Advice build PC Gaming, budget €2000-2500, Qhd

R

RainerV

n00b
Joined
Apr 20, 2022
Messages
60
Good evening guys. I want some help for to build an new Pc Desktop, and since my actual one have an very old Motherboard i need to build an entire one.

I want to play at Ultra(or very close to it) at 4K in an 27" Monitor with at least 140fps(probably i'm exagerating). My main doubt it's if i should invest in an Gpu RTX 4090 or going to 4080 or 4070ti, for sure i want to keep the build for long term.

Can you help with this?
 
DO you know for which games, if it is recent not particularly easy to run, 4090 no doubt (and would lower the expectation).
 
All these next games that are coming out, like tekken and other new games. Starfield, Cyberpunk etc..
 
RainerV said:
All these next games that are coming out, like tekken and other new games. Starfield, Cyberpunk etc..
Click to expand...
To give you an idea about lowering expectation, you will not get 60 fps all the time with what you want to do with those new game, even with a 4090:

Ultra-4k-p.jpg
RT_2160p-p.jpg


And remove any doubt about going for either the 7900xtx or 4090 and I would be open to play upscaled 4k instead of native, it is a good resolution for the tech for someone that want both high setting and high frame rate.
 
LukeTbk said:
To give you an idea about lowering expectation, you will not get 60 fps all the time with what you want to do with those new game, even with a 4090:

View attachment 602690View attachment 602691

And remove any doubt about going for either the 7900xtx or 4090 and I would be open to play upscaled 4k instead of native, it is a good resolution for the tech for someone that want both high setting and high frame rate.
Click to expand...
Oh i see know , thank you. So It also advisable going for High With 4k + ray tracing..
 
RainerV said:
Oh i see know , thank you. So It also advisable going for High With 4k + ray tracing..
Click to expand...
In some game the cpu bottleneck will make 140 fps hard to achieve regardless of setting, 1080p high setting will not do it in StarField, but it is the type of game that for almost everyone 90fps will be a good enough experience (1080p high on a 4080-7800x3d).

It will be more a game by game affair than a blank canvas high fps-4k native-ultra setting, some game will be able too, but most new big single player game won't

RT off (Lumen will often not be an option to be turned off and not necessarily easier to run on a 4090), high instead of ultra and more and more upscaling instead of 4k native will be option to play with, for what you want 4k-over 120 fps-ultra setting, you cannot overbuy hardware right now, 7900xtx-4090 are pretty much the 2 only option to hesitate between and I am not sure long term work.

Running game in 4k-140 fps like Avatar (and AAA PS5-XboxX exclusive in general) will be hard, but maybe with how good DLSS-FSR will get by then it will be less of an issue and you won't mind playing at 80-90 fps for that type of game after all, otherwise a 5090 and some 9900x3d-DDR5-8000 kit will maybe be needed.

I would change my expectation to possibly upscaled to 4k/high setting at least 90fps for a Hogwart-Avatar-Starfield-Last of us-Cyberpunk type of game, 4k-120 fps for made to run at high FPS like a call of duty-battlefield game and be ready that it will maybe not be the case soon, already for the "old" 2022 Call of Duty you need a 13900k/7900xtx-4090 type to do 120 fps at 4k.

In bref, 4090-7900xtx not a single doubt, if that what you want to do and even then I would lower the expectation a bit (and maybe reconsider if budget is an issue), the difference between high and ultra setting can be thin, between high quality upscale and native has well for the performance difference.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
In some game the cpu bottleneck will make 140 fps hard to achieve regardless of setting, 1080p high setting will not do it, but it is the type of game that for almost everyone 90fps will be a good enough experience (1080p high on a 4080-7800x3d).

It will be more a game by game affair than a blank canvas high fps-4k native-ultra setting, some game will be able too, but most new big single player game won't

RT off (Lumen will often not be an option to be turned off and not necessarily easier to run on a 4090), high instead of ultra and more and more upscaling instead of 4k native will be option to play with, for what you want 4k-over 120 fps-ultra setting, you cannot overbuy hardware right now, 7900xtx-4090 are pretty much the 2 only option to hesitate between and I am not sure long term work.

Running game in 4k-140 fps like Avatar (and AAA PS5-XboxX exclusive in general) will be hard, but maybe with how good DLSS-FSR will get by then it will be less of an issue and you won't mind playing at 80-90 fps for that type of game after all, otherwise a 5090 and some 9900x3d-DDR5-8000 kit will maybe be needed.

