New PC build time

Status
Not open for further replies.
YeuEmMaiMai

YeuEmMaiMai

Extremely [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
33,129
I only need 3 things

new mATX mainboard with 2 graphics card slots (one will be used for a 4x nvme card
current gen CPU
32GB ram

GIGABYTE Z390 119.99
Intel Core i5-9600K 264.99
Patriot Viper Steel Series DDR4 32GB (2 x 16GB) 3200MHz $144.99

Total about $530

Can I do better price wise or get better performance for the same price?

this MUST BE AN mATX setup
 
How soon do you need it?

You can probably get the RAM now and wait for Zen2 which is revealed end of this month. If it doesn't interest you, then proceed with the CPU and MB?

Also, what do you intend to do with the machine? Will determine what kind of CPU will be best for you. I.E. If you're going to be doing a lot of rendering, you're probably better off with an AMD. What are the rest of your parts?
 
I use my PC for general duties and some moderate gaming, right now I am on a hasswell i5 4960K
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
I only need 3 things

new mATX mainboard with 2 graphics card slots (one will be used for a 4x nvme card
current gen CPU
32GB ram

{snip}

Can I do better price wise or get better performance for the same price?

this MUST BE AN mATX setup
Click to expand...
Unless you really need an m.2 NVMe SSD, you're better off staying put with your current PC (as long as it remains supported by current and future OSes and security software). This is because absolutely nothing that you're planning to run will justify the purchase of a newer-generation PC - at least not for the prices that you'll be paying for the parts of such a newer platform. And you do not need a separate m.2 PCIe card as almost all decent modern motherboards have at least one m.2 socket on them.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
that box will be going to media PC duties
Click to expand...
In that case, then you can save some money for the new parts by not going with such a higher-core-count CPU in the new build. A 6-core CPU is generally overkill for just plain general usage, IMHO.
 
The 9600K doesn't come with a cooler, which means that you either have one already, or are planning to buy one.

In which case, I'd recommend the 8700 nonK which is about $30 more expensive. With a good cooler, that thing turbo boosts quite high, and on most boards, you can set the multi core enhancement to set turbo boost clock for multicore to be = to the single core turbo.
 
Yeah it's been like that since the 6th gen.

That said, if you haven't OC'ed your haswell at all and are planning to upgrade now, then maybe you're better served with something like the 8700 standard.
 
so since I do not need intergrated graphics The i5 F series is a good bet, right?
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
so since I do not need intergrated graphics The i5 F series is a good bet, right?
Click to expand...
Sure, if you're only gaming and not doing any H.264 or H.265 video processing work. The F-series CPUs have their iGPU disabled at the factory during quality control checking/inspection. And with no enabled iGPU, there is no QuickSync support - but that support only concerns users who perform a lot of video processing work.

The only problem with the F-series CPUs is that they sell for as much money as their fully-enabled equivalents with a fully enabled iGPU. In other words, you will not save any money whatsoever by going with an i5-9400F instead of the plain i5-9400.
 
Last edited:
YeuEmMaiMai said:
I have dedicated graphics that are more than up to video processing tasks
Click to expand...
The trouble with that is not all media players and video editing programs support hardware decoding or encoding using solely the discrete GPU. In fact, many professional-level editing software support only the Intel iGPU for hardware encoding. With such a software, if the iGPU is disabled or absent, then the entire job falls onto the CPU which can be far slower than any GPU. Thus, it depends.

And I still do not recommend an F-series CPU simply because it costs as much as or more than a fully-enabled (or fully functional) CPU, with practically zero performance or speed advantage over the full non-F CPU.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
they do ? https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MRCGQQ4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
looks like $150 vs $260 for 9600k.. while it would be nice to have the unlock, not needed in my case...
Click to expand...
Part of the difference is the increased stock and higher-cored turbo clock speeds. You are not comparing the same CPU, in this case. And because the fully enabled cores are in short supply right now, the prices are artificially inflated. But I was talking about Intel's suggested price, not the actual street price, in my previous posts in this thread.

By the way, you should be comparing the i5-9600K with an i5-9600KF, not an i5-9400F, when you want to compare the two. The i5-9400F simply has significantly lower clock speeds (2.9 GHz base clock speed, 3.9 GHz all-core Turbo clock speed) all around than an i5-9600K(F) (3.7 GHz base clock speed, 4.3 GHz all-core Turbo clock speed). In this comparison, the i5-9600K (at $260) actually costs $20 less than the i5-9600KF (which costs $280). Between those two, it's a no-brainer. (For the record, the plain i5-9400, at $240, costs much more than the i5-9400F due to it being in relatively short supply.)
 
Last edited:
YeuEmMaiMai said:
I have dedicated graphics that are more than up to video processing tasks
Click to expand...
What are you planning to use for video processing? FWIW, I'm using a 3570k for a Plex host right now that pulls heavy duty on transcoding. Something like that?
 
Joust said:
What are you planning to use for video processing? FWIW, I'm using a 3570k for a Plex host right now that pulls heavy duty on transcoding. Something like that?
Click to expand...
No, the OP is planning to buy something that's current-gen. So anything that's older than his current, to-be-donated system is out of the question. And he's planning to use a discrete GPU to do such processing, which most media players and editing programs don't support much or at all or require a separately-installed third-party plugin just to enable GPU hardware-accelerated playback and/or encoding. Therefore, with a discrete GPU and no integrated iGPU, by default most or all of the processing must fall back onto the CPU, whose performance then varies.
 
E4g1e said:
No, the OP is planning to buy something that's current-gen. So anything that's older than his current, to-be-donated system is out of the question. And he's planning to use a discrete GPU to do such processing, which most media players and editing programs don't support much or at all or require a separately-installed third-party plugin just to enable GPU hardware-accelerated playback and/or encoding. Therefore, with a discrete GPU and no integrated iGPU, by default most or all of the processing must fall back onto the CPU, whose performance then varies.
Click to expand...
Not the way I read it. I think his old box is going to media server usage. That would be where most video processing would take place, given that he said he uses his computer for "general duties and moderate gaming."
 
lol I think someone is confused here... Intel integrated graphics are not going outperform a Radeon RX 580 at any task, to argue otherwise is foolish at best. All of the major video processing suites support AMD and nVidia for video processing/playback duties...
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
lol I think someone is confused here... Intel integrated graphics are not going outperform a Radeon RX 580 at any task, to argue otherwise is foolish at best. All of the major video processing suites support AMD and nVidia for video processing/playback duties...
Click to expand...

Two very different use cases. You want your machine to play something to a TV it's connected to, yes? That's fine. Very different from what my media server does.

No one was arguing integrated graphics outperform dedicated gpu.
 
Joust said:
Two very different use cases. You want your machine to play something to a TV it's connected to, yes? That's fine. Very different from what my media server does.

No one was arguing integrated graphics outperform dedicated gpu.
Click to expand...

keep telling yourself that integrated graphics are superior, they are not, for if they were, we would have absolutely no need for dedicated cards. if all you are doing is playing media files OK you do not need a dedicated card, I do play games and most of the ones I have run like poo on integrated graphics especially when upscaled to 4K
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
keep telling yourself that integrated graphics are superior, they are not, for if they were, we would have absolutely no need for dedicated cards. if all you are doing is playing media files OK you do not need a dedicated card, I do play games and most of the ones I have run like poo on integrated graphics especially when upscaled to 4K
Click to expand...

Ah. I understand now. You've been celebrating memorial day pretty hard. Toke a little less [H]ard, bro.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top