PC build from Scratch - Help

[ponder]

Super flower is good and you're right 450 will handle it easily. But I bought the 550 just in case recently. Still sitting in it's box as a backup

My previous psu was a 450W super flower but eskom killed it and something else during loadshedding, wootware had no more stock so they gave me credit & discount on the 550W leadex silver which is basically idling away...

 

[Dan C]

My previous psu was a 450W super flower but eskom killed it and something else during loadshedding, wootware had no more stock so they gave me credit & discount on the 550W leadex silver which is basically idling away...

I'm using a Seasonic ATM. But it's always good to have a backup like in your case where Eskom kills your system. Worst is on a Sunday

 

[ponder]

I'm using a Seasonic ATM. But it's always good to have a backup like in your case where Eskom kills your system. Worst is on a Sunday

Seasonic is tops, you just don't see them for sale much anymore.

 

[ponder]

 

[NickDiablo]

My previous psu was a 450W super flower but eskom killed it and something else during loadshedding, wootware had no more stock so they gave me credit & discount on the 550W leadex silver which is basically idling away...

Yo. Here is the latest updated selection.

Im having it shipped to a friend and he'll build it, and put Windows 10 on it.

havent ordered it yet

 

[Saieden]

Analysis, deconstruction and motivation to follow.



The OP has expressed on a previous occasion a wish to play GTA5, BF1 etc at max settings at 900p. It simply is not possible on a rx570. GTAV for example simply performs worse on AMD GPUs for starters.
The OPs initial interest was also towards an i5-9400F build. So granted there are background details absent from this particular thread.

This is simply not true. These are 1080p results, so 900p should be no problem on a 570 with room to spare. Unless he happens to have a 75hz+ 900p monitor, which I doubt. There is simply no noticeable difference.

For starters that PSU has TWO 6+2 (thus 8 or 6 pin) pcie connectors. It's a very common thing to overspec power supplies, yes a 550W unit would be ideal but it's not required. That build would be lucky to see 280W power draw with all components peaking at max utilisation at the same time which will never happen! That PSU at a push can handle a 3700X & rtx2080 not that I would recommend it.
But let's take this a step further wrt to "future upgradeability". Historically performance increases but power consumption stays more or less the same, GTX960=120W TDP, GTX1060=120W TDP, GTX1660TI=120W TDP. The same holds true for CPUs. So the future proofing argument just flew out the window unless you want to go top end stuff.

That is assuming he is staying at the same performance bracket for the next ~5 years, the typical lifecycle for a good PSU. Once you have your shell, upgrading to the next class is much easier if you don't have to worry about power, storage and cooling.

We all have budgets we have to work with, if the OP has the budget I will wholly endorse a 1TB SSD as I have one and it's awesome but it will never be at the expense of gpu,cpu&ram.

A better cpu or gpu isn't going to net a better daily experience with the monitor he said he is not going to upgrade, but more fast storage definitely will.

Power delivery wise the bazooka is a bit better but then again nobody is buying these motherboards for setting overclocking records, you will get the same performance out of them for a ryzen 5, the one just for cheaper. If you're not on an absolute low budget get a Tomahawk.

Agreed, it's really a matter of preference in the end. I would take the Bazooka (Plus) as it is on par with Mortar/Tomahawk in terms of overall build quality, but cuts back on nice-to-haves for a decent price. It lacks a vrm soc heatsink, but thats fine since he's not running an APU. These CPUs are also very opportunistic with their boost algorithms, so they'll be trying to draw as much as they can from the vrms, so it does have a slight performance advantage for sustaining higher average clocks, not to mention peace of mind that they wont degrade nearly as easily.

There is zero reasons to encourage a person to buy an aftermarket cooler, the stock one is fine even for a 200MHz overclock.

Again, preference, in this case for noise. I have the LED version of that cooler and it's virtually silent and a good job on my 2400g while I was still using the IGP (~65C, undervolt CPU for 3.9 all core, 1525 igp 1.2v vsoc)

 

[damirnis]

Compare prices with evetech they also price match.

 

[Masataka]

Compare prices with evetech they also price match.

And will likely screw you over if you ever need support.

Avoid Evetech.

 

[ponder]

This is simply not true. These are 1080p results, so 900p should be no problem on a 570 with room to spare. Unless he happens to have a 75hz+ 900p monitor, which I doubt. There is simply no noticeable difference.

If it's not true then it means I'm lying. Those are not max settings, the with room to spare part is funny though. The part about higher frame rates not making a difference on 60Hz monitors is absolute rubbish especially in the case of fps games.

