This computer was purposely built to support the Adobe creative suite of tools, specifically Lightroom and Photoshop. I do have some more work planned to completely finish out the look but in the meantime I have uploaded a few photos. I would like to add a few acrylic panels to clean up the interior a bit more and also add some sleeved cables to replace the stock mess. While I could have gone with a higher performance graphics card, the 1660 Ti with the latest Nvidia Studio driver has been a dream to use. I do not have any experience with overclocking but the Aorus Master ramped up the CPU to 4.7 GHz out of the box. I enabled the XMP profile to push the RAM to 3200 MHz. So far the build has more than exceeded my expectations and made Photoshop so much easier to work with. This is only my second build but likely more to come.
UPDATE 14/Oct. - Due to the first three comments questioning my choice of PCIe slot 2 vs slot 1 for the graphics card, I wanted to provide a bit more justification for my decision. Photoshop, unlike gaming, is generally far less GPU intensive and only relies on GPU acceleration for a small number of tasks. The majority of the workload relies instead on the CPU clock rate and number of cores. To further prove this out, I decided to use Puget Systems Adobe Photoshop Benchmark and compare the results from keeping the GPU in slot 2 vice moving it to slot 1 (pictures included as well). The scores for slot 2 were: Overall Score - 1051, General Score - 110, Filter Score - 102, GPU Score - 104, and Photomerge Score - 100. The results for slot 1 were: Overall Score - 1073, General Score - 111, Filter Score 107, GPU Score 107, Photomerge - 100. For perspective, Puget Systems benchmarked a build consisting of an i9-9900K, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080, 64 GB of RAM, and a Samsung 960 1 TB Pro which had scores of: Overall Score - 1000, General Score - 100, Filter Score - 100, Photomerge Score - 100 and GPU Score - 100. YES, there is a slight difference in moving the card from slot 2 to slot 1, but, the overall increase in performance is less than 3%. However, after using the system for a few hours with the graphics card in each slot, there is no discernible difference in the performance of the system from the perspective of the end user. I will likely keep the graphics card in slot 2 for the time being for the following reasons: Negligible difference in performance between slots, in slot 2 it is getting better airflow and running cooler, it is further from the CPU and M.2 drive, and probably most importantly, it is hiding the messy stock power cable until I can get around to adding sleeved cables (we all know that a build that looks cooler runs faster...). Eventually I do plan to upgrade my monitor to one of the BenQ PhotoVue options so I can get 10-bit color output for my photo editing. Once I do that, I will probably move the graphics card up to slot 1 since the increased bandwidth will have a more noticeable increase in performance (at which point I will address the increased heat concerns as well). Until then I will stick with my stubborn ways. If everyone is looking for something to discuss, I still cannot figure out how my build outperformed the Puget System benchmark system (9900K and GeForce 2080 with 64 GB RAM). My system has less RAM and a less capable graphics card yet had 4-7% better performance...Please explain (I have also reached out to Puget Systems with the same question).