfer any data), so I'd at least check the prices before pulling the trigger (assuming you have issues with a 250GB drive. If not forget it, you are paying in speed, power, and noise as well as money).
I'm having trouble finding a good >256GB SATA SSD for the price of that NVMe drive (this isn't uncommon at greater sizes either), but I'd strongly recommend trying that as well before pulling the trigger.
Note that shipping will kill this deal if you don't live near a Microcenter (it is already over your budget anyway). And if you do live near one, sales tax might also matter (assuming they have a decent sale when you buy).
I had to check the price of this when I saw your RX570. Close, but still too high. But close enough that I'd recommend checking the RX580s again when you buy (note that $20 of the price is from rebates, that doesn't make me happy). And a RX580 isn't that much of an improvement over RX570 (I think the gains are close to linear per buck spent between the two, assuming you even get the rebate).
It is pretty pointless to attempt to consider the hardware without considering the software it is supposed to run. Some hints at gaming (and "e-sports", RPG, simulation, and strategic gaming all have slightly different requirements at that) or other usage would help. Also it is impossible to critique the GPU properly without knowing what monitor it will plug into.
I'd check out: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/TTfmP6/msi-radeon-rx-580-8gb-armor-oc-video-card-rx-580-armor-8g-oc
Although it isn't quite the upgrade over the 570 I thought it was, it is still pretty good for the money. Note that if you have a DVI-only monitor input, it the 580 will need an adaptor while the 570 has a native output. Conversely the 580 has two HDMI outputs (I had to buy an adapter for my HDMI-output only WMR VR-headset, as I was already using an HDMI output for my TV/monitor).
This uses a popular chipset (I think) and has rave reviews at a similar price:
Finally, if at all possible plug the thing directly into your ethernet switch and avoid sharing your bandwidth with every wi-fi network you see when you log in. Leave the wi-fi for mobile computing.
This typically breaks down into three separate parts:
Everything else (doesn't require upgrades, unless possibly if the 1TB drive is filling up).
The problem here is that the following are simply tied together and have to be upgraded all at once:
CPU/motherboard/memory/OS (OEM typically is tied to the motherboard, although you might ask if anyone has had success with claiming that replacing such a motherboard is a "repair". I think I got away with that in the XP days, but happen to be using a transferable license now).
"Freezes occasionally", IF crashing, I'd suspect Windows first and hardware second. If you are talking about significant pauses (and not hard crashes), then it is a memory issue (and if on games might be the 2GB limit on your GPU). Note that those 16GB DDR3 sticks from Amazon are registered memory for servers only, no massive sticks available, but 2x4 is available for ~$30.
For the GPU, this RX580 should entirely move the limit from the GPU to the CPU: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/TTfmP6/msi-radeon-rx-580-8gb-armor-oc-video-card-rx-580-armor-8g-oc
Expect it to be good even if you have a 120Hz monitor (I'm blanking on monitor tech from 2015, but from the list I'm expecting 1080@60Hz). This should be a solid choice even if you up the CPU as well (RX570 should pair well with a bulldozer and 1080@60Hz as well, but really isn't that much cheaper than this deal compared to the performance you give up). Of course, by the time you read this expect prices to have changed again... And if you upgrade the monitor along with the GPU, it adds too many variables to make a simple "buy this" recommendation.
The acid test for CPU replacement is to turn the resolution and texturing down as far as possible on any games your son plays. If they don't exceed the fps limit of his monitor, then you will see zero improvement thanks to a $488 investment in CPU replacement (this is gaming only, but even a bulldozer tends to be more than sufficient for any office app. It typically takes something like 3d modeling to stress a modern CPU outside of gaming).
If you decide to bite the bullet and replace the bulldozer, the "Great AMD streaming/gaming build" in the build guide section runs $389 before Windows ($488 with OS). It also suggests a 5700XT GPU which is 230% more expensive for 67% more fps and might make more sense if your son is using a monitor significantly more powerful than 1080@60Hz. The fan/case/power supply will all be fine (although it might be a tossup between an included Ryzen cooler and the hyper212).