Let's take GTA V for example, if you know anything about this game it is that it can be extremely demanding on hardware and secondly it does not run well on amd gpus, it literally chokes. That 1060 6gb looks like a champ in that graph but lets max the settings out and see what happens.

This happens (just ran the benchmarks for you),

C:\Users\<userid>\Documents\Rockstar Games\GTA V\Benchmarks\Benchmark-19-07-10-13-29-18.txt

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 14.901620, 67.323296, 51.864391
Pass 1, 21.295172, 59.313034, 39.636292
Pass 2, 35.792519, 140.069748, 53.849003
Pass 3, 40.576347, 96.877632, 57.666378
Pass 4, 29.414879, 96.377182, 51.925564

Time in milliseconds(ms). (Lower is better). Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 14.853700, 67.106796, 19.281052
Pass 1, 16.859701, 46.959000, 25.229404
Pass 2, 7.139300, 27.938799, 18.570446
Pass 3, 10.322300, 24.644899, 17.341127
Pass 4, 10.375900, 33.996399, 19.258337

Frames under 16ms (for 60fps):
Pass 0: 4/480 frames (0.83%)
Pass 1: 0/372 frames (0.00%)
Pass 2: 51/496 frames (10.28%)
Pass 3: 68/540 frames (12.59%)
Pass 4: 692/5871 frames (11.79%)

Frames under 33ms (for 30fps):
Pass 0: 477/480 frames (99.38%)
Pass 1: 371/372 frames (99.73%)
Pass 2: 496/496 frames (100.00%)
Pass 3: 540/540 frames (100.00%)
Pass 4: 5869/5871 frames (99.97%)

Percentiles in ms for pass 0
50%,    18.00
75%,    20.00
80%,    22.00
85%,    23.00
90%,    24.00
91%,    24.00
92%,    24.00
93%,    24.00
94%,    24.00
95%,    24.00
96%,    25.00
97%,    25.00
98%,    25.00
99%,    26.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 1
50%,    25.00
75%,    26.00
80%,    27.00
85%,    27.00
90%,    29.00
91%,    29.00
92%,    29.00
93%,    30.00
94%,    30.00
95%,    30.00
96%,    30.00
97%,    31.00
98%,    31.00
99%,    32.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 2
50%,    17.00
75%,    22.00
80%,    22.00
85%,    23.00
90%,    23.00
91%,    23.00
92%,    23.00
93%,    23.00
94%,    24.00
95%,    24.00
96%,    24.00
97%,    24.00
98%,    24.00
99%,    25.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 3
50%,    17.00
75%,    18.00
80%,    18.00
85%,    19.00
90%,    19.00
91%,    20.00
92%,    20.00
93%,    20.00
94%,    21.00
95%,    21.00
96%,    21.00
97%,    22.00
98%,    22.00
99%,    23.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 4
50%,    19.00
75%,    21.00
80%,    22.00
85%,    23.00
90%,    24.00
91%,    24.00
92%,    25.00
93%,    25.00
94%,    25.00
95%,    25.00
96%,    26.00
97%,    26.00
98%,    27.00
99%,    27.00

=== SYSTEM ===
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200)
DX Feature Level: 11.0
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.5GHz
8192MB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, 6345MB, Driver Version 430.86
Graphics Card Vendor Id 0x10de with Device ID 0x1c03

=== SETTINGS ===
Display: 1600x900 (FullScreen) @ 59Hz VSync OFF
Tessellation: 3
LodScale: 1.000000
PedLodBias: 0.000000
VehicleLodBias: 0.000000
ShadowQuality: 3
ReflectionQuality: 3
ReflectionMSAA: 8
SSAO: 2
AnisotropicFiltering: 16
MSAA: 8
MSAAFragments: 0
MSAAQuality: 0
SamplingMode: 0
TextureQuality: 2
ParticleQuality: 2
WaterQuality: 2
GrassQuality: 3
ShaderQuality: 2
Shadow_SoftShadows: 5
UltraShadows_Enabled: true
Shadow_ParticleShadows: true
Shadow_Distance: 2.000000
Shadow_LongShadows: true
Shadow_SplitZStart: 0.930000
Shadow_SplitZEnd: 0.890000
Shadow_aircraftExpWeight: 0.990000
Shadow_DisableScreenSizeCheck: false
Reflection_MipBlur: true
FXAA_Enabled: true
TXAA_Enabled: false
Lighting_FogVolumes: true
Shader_SSA: true
DX_Version: 2
CityDensity: 1.000000
PedVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000
VehicleVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000
PostFX: 3
DoF: true
HdStreamingInFlight: true
MaxLodScale: 1.000000
MotionBlurStrength: 1.000000

