The other person linked a video comparing several drives, and the 960 Pro did come out ahead of the 850 Pro. Not by a lot, but that's also why I would never suggest a 1TB Pro for anybody who doesn't need the sequential speeds. A 250GB 960 Evo though? Oh yeah, if it's in the budget(especially in a PC setup that's already over 4 grand) then it's definitely worth getting.
Maybe you should look at people's builds first before claiming to know what their experience is...you clearly didn't read my response to OP despite claiming that you read others' responses.
I'm not attacking you, I'm simply asking if you have any experience with these drives to back up your claim. Every person who has tried to tell me I'm wrong seems to have no personal experience with these drives. Yet most of us who do, say that they are worth the slight cost in upgrade. 250GB 960 Evo + 1.1TB MX300 is cheaper than a 1TB 960 Pro. 250GB 960 Evo is around $20-30 more than an 850 Evo, and even just adding one to a build that only has a 1TB SATA drive is still only $120. That's a drop in the bucket when the setup is already looking to be over 4 grand... it's worth the upgrade.
Then buy one yourself and prove me wrong.
I cloned the drives, I didn't do fresh installs. I did this to try to eliminate other factors because I wanted to know myself if my upgrade had any impact(and for convenience). It definitely did. I also decided to see how a game that loads many assets is affected, specifically, Cities Skylines. After moving the game to the NVMe our reactions to the loading screen consisted of "Wow" and "Holy ****...". I also run benchmarks on my drives frequently and the SU800 was hitting the same speeds as the day I got it. I may not have posted enough yet to qualify for your list of "knowledgeable users", but I'm far from inexperienced, I've been a computer geek since I was 8, that's 20 years(I know that doesn't compare to a lot of people here, but I'm still far from a noob).
But we're talking about operations that happen very fast as is, so the measurable difference is small. Similar to when you go form say 144Hz to 240Hz, the difference is measurable(albeit difficult to measure by conventional means), but offers diminishing returns due to actual difference in amount of time between frames being much smaller than say 60 to 144. Not the best analogy, I know, but the comparison I'm making is related to the measured difference being smaller as you go up the chain, which happens in both scenarios. It's not going to be a huge game changer or drastically reduce loading times, largely because in these situations your load time is often bottlenecked by either your CPU itself, its cache or even your memory, but it will provide the best experience for not a lot of extra money if you mix a small NVMe boot drive with a larger SATA SSD. Which I believe if it's in your budget, it's worth the upgrade.
If you reread my response, I specifically mentioned the 960 Evo, not the Pro, and in my other comment directly to the OP(that maybe you didn't see) I suggested a 250GB 960 Evo and a large SATA SSD instead of a 1TB 960 Pro(with the former actually being a cheaper option with more total SSD storage). I'm in no way trying to say a large capacity NVMe drive should be used for this scenario, especially the Pro, because then you really are just throwing money away. But to consider NVMe as completely worthless for a gaming PC I feel is just not true.
I've had a discussion with vaga about this before, which is why I wasn't very specific in my response. That may have caused some confusion. 250GB 960 Evo + 1.1TB MX300(or 2 525's in RAID 0) > 1TB 960 Pro. All day.
A 250GB 960 is fairly cheap now($117.60 US) and provides the best user experience. Have you used one? I've noticed none of the naysayers seems to have any hands on experience with them. While I've got 2 systems that I've switched from SATA SSD's to NVMe and have zero intention of ever going back...
And yet in 2 systems I went from a SU800(which benches around the same as an MX300) to a 960 Evo, and noticed a difference in both.
Are you calling me a liar? Are you calling my husband a liar? Because if you are, come out and say it, don't beat around the bush. You wouldn't be the first either.
I'm not some guy who just talks nonsense they read or just lurks forums and YouTube. I've used these products. I own these products. I have personal experience that leads me to say that yes, an extra 20-30 bucks for a 250GB 960 EVO over a typical SATA III SSD is absolutely worth it if you want the best user experience and the most snappy and responsive system you can get. Period. For a PC like this, you're talking about a 1-2% increase in system cost. Big deal. It's worth it.
I'm not going to sit here and be called a liar. If you don't believe me, go out and buy the stuff yourself. Clone your drive and then tell me that everything feels exactly the same. Because it doesn't. I may not be able to spout off random links with synthetic tests or tests of literally 3 or 4 games, but I can tell you what I've noticed first hand. I'll take somebody giving me their personal experience over some synthetic test that tells you almost nothing important any day of the week. Because that's what matters, the end user experience.
I'm gonna be the black sheep and say to get an NVMe for your boot drive, since you seem to want the best available. But not 1TB, I'd opt for 250GB and a secondary SSD for high speed storage(or better yet, 2 500s in RAID 0, but that's on you).