I would change my expectation to possibly upscaled to 4k/high setting at least 90fps for a Hogwart-Avatar-Starfield-Last of us-Cyberpunk type of game, 4k-120 fps for made to run at high FPS like a call of duty-battlefield game and be ready that it will maybe not be the case soon, already for the "old" 2022 Call of Duty you need a 13900k/7900xtx-4090 type to do 120 fps at 4k.

In bref, 4090-7900xtx not a single doubt, if that what you want to do and even then I would lower the expectation a bit (and maybe reconsider if budget is an issue), the difference between high and ultra setting can be thin, between high quality upscale and native has well for the performance difference.
Click to expand...
The budget It s a bit issue , but i want an good long term PC build With good quality. My Plan was to go away from Full HD and going in higher quality. Wanting to play in quality look and With good FPS.

Actually my PC have i5 8 gen With RX 5700tx, With old Chipset Motherboard. Actually i play between Medium-Low , the FPS It s decent but i'm a unsatisfied with Graphic quality With every games i play (Elden Ring , Tekken , Cyberpunk.. etc), that's why i wanted to build an new PC.
 
If you want both high FPS and high setting and budget is an issue, you could consider

) Using upscaling (you can try fsr 2 on your 5700xt, but 1080p is a worst case scenario for the tech, really different than if you go with a 4k monitor)
) 1440p monitor, if you are still at 1080p and the 4k one is yet to be bought, you could save good money on the monitor as well.

1440p is 77% more pixel than 1080p so it is already quite a nice upgrade and not bad pixel density on a 27inch (after all imagine quality is a pure subjective relative to what we are use too, DVD looked incredible to some in 1999 on 24 to 36 inch CRT, today many movie look really rough on over 50 inch tv on that format).

$2000 even 2500 euro for 4k-140fps if that budget including buying a 140fps capable 4k gaming monitor could be rough, 7900xtx start at 1000 euro in the france it seem, 4090 at 1700, not much cheaper in Germany, what monitor did you had in mind and was it in that budget ?
 
LukeTbk said:
If you want both high FPS and high setting and budget is an issue, you could consider

) Using upscaling (you can try fsr 2 on your 5700xt, but 1080p is a worst case scenario for the tech, really different than if you go with a 4k monitor)
) 1440p monitor, if you are still at 1080p and the 4k one is yet to be bought, you could save good money on the monitor as well.

1440p is 77% more pixel than 1080p so it is already quite a nice upgrade and not bad pixel density on a 27inch (after all imagine quality is a pure subjective relative to what we are use too, DVD looked incredible to some in 1999 on 24 to 36 inch CRT, today many movie look really rough on over 50 inch tv on that format).

$2000 even 2500 euro for 4k-140fps if that budget including buying a 140fps capable 4k gaming monitor could be rough, 7900xtx start at 1000 euro in the france it seem, 4090 at 1700, not much cheaper in Germany, what monitor did you had in mind and was it in that budget ?
Click to expand...
The best monitor in market about 27". I have an Optiplex 24" , It have bad colors and It's or too much Dark or too much Lighter or Colors that hurts your eyes.
 
It would be an good idea going for Rtx 4080 ? For 4k and like 80 FPS and for the budget ?
 
RainerV said:
It would be an good idea going for Rtx 4080 ? For 4k and like 80 FPS and for the budget ?
Click to expand...

It is an extremely capable card (about 50% more than a 3080 at 4k now with mature drivers), at the price range I would greatly consider the 7900xtx, right now cheapest on pcpartpicker goes for $900:
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#sort=price&page=1

4080 calmed down (was $1200 for a while) but still goes for $1100 for the less popular models:
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#sort=price&page=1

Without RT it was close, almost a tie, but advantage 7900xtx with the drivers of September and it is cheaper:
relative-performance-3840-2160.png
Medium-4k-p.jpg


If you want to play Cyberpunk with PT or other RT heavy title, go with the Nvidia.

For a quick view (those were old driver and start to be old games):
average-fps-3840-2160.png


But has you see the gap with the 4090 is a massive one, so I would look carefully where I am spending the extra $500 saved for going down to the 4080, the 4090 look like a potential 1080ti.
 
