Cant decide

[=VG= Skiddles]

Would like thoughts/opinions between these options, thanks. 

Option A

CPU	AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8 Core AM4 4.7GHz CPU Processor

 

Motherboard

MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk WiFi AM4 ATX Motherboard

 

Memory/RAM

Corsair 32GB (2x16GB) CMH32GX4M2Z3600C18 Vengeance RGB Pro SL 3600MHz DDR4 RAM

 

SSD	Samsung 1TB 980 PRO M.2 NVMe SSD + Samsung 2TB 870 QVO 2.5in SATA SSD

 

Graphics Card

Sapphire Radeon RX 6900 XT Toxic 16G Graphics Card

 

O/S	Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64bit OEM

 

 

Option B

Intel 10th Gen i9-10900K Processor

2TB SSD + 3TB HDD RTX 3080

Win10

128GB DDR4 RAM

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Graphics Card

WiFi 6 & Bluetooth

[=VG= Acro1]

1: HOLY SHIT on both those rigs. Secondly: what's your use for the rig, apart from gaming? Do you do any creative work, 3D stuff, data crunching,... Or is this purely for games?

 

 

 

 

 

[=VG= keed]

Take Option A

Reasons:

• Ryzen is considered better than 10th Gen i9 for gaming (price/performance ratio, not just raw cinebench scores...)
• The RTX3080 is overpriced by a large margin and currently very hard to acquire because of shortages and the crypto-mining hype
• What do you need 128GB of RAM for? :D Is this a pre build OEM Gaming Rig? If yes then it's dis proportionally oversized.

If you are still unsure we need to know what you are planning to do with the new rig.

To clarify: More RAM =//= More Speed.

[=VG= 0100011000101]

if you don't do server stuff or video editing you will rarely get 128gb ram filled. 8GB is just enough for normal use. for gaming and video and audio editing you then need at least 16GB. better 32-64gb. if you want to have buffer upwards or edit 8k videos you need 64gb upwards ... since your first option only contains 32gb, i assume that you won't need any more. Save the money or invest it in faster ram. 32gb with a high clock rate makes your computer faster in normal operation than 128gb with a lower clock rate.

[=VG= Connor]

IIRC he needs ram for the work he does on his PC. However I would personally go for option B if you can get it for a relatively equal price to A. Ryzen is definitely far better in the CPU market right now but Nvidia are still better for GPUs. But like M8 said it all depends on the intention behind the PC

[=VG= BLuDKLoT]

I just got this rig and its freaking amazing! Gaming in 1440p is like a whole new experience! I'd go with Nvidia card and i9. It's incredible man but don't forget you need a 1440p monitor to display it! Also check out cyberpowerpc.com they have good prices but you'll wait 2 months to get it. 

·    CASE: High Air Flow Mid-Tower Gaming Case with Tempered Glass + 4x 120mm ARGB Fans

·    CPU: Intel® Core™ Processor i9-10850K 10/20 3.60GHz [Turbo 5.1GHz] 20MB Cache LGA1200

·    CS_FAN: 3X 120mm APEVIA 120mm Addressable RGB 1200RPM Fans w/ Hub + Remote Controller

·    FAN: Master Liquid Lite 120mm ARGB CPU Liquid Cooler with Dual Chamber Pump & Copper Cold Plate

·    HDD: 1TB WD Blue SN550 M.2 NVME SSD + 4TB SATA III Hard Drive Combo] (Combo Drive)

·    MEMORY: 32GB (8GBx4) DDR4/3000MHz Dual Channel Memory (Crucial Ballistix Sport)

·    MOTHERBOARD: ASRock Z490 Steel Legend ATX, ARGB

·    OS: Windows 10 Home (64-bit Edition)

·    POWERSUPPLY: 1,000 Watts - Standard 80 Plus Gold Power Supply

·    VIDEO: GeForce RTX™ 3080 8GB GDDR6X 

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

My 2 cents (since work was mentioned, and we're talking about work that may use up to 128GB of RAM) is Option A  -- Ryzen is the multi-task workhorse that beats out Intel and also does excellent for gaming, even if just slightly less overall gaming performance than Intel.  Not gonna input on the GFX card, not familiar with AMD and not sure if that's a workload based choice or just w/e -- if it was just for gaming, video encoding, recording, or streaming, I'd always go for Nvidia right now... Nvenc is tits.

My experience with Ryzen over Intel on certain task like rendering video or compression/decompression of files:  There are things that I consider 'go the kitchen, get a drink, and it will be done by the time you get back' and others that are more 'take a sip from the drink and the task is already done'.  Many things that formerly fell into that first category are now in the second category, or equivalent (a 20 minute task now taking 2 or 3 minutes).  If I had gone Intel, I'd see 20 minute tasks dropping down to maybe 8-10 minutes.  That's quite a difference.  I'm glad I went with Ryzen and I don't mind if it was 5% or 10% less performance while using the same graphics card on an "equal" version Intel CPU, if it means the work I do in between gaming is completed that much faster.

