I really doubt that the HDMI connector of a TV can handle 120Hz. If it can, it would probably only do 1080 (and nobody is bothering with a high end HDMI connector on a 1080 TV). The catch is that nothing but computers produce 120Hz, and I doubt the next generation of consoles will bother trying. The "120Hz" TVs likely are probably just interpolating frames and likely blending them with a 60Hz output (this was a real problem for people looking for older "60Hz" TVs to use as monitors. But "real" 60Hz is now readily available). I wouldn't look to TVs for 120Hz (unless PC gamers sufficiently influence videophiles. But I suspect that PC gamers are the new audio/videophiles. And they aren't that big a market).
A TV for 4k@60Hz is a great idea, and I've listed my experiences here: https://pcpartpicker.com/forums/topic/326815-using-a-tv-as-a-monitor-43-4k-60hz-200
PCPartpicker is using a 95W "TDP" rating although the 9900K will (briefly) demand 160W, so I'd stay away from 500W.
I'd probably want to spring for something like this
even though I'm the last to want to overspend on power supplies. On the other hand, the minimum draw (which is what you will likely be pulling while websurfing) is 104W. That will be 20% of the 500W's draw and probably be somewhat efficient. Don't count on the 750W supply being any good at that range, but will be well in the 80% range during gaming. Don't skimp on your power supply.
Bragging rights for perhaps a month or two. Depends how quickly after March nvidia can unleash a 7nm 2080ti replacement.
Sic transit gloria
if you're the programmer, you get to decide.
That said, GPU programming is a different beast altogether. You probably need to know C and also enough assembler to know what C is "really doing". Also having a Nvidia card means you can code in CUDA, which is much more popular than straight OpenCL (which is what AMD is stuck with).
If you can break your code down far enough to use a few thousand threads (that don't need each other's data: GPU memory models are horrible), you can vastly speed up code by using the GPU. Most programming (other than video, machine learning, audio, and possibly some physics simulations) really doesn't work well on a GPU, but it is still up to the programmer.
The RAM looks like overkill, but I'd ask CS students for more up to date responses.
 yeah right. I'd assume from your question that your next several programs will have the language (and thus whether CPU/GPU) chosen by the prof/teacher/TA. In the real world it also gets chosen by the customer/corporate policy/lead programmer (and the lead programmer had better not choose something CUDA or LISP-based no matter how well it fits if he wants to find employees to replace any employees who leave halfway through the project). But for independent work you may well look into CUDA programming.
You might want a higher resolution and/or higher frequency monitor. That GPU will likely be limited (unless doing raytracing) at 1080@144. And I really doubt your eyes will see anything higher than 144Hz anyway, so at least look at 1440 or a larger screen. That GPU is a beast (I was going to not recommend it at all, but it might make sense for deep learning. Then again, any modern GPU is probably good for learning the stuff, then rent an array on Amazon/whoever when you need to do real training).
Have you ever used Linux before? It doesn't take much space on its own, and my Mint install (not including /home) is 8.7GB (home is 34G, but contains years of data and plenty of duplicates). I'd carve a few partitions off one 1T SSD and change the other to an Intel NVMe (or even cheaper device) and store anything big and not needing high speed (videos and steam library) on the Intel SSD. If gaming on Linux (not really recommended if you dual boot), then expect it to eat disk space just like windows gaming.
Storage doesn't make any sense, unless you are buying that 256G SSD for an emotus fusing with the HDD. Even then, 1TB HDDs don't make much sense and I'd look for something like the 4T Barracuda compute (although maybe not that one, I'd avoid Amazon HDD buys).
Note that I do use the emotus system, except that I just happened to have a 256SSD and a 2T HDD left over from my old system and use it for a steam library (so backup is irrelevant).
PS: sound card? Doing some rather specific audio work? They are rarely needed anymore.
What type of video card do you have? Also see if you can change your HDMI input from 1.0 to 2.0, that was something I needed to do to get my TV to show 4k@60Hz (the computer more or less automatically changed to fit the TV).
Another thing was that if you have "high dynamic range" enabled (I doubt your computer does), that might also interfere with the TV's ability to do 60Hz (I know mine can't do HDR 4k@60Hz, but haven't tried 1440p).