(Newegg also has a 2700x CPU on sale, it might be a better choice for streaming and other non-game usage, although the differences aren't that big and what you gain in streaming you lose in gaming).
One last thing: I noticed the wi-fi link. Wi-fi shares all (or at best half) of its bandwidth with every network you see (or not, if they are "hidden") when trying to login to your wi-fi. A simple ethernet cable shares zero bandwidth and plugs right into your switch. If you can use wired ethernet, I strongly recommend it (wi-fi is ideal for phones and tablets, but on the desktop wires make so much more sense).
"small, fast SSD & big, slow HDD" hasn't changed at all, just how big "small and large" are. "Small" can be around 1TB, while the sky is the limit for "big". One popular source for hard drives is WD enclosures: expect 10TB for ~$160 to show up often in sales (they are currently ~$200 at newegg), buying 5 2TB SSDs would typically cost over $1000.
On the other hand, plenty of people find that they don't need that type of storage, often relying for things to remain online. In this case you simply keep the small drive and don't bother with the "big" one. This is pretty much the way to go for "normal people", although I suspect that anyone bothering to come to this website is an extreme outlier of computer buyer.
Looks like all the Zen 1x00 series CPUs are still in stock at prices under launch. Like Intel's old problem, AMD has to somehow keep making chips that outcompete their old stock. As far as I know, all 12/14nm orders AMD has are for Matisse I/O chips, Picasso chips, and possibly GPUs (although unlike Intel, they aren't constrained in 12/14nm production and could make 2x00 series CPUs if they wanted to).
"Long term production" of CPUs are typically suited for Server and especially embedded use. Desktop and laptop chips are simply purchased by what is available, and there is little reason to believe that Zen 3 will terribly obsolete a 3950X build (from the user's perspective), and Sunny Cove is even more vaporish.
If you are interested in using a tiering system (typically AMD's system, although some people have managed to convince Windows 10 to include tiering [footnote]), then expect that you have to combine entire drives in your system (I don't think primocache needs the entire drive). That's about the only advantage to having multiple drives. If you really want multiple drives, you can just partition a big drive (and with SSDs this gives you the advantages of combining all unused space into spare SSD space).
120mm cooler, $50.00
But don't underestimate air cooling and compare both noise and power before making your decision.
A lot depends if you need 2TB or more of storage. HDDs are great if you need a ton of slowish storage, but I'd recommend looking at the TB/$ list (but be careful of Amazon listings, especially Hitachi. A lot of used drives have popped up the list). You typically want at least 3TB of space, and often 2TB costs barely more than 1TB.
If 1TB (or less) is enough for all your storage, just get a big SSD. The costs of building the basics of an HDD simply don't justify the cost compared to expanding a SSD that much. That said, there are two types of people. Those with a backup and those who will wish they had a backup. HDDs are one of the best ways to backup data right now.
It is only whining about the possibility of adding three SATA (express) drives and the issue that you can only add one more. The motherboard (or possibly CPU) has a limited number of SERDES (or possibly some other circuit) and if you can only use a M.2 slot (and have 2 SATA port available) or have all three SATA ports and no m.2 slots.
My B450 board loses two SATA ports thanks to plugging in my m.2. I'm not sure what's different.
That seems like a completely unsupported statement. Nvidia is still in the lead with GPUs and doesn't need to take any big risks. While simply porting Turing to 7nm+ will require so many changes to justify a new architectural name, it will probably look like Turing to programmers.
"Big Navi" will require a huge GDDR6 bus, which might just draw too much power to manufacture. They may well be stuck with "sorta big Navi". Being able to really go after the high end might require a post-Navi "full RDNA" (as opposed to Navi's "Vega/RDNA" architecture).
There's also the issue of making several hundred mm**2 dice. Rumors of "low" (i.e. not an issue for chiplets, but certainly justifying the chiplet decision) popped up before the zen2 launch. Yield from a "big Navi" could be an issue. There's equally the issue of Samsung (or whoever) having issues with making nvidia's beasts in 7nm+.
IPS is typically not preferred for gaming. It has better color accuracy but raw framerate suffers. I loved my ISP last monitor for gaming, but it was an ancient 75Hz job and I'm a wierdo that puts just about everything ahead of framerate (my eyes are also pretty old. I'm old enough to have put a quarter in a pong machine...).