LukeTbk said:
It is an extremely capable card (about 50% more than a 3080 at 4k now with mature drivers), at the price range I would greatly consider the 7900xtx, right now cheapest on pcpartpicker goes for $900:
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#sort=price&page=1

4080 calmed down (was $1200 for a while) but still goes for $1100 for the less popular models:
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#sort=price&page=1
Click to expand...

Their currency is in Euro, and pcpartpicker specifically has different selections for your country that completely changes the prices and everything in the listings.

For instance:
https://fr.pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#sort=-chipset,price&c=542,539,548

Just note that if you do go with a 4090, you're going to be left with at most ~800E (I don't have a Euro key sorry) for the entire rest of the build. And considering how many horror stories I've heard about PNY in the warranty department, I sure as heck would not recommend investing 1700E into a card by them. So realistically that's ~1800E and 700E left for the rest of the build.

Here's an example build in France, since I don't actually know what your country is:

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 4.2 GHz 8-Core Processor (€434.00 @ Amazon France)
CPU Cooler: Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE ARGB 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler (€38.29 @ Amazon France)
Motherboard: ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 Micro ATX AM5 Motherboard (€159.71 @ Amazon France)
Memory: Patriot Viper Black 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL36 Memory (€108.88 @ Alternate)
Storage: Western Digital Black SN770 250 GB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive (€34.99 @ Amazon France)
Video Card: MSI RTX 4090 VENTUS 3X 24G OC GeForce RTX 4090 24 GB Video Card (€1798.98 @ Alternate)
Case: Tecware Forge M MicroATX Mini Tower Case (€49.99 @ Amazon France)
Power Supply: Corsair RM850e (2023) 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply (€137.16 @ Amazon France)
Total: €2762.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-10-05 18:37 CEST+0200

As you can see this goes over your budget even though many of my choices are INCREDIBLY barebones. You could also look at Intel...
 
I can get behind that list.
Extremely focused on fps per dollar.
It´s a workhorse of a rig and you will be able to buy a newer cpu in a year.

Intel z790 is on its last leg and less future proof than amd if you have to buy right now.
 
Thank you all guys for all these answers!.

I have an last question: 4k It s worth It ?
 
RainerV said:
4k It s worth It ?
Click to expand...
There some objectivity that can be possible to talk about in term of performance cost and so on, but it will be quite subjective.

Do you have a 4k tv at home to try ? If it is much bigger than a 27 monitor you want it will obviously be a different density, but depending on from where you stand not necessarily that dissimilar, it can give you a clue, with my not so good eyes (not that bad but could wear glasses and I do not except for driving), 1440p vs 4k is not that big of a deal, not close to say 480p to 720p.

Your rx5700 probably has an hdmi 2.0b port.

It can be worth it (specially if you are open to play on a TV, quality-price in the 4k TV segment can be really good), upscaling getting better and better it could be a non issue in the future, 1440p vs 4k monitor (i.e. 1440p->upscaled to 4k not being much of an issue) and if you go for a 4090/7900xtx type solution it can be specially worth it, if you go lower... less so. How much money is worth to you, how much having way more FPS is worth to you, this is all extremely subjective. Ideally one could go into a microcenter type and try computer-monitor combo to have an idea.
 
Last edited:
I found 4k not to be worth the trouble. 1440p would have been fine for my gaming and on TV I can barely see the difference between 1080p and 2160p.

The exception is the first Lord of the Rings movie, where the Blu Ray has a green tint that is gone in the 4k version. Worth the price of admission,
 
So I've never really used 4k in any serious manner so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. I think 4k is worth it in projector format or very large TV format. Mainly the former, because projectors can cast a picture that is 150 inches and up in size. For most TVs you're sitting too far away anyway. Some people use a 40-50 inch TV as a gaming monitor, so I guess I could... maybe see it being useful there. But these are edge cases. I'm overall not really sure why we ever moved on from 1440p. Display industry needed money? The GPUs to actually play games at 4k sure as hell did not exist back when 4k was first announced and released, and it's still not really the case even today. I don't know why we didn't just move on to 1440p TVs. Would have probably given console makers much less headache.

In my case, I just use 3440x1440 (curved), and I like this resolution. My only wish is that I could find like a 40 inch-ish ultrawide 1440p monitor. 35" feels a bit small. At the moment I'm just using two of these stacked up (one vertically from the other).
https://www.costco.com/lg-35"-class-ultrawide-curved-wqhd-hdr10-monitor-.product.100695387.html
They were pretty cheap. They ghost a bit, so I'll probably replace one of them sometime, but I'm waiting for something that I really want to purchase.
 