PS. Whatever you are using as a GPU (probably just the CPU?) sounds rather out of date. I know my GTX560 couldn't do 4k (although AMD cards of the time could) and that anything since can as well.
(my experiences using a TV as a monitor).
While I'd certainly disagree with "every task on Windows", video editing should involve reads more than long enough to matter. I'd certainly spring for a NVMe for this application.
Note that this is almost entirely about "large transfers". You don't need the fanciest NVMe device, just one that has a PCIe interface and high transfer rates (being fast in other cases gets expensive). Also this summer NVMe was often cheaper than SATA (I needed to buy a SATA drive for my mom), although solid-state memory prices seem to have gone up since then.
If you wanted to separate things, you could still partition your drive. I suspect that any advantages you'd see would be ruined when the 256G partition filled up and you had to move bits over to the "big partition". I doubt that many 256G drives can keep up with a 1TB drive (especially a NVMe).
I'm using a 1TB drive as a boot (and pretty much everything), with an old 256G melded with a 2TB drive with the AMD/emotus software. This is almost exclusively a Steam Library, so I'm not concerned with data corruption (I'll just download things again). So that's a pretty useful thing if you have AMD (450/470/570 motherboard) and a 256G drive lying around (and a HHD, but those seem to be even more common).
I'd search further, but I suspect the answer is "cheap or reliable: pick one". And that "cheap" really won't be anywhere as cheap as a AIO.
Again, CPUs really don't need such cooling. AMD doesn't need it at all (perhaps excluding threadripper), and I doubt Intel needs to go much further than "a really good [possibly air] cooler".
GPUs tend to be another story, but much harder to find proper blocks and require additional cooling of VRMs and memory.
The "competition" is based on $20k Intel (Xeon) CPUs. However overpriced it may be, it won't be relatively overpriced. It is a relatively good deal if you need most of a server's power, but not all the RAS server-specific stuff. It isn't a good deal at all if a Ryzen 9 (or i9) will get your job done.
They also can make more noise, especially when starting up or dealing with low heat levels. They can gurgle until they purge enough air, which bugs some people.
I also have a Ryzen 7 2700, and have been trying to figure out how to get my old AIO cooler to fit (a Cooler Master Seidon 120V). The "non-X" 2700 isn't designed to boost as much as the 2700X [it isn't supposed to violate the 65W limit] and is probably best manually overclocked (which requires good cooling). Once overclocked, I don't expect it to limit itself to 65W.
VASTLY superior for gaming, but does it help with lightroom, photoshop and Sony Vegas Pro?
The 1650 super should have the latest nvidia compression routines, plus all the latest CUDA options. I suspect that any time any of these programs can use the GPU for acceleration there won't be any measurable difference between GPUs (it will simply happen instantly).
Being nervous about your data is never good. A good, inexpensive way to backup data is an external (USB, 3.5") HHD. Preferably in the 3-8TB range, that way you can backup more than a single day's snapshot (or horde data if that's what you are into).
1.5TB of SSD can get expensive, depending on how full your systems are, but it sounds like most of the use is on the HDDs, not the SSDs. That's going to hurt.
"due to the amount of making/deleting/reading/writing of files I do." This can be read two ways:
"I spend a lot of time doing disk I/O": I need the speed of an SSD, and probably want a NVMe.
"I write over and over the same place a lot": this is certainly a threat to SSDs, although modern SSDs have an absolutely ridiculous amount of storage, making it next to impossible to wear them out (server databases can, but even the most "power user" shouldn't have a chance). I'd still look for a SSD with TLC over QLC (should last longer) and something with DRAM or SLC cache. Unfortunately I can't name good names (other than to avoid the cheap Intel NVMe card), although I think the favorite sabrant Rocket uses TLC and SLC cach (probably pseudo-SLC caching, which might be good enough).
This is a bit out of my element, but it is hard to kill a SSD these days by repeated writes. Something that wasn't always true. But I don't think SSDs give any type of warning like your noisy drives.
Samsung 2.5" 120GB SSD. If it is overflowing, you might look at a SATA 1TB drive. That is something you can easily "keep" when you want to replace the CPU/motherboard/RAM. If you decide to change both now, look for a NVMe card (there isn't that much difference, but it is faster and cheaper). Keep even if you "replace": although you might try using it in less orthodox way. If you go AMD you might try to use it as the "fast" half of a emotus combo (presumably with the WD 1TB drive, although don't do that if you want to keep backups on it).