Don't underestimate size. Going above 1920x1080 can make pixels tiny, and using up more and more of your field of view improves immersion. I'm using a 43" 4k TV as a monitor (cheap! but then again, I really can't see improvements over 60Hz so your eyes may vary. And that TV can't do better than 60Hz in any mode) and while I can't use the whole thing for a single desktop application, the overwhelming immersion really helps in games (VR can be even better).
Looks good, although I can't imagine buying a 1TB HDD. Either go to 3-4TB or go with SSD. You might go with the HDD for backup only in which case looking at external (USB3) drives might make a lot of sense.
The CPU heat sink looks excessive, but I suspect that 8 Intel cores might justify it.
One crazy solution: the ultimate NAS:
PCPartPicker Part List
The WD Elements may require a trip to a Michigan Best Buy (they go on sale a lot), shuck and pile in the system (both motherboard and case claim to have room for them all). Use XigmaNAS or similar NAS OS. Spilt off a tiny sliver of the NVMe for a boot drive and use the rest as cache.
Didn't check Canadian prices until making the list, now updated (except for the actual drives).
I stuffed your requirements into pcpartpicker and got this list:
I like the Sabrent Rocket, but that was based on research a few months out of date. the HP EX920 appears to have a real cache, and that should help as the disk gets full (although benchmarks show the Rocket still runs fine with a nearly full drive, I've been skeptical but still bought a drive with the same controller).
Simple choice: do you need 8 SATA ports?
If so, go with the Taichi. Note that you might still want a 470 taichi if you don't care about PCIe4, but I suspect anyone wanting to fill 8 SATA ports will probably want the fastest PCIe lanes possible for future expansion.
For anything else, there are a lot of better motherboards. But the taichi models make wonderful NAS boxes (or anything else that needs a ton of storage).
I rather doubt it.
First, while you don't mention it, I'd have to assume that this is a gaming system (why else pour more than half the budget into the GPU?). Even then, I can't imagine finding room in the remaining ~$800 for the rest of the computer (especially a monitor that won't bottleneck your GPU).
Yes, the monitor can bottleneck your GPU. The CPU almost certainly won't.
In fact, I'd recommend starting with the monitor. What do you want? Size? Resolution? Frequency (can you even see tell the difference in high-refresh rates)? The monitor will at least tell you what other products you need. High resolution and refresh require more and more GPU. High refresh typically demands a fast CPU (with the fastest typically requiring giving Intel its pound of flesh).
There's typically a number of things that need to be balanced in a build: trying to gradually increase everything into a "balanced build" (or even a balanced "gamer" build) might not be the build you want. You might need a lot of storage, and wind up with a bunch of HDDs in a RAID. Or you might not, and a single (TB or less) NVMe card holding everything. But I'd start with the monitor. Resolution and refresh rates are pretty basic, and that will tell you how much GPU and GPU you need (for whichever games you prefer). Don't be surprised if you go through a few different monitor choices before you get a monitor+GPU+CPU choice you like.
So here's how I would go. Pick a monitor. I thought this would make an awesome gaming monitor...
And then look on the "build guides for a ~$1500 build (less monitor).
Both builds seem more or less identical save CPU+motherboard.
Can you finagle a 1080 super? It looks like ~$100 for a 5%? increase. I'd check user/overclocked benchmarks before trying to pull that off.
Storage looks a bit heavy. You might want to put it all in a 1TB NVMe card, but personally I like big HDDs and can not lie...
The powersupply looks over provisioned and possibly underwatted (especially if you crank up the Intel system). I'd drop down to bronze and possibly partially modular if it saves significant money. Just go with a brand you trust, lots of shenanigans in the power supply business (EVGA should be fine).
On the AMD side I'm completely unsold on the 570 motherboard (especially without a PCIe 4.0 NVMe card). Look for B450 motherboards that are already compatible with zen2 chips.
Finally don't forget Windows (unless you have a transferable copy) and other incidentals. The AMD (no changes) comes in (with OS) at $1880, the Intel at $2062.