Well to state the obvious - if you have 1440p displays you can't consume TV and movies that do come in 4k. That is why monitors made the jump to 4k, even if it made little sense for actual computer usage.
 
Monitor are not only for gaming, a lot of the first 4k were not fast-low latency affair I would imagine.

For TVs it is less obvious why the industry when to 4k (has yet too really fully have done it, 2k projection being still quite common I imagine and 4k master/sfx being the norm being quite new, big movies like Knive out released in 2019 still had 2.8k source format and 2k intermediate/master).

Maybe it cost so much changing projector (and maybe some other part of the chain, like bluray players and format), that it take 10-15 years to happen all around and it need to be for decades and not go small jump/jump. Not so long ago under 50mbits compression it was not obvious that 4k was better than 1080p, sometime worst, maybe with modern AV1 it changed but I do not imagine it make much sense for heavily compressed content like bluray-streaming-tv, but one day it will.
 
Last edited:
uOpt said:
Well to state the obvious - if you have 1440p displays you can't consume TV and movies that do come in 4k. That is why monitors made the jump to 4k, even if it made little sense for actual computer usage.
Click to expand...

... Like... downscaling aside? I think there are some camera forums that I've read where they prefer to take the source in 4k and then downscale, because the downscaling algorithm actually ends up producing a better looking image. Something or other about color depth. Or is there content that you can't downscale?

LukeTbk said:
Maybe it cost so much changing projector (and maybe some other part of the chain, like bluray players and format), that it take 10-15 years to happen all around and it need to be for decades and not go small jump/jump.
Click to expand...

I can tell you that a native 4k consumer projector from Sony is around $6000. A good 1080P projector is around $600-800. I can't imagine what a professional level 4k projector costs. I have no idea why they did it.
 
I don't have an good TV , neither i don't think that i ll never buying one. Since That i'm that kind of guy that use monitor for everything and i don't Watch TV Sat in general. And for me It's like to buy or Monitor or TV cause i'm not rich, and between these two the monitor for me It's an must for an PC Desktop since i'm behind a desk.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
... Like... downscaling aside? I think there are some camera forums that I've read where they prefer to take the source in 4k and then downscale, because the downscaling algorithm actually ends up producing a better looking image. Something or other about color depth. Or is there content that you can't downscale?
Click to expand...

That doesn't always work, though. For example, a 4k blu ray player with a 4k disk will actually refuse to play on a monitor less than 4k. So unless you rip it you couldn't e.g. enjoy the LotR green tint corrected 4k disk.
 
uOpt said:
4k blu ray player with a 4k disk will actually refuse to play on a monitor less than 4k.
Click to expand...
Sound like something that could be an urban legend (refuse to play on a monitor with no HDCP recent enough for what the disk asked and people thinking their old 768p-1080p does not work and their more recent 4k TV work because of resolution ?) or using player that do not allow it (specially if it need to go HDR to SDR) ?
https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/4k-ultrahd-on-a-1080p-display/

And obviously even if that would have been the case, would the industry had decided to go 1440p instead of 2160p, they would have made players in consequence and the Ultra HD bluray would have been 1440p to start with.
 
LukeTbk said:
Sound like something that could be an urban legend (refuse to play on a monitor with no HDCP recent enough for what the disk asked and people thinking their old 768p-1080p does not work and their more recent 4k TV work because of resolution ?) or using player that do not allow it (specially if it need to go HDR to SDR) ?
https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/4k-ultrahd-on-a-1080p-display/

And obviously even if that would have been the case, would the industry had decided to go 1440p instead of 2160p, they would have made players in consequence and the Ultra HD bluray would have been 1440p to start with.
Click to expand...

I experienced that myself with a Sony X800 4K player. It would display 1080p movies to a 1080p screen but not 2160p movies.

