The 10 year plan computer

[BoggledBeagle]

... put your funds towards a build on AM5.

U sure??? What about AM5+?

 

[#22]

Great to hear that your father is better than expected @Desktopstu.

Your plan of bulding 3000 pounds, so highend computer is getting something awesome right now, but if we talk about it in ten years perspective, it will be completely random, so with no educational value science experiment - as you present it - should result. It's closer to gambling.

I personally and many others told you what extactly you need to futureproof you pc, so won't be repeating that. But if we talk about more predictable futureproofing, what I always stand for as hard as I can is don't skimp on things quite proved as futureproof and determining your experience with computer for years to come. I mean a case; PSU; CPU cooler and to some extent RAM and storage.

 

[Desktopstu]

It is very hard to plan 10 years ahead, beside personal problems, global problems as disasters, supply chain disruptions, wars, the computer related stuff can be impacted by some new safety vulnerabilities, science and technology development cannot be predicted by definition, etc.

Your plan for a 10 year computer is like planning a sand castle on the beach.

In some ways yes. You cannot predict what new technologies will arrive or how fast hardware will advance- or if software will be optimised.
My plan though is just to see how well it can last. It’s nothing serious.

 

[Chrispy_]

The problem with increasing the budget is this:

If you fully understand that, are aware of the terrible value, and have the disposable income to throw away on it, then fine. It's your money and you can spend it how you want - we're just telling you because you asked us for advice and that generally means that you want a second opinion.

 

[dgianstefani]

View attachment 342588

A 4090 is roughly twice as fast as a 4070, for about 3x the price. So this isn't quite accurate.

If you compare MT performance then a 14900K is roughly twice as fast as a 14600K, while being roughly twice the price. So I'd argue this scaling you're implying isn't really true except if you're comparing MSRP vs overclocked models of things like GPUs. Where a Strix OC is 30% more expensive for about 5% more performance, for example.

 

[Chrispy_]

A 4090 is roughly twice as fast as a 4070, for about 3x the price. So this isn't quite accurate.

If you compare MT performance then a 14900K is roughly twice as fast as a 14600K, while being roughly twice the price. So I'd argue this scaling you're implying isn't really true except if you're comparing MSRP vs overclocked models of things like GPUs. Where a Strix OC is 30% more expensive for about 5% more performance, for example.

I love how you're taking a hand-drawn sketch designed to illustrate a point and then saying it isn't "quite" accurate.
No shit, sherlock!

Realistically, a Ryzen 7 + 4070 build in the UK is about £1250, whilst a Ryzen 9 + 4090 build is closer to £4000, given that people buying 4090s don't care for sweet-spots on the price/performance curve and will typically buy flagship everything. My graph is still not accurate, because I freehanded it in about five seconds before adding text, but accuracy really wasn't the point I was trying to illustrate and that seems to have whooshed you hard.

 

[dgianstefani]

I love how you're taking a hand-drawn sketch designed to illustrate a point and then saying it isn't "quite" accurate.
No shit, sherlock!

Realistically, a Ryzen 7 + 4070 build in the UK is about £1250, whilst a Ryzen 9 + 4090 build is closer to £4000, given that people buying 4090s don't care for sweet-spots on the price/performance curve and will typically buy flagship everything. My graph is still not accurate, because I freehanded it in about five seconds before adding text, but accuracy really wasn't the point I was trying to illustrate and that seems to have whooshed you hard.

Well if you're going to state that accuracy wasn't the point, you can't really get upset when I mention your point isn't accurate can you?

I understand the sentiment you're going for, and in certain cases it's true, but a disclaimer is important if you want to provide a complete picture.

In many cases, spending twice the $ will get you twice the performance.

 

[Chrispy_]

Realistically, spending twice means you frontload your platform for future upgrades down the line, so on a £3000 budget, I'd buy a slightly better quality AM5 platform and put a Ryzen5 7600 and 4070 or GRE in it right now - that's a £1500 build today that will do everything for a good few years, and then you have £1500 left in the budget for a CPU and GPU down the line. Maybe a Ryzen 7 9800X3D and an Nvidia 7070 Super in 2027 which are likely to run circles around a 4090, given that a 3090 is already matched by a 4070S just two short years later. Not only will it likely be faster, it'll also have all the new features that Nvidia like to abandon in just a single generation.

The technology milestones matter more than binned batches of silicon. Get in at the wrong time and you end up paying through the nose just to have a miserable experience with others.

This. 100%.
Look at AM4, X570 was five years ago but if you now plug a 5800X3D into it with an affordable 2TB Gen4 PCIe drive, you've got something that 2019 couldn't even dream of.

 

[Vayra86]

The technology milestones matter more than binned batches of silicon. Get in at the wrong time and you end up paying through the nose just to have a miserable experience with others.