And then you can always start with another monitor. https://pcpartpicker.com/product/KmjJ7P/samsung-lc32jg50qqnza-320-2560x1440-144hz-monitor-lc32jg50qqnza
has a higher refresh if smaller screen (I'm not sold on curved monitors. But if they happen to fall in my budget I'd probably take one over a flat monitor).
HDD: things that need size but not speed. Movies, backups, some games.
SDD: things that need speed, preferably not too big. Boot drives, applications, data saved from said applications, games with long level loads.
There are a few programs that do this for you, primocache (about $30) and AMD's tiering system (which has a ton of restrictions and has been known to corrupt disks). Windows 10 had a similar system enabled, but I couldn't get it to work (it might no longer be enabled).
The M.2 can be a bit faster, and I recently bought both a 1TB SATA SSD drive (for my mom's laptop that can't take M.2) and a 1TB M.2 NVMe. The NVMe was cheaper, and I guess roughly the same reliability.
And sometimes I do have long sequential reads...
Buying multiple SSDs pretty much only makes sense at the >2TB range, so that changes things a bit...
I'd recommend looking into primocache (or possibly AMD's tiering solution) before buying multiple TB of SSDs. One large NVMe caching a huge HDD should cover any gaming situation (changing games would require pulling data off the drive giving you a slow first level load, but any subsequent level loads will be fine). Primocache seems to be favored for this type of thing, but I'm using the AMD system that comes with the motherboard as Steam is more or less automatically backed up (and I just use it for Steam and similar "safe" things).
https://pcpartpicker.com/forums/topic/321254-primocache-vs-hdd (unfortunately this is "primocache vs. HDD", "primocache vs. SSD" is probably the more commonly asked question).
For anything that needs to be backed up, HDDs are still king (of course you still have issues storing it locally), but nearly all the storage games used can be re-downloaded. You may be able to use an old hard drive for backing up the "everything else" issues.
No (SATA is a point to point protocol).
You'll need a PCIe board with more SATA connections, and you might wind up using SAS connections and buying SAS-SATA adapter cables. One "quick and dirty" method I used for grabbing two more SATA ports on my motherboard was to buy a PCIe NVMe port: using the NVMe port on my motherboard disabled SATA ports 5-6 (this is an AMD 450B motherboard).
This is commonly discussed over on https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/
I suspect that if you want a full "NAS box", then building a NAS server makes a lot more sense. XigmaNAS looks like an ideal platform for this (assuming you have at least 8G on the old server) and uses a ZFS filesystem.
If you just want to stick a single disk or so on your home network the "NAS box" would work (although it might not be cheap). You don't need a "NAS Drive" unless you are building a RAID system: the whole point of those is to not timeout in a RAID system. One interesting combination would be an external USB drive (such as the WD 8-10TB easystores) and a Raspberry Pi 4 (USB3 should be good enough not to slow down the drive at all). It won't have much RAM, but it will also be relatively inexpensive and not use much power.
Historically, windows doesn't like to boot off old drives onto new systems (linux doesn't care). Moving old storage as "D:" drives or more won't change anything. I suspect that any applications will have to be re-installed (Steam seems to find games and anything else it handles without issue).
This might be rather out of date: I recently updated my computer and was astonished at how much simply "just worked", although pretty much all I do on Windows involves games, typically through Steam.
If it was ever sold at that price, it didn't last long.
On the other hand, newegg was selling 6T external (shingled Seagates) for $80 (I had already bought one at that price from Target. I suspect most Targets have sold out at that price), so it isn't quite as unlikely as seen at first glance.
The newegg thing claimed to be a blitz deal "subscriber only, one day only" deal...
The 2700x will boost higher (which is likely how they eat 40W more). With the 2700 I'd recommend overclocking.
One issue I discovered with my trusty 560ti was that it was incapable of driving a 4k monitor.
I doubt a 560ti would be limited by an x4 slot in SLI mode, but I doubt that SLI really is the way forward.
I'd check the prices first, I think I saw a 2700x recently cheaper than most 2700 available. Also expect to require a bit more cooling for the 2700 as you likely have to overclock it for maximum performance (boosting falls off after a few cores. And quite a bit after the first one).