NVMe vs SATA as your boot drive effects more than how fast your system boots. There are some games that load faster, but those are usually ones that have a ton of assets to load at once(Cities Skylines, for example). But the main thing is the overall system responsiveness. Everything is instant. I just deleted a 32GB folder and it literally happened instantly. When I click folders they display instantly. Thumbnails are instant. A 250GB 960 Evo is a great buy for a boot drive. Ignore the naysayers. I've got 2 systems that I switched from SATA to NVMe and never plan on going back. Both my partner and I agree, we've experienced the difference first hand. Totally worth it.
The 960 is absolutely not a horrible buy. There's more to a boot drive than boot speeds. But I wouldn't go as far as getting a 1TB model.
We've talked about this. NVMe or bust :P
Oh, and pick up one of these(GPU support brace, $17).
I have the Corsair Hydro GFX, out of the box it overclocks itself pretty high without me even doing anything(1974MHz), mainly because of the lower temps. The MSI Seahawk X is literally the same card but with a worse radiator fan(and comes in an MSI box). The EVGA SC Hybrid is probably the best bet due to EVGA's superior customer service, plus it's also a good card.
Literally the only reason I got the Corsair card was because it comes with a fan that matches my entire build lol.
Also, since you're spending over $800 on that video card anyway, I suggest getting a hybrid version instead(MSI Seahawk X, Corsair Hydro GFX and EVGA SC Hybrid all cost $800). Your max overclock is dependent mostly on the silicon lottery and temps, so the over-engineering on a lot of these cards ends up not making a difference for your average user. The liquid cooled cards will help keep you at a higher clock more consistently thanks to lower temperatures, and generally run a lot quieter.
Just about anywhere you can find an OEM license generally will also have retail licenses. Amazon, Newegg, B&H, etc.
They cost $20 more, but the USB installer is quite convenient, and the license is yours forever.
OEM licenses are for OEM's. That license will be tied to the motherboard and you will never be able to use it again. You need a retail license.
They generally don't put good quality units in those prebuilts, and since you're buying all new components it would be in your best interest to buy a new, quality unit(the one in the build I gave you has a 7 year warranty). As for your case, it doesn't have very good airflow and being Dell, I wouldn't be surprised if the motherboard standoffs are in a non-standard formation(they like using proprietary **** whenever they can...to get you to buy stuff from THEM instead of doing your own upgrades).
The Ryzen 5 1600 includes an air cooler that is actually pretty decent. I would see if that works out for you before investing $100 in liquid cooling.
If you're interested in something like the Pimax 8K or 5K you might want a 1080 though. They're going to DESTROY everything that's currently on the VR market.
Coffee Lake is better for gaming, but the availability sucks right now. Assuming you're going to have a 60Hz monitor, it really won't make a difference though.
Oculus Rift's minimum requirements have been lowered to I believe a 1050 Ti, so you're good to go. 1070 is to 1440p as 1060 is to 1080p.
If you're only gaming you don't really need an R7, a 6 core R5 would suffice and if you're going to be at 1080p 60Hz you don't need the 1080 either. If longevity is your main concern I would say get a 1070, but a 1060 is sufficient for most games at 1080p(save for Ghost Recon Wildlands).
I wouldn't trust the Primes. 27% 1 egg reviews is no bueno.
The C7 makes just about any build look more awesome. +1
Reviews aren't bad, but the ASRock AB350 Pro4 has 74% 5 egg reviews out of 294 total reviews. As much as my personal experience with the company makes it hard for me to recommend them, it does seem like they're doing something right with the AM4 platform. I don't know if that board is available for you though.
Newegg review breakdown on that board:
Checking the peak overclock bench scores here, with over 31K tests run between the 2 processors, and seeing how you have liquid cooling to keep the CPU cool in case it needs more voltage than what's typical, I'd say go with the 1700.
I'm seeing terrible reviews on Newegg for the Prime Plus, so I'd stay away from that one.
I use mostly MSI boards, never had any issues. I've had a Gigabyte board in the past and didn't have issues either.
Come to think of it, the only board manufacturer I've had issues with is ASRock. Some people swear by them...I want them to go out of business haha.
You could replace the boot drive with a 960 Evo NVMe drive(assuming you pick a board with NVMe support).
A lot of people say it's not worth it, but it's only $20 more and when I switched from SATA SSD's to NVMe on 2 of my machines I noticed a difference in overall system responsiveness. Everything is much more snappy and instant(opening folders, thumbnails loading, system applications). A select number of games also benefited from the increased random IOPS(random input/output operations per second, basically, how quickly the drive accesses larger numbers of small files).
I play some pretty intense games and have never seen system memory utilization higher than 11GB. I wouldn't spend the money on 32GB unless you do some serious editing.
