# 3600X and RTX 2070 Super build



## GrimLobster (Aug 18, 2019)

Just after some opinions on this build.
PC used only for gaming, not planning to do any manual overclocking at this stage.
Apologies if some questions have been asked before, still in process of researching.

Budget around $1300-$1400 USD.

*Monitor:* Acer Predator XB271HU 27" 1440p
*CPU:* AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
*Motherboard:* MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
*Memory:* Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2x8) 3200MHz CL 16 *?* 
*Storage:* Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe SSD 500GB *?
Video Card:* Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2070 Super Gaming 8G OC Graphics Card

Reusing from 2015 PC - 
*Case:* Corsair ATX Carbide 400R Case Black
*Power Supply:* 650 Watt Coolermaster V650 80+ Gold Semi-Modular

*?*
This RAM has timings: 16-18-18-36. Wondering whether it's worth it to get 3200MHz CL 14 RAM for this build, for 1440p gaming?
Located in Australia and the price difference between 3200MHz CL 16 and CL 14 RAM is at least $100 AUD, around $68 USD.
Also have seen some people saying the Vengeance LPX RAM is somewhat old and having issues with this CPU?

*?*
Is it worth it at all to purchase PCle 4 model with this CPU?

Thanks a lot for your time.


----------



## brucechow (Aug 18, 2019)

I dont own that ram, but I made the leap from 3200 CL16 to CL14 just because ram prices here are getting low; and unless you love benchmarks you wont notice any difference...
I think most reviewers agreed that PCIe4 is not worth atm, not sure about future though


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 18, 2019)

A lot of people are having problems with Corsair RAM and Ryzen builds, for whatever reason, so it might be wise to consider some other brand.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 18, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> A lot of people are having problems with Corsair RAM and Ryzen builds, for whatever reason, so it might be wise to consider some other brand.



There were troubles with Vengeance Ram on the Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 then too, I did the research and it is why I use GSKill and avoid Corsair altogether, they cater to intel more (bribery suspected).


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 18, 2019)

The reason Corsair flounders is due to revisions. Typically Corsair has great ICs in the first couple of revisions, then move to poop ICs as inventory runs out. Most other makers stick with the same ICs throughout the series life, then EOLs said kits when they run out of chips. 

I do believe G.Skill has the buying power lead still, which usually means they have first dibs on what to buy, and how many.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 18, 2019)

sneekypeet said:


> Typically Corsair has great ICs in the first couple of revisions, then move to poop ICs as inventory runs out



They do it like Kingston does it since ages too... didn't know...


----------



## Ramo1203 (Aug 18, 2019)

Regarding the Corsair and Ryzen issue, I would take a closer look at the IC and what brand is the chip used. (Samsung, Hynix, Micron for example)
It's not always easy to find the information, but it's true that there are always many revisions of RAM kit's from Corsair and it can be an issue because you never know which revision you might end up getting.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 18, 2019)

I'd steer well clear of Corsair for Ryzen.

I'd go with G.Skill, they seem to be the only mem vendor that consistently has quality DRAM under the heatspreaders. As for 3200 C14 vs C16, C14 used to indicate B-die most of the time, so it's definitely better. However, for example with the G.Skill Trident Z C16 kit I have, it uses Samsung D/E-die which, from what I can tell, isn't B-die levels of amazing but really isn't bad either. C14 is where you want to be for 3200 timings, though. Not going to make a huge difference, as 3200 C16 is pretty near the top already.

I don't know what the situation is like with MSI, but essentially, the deal with Ryzen 3000 and B450/X470 is wholly dependent on whether the vendor can write good BIOSes and update the BIOSes on time. Your board won't be a MAX, so it will likely require a BIOS update. Depending on the board, there may be a hard barrier at one of the BIOS versions to BIOS updates in the form of a requisite Ryzen chipset driver version before you can go any further down the line of BIOS versions, meaning you'll need an older CPU for the process.

Other possible drawback are the little things, like a longer POST time when using Ryzen 3000 on an older board.

X570 shouldn't have any of these potential BIOS, boot or RAM issues.