Disclaimer: I bought a 2700 on Prime Day and haven't bothered to overclock it (I'm still wondering if I can rig up an adapter for my incompatible AIO cooler).
Looks like IBM might have to (or are they switching to TSMC as well)?
Intel certainly is shipping 10nm for laptops, and as far as I know Intel's priorities are sever>>laptop>>desktop (desktop have the least amount of profit by far), so they might not care enough to do the work to get the frequencies back up (or don't want to ship a sunnycove desktop with frequencies lower than Zen2/3 [which ever is out when 10nm desktop would launch].
I suspect they will finally get this working, but even then 7nm should be getting close (the big issue is likely EUV, which once they get it working for 10nm should solve most of the issues leading to 7nm).
You might want to look at used/refurbished PCs, possibly adding a SSD or GPU if sufficiently low end. Remember, Intel CPUs have been just barely been creeping up in performance over the last 10 years or so (with significantly more cores in recent chips) so there are some great deals on older machines out there. Just don't buy something likely to die on you right away.
I'd at least check the various "build guides". Some of the names include "excellent game build" at the $1100 range, "Enthusiast" at the $1500 range, and "magnificent" at the $2400 level. By $2500 they are pretty much looking for places to spend money...
I'd step back a bit and ask what you need.
VR is a big issue, and depending on what headset you choose that could mean up to 2k (x2 per eye) at 90+ fps. I doubt that it requires a 1080ti, but a "game build" will typically spend most of the money in the GPU.
To be honest, the monitor you choose is a great place to start (and head back to and change when you don't like the computer that fits it). What resolution and framerate do you want? Extreme framerates typically pull to Intel builds, or at least require the highest clocked Ryzens. Anything else will work fine with almost any CPU, although I'd recommend at least a 3600 for enough cores/threads.
Resolution x framerate also tells you a lot about how much GPU you will need. And VR wants some significant framerates (unless you are going with a ~$120 hp windows mixed reality special at Microcenter. They are capped at 60fps, but probably not what you want with that budget).
Storage? For the first TB I'd go with NVMe, and the rest with rotating rust (if needed). You probably don't need the HDD, but hoarding old data is a habit of mine.
Memory? I'd go with 16GB, and probably around 3MT/s, unless you have something big in mind other than gaming.
Case/keyboard/mouse/OS - these are pretty much the same in any build, although the bigger budgets might try to buy higher end of most.
A lot depends on what you are asking of your GPU.
I tend to assume that high frame rate gaming is all about squeezing the last drops of latency out of the game and knowing where an enemy is as soon as possible (then again, I'm not remotely interested in that). You might be able to increase the framerate as high as you want, but the location of said enemy won't be any more accurate at 144Hz than 60Hz.
You might get more impressive scenery, but I doubt that anything more than 60Hz will matter.
Counterpoint: high-twitch "e-sports" games may involve players focusing on erratically moving targets, while the background moves in completely opposite directions. Such situations are the absolute worst in terms of seeing poor framerate and 60Hz may not be remotely good enough (even if they don't really show the target's position any better).
The point is that you are paying for resolution, scene detail, and framerate. Resolution is typically dictated by your monitor, moving the sliders on the scene detail is your choice [I suspect that they can be maxed out on a 2060 super] and frame rate has the twin issues of your monitors refresh and the latency of the MMO's servers. If you are playing at your monitors resolution and maxed out scenery bars, going far beyond the MMO's server might not buy you anything.
Fortnight type games might need >100Hz
Eve and Elite Horizons might only need ~30Hz (but not Elite VR)
I doubt WoW and its copycats need more than 60Hz
Presumably the 5500 is cheaper to manufacture than the 580 (not to mention the 590, which only makes sense if you need that last little bit of performance). It probably wasn't that hard to go from the 5700 to the 5500 (going to the 5900 won't be as easy unless they double the width of the memory).
Maybe they are tired of GloFo and the 14/12nm process. Perhaps the TSMC 7nm delays aren't a big deal at all. Shipping 5500 means that they are quite satisfied with TSMC's 7nm and willing to switch to a chip 68% of the size at 7nm over the old 14nm part (I'm guessing it the 7nm part is cheaper to manufacture). I've been a fan of the old 480/580 chip, but it looks like it is being put out to pasture.