C:\Users\<userid>\Documents\Rockstar Games\GTA V\settings.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<Settings>
  <version value="27" />
  <configSource>SMC_AUTO</configSource>
  <graphics>
    <Tessellation value="3" />
    <LodScale value="1.000000" />
    <PedLodBias value="0.000000" />
    <VehicleLodBias value="0.000000" />
    <ShadowQuality value="3" />
    <ReflectionQuality value="3" />
    <ReflectionMSAA value="8" />
    <SSAO value="2" />
    <AnisotropicFiltering value="16" />
    <MSAA value="8" />
    <MSAAFragments value="0" />
    <MSAAQuality value="0" />
    <SamplingMode value="0" />
    <TextureQuality value="2" />
    <ParticleQuality value="2" />
    <WaterQuality value="2" />
    <GrassQuality value="3" />
    <ShaderQuality value="2" />
    <Shadow_SoftShadows value="5" />
    <UltraShadows_Enabled value="true" />
    <Shadow_ParticleShadows value="true" />
    <Shadow_Distance value="2.000000" />
    <Shadow_LongShadows value="true" />
    <Shadow_SplitZStart value="0.930000" />
    <Shadow_SplitZEnd value="0.890000" />
    <Shadow_aircraftExpWeight value="0.990000" />
    <Shadow_DisableScreenSizeCheck value="false" />
    <Reflection_MipBlur value="true" />
    <FXAA_Enabled value="true" />
    <TXAA_Enabled value="false" />
    <Lighting_FogVolumes value="true" />
    <Shader_SSA value="true" />
    <DX_Version value="2" />
    <CityDensity value="1.000000" />
    <PedVarietyMultiplier value="1.000000" />
    <VehicleVarietyMultiplier value="1.000000" />
    <PostFX value="3" />
    <DoF value="true" />
    <HdStreamingInFlight value="true" />
    <MaxLodScale value="1.000000" />
    <MotionBlurStrength value="1.000000" />
  </graphics>
  <system>
    <numBytesPerReplayBlock value="9000000" />
    <numReplayBlocks value="36" />
    <maxSizeOfStreamingReplay value="1024" />
    <maxFileStoreSize value="65536" />
  </system>
  <audio>
    <Audio3d value="false" />
  </audio>
  <video>
    <AdapterIndex value="0" />
    <OutputIndex value="0" />
    <ScreenWidth value="1600" />
    <ScreenHeight value="900" />
    <RefreshRate value="59" />
    <Windowed value="0" />
    <VSync value="0" />
    <Stereo value="0" />
    <Convergence value="0.100000" />
    <Separation value="1.000000" />
    <PauseOnFocusLoss value="1" />
    <AspectRatio value="0" />
  </video>
  <VideoCardDescription>NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB</VideoCardDescription>
</Settings>

Anybody is welcome to backup their C:\Users\<userid>\Documents\Rockstar Games\GTA V\settings.xml and use the above one, you can verify in game that this is indeed everything maxed out. Would love to see the benchmark results of some RX570 owners just to confirm that I'm not lying through me ass.

 

[ponder]

That is assuming he is staying at the same performance bracket for the next ~5 years, the typical lifecycle for a good PSU. Once you have your shell, upgrading to the next class is much easier if you don't have to worry about power, storage and cooling.

GTX960, GTX1060, GTX1660TI are not in the same performance bracket, you probably meant market segment. 960&1060 were never 1440p cards, 1660ti will do ok at 1440p so it's already a step up for the same power consumption, this trend will continue in future.

 

[Saieden]

I'm not trying to imply you're lying, just that I disagree with your opinion that a 570 is insufficient for 900p. I can almost guarantee you that if you put two images of "Very High" vs "Max" settings at 900p you would never be able to tell the difference. When you're running around and ****'s blowing up everywhere, even less so. It's also not hard at all at to tweak settings that are tanking fps without losing overall quality. There is no point making your gpu draw and shade shapes for objects that are ultimately amount to just a few pixels on your screen.

 

[ponder]

I'm not trying to imply you're lying, just that I disagree with your opinion that a 570 is insufficient for 900p. I can almost guarantee you that if you put two images of "Very High" vs "Max" settings at 900p you would never be able to tell the difference. When you're running around and ****'s blowing up everywhere, even less so. It's also not hard at all at to tweak settings that are tanking fps without losing overall quality. There is no point making your gpu draw and shade shapes for objects that are ultimately amount to just a few pixels on your screen.