Oh yeah... timing is everything in pc building

Well if you're going to state that accuracy wasn't the point, you can't really get upset when I mention your point isn't accurate can you?

I understand the sentiment you're going for, and in certain cases it's true, but a disclaimer is important if you want to provide a complete picture.

In many cases, spending twice the $ will get you twice the performance.

Its indeed true the perf/$ of high end has moved towards midrange levels. Relatively. Buying higher end GPUs isnt quite as bad value as it used to be. Everything is bad value now and this affected the sub high end most.

On CPU though this hasnt happened. Anything above around $400,- is a total waste of time

 

[dgianstefani]

On CPU though this hasnt happened. Anything above around $400,- is a total waste of time

Interesting opinion.

 

[Vayra86]

Interesting opinion.

The curve of diminishing returns happens there, just about. Or below

 

[dgianstefani]

The curve of diminishing returns happens there, just about. Or below

It entirely depends on what you're doing, and if you're good enough to be paid for it.

For casual gamers who don't use their PCs as workstations, I can agree on a $400 limit.

 

[Desktopstu]

The problem with increasing the budget is this:


View attachment 342588

If you fully understand that, are aware of the terrible value, and have the disposable income to throw away on it, then fine. It's your money and you can spend it how you want - we're just telling you because you asked us for advice and that generally means that you want a second opinion.

By that graph the best value for money is around £1500. You don’t build a lot for that these days. Decent graphics card you don’t get much change from £1000 so that doesn’t give a lot for the rest.

*edit* just did a sample build on Amazon- 4070ti super, 7800x3d, 32gb ddr5 6000, msi tomahawk board, Corsair 1tb gen 4 m.2, cosmetic 850 RMe psu for £1700. So maybe you are not so far off after all.
Not factored in a case as a) I already have one and b) you can pay £30 or £300 for a case

 

[dgianstefani]

By that graph the best value for money is around £1500. You don’t build a lot for that these days. Decent graphics card you don’t get much change from £1000 so that doesn’t give a lot for the rest.

*edit* just did a sample build on Amazon- 4070ti super, 7800x3d, 32gb ddr5 6000, msi tomahawk board, Corsair 1tb gen 4 m.2, cosmetic 850 RMe psu for £1700. So maybe you are not so far off after all.
Not factored in a case as a) I already have one and b) you can pay £30 or £300 for a case

1 TB of storage isn't much these days, especially for a 10 year build. You'd also want to overspec on PSU and have at least an ATX3.0 unit. Also doesn't include monitor peripherals etc.

£2-2.5k truly is sweet spot for PC only. You're in xx80 class GPU then, can get a high end mobo, and don't need to compromise in RAM, Storage or PSU.

Can add a few high quality case fans instead of using the stock crap, have a dual or triple drive system, etc.

£2.5k + you're into silent system territory, overkill cooling, fan controllers, no compromise build etc.

I'm talking PSUs 95% and higher efficiency, passive operation no fan up to 5-600 W tier.

 

[Desktopstu]

1 TB of storage isn't much these days, especially for a 10 year build. You'd also want to overspec on PSU and have at least an ATX3.0 unit. Also doesn't include monitor peripherals etc.

£2-2.5k truly is sweet spot for PC only. You're in xx80 class GPU then, can get a high end mobo, and don't need to compromise in RAM, Storage or PSU.

Can add a few high quality case fans instead of using the stock crap, have a dual or triple drive system, etc.

£2.5k + you're into silent system territory, overkill cooling, fan controllers, no compromise build etc.

I'm talking PSUs 95% and higher efficiency, passive operation no fan up to 5-600 W tier.

I do like a real quiet pc. The case I have is simply vast inside and has some great airflow thanks to two 200mm fans. It’s currently sporting the 10400 with Corsair 240mm AIO on the ceiling of the case and that is pretty much silent. The current graphics card has had a bit of an upgrade to an A770 16gb because it was cheap for what it was (£170) and I’ve always wanted to give the Intel cards a try. It’s not silent though, not even nearly. It’s the Acer predator version with blower and cross fans. Not stupidly noisy but certainly not silent.

 

[dgianstefani]

I do like a real quiet pc. The case I have is simply vast inside and has some great airflow thanks to two 200mm fans. It’s currently sporting the 10400 with Corsair 240mm AIO on the ceiling of the case and that is pretty much silent. The current graphics card has had a bit of an upgrade to an A770 16gb because it was cheap for what it was (£170) and I’ve always wanted to give the Intel cards a try. It’s not silent though, not even nearly. It’s the Acer predator version with blower and cross fans. Not stupidly noisy but certainly not silent.