Off the wall suggestion: https://slickdeals.net/f/13433917-seagate-backup-plus-hub-6tb-external-hard-drive-black-stel6000100-target-clearance-from-79-98-ymmv?src=SiteSearchV2Algo1
IMPORTANT: this uses "shingle" tech, so writing is very slow. Storing video would be fine, gaming probably not (certainly make sure your saves are on a different drive). Also useful as backup if you go for the WD Black (you'll always want a backup).
Should be "shuckable" (meaning you can simply open the external case and remove the drive itself), although that won't help the slow writes.
And this all depends on the drive being discounted and in stock nearby of course. I wouldn't suggest the thing at list price.
Even for work I'd probably recommend the HDD: the more data you have the more you need a HDD (if not tape). Even if you work entirely on SSD/NVMe, you'll want HDDs for archives and backup.
Unless it is something like >>100-1000TB, in which case tape might begin to make sense.
Did the Pentium 4 have clock throttling? That was always a good one for extra heating. Of course the hot parts shouldn't get any hotter when overclocked: Intel used logic reminiscent of ECL logic which wasn't dependent on clockspeed (which meant it idled hot).
Bulldozer is probably the easiest to source right now. But you might get a decent used big Xeon (which would have been a reasonable temperature when made, but with enough cores it should get pretty hot. Difficulty: I think they are all clock-locked).
I remember Digital doing an Alpha in ECL, but I suspect that was only a research project (possibly I was hearing about the Pegasus). Early (.25um) Itanium prototypes earned the name "smoking brick of death", if you somehow acquired one of these it would be ideal (something like 400W).
Current nvidia cards should work with freesync (there's some issue with which are fully supported, you might want to check this specific monitor), so that monitor should work fine with either a 1660 or 1660 ti. Bumping up to those levels are unlikely to be limited by the 75Hz frequency of the monitor, and they seem pretty expensive for the limited bump.
Porting a chip from TSMC's 12nm to Samsung's? 7+nm is hardly a simple "refresh". You might still be able to call the thing "Turing", but it will hardly be a simple refresh.
Every AMD card sold is a lost sale for Nvidia (although thanks to AMD's low performance, some of those lost sales might have been used 1080s or similar). Vega7 was sold at cost/or a loss, they weren't making more than they had to. There don't seem to be such supply issues for Navi: if you want one go buy one (and forum users seem to be doing just that). Thanks to the mining market, Vega56/64 barely had to compete with nvidia: if the coins they minted were worth more than the card, the card would sell regardless of how "competitive" it was.
4 cores (with HT)@ 3.4GHz (with 3.9GHz turbo) sounds pretty good these days. Maybe not what you'd buy new, but the improvements will be pretty hard to see.
16GB - that's fine
Note that Microsoft doesn't allow you to move Windows to annother motherboard and since they want to push Win10 on everybody convincing them that this is a "repair" might be more difficult than earlier. Ask others if they've managed to get win7 moved, but keeping your motherboard means you can always keep win7.
Storage: are you running SSDs? This would be a much bigger improvement than anything in the CPU department. Note that adding a NVMe wouldn't be all that effective as you only have PCIe@1 lane slots: no way to use a 4 lane NVMe card.
Video card: GTX1050 is a solid if low power card. You can go higher, but is your monitor capable of more than 1080@60Hz? There's no point in pushing more pixels if your monitor can't display them. Remember that monitors and video cards have to work together, any "bottlenecking" about video cards and CPUs almost always involves a misunderstanding about what is going on.
I just feel that getting a better CPU+motherboard+RAM is going to eat up way too much of an $800 budget, especially if you want to upgrade the GPU+monitor (I tried to start a build but have no idea how you value refresh over visible resolution). But as noted before, $270 should cover the CPU+motherboard+RAM [if and only if you can get win7 to work on the new, improved motherboard. Otherwise you could be adding $100].
My bad. I was too concerned with 16GB I picked the wrong number of modules.
Same price (for DRAM, something else must have updated its price), better DRAM.