I get that but that is not what the op requested, fact remains the 570 cannot do 60fps@900p at max setting.

 

[Saieden]

I get that but that is not what the op requested, fact remains the 570 cannot do 60fps@900p at max setting.

The main point I was making, originally, is that the 1660 ti is massive overkill for gaming at 900p; I only suggested the 570 because it offers the best value of money vs noticeable quality and performance. Looking at OP's other threads, the majority of the games he wants to play exaggerates that even further, with older titles like Fallout 4 and Skyrim SE. If he wants to sacrifice on the quality and longevity of his build (or even just hard cash) for the sake of a better GPU for one game to run at settings his monitor can't even show, that's up to him I suppose.

 

[NickDiablo]

The main point I was making, originally, is that the 1660 ti is massive overkill for gaming at 900p; I only suggested the 570 because it offers the best value of money vs noticeable quality and performance. Looking at OP's other threads, the majority of the games he wants to play exaggerates that even further, with older titles like Fallout 4 and Skyrim SE. If he wants to sacrifice on the quality and longevity of his build (or even just hard cash) for the sake of a better GPU for one game to run at settings his monitor can't even show, that's up to him I suppose.

HI. you make good points and saving hard earned cash is definitely worth investigating. I just checked out benchmark videos for the Rx 570 and im impressed. Paying for an overkill system is not wise.
I have a couple questions for you if you don't mind.

If i were to change from 1660ti to rx 570 4gb, i would most likely change from ryzen 5 3600 to ryzen 5 2600 too.
Do you know of a better combo of parts?

Maybe a rx 570 4gb can run smoothly on a <Ryzen 5 2600? I am not sure. I am just trying to save money if possible. DO you have any recommendations?

Also, the motherbaord i have in my cart is the one you suggested, the MSI B450M Bazooka Plus AMD B450 Ryzen Socket AM4 Micro-ATX Desktop Motherboard - the initial reason for choosing it is for the flash situation.
So with that said, do you know any cheaper but suitable motherboards for <Ryzen 5 3600 CPUs?

Thanks a lot for the help if possible

 

[Saieden]

HI. you make good points and saving hard earned cash is definitely worth investigating. I just checked out benchmark videos for the Rx 570 and im impressed. Paying for an overkill system is not wise.
I have a couple questions for you if you don't mind.

If i were to change from 1660ti to rx 570 4gb, i would most likely change from ryzen 5 3600 to ryzen 5 2600 too.
Do you know of a better combo of parts?

Maybe a rx 570 4gb can run smoothly on a <Ryzen 5 2600? I am not sure. I am just trying to save money if possible.

"Technically", almost any cpu on the market would be more than capable of handling a 570, depending on the game. The advantage of going with a 2600 or 3600 is you will have a better experience with any day to day tasks (a "snappier" desktop) and also a lot more value in the long term because they will be better equipped to handle future games that are becoming increasingly multithreaded. So part of the extra value of a 3600 is that it will age better than the 2600 since it is significantly better for minimum framerates and stuttering, and will therefore be easier to sell should you wish to upgrade, though it shouldn't be necessary for a good few years.

This however is also the downside of the 570; while it is really good value for you know, the resale value should you wish to upgrade won't be all that much in a year from now. At the moment, secondhand ones, even more premium versions, are going for well under R2000 on Carbonite. Of course, if you're not averse to secondhand parts, you could save quite a bit on a similar card, or go one or two tiers up for the same money. If you do, any 570, 580 or 1060 (6gb!!) model at a price you like will be fine. I got a lightly mined Sapphire RX580 Nitro+ SE for R2250, shipped, a few months ago and have no complaints.

DO you have any recommendations?

Also, the motherbaord i have in my cart is the one you suggested, the MSI B450M Bazooka Plus AMD B450 Ryzen Socket AM4 Micro-ATX Desktop Motherboard - the initial reason for choosing it is for the flash situation.
So with that said, do you know any cheaper but suitable motherboards for <Ryzen 5 3600 CPUs?

First, I would not recommend getting a B350 since they're mostly cheaply made, and A320 is not officially supported. The Asus will work, though it has a worse audio codec, only one fan connector (vs 2 for the bazooka), no VRM heatsink (the Bazooka/Mortar/Tomahawk one is by far the best in this price, and better than many from more expensive boards). I'm also pretty sure the Bazooka has better PCB quality for more stable memory overclocks. So for me, it's hard to justify going cheaper without going all the way to the bottom. The amount you're saving on the Asus one is like a night out at a bar or club these days.

Thanks a lot for the help if possible

You're welcome!