10400 is very easy to cool at 65 W 14nm, modern chips are very dense and higher wattage too. Current ASUS TUF cards allow deshrouding to replace fans and clean heatsink without disturbing thermal paste. This also means they're very easy to zip tie standard 120mm case fans to, for motherboard controlled rpm as well as better cooling.

 

[evernessince]

No computer can remain flagship for long, all I’m saying is that buying high end can lead to the pc remaining relevant and useable for a good while. GTX 1080ti being a case point, still very useable today 7 years on,

I’m sure I could build something mid range and replace it every three or four years but I’m interested see how well something pretty high end would last. That’s all. Nothing more nothing less.

The 1080 Ti was also $700, a massive performance uplift over prior gen, extremely power efficient, and almost doubled the VRAM capacity over the 980 Ti.

On the flip side the 4090 has the same VRAM as the 3090 and it is not as large a performance uplift as the 1080 Ti was.

On top of that we have RT performance increasing by large margins every generation and features constantly being locked to newer generations of cards. Almost certainly there is not a card on the market right now that will last as long as the 1080 Ti did. Heck the 1080 Ti would not have lasted very long if the GPU market was like it is now.

High end cards are objectively worse value and locking yourself into one for the long haul will almost certainly sting more than had you simply purchased two or three of the best value cards released in those 10 years.

 

[dont whant to set it"']

You can or should be able to power tune down the card a bit and or tune the fan curve for a better acoustic.
£170 you say? Let me check now as my last one was in the 300range , give or take.
le: nope , its still around 300quid, SH was it?

 

[#22]

We talk here about building pc to last, so there's no point of talking about value. It's building the most capable pc possible, so going with highend CPU and GPU which never can be considered as value. 3000 pounds should finance i7; 32GB RAM and 4090 with anything other at least decent, but anything other I would keep in another budget. To avoid lowering quality of life to get more performance - it sucks hard.

So @Desktopstu it's time to decide if you want to build today or wait for new Intels/AMD/Nvidia probably coming end of this year. If now, just ask questions, because since you came back to thread we got another pages of discussions not bringing much to the topic.

*edit* just did a sample build on Amazon- 4070ti super, 7800x3d, 32gb ddr5 6000, msi tomahawk board, Corsair 1tb gen 4 m.2, cosmetic 850 RMe psu for £1700. So maybe you are not so far off after all.
Not factored in a case as a) I already have one and b) you can pay £30 or £300 for a case

Good luck with so low CPU multicore performance in just few years, not even thinking five or ten. That's chip for people wanting however highest fps today and being happy with uprading it with whatever AMD will throw them to AM5. With 6000 RAM and Tomahawk board you think sensibly Check ASRock boards. RMe (and RMe ATX 3.0 you rather mention) get a lot of complaints about noise. Not much more should be e.g. also Corsair RMx Shift as one better, from the quietest and what I would call from the league of the cheapest ones of uncompromised quality, so easily ten-year-lasting with also warranty covering it. And it has conveniently put cables on the side and you will need only 2cm to easily fit them.

I do like a real quiet pc.

Silence sadly is the thing you pay one of the biggest premiums for. Or just much to get level likely to satisfy. Biggest CPU coolers; most expensive GPU models; well-built cases with fans replaced, because almost always there're some better; the best PSUs. Recommended RMx Shift is here like a cheat when it's priced in the middle, but offers level of silence known almost exclusively from the best, so most expensive PSUs.

 

[grammar_phreak]

It's totally possible to build a PC that's going to function for 10 years.

However, with the way the CPU landscape is going, I don't know what software your CPU will support here in 10 years. AMD and Intel are now packing in more cores, raising clocks as high as they possibly can, and it looks like they're poised to add newer instruction sets.

I think people got spoiled by processors like the i7-920, x5675, i7-2600k, and i7-3930k being relevant for such a long time.

I'd say the best chance to get 10 years out of a motherboard is with a B650 board, and get something like a Ryzen 7 7700 or 7600 to use as a placeholder until something you like better arrives. Zen 5 and possibly Zen 6 processors will work on a B650 motherboard.

 

[Desktopstu]

You can or should be able to power tune down the card a bit and or tune the fan curve for a better acoustic.
£170 you say? Let me check now as my last one was in the 300range , give or take.
le: nope , its still around 300quid, SH was it?

Yes and the seller was pretty keen to sell, he now has a 4070. Living in the Cardiff area the market for Intel cards is somewhat… limited shall we say?

 

[dont whant to set it"']

Silence sadly is the thing you pay one of the biggest premiums for. Or just much to get level likely to satisfy. Biggest CPU coolers; most expensive GPU models; well-built cases with fans replaced, because almost always there're some better; the best PSUs. Recommended RMx Shift is here like a cheat when it's priced in the middle, but offers level of silence known almost exclusively from the best, so most expensive PSUs.