----------



## Ra97oR (Aug 18, 2019)

I have more or less the same build you are trying to get. Zero problem here with the 3600C16 with the B450 Carbon AC board, even though they are harder to run double sized 16 x 2 GB modules.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 18, 2019)

Apart from the RAM that looks like a fine setup you got there. I wouldn't think twice really - apart from swapping that GPU over to an MSI Gaming X Trio - though you might as well jump to 2080 then. Gigabyte holds that low price for a good reason; RMA process/service is unreliable and quality of board/fans tends to be on the low side.

Inno3D also has a pretty decent 2070S, Strix OC is also good.


----------



## GrimLobster (Aug 20, 2019)

Thanks a lot for the input, especially regarding RAM. Ended up buying G.Skill Flare X 3200MHz CL 14 (B-Die).
Trident Z Neo RAM was designed for Ryzen 3000 series, but buying here meant paying significantly more.

Was going to buy the Gaming Pro Carbon AC - they emailed saying it has sticker 'Ryzen 3000 desktop ready'. But yes the reasonably priced MAX Tomahawk board would be ideal of course to alleviate BIOS issues. X570 boards significantly more expensive here, but keeping them in mind.

I emailed MSI asking what the long-term benefit would be of MAX compared with regular B450 boards for 3000 series, regarding BIOS updates. No reply as of yet.

Very simplified -
MSI 450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC - Best audio, network adapter included, may have ongoing BIOS issues with 3600X
MSI 450 Tomohawk MAX - Not as good audio, around $20 USD cheaper than Gaming Pro but less or no BIOS issues with 3600X
X570 board - Around $70 USD and upwards more expensive than Gaming Pro, depending on model, but less or no BIOS issues with 3600X

Anyone had experience with MAX boards and which board would you hypothetically buy in this situation?


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 20, 2019)

Good choice on the B-die. I wanted a 3200 C14 kit, but didn't have the time to wait.

The MAX boards just mean that right now, you don't have to worry about BIOS updates; open the box and go to town. It means nothing for MSI's commitments down the line. 

Knowing now how 3000 can behave on boot with 400 series chipset boards, I would just get the X570s.


----------



## Chomiq (Aug 20, 2019)

GrimLobster said:


> Very simplified -
> MSI 450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC - Best audio, network adapter included, may have ongoing BIOS issues with 3600X
> MSI 450 Tomohawk MAX - Not as good audio, around $20 USD cheaper than Gaming Pro but less or no BIOS issues with 3600X
> X570 board - Around $70 USD and upwards more expensive than Gaming Pro, depending on model, but less or no BIOS issues with 3600X
> ...


I'll give you a bit of an update:
- B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC - EOL, no longer manufactured (according to local MSI reps), stock is low everywhere, prices are inflated, won't get the MAX treatment. MSI simply knew it would be too good of an alternative to their entry level X570 boards and decided to drop it
- B450 Tomahawk MAX - limited availability, some stores have it, others say they should have, others flat out say "Early September". Same thing with Mortar MAX. Gaming Plus MAX is available, but has downgraded VRM radiator in comparison to Mortar/Tomahawk.
- X570 board - cheapest one is almost double the cost of B450, entry level boards often come with even more limited features. X570 Aorus Elite has good VRM, but doesn't even come with debug LEDs, just plain old PC speaker, and that's at double the cost of B450 Mortar which somehow manages to include debug LEDs.

I'm waiting for my B450 Mortar Titanium to arrive today, if anything misbehaves I'll return it within the 14-day  window and decide whether to step up to X570.


----------



## GrimLobster (Aug 20, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> I'll give you a bit of an update:
> - B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC - EOL, no longer manufactured (according to local MSI reps), stock is low everywhere, prices are inflated, won't get the MAX treatment. MSI simply knew it would be too good of an alternative to their entry level X570 boards and decided to drop it
> - B450 Tomahawk MAX - limited availability, some stores have it, others say they should have, others flat out say "Early September". Same thing with Mortar MAX. Gaming Plus MAX is available, but has downgraded VRM radiator in comparison to Mortar/Tomahawk.
> - X570 board - cheapest one is almost double the cost of B450, entry level boards often come with even more limited features. X570 Aorus Elite has good VRM, but doesn't even come with debug LEDs, just plain old PC speaker, and that's at double the cost of B450 Mortar which somehow manages to include debug LEDs.
> ...



Thanks for the info. Wow what a mess.

Let me know how things go with your board.


----------



## bug (Aug 20, 2019)

@GrimLobster No need to get the 3600X, the 3600 seems to perform the same and is $50 less.