WD 1TB SATA drive. Keep. Even if you only use it as backup (which is something it is ideally suited for).
Intel 4460 i5/MSI motherboard/8G DDR3. These all are replaced together or stay together (although you might consider adding some RAM if you are keeping it for awhile). While gaming has somewhat moved on, I really don't expect a whole lot of improvement from a new CPU+the rest.
NOTE: this has zero effect on getting graphics to high/ultra, so I'm guessing it is firmly in the "keep" category.
GTX960 GPU. This is probably still pretty strong. Granted, GPUs are one thing that they can still improve (even if the RTX gpus seem overpriced). You might want to look at some of the AMD (probably polaris, maybe navi) cards, and at least wait to see what is announced at CES. Note that 1080@60Hz isn't all that hard, so I'd look at an RX580/RX590 first (British prices seemed to have recovered their sanity from last I recommended one of those cards).
Case/fans: keep. Neither have had much to change in 5/6 years.
Completely depends on the game. For a driving/racing sim it is huge, and basically made visibility out of the cars a real thing and made the cars far more controllable (you can "look" around the turns). I've heard similar things for Elite, but haven't really started it. Of course these are both "seated apps", which ignores all the problems of the "roomscale" system that is pushed harder and requires the physical room, hardware, and user all work together to keep the user from falling over or crashing into things.
Other things are more hit or miss, and I'm only getting started on them. But I've been impressed for the most part. A favorite of mine is an exersize app "Hot Squats". Couldn't be more simple. A row of bars (more like blocks) travel toward you and you squat under them. Simple. Simple, but effective.
A few notes:
I really don't think that a hyper212 is all that much better than the included heatsink with the Ryzen 5 3600. I'd expect to go much cooler or simply use the OEM.
I don't think you'll see a lot of difference between the GPUs myself. Here are the two head to head (look down to the second set of benchmarks for 1440). https://www.gpucheck.com/compare/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-super/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-vs-amd-ryzen-7-3700x/ultra/ultra/-vs-?lang=en¤cy=usd
Personally, I'd like the HDD (and bump it to a barracuda 4T 5400rpm [slower]) for less money. But that only makes sense if you had previous issues filling up your HDD/SSD. Most people don't.
One big thing that could (depending on your games of choice: Project Cars and Elite Dangerous might as well be killer apps) seriously improve your gaming would be to throw a VR headset into the cheaper list. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an overall winner and Occulus seems to have jacked its price from $400 to $600. One option looked like the Samsung Odyssey+ "renewed" for $280 (the Odyssey+ has some amazing resolution and field of view, plus apparently "enough" movement detection). I'd expect to budget a new sweat gasket/foam though.
If you are storing movies or a large backload of Steam games, a slow HDD might come in handy. Even then I'd go with the cheaper 5400rpm 4TB Baracuda (and avoid Amazon thanks to a reputation of shipping used drives). But for most people a 1TB SSD is what you want.
Do you already have either SSD and/or the 1TB drive? I'd just combine them into a single 1TB drive otherwise. Unfortunately the widely loved Sabrant Rocket is now $130 and the knockoff Inland Premium is ~$120, so those might not work.
If you want both the SSD and HDD, I'd look at the Seagate baracuda compute for 2TB and maybe $5 more. Typically you can add a lot of space for little more for drives less than ~3TB or so. There's also a 1 and 2 TB "firecuda" that is a sort of hybrid SSD/HDD (although the flash cache is small), but I suspect you really want a ~1TB SSD...
PS: I'd think twice before buying a hard drive from Amazon. They have a huge issue with used drives listed as new (or used prices popping up on pcpartpicker). Also the "shipper" often doesn't have any control over which bin Amazon picks up the drive, so it could easily be coming from a used supplier.
Otherwise everything looks good, although I'm not that familiar with the Intel side of things.
Except that workload is "AAA games at 1080P@144Hz", which sounds like a nvidia specialty. I was fairly shocked to find Radeon VIIs still available, as they haven't been produced for months. Since they run ~$100 more than the otherwise equal 2070 super, it is easy to see why they haven't sold.
5700XT might be an option: here's yet another webpage/benchmark (which appears to cover exactly what the OP asked for [at least the first graph].
