# New build with decent budget



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

Hi Guys,

Building a new rig here and as siggested by other, I figured I would heed their advice and start my own build thread.

In My countries currency, my budget is +-R40 000 South African Rands.

The two components that I have settled on at this stage is the GPU and CPU.  I am still researching from there.

*GPU:* MSI - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB Video Card 
*CPU: *Intel - Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core OEM/Tray Processor

You might be asking why I have not just gone for the 8700K or the 9700K.  Well, I am unable to get hold of these chips as they are scarce in my country.

I am now in the process of choosing a motherboard.  I plan to buy most of my components from this site: https://www.evetech.co.za/

Any suggestions on the CPU and GPU and other components?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 19, 2019)

I would say for motherboard either Strix Z390-E/F, or one of the Z390 Aorus boards (that site you linked doesn't seem to have gigabyte stuff though). You could also go with the Maximus Hero.

Given your budget the 9900k is probably a solid choice, Ryzen isn't very attractive at that price bracket.

Is your intention with your current components to part out the rig and re-use what you can, or are you looking to build the new one with all new parts?


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

The new build will mostly be new components except for the storage drives.  I currently have a 2TB storage drive that I will reuse but the OS drive just be a new SSD.  If course if it makes sense to repurpose an item then I will.


----------



## 64K (Mar 19, 2019)

When I saw your budget and converted it to USA dollars so that I could get an idea how much that is ($2,700) I was thinking you could easily step up to a 2080 but then I checked your store and saw that they were around R17,000 ($1,175). The prices for hardware are extremely high in South Africa.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

64K said:


> When I saw your budget and converted it to USA dollars so that I could get an idea how much that is ($2,700) I was thinking you could easily step up to a 2080 but then I checked your store and saw that they were around R17,000 ($1,175). The prices for hardware are extremely high in South Africa.


Correct. That's why the budget had to be so high.


----------



## phill (Mar 19, 2019)

I was just going to ask, do you require the whole system - monitor/s, mouse, keyboard and etc or just the basics, motherboard, CPU, GPU, ram and PSU?   Just to get an idea of what we could do with the budget  

Is there any chance with suggesting an AMD Ryzen system?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 19, 2019)

On a note of the prices I would say that you can approximate to USD prices with 20 rand/USD.

Ryzen would be an option if OP wanted to focus on GPU power, there is a tradeoff to be made though. Along that same train of thought it might also be a good idea to consider waiting for Zen2 to launch, so that the changes to the market that brings are more apparent.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

phill said:


> I was just going to ask, do you require the whole system - monitor/s, mouse, keyboard and etc or just the basics, motherboard, CPU, GPU, ram and PSU?   Just to get an idea of what we could do with the budget
> 
> Is there any chance with suggesting an AMD Ryzen system?


Never been an AMD fan so I really don't want Ryzen.  That is just personal perference.



GorbazTheDragon said:


> On a note of the prices I would say that you can approximate to USD prices with 20 rand/USD.
> 
> Ryzen would be an option if OP wanted to focus on GPU power, there is a tradeoff to be made though. Along that same train of thought it might also be a good idea to consider waiting for Zen2 to launch, so that the changes to the market that brings are more apparent.


When does the Zen2 launch?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 19, 2019)

Rumours right now are some time around the summer


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

Look, I'm not entirely against Ryzen but I'm just not familiar with it.  I also want resellability so if AMD is good for resale then I will consider it.


----------



## phill (Mar 19, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> Never been an AMD fan so I really don't want Ryzen.  That is just personal perference.
> 
> When does the Zen2 launch?



Personal preference is what makes us all different   But I would at least consider it if you're not going to upgrade just yet.  Zen 2 I'm sure will push the difference between Intel and AMD a lot closer together and hopefully surpassing them   But that's a little off


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

phill said:


> Personal preference is what makes us all different   But I would at least consider it if you're not going to upgrade just yet.  Zen 2 I'm sure will push the difference between Intel and AMD a lot closer together and hopefully surpassing them   But that's a little off


Yh, I sadly can't wait to long as I can't play any games at the moment and no video editing as my current rig is not performing. So I guess I gave to push forward how.