----------



## las (Aug 20, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Good choice on the B-die. I wanted a 3200 C14 kit, but didn't have the time to wait.
> 
> The MAX boards just mean that right now, you don't have to worry about BIOS updates; open the box and go to town. It means nothing for MSI's commitments down the line.
> 
> Knowing now how 3000 can behave on boot with 400 series chipset boards, I would just get the X570s.



Getting X570 for 3600/3600X ruins the whole value proposition and he will be far better off going with Z390 + 9700K especially considering he will use it for gaming only, high fps / high refresh rate gaming that is. Intel has superior performance here, no doubt about that.

B450 + 3600 is good value, but it will be nowhere near Z390 + 9700K in CPU bound / high fps gaming. Even X570 + 3900X loses.

So, forget about X570 for Ryzen 5. Expensive board + cheap CPU simply does not make sense.


----------



## bug (Aug 20, 2019)

las said:


> Getting X570 for 3600/3600X ruins the whole value proposition and he will be far better off going with Z390 + 9700K especially considering he will use it for gaming only, high fps / high refresh rate gaming that is. Intel has superior performance here, no doubt about that.
> 
> B450 + 3600 is good value, but it will be nowhere near Z390 + 9700K in CPU bound / high fps gaming. Even X570 + 3900X loses.
> 
> So, forget about X570 for Ryzen 5. Expensive board + cheap CPU simply does not make sense.


Luckily, somebody tested just that: https://www.techspot.com/review/1897-ryzen-5-ryzen-9-core-i9-gaming-scaling/
Doesn't mention the motherboards used, which is weird, but that 3600 can't be beat in perf/$.


----------



## mstenholm (Aug 20, 2019)

bug said:


> Luckily, somebody tested just that: https://www.techspot.com/review/1897-ryzen-5-ryzen-9-core-i9-gaming-scaling/
> Doesn't mention the motherboards used, which is weird, but that 3600 can't be beat in perf/$.


They used MSI X570 Creation in their first 3600 test, so that alone will ruin the perf/$


----------



## bug (Aug 20, 2019)

mstenholm said:


> They used MSI X570 Creation in their first 3600 test, so that alone will ruin the perf/$


Why would it? A B350 will perform the same in games.


----------



## mstenholm (Aug 20, 2019)

bug said:


> Why would it? A B350 will perform the same in games.


And MSI X570 Creation  is expensive


----------



## bug (Aug 20, 2019)

mstenholm said:


> And MSI X570 Creation  is expensive


So is the space shuttle, but you don't _need_ that either


----------



## mstenholm (Aug 20, 2019)

bug said:


> So is the space shuttle, but you don't _need_ that either


I go for overkill any day. I made a mistake in assumning that the review refereed to included a perf/$. Now you made me read it and I see that it didn't. I give a s**t in gaming so I pass that kind of reviews but I read the first they did on the CPU and knew that they had that MB.


----------



## las (Aug 20, 2019)

bug said:


> Luckily, somebody tested just that: https://www.techspot.com/review/1897-ryzen-5-ryzen-9-core-i9-gaming-scaling/
> Doesn't mention the motherboards used, which is weird, but that 3600 can't be beat in perf/$.



Yep and you can easily see the 3600 is behind - They are even testing at Ultra preset. Tons of high fps 144-240 Hz gamers uses custom presets that are even more CPU dependant. 100 fps is BARE MINIMUM for many. Me included. I don't accept less than 100 fps/Hz at 1440p/165Hz/Gsync.

OP uses 1440p/165 Hz too.

Simply stating facts. 9700K beats 3600, 3600X, 3700X, 3800X and 3900X any day for high fps gaming. The end.

But as I said, 3600 is good value - If you don't choose a X570 board, that is.
I would never pair a cheap CPU with an expensive board. Complete waste of money.


----------



## bug (Aug 20, 2019)

las said:


> Yep and you can easily see the 3600 is behind - They are even testing at Ultra preset.


If you want to spend the difference for an extra 10-20fps, yes. But you still can't beat 3600's perf/$.


las said:


> Tons of high fps 144-240 Hz gamers uses custom presets that are even more CPU dependant. 100 fps is BARE MINIMUM for many. Me included. I don't accept less than 100 fps/Hz at 1440p/165Hz/Gsync.
> 
> OP uses 1440p/165 Hz too.
> 
> ...