I chose mATX instead of full sized ATX to give you a compact PC similar to the one you'd be replacing, but still allow for a WiFi card if you choose to purchase one. You could always put that motherboard inside a full sized ATX case, or you could get a full sized ATX motherboard and case. All based on preference. G.Skill has good memory(one of my PC's has Ripjaws in it), and EVGA has fantastic customer service in case issues happen plus that is one of the best power supplies you can buy. The case I picked because Fractal Design cases are generally easy to build in(there's also a tempered glass version of it if that's your thing).
If we're talking about 1080p resolution I wouldn't go anything higher than a GTX 1070(or depending on how prices end up, the 1070 Ti that's coming at the end of the month). That will last you at that resolution for quite a while(and in games like Ghost Recon Wildlands, is basically required for ultra settings at 1080p) and won't require you to turn down any settings on upcoming games. That $100 or so that you save there could then go towards a Ryzen 7 which will no doubt perform much better than a Ryzen 5 when streaming.
I personally am not a fan of AMD for reasons I won't get into here because I'll get tore a new one as soon as certain people see it, but the R7 is currently your best option based on current availability. If it were me personally, I would wait until the 8700K is available, but that will cost a bit more money, require a little more money spent on the motherboard and managing thermals would be more tedious(would have to buy a delidded chip or do it yourself and would absolutely need liquid cooling). But I'm also the guy who likes voiding warranties and pushing hardware to the limits when applicable, definitely not everybody's cup of tea.
Let me throw together a R7/1070 based parts list to give you an idea of cost. Off the top of my head though I'm guessing around 1100.
Basically. Also as yveshe pointed out, the motherboard is another thing you can cut cost on. A good B350 board will net the same results for you as an X370.
I didn't even notice the X370 because I'm so used to people ignoring it entirely because it's generally not worth the extra money haha. You're absolutely right though.
You're talking about a pro gamer, I assume. Most competitive players aren't at the pro level. That's akin to saying "Michael Jordan uses x brand whatever"(I don't know sportball either).
The 1700X has better stock clocks but if you're overclocking there's a good chance you'll hit similar frequencies anyway. You basically pay a little more to have a slightly better chance at the silicon lottery. I'd go with the 1700 and save some money. I'd also go with a 650W PSU, your build will require at most 350-450W under load, plenty of headroom.
Enough to make the 6GB version not seem worth it(from what I've seen it usually costs 20% or so less for 5-10% less performance).
I've got a 3GB 1060 on hand, does ultra settings at 1080p in basically every game except Ghost Recon Wildlands.
If you give us a breakdown of everything you hope to do with this PC, the games you want to play, the graphics detail level you want, resolution, framerate, etc. we can piece something together for as cheap as possible to get the best experience/value. But at this point, given what you have now and some of the hardware you have in mind, your best bet is probably to start from scratch.
Oh...not that kind of RPG. Not at all haha. It's a traditional RPG. Turn based combat with the freedom of choice from the pen and paper era. It's kinda old school but with amazing visuals. Take a barrel full of acid and bust it open on the field...then teleport an enemy right on top of it, with another character shooting a fire arrow at the ground to ignite everything. Lots of crazy options, I still have no idea what the hell I'm doing and I'm at least 12 hours in haha.
You'd be surprised about sales though! You're in for a real treat when you see the Steam sales that are only a month or so away ;)
If you like RPG's I highly recommend Divinity: Original Sin 2. Though it's new so you would be looking at an extra $25 out of pocket. Cuphead is insane though, it's on my list to pick up when I get bored of what I'm playing now.
Definitely keep the back one as exhaust because you need to chuck the hot air out of the back of the case. But on top of the other points I made, your graphics card will run a little cooler too after you make the changes to the bottom fans.
Oh, and welcome to the Master Race :3
And a 1080 will fit in any Ryzen motherboard that has a PCIe slot. Which is all of them. So you're good to go there.
No. The Ryzen platform uses DDR4.
That would have no impact on gaming performance since he's using a 60Hz monitor.
Need to flip those fans the other way around. Right now you've got nothing but exhaust, which means you have negative air pressure, which means every other crevice is sucking in air and dust. Flip the bottom fans to intake and then you blow cool air straight at your graphics card and create positive air pressure, expelling air from all the crevices and keeping dust to a minimum.
What's that even supposed to mean?
Because it's DDR3.
If the H310 motherboards were available I would say the i3 8100, but since the cheapest option is a $120 Z370 board....might want to either hold off a few months or go with Ryzen 3. That or look into used stuff.
You have to live near a Microcenter and also pay sales tax.
Yeah...there are a lot of those type of people here I've noticed lol.
A 1050 Ti can handle it but we're talking lower visual quality than the 1060, which can max out the vast majority of games.