I don't know whether this applies to all manufacturers but to me it looked like a lack of downscaling support in the player.
 
uOpt said:
I don't know whether this applies to all manufacturers but to me it looked like a lack of downscaling support in the player.
Click to expand...
Will be way more often a TV without a high enough HDCP support on the connected HDMI port (old TV will often have a single HDMI port with an high HDCP or too old tv none), that player (like all ?) do support downscaling. Downscaling 4->1 is much harder than upscaling but a 4k player will be a relatively recent thing.

https://nerdtechy.com/sony-ubp-x800-review
But there is one area where the player does have an impact on quality: scaling. Whether you’re upscaling 1080p content to 4K, or downscaling 4K content for use on a standard HD TV, the UBP-X800 does a great job. We noticed (with other players) that 4K content tends to look a little over sharpened on 1080p, with slight hints of jagged edges. Sony uses a less aggressive downscaling process, making the content look just as good as standard 1080p content.
 
uOpt said:
That doesn't always work, though. For example, a 4k blu ray player with a 4k disk will actually refuse to play on a monitor less than 4k. So unless you rip it you couldn't e.g. enjoy the LotR green tint corrected 4k disk.
Click to expand...

I think this is what Luke is saying above, but that sounds like a content protection issue to me. I think most devices are quite happy to downscale.

Also we're getting pretty off topic lol.

My build up there was just to point out that it's literally impossible to make a 4k gaming build with a 4090 that was within your budget (at least not in France, which I still don't know what country you live in...). It's about 200E over. It's up to you how much you care about 4k gaming with all the goodies maxed out. Personally, again, I would go for an ultrawide 3440x1440, as I like this format quite a bit.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I think this is what Luke is saying above, but that sounds like a content protection issue to me. I think most devices are quite happy to downscale.

Also we're getting pretty off topic lol.

My build up there was just to point out that it's literally impossible to make a 4k gaming build with a 4090 that was within your budget (at least not in France, which I still don't know what country you live in...). It's about 200E over. It's up to you how much you care about 4k gaming with all the goodies maxed out. Personally, again, I would go for an ultrawide 3440x1440, as I like this format quite a bit
Click to expand...
I live in Italy. I Heard about ultrawide doesnt look good in fighting game and FPS that's why i have not thought about the ultrawide choice.

At this point i'm trying to convince myself to go all forward and doing the effort for RTX 4090 even for future games (i know next year and half we Will have the rtx 5000 series)
 
PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 4.2 GHz 8-Core Processor (€420.41 @ Amazon Italia)
CPU Cooler: Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE ARGB 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler (€38.29 @ Amazon Italia)
Motherboard: ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 Micro ATX AM5 Motherboard (€176.99 @ Amazon Italia)
Memory: G.Skill Flare X5 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL36 Memory (€108.00 @ Amazon Italia)
Storage: Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500 GB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive (€48.00 @ Amazon Italia)
Video Card: MSI RTX 4090 VENTUS 3X 24G OC GeForce RTX 4090 24 GB Video Card (€1797.90 @ Alternate Italia)
Case: Tecware Forge M MicroATX Mini Tower Case (€49.99 @ Amazon Italia)
Power Supply: Corsair RM850e (2023) 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply (€140.00 @ Amazon Italia)
Total: €2779.58
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-10-06 21:50 CEST+0200

The build looks almost exactly the same in Italy. Just a few part swaps here and there. For the NVME SSD, you can go up to PCIE4.0 (or even 5.0) if you want, it'll just be a bit more expensive.

For the power supply, consider spending like 13E more to get 200 more watts:
https://it.pcpartpicker.com/product...-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-cp-9020264-na

For your GPU options:
https://it.pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#sort=-chipset,price&c=542,539,548

Italy prices on every card in general are a bit higher, so just choose whatever fits the resolution you'll eventually drive.
 
Personally I would go larger than a 500GB drive, these days with game sizes it will fill quick, 1TB ,minimum NVMe, or a 2nd NVMe 1TB
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 4.2 GHz 8-Core Processor (€420.41 @ Amazon Italia)
CPU Cooler: Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE ARGB 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler (€38.29 @ Amazon Italia)
Motherboard: ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 Micro ATX AM5 Motherboard (€176.99 @ Amazon Italia)
Memory: G.Skill Flare X5 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL36 Memory (€108.00 @ Amazon Italia)
Storage: Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500 GB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive (€48.00 @ Amazon Italia)
Video Card: MSI RTX 4090 VENTUS 3X 24G OC GeForce RTX 4090 24 GB Video Card (€1797.90 @ Alternate Italia)
Case: Tecware Forge M MicroATX Mini Tower Case (€49.99 @ Amazon Italia)
Power Supply: Corsair RM850e (2023) 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply (€140.00 @ Amazon Italia)
Total: €2779.58
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-10-06 21:50 CEST+0200

The build looks almost exactly the same in Italy. Just a few part swaps here and there. For the NVME SSD, you can go up to PCIE4.0 (or even 5.0) if you want, it'll just be a bit more expensive.