[=VG= Skiddles]

12 hours ago, =VG= Acro1 said:

1: HOLY SHIT on both those rigs. Secondly: what's your use for the rig, apart from gaming? Do you do any creative work, 3D stuff, data crunching,... Or is this purely for games?

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Res photo editing and a bit of video production, a bit of 3D work for 3D printer and CNC. I was going to add RAM to option A
In truth, I don't need anything this OP for that. What I have is fine. This rig is my solution to the demands of ARMA III. 

Option A is built by the retailer and is A$2000 cheaper than Option B which is pre-built name brand. 

SO, from whats been said here, option A, swap out video cards and add the extra Ram.

Thanks Guys!

[=VG= Batmeme]

i'll have to go with keed and acro option A sound better then B 

[=VG= Acro1]

For any kind of 3D rendering and decent-tier video production, I'd advise NVidia GPU's. Their OptiX raytracing libraries are great for producing good renders quickly, and their NVENC video encoder is a-freaking-mazing for video stuff. Miles ahead of competition afaik.

[=VG= Stixon]

I would suggest Option A but with lower CAS latency ram... 3600mhz C16.
The Infinity fabric clock speed usually doesn't get much higher the 1800mhz (which is equal to the 1800mhz of your ram) so i would just try to lower latencies. Try looking for Crucial Ballistix ram, with the "C16 signature". They might be a bit more expensive, but a kit 16gbx2 is usually 160-170 euros (i guess around 200 us dollars?). 

Also don't save money on the power supply and take a good case with a good airflow. 

[TH0M]

On 3/23/2021 at 5:32 AM, Skiddles said:

This rig is my solution to the demands of ARMA III.

+1 on A, as others have stated, and if ARMA is the reason, and you got the budget, the just go wild with it

[=VG= Skiddles]

I just get the shits with having to "turn down" settings to make a game playable. I often wonder who pays these developers to push computers to the limits!? I'm convinced the developers are not responsible. They want their game to be played. 
It will have to budget for the new system but puck it, I'm having it! LOL

[=VG= keed]

I understand your point, however especially with ARMA 3, bad performance might originate from the Server with the amount of server-side scripts and mods that are loaded. As a comparison, you might get ~70 FPS at the start of the mission, however that might drop to ~20 in extreme cases when a lot is going on later down the line - regardless of your system.

*FPS is not a single metric, and should always be reported with context or included with min./max. values.

Nevertheless - it's still hella' fun!

I am looking for more boots on ground!

[=VG= Skiddles]

I do understand the bandwidth servers have and know full well the limits of my ISP. Puckers make me pay for well beyond what they promise to deliver.  capitalistic PUNTS.  

[Golden]

All I have to say is go balls to the wall with option B. It's close to my current build and is future proof for at least 3 to 4 years. At least as far as the graphics card goes.

Intel + Nvidia all day. I'll never build with another budget AMD ATI product again.

 

My opinion.

[=VG= Condrad]

AMD ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!! TEAM RED!!!!!!!!!!! xD

[=VG= keed]

12 hours ago, Golden said:

Intel + Nvidia all day. I'll never build with another budget AMD ATI product again.

Jumped the gun on a AMD Ryzen chip last week, after being an Intel kid my entire life.

I am very happy with my purchase. AMD is on a steady course and with the latest generation CPU they are hitting it out of the park. Single Core performance (what gamers need) is stellar and objectively ahead of Intel. I would like to see Intel wake up from their market share induced hibernation and bring innovation back into their portfolio. Competition is good for us.

[=VG= =AMPH=]

A

[Golden]

6 hours ago, =VG= keed said:

Jumped the gun on a AMD Ryzen chip last week, after being an Intel kid my entire life.

I am very happy with my purchase. AMD is on a steady course and with the latest generation CPU they are hitting it out of the park. Single Core performance (what gamers need) is stellar and objectively ahead of Intel. I would like to see Intel wake up from their market share induced hibernation and bring innovation back into their portfolio. Competition is good for us.

I totally agree that the newer AMD CPUs are tanks, but I've had issues with thermals in the past under load with AMD. Throttli g and what not. Before liquid cooling was a norm. Combine that with poor mobo choice (ASrock) I had issues in CAD and some of the rotor balancing programs I use at work when I was on the engineering side of my shop. I wanted to be closer to the engines and build them rather than trouble shoot 24/7. So I'm not as active of CAD and things anymore.

I've never really had any issues with thermals in any Intel CPU. That's really my only gripe. I made my decision to not use AMD anymore years and years ago.

 

When I finish this year out and get my christmas bonus, I might build another AMD machine, but for my living room as an entertainment system. See how it goes. My son loves offroad racing games and he likes to play in the living room. He has his own PC in his room that I built for him. But he would rather play in the living room on the older PC I have in there for movies and stuff.

[=VG= STARK]

I agree,  got to watch  the thermals with AMD . When i overclock the AMD cpu i drop the voltage slightly to even things out.