True that! I bought high-end and tuned down significantly for power and acoustic reasons. It may take me a several more years to brake even. But there is the quality of life in that, that not much heat and noise dumped into the room. I don't play latest games might I add, so there is that.

 

[evernessince]

We talk here about building pc to last, so there's no point of talking about value.

?? Value is an ever bigger factor for a PC that must last 10 years as opposed to 3-5, particularly if you are spending that entire 10 year budget up front. Hence why it makes little sense to spend up on high-end, where the least value is to be had. You get great performance for the first 2-3 years and then a continual downward drop for the last 7. That's not good system building and it's not good budgeting either. Good budgeting involves getting the most value and keeping money aside for necessary repairs and upgrades should they be needed whereas the 10 year no upgrades path leaves you with the worst experience on average over that 10 year period with zero flexibility and zero cash in case a part fails (which is more likely to be out of warranty when you are only buying once vs multiple smaller purchases). Purchasing multiple best value parts enables you to get the best experience over that lifespan of that PC in addition to ensuring it's covered by warranty and that you have free cash to cover repairs. Should anything unexpected happen to the "blow all your cash up front" build, you are in essence forced to break your original budget. At that point you've already purchased multiple parts over the life of the build, so it didn't last 10 years, and you didn't get any of the benefits of value upgrades over time either so it's a loose loose. Failing to plan is planning to fail, plain and simple.

 

[tussinman]

Realistically, spending twice means you frontload your platform for future upgrades down the line, so on a £3000 budget, I'd buy a slightly better quality AM5 platform and put a Ryzen5 7600 and 4070 or GRE in it right now - that's a £1500 build today that will do everything for a good few years, and then you have £1500 left in the budget for a CPU and GPU down the line. Maybe a Ryzen 7 9800X3D and an Nvidia 7070 Super in 2027 which are likely to run circles around a 4090, given that a 3090 is already matched by a 4070S just two short years later. Not only will it likely be faster, it'll also have all the new features that Nvidia like to abandon in just a single generation.


This. 100%.
Look at AM4, X570 was five years ago but if you now plug a 5800X3D into it with an affordable 2TB Gen4 PCIe drive, you've got something that 2019 couldn't even dream of.

That's what I'd do. Most of the components (case, power supply, windows license, SSD, Ram, motherboard) will be the foundation for the 10 years just plan on a direct CPU/GPU swap years down the road to add length.

Like you said most AM4 users did that. It's just slightly over 7 years old at this point and with a modern GPU + 5800/5700X3D swap 3 more years (to reach 10) is easily in the realm of possible.

 

[Chrispy_]

By that graph the best value for money is around £1500. You don’t build a lot for that these days. Decent graphics card you don’t get much change from £1000 so that doesn’t give a lot for the rest.

*edit* just did a sample build on Amazon- 4070ti super, 7800x3d, 32gb ddr5 6000, msi tomahawk board, Corsair 1tb gen 4 m.2, cosmetic 850 RMe psu for £1700. So maybe you are not so far off after all.
Not factored in a case as a) I already have one and b) you can pay £30 or £300 for a case

I think the "sweet spot" PC right now is the build you just mentioned but with a much cheaper 4070S or Radeon 7900GRE.

Everyone's definition of sweet-spot is subjective, to be fair - so there's no right or wrong, but the 7800X3D is going to fit the bill for most people because it's a flagship-beater at a mainstream price and it doesn't need a fancy motherboard, exotic cooling, or high-end DDR5 to get the most out of it.

As for graphics cards, it's about diminishing returns. Are you chasing a high-refresh experience at ultra settings in AAA games at 4K? If so you're going to be dissatisfied with anything except the 4090 right now and in maybe 1-2 years you're going to be dissatisfied with that too. There will always be games that bring PCs to their knees, but if you can accept Very High instead of Ultra, 1440p instead of 4K, and 75fps instead of 150fps, then your requirements go down by about 60% and the GPU needed to deliver that is 80% cheaper. Yes, if you stop and pixel-peep two side-by-side screenshots, you can see the difference, but realistically the game's textures and assets are the limiting factor in graphics quality these days and the quality of the gameplay isn't really affected at all by graphics once you hit an acceptable framerate at an acceptable resolution.

I'm rambling but the TL;DR is that chasing the very highest possible graphics settings in new games is a fool's errand and it won't actually make the game itself any better beyond a certain point. The "sweet spot" in terms of graphics settings is where you're getting enough fps to enjoy the game without choppy animations or input lag (probably 60-90fps for most people) and the visuals are good enough that you're not missing any detail. In a lot of so-called AAA games that's often lower than 1440p and lower than "high" settings.