This is another site I can buy my components at 
https://www.wootware.co.za



GorbazTheDragon said:


> I would say for motherboard either Strix Z390-E/F, or one of the Z390 Aorus boards (that site you linked doesn't seem to have gigabyte stuff though). You could also go with the Maximus Hero.
> 
> Given your budget the 9900k is probably a solid choice, Ryzen isn't very attractive at that price bracket.
> 
> Is your intention with your current components to part out the rig and re-use what you can, or are you looking to build the new one with all new parts?


Wootware does Asrock and Gigabyte but the feeling I have gotten from these forums is that Gigabyte is not such a great board at this time?  Is that correct?

I considering either this one
ASRock Z390 Pro4 Intel Z390 LGA1151 ATX

or this one

ASRock Z390 Extreme4 Intel Z390 LGA1151 ATX

The price difference is a consideration here.  Is the Extreme4 really that much better??


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 19, 2019)

I would say ASUS>Gigabyte/MSI>asrock in terms of BIOS. My assumption is that you will be overclocking in which case ASrock BIOSes will probably be a pain in the back side, and there are quite a lot of low end boards to avoid just because of the VRMs.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> I would say ASUS>Gigabyte/MSI>asrock in terms of BIOS. My assumption is that you will be overclocking in which case ASrock BIOSes will probably be a pain in the back side, and there are quite a lot of low end boards to avoid just because of the VRMs.


From replies on my other threads, it seems others might disagree with you there on your opinion of ASrock.   Alot of people are punting ASrock.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 19, 2019)

Just as a starting point here, if I was to rebuild my main system with your budget and store availability, something like this is what I'd be looking at (minus the 750 watt PSU, read below for explanation)-







Reuse your Seagate storage drive and that HX1000 psu (even though it is complete overkill for this build). When I originally did the build, I included a Super Flower 750 PSU in the build (as seen above). But with you already having the HX 1000, I don't see a real need to spend money on another PSU. I put the build together on Wootware.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

nice post Barbaric...just a question this, while I am not familiar with Palit, some would spit at the brand for a GPU.  What's your experience with Palit for a GPU?

Just a note on the 1000w PSU, I had more 500GB drives plugged in to my PC when I originally bought it.  I since upgraded all those drives to the 2TB single drive and that's why it seems a bit overkill 
I also have an additional GTX 980Ti that I sold because there was such limited support for Sli that I felt it was a waste of money just sitting there.

Also,  Looking at the price comparison between the Gigabyte Auros Pro Wifi _(and why would anyone need wifi on a gaming machine) _and the Asrock Phantom Gaming board, the price is significantly more expensive for the gigabyte board.  At least in my country it is.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 19, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> nice post Barbaric...just a question this, while I am not familiar with Palit, some would spit at the brand for a GPU.  What's your experience with Palit for a GPU?


I've personally never had a Palit video card myself. I have heard pretty good things about Palit video cards here on TPU, and TPU gave the card a favorable review (something I give a lot of credibility to). And considring it was almost R2,000 less expensive than the next lowest priced 2080, it was a easy pick in my opinion.



Wolvyreen said:


> Just a note on the 1000w PSU, I had more 500GB drives plugged in to my PC when I originally bought it.  I since upgraded all those drives to the 2TB single drive and that's why it seems a bit overkill
> I also have an additional GTX 980Ti that I sold because there was such limited support for Sli that I felt it was a waste of money just sitting there.



I wasn't judging. As far as I knew, you were given the PSU. Although, with your explanation, I can see how the HX 1000 was warranted for build in it's previous form (lots of drives, 980ti SLI, AIO watercooling, ect)


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 19, 2019)

I back barbaric's build suggestion, only thing I would be on the fence about is the WD SSD. I personally don't see the point in using M.2 slots for SATA SSDs, IMO you are better off just getting a 2.5inch drive at that point.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I've personally never had a Palit video card myself. I have heard pretty