For the power supply, consider spending like 13E more to get 200 more watts:
https://it.pcpartpicker.com/product...-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-cp-9020264-na

For your GPU options:
https://it.pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#sort=-chipset,price&c=542,539,548

Italy prices on every card in general are a bit higher, so just choose whatever fits the resolution you'll eventually drive.
Click to expand...
The build It looks awesome. But what about Intel ?
 
Someone else would have to tell you all about Intel. Intel is a bit more messy as I understand it, because the CPUs pull in such crazy amounts of power that they actually do need good VRMs, so you need to invest more in the motherboard if you plan to get a high end chip (along with the cooling to go with it). But the 13900k costs more than a 7800X3D while being slower in multiple games, and the 13700k is a wash at best. That's my summary of it. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong. Plus the socket is end of life, as has been mentioned, while AM5 is just starting. No crystal balls on future AM5 performance vs Intel's next gen, though, since they're delving into AI processors and other innovations.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Someone else would have to tell you all about Intel. Intel is a bit more messy as I understand it, because the CPUs pull in such crazy amounts of power that they actually do need good VRMs, so you need to invest more in the motherboard if you plan to get a high end chip (along with the cooling to go with it). But the 13900k costs more than a 7800X3D while being slower in multiple games, and the 13700k is a wash at best. That's my summary of it. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong. Plus the socket is end of life, as has been mentioned, while AM5 is just starting. No crystal balls on future AM5 performance vs Intel's next gen, though, since they're delving into AI processors and other innovations.
Click to expand...
I was like traumatized from Amd since the very bad Sempron series while Pentium was totally Better compared in that period , that s why i ever was an fanboy of Intel. Btw in the build i would spend more for Motherboard Just for to not buy an Asrock. I know about that Asrock got Better during years but i have not seen a lot of builds With Asrock motherboard on It.
 
RainerV said:
I was like traumatized from Amd since the very bad Sempron series while Pentium was totally Better compared in that period , that s why i ever was an fanboy of Intel. Btw in the build i would spend more for Motherboard Just for to not buy an Asrock. I know about that Asrock got Better during years but i have not seen a lot of builds With Asrock motherboard on It.
Click to expand...

I mean, as I said, that build is basically the barebones minimum. There are a lot of things you can do, like upgrade the NVME to 1TB-2TB+ (and maybe PCIE 4-5.0) as MrGuvernment said, upgrade the motherboard, get a better PSU, better (well, maybe not "better", the aim is Hynix M-die for AM5, but it's hard to tell if you can get it) RAM, etc. The point is, though, that the bare minimum 4090 build that would actually be worth building today is already over your budget. You're going to need to expand your budget to fit any of those things in. Either that, or just go with a cheaper GPU and then fit those things in, instead.
 
Last edited:
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I mean, as I said, that build is basically the barebones minimum. There are a lot of things you can do, like upgrade the NVME to 1TB-2TB+ (and maybe PCIE 4-5.0) as MrGuvernment said, upgrade the motherboard, get a better PSU, better (well, maybe not "better", the aim is Hynix M-die for AM5, but it's hard to tell if you can get it) RAM, etc. The point is, though, that the bare minimum 4090 build that would actually be worth building today is already over your budget. You're going to need to expand your budget to fit any of those things in. Either that, or just go with a cheaper GPU and then fit those things in, instead.
Click to expand...
I want to raise the budget to 3500Є. For about getting better compenents i saw something about: Motherboard MSI MAG X670E Tomahawk WiF and Ram G skill tridenz z5- These two are worth it?, or there's still of better choices? And What's better PSU for Hynix M-die for AM5?
 
At end i bought all the components going the initial 3500€, and finishing to spend something like 4300€+...

I got:

Rtx 4090 suprim x liquid;
7800x3d ;
64 GB z5 neo 6000mhz;
SSD M2 1tb Samsung 990pro;
SSD M2 4tb Samsung 990pro;
MSI carbone x670e;
fractal torrent EAtx;
Hx1500i atx 3.0;
Cooler masterair MA824.

For sure i'm not rich , i'm Just mad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top