You might. Depends on the video card and how you are pushing the CPU. Wierdly enough, the motherboard appears to draw more than the CPU (presumably CPU voltage regulator inefficiency and high end 470 features). If you are significantly overclocking the CPU (it is listed as using only 65W), then that will cut into your wattage headroom.
On the other hand, the RX580 is using about half of your power consumption already. You should be able to drop in a GPU eating a bit less than 300W without issue (but don't overclock the CPU if you do).
The real kicker is your monitor: you might find that getting anywhere near 144fps needs a lot of CPU power, and thus a bunch of Watts going to the CPU.
Checking "TDP" (not what you need, but easily available) in video cards:
2060 RTX (includes super) 175W
2070 RTX 185W
2070 super 215W
2080 super 250W
Looks like everything this side of a 2080 super can fit into your system (unless you overclock it). Can't say anything about a "future more powerful AMD" card, as that will likely draw more than a 2080 super, but I suspect that the power supply won't be a significant part of the upgrade budget...
Recent price declines have to do with cryptocurrency busts and etherium no longer handing out coins to whoever has the most gpus.
Remember that 20% of recent nvidia performance has been more or less dedicated to raytracing. If you aren't using that you are using 80% of a card.
The rest of the "price decline" is nvidia having to price some of their midrange boards to be semi-competitive with AMD (although the RTX can certainly claim a "raytracing" premium, and all nvidia boards can manage a certain premium as well).
No. You might go 3d (flash might already have a third digit on how far the transistors are stacked), but 1nm is going to be really, really, hard and won't be a result of anything resembling normal Moore's law.
Also going 3d makes cooling an even bigger issue (why flash goes there and logic doesn't), so don't expect a whole lot on that front.
Perhaps something other than silicon will be the next big thing. But anything made out of atoms will have the same size limitations (although it might be possible that 3d [many layers of] carbon nanotubes @ 28nm will go a lot faster than silicon @ single digit nm).
I'm not even sure that GaAs is still "the tech of the future" (and always will be...).
Or just want to have an extreme amount of storage, with or without an extreme price. Best Buy is selling 10TB external WD drives for $160. You could add two of them for $320, or 5 Samsung 970 Evos 4T for $2750 (don't ask about the 960 Pro). And of course you will run out of SATA ports a lot earlier with SSD. This either puts you into specialty motherboards and/or using SAS boards and adapters.
There's also a lot of data out there that can be stored without any concern for performance (even if you are using a more reasonable 3-4TB HDD). Video and backups are probably the most obvious. But for anyone who doesn't use storage by the terabyte (or at least not much more than 1), there's little reason to get a HDD (except maybe for backups).
Nvidia has announced that they will be using Samsung for 7nm production, and said 7nm process is supposedly just hitting mass production. I'd imagine that internal Samsung phone production has dibs on the earliest silicon, but nvidia should be announcing a series shortly.
And since they are almost in the same spot as for the 20x0 launch (although AMD is slowly creeping up toward the high end), I doubt that there will be a paper launch like you imply. Just announce and ship, much like the 20x0s.
"refresh rate" is unlikely to get any better than 60Hz. Response time can often be as good as a 60Hz monitor by using "game mode" (my TV automatically enters "game mode" when I set my computer as input). Scaling is a non-issue as long as your GPU (and HDMI interface, that is often the key) can deliver 4k@60Hz.
For gaming, a 43" screen is incredible in ways that high refresh rate and extreme high dot pitch (4k on a <30" screen) can't match.
For desktop use, a 43" screen often acts much more having the screen space of multiple monitors without having limits of multiple monitors. Meaning that you probably aren't going to have any one window that is >40" across, but you don't have any restrictions where any of your various windows have to stay.
You can probably go higher than 43", but that means that your dot pitch will have to scale thanks to the 4k native resolution. Going lower than 43" is likely a specialty item where you would be better off just buying a "real monitor" (the ones that cost similar to my TV tend to suddenly drop down to 720 or so resolution at 32". Although if you can find such a TV it might be ideal).
They aren't blurry at all, although they tend to be no smaller than 43", so the actual dots aren't any smaller than a 21" 1080 monitor. I made a thread about my choice to buy a 4k TV for a monitor:
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+.