Unless you're a pro-gamer, I'm going to call bs on that.


----------



## Chomiq (Aug 20, 2019)

Can we get back on topic? This isn't about Intel vs AMD for gaming. OP is getting 3600X so no point in arguing between each other over "gaming superiority".


----------



## las (Aug 20, 2019)

bug said:


> If you want to spend the difference for an extra 10-20fps, yes. But you still can't beat 3600's perf/$.
> 
> Unless you're a pro-gamer, I'm going to call bs on that.



10-20 fps is a huge difference. Especially for someone with a 165 Hz monitor.

Any pro/serious/competitive gamer would notice the difference. The difference between 80 and 100 fps is clear as day.

Why buy a top notch gaming monitor if you can't utilize it completely because CPU is limiting your fps? That's what I'm thinking.


----------



## bug (Aug 20, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Can we get back on topic? This isn't about Intel vs AMD for gaming. OP is getting 3600X so no point in arguing between each other over "gaming superiority".


But this is on topic. I was merely suggesting the 3600 would be a better pick


----------



## las (Aug 20, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Can we get back on topic? This isn't about Intel vs AMD for gaming. OP is getting 3600X so no point in arguing between each other over "gaming superiority".



>>> He wanted opinions on the build <<< 

Reading Ryzen 3000 reviews here on TECHPOWERUP, it says; "Still not as fast as Intel in gaming"

So why choose Ryzen for a pure gaming build. Is what I'm thinking.

B450 + 3600 is, like I said from the beginning, good value.

If you want the best gaming perf on Ryzen, you need to spend more on the memory compared to Intel. This is a fact.
With Intel you can use whatever and still get top notch performance, there is very little to gain here compared to Ryzen. Pretty much all ryzen reviews uses top notch memory. Tons of Ryzen system builders settles with cheaper memory and don't see the same performance as a result. They don't get the performance they expected, because they did not know memory was that important.

You simply don't cheap out on the memory with Ryzen. Going with the cheap 3200/CL16 option will gimp the gaming performance by 5-10%. So instead of 10-15% slower than Intel, you will end up 15-25% slower.


----------



## GrimLobster (Aug 20, 2019)

las said:


> >>> He wanted opinions on the build <<<
> 
> Reading Ryzen 3000 reviews here on TECHPOWERUP, it says; "Still not as fast as Intel in gaming"
> 
> ...



Thanks for your info.

I ordered G.Skill Flare X 16gb (2×8) 3200MHz/CL14 - mainly based off advice in this thread - thanks



bug said:


> But this is on topic. I was merely suggesting the 3600 would be a better pick



Thoughts on slightly better performance and a better stock cooler on the 3600x compared to 3600? 
Or you'd go 3600, manually overclock and buy new cooler as preference?


----------



## Chomiq (Aug 20, 2019)

GrimLobster said:


> Thanks for your info.
> 
> I ordered G.Skill Flare X 16gb (2×8) 3200MHz/CL14 - mainly based off advice in this thread - thanks
> 
> ...


Buy 3600, get aftermarket cooler. You won't notice the performance diff and you'll probably get a better performing cooler anyway.


----------



## bug (Aug 20, 2019)

GrimLobster said:


> Thoughts on slightly better performance and a better stock cooler on the 3600x compared to 3600?
> Or you'd go 3600, manually overclock and buy new cooler as preference?


What surprised me is you can't seem to be able to put a piece of paper between the two whether you overclock or not.
Any $ I could save, I would spend on a bigger SSD.


----------



## Calmmo (Aug 20, 2019)

sneekypeet said:


> The reason Corsair flounders is due to revisions. Typically Corsair has great ICs in the first couple of revisions, then move to poop ICs as inventory runs out. Most other makers stick with the same ICs throughout the series life, then EOLs said kits when they run out of chips.



Patriot would like to have a word with you. From B-die to Hynix even on their 3600 cl16 kits


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Aug 20, 2019)

GrimLobster said:


> Thanks for your info.
> 
> I ordered G.Skill Flare X 16gb (2×8) 3200MHz/CL14 - mainly based off advice in this thread - thanks
> 
> ...




Definitely just buy the 3600 and get a better cooler... Even  the hyper 212 for $30 ish destroys the wraith prism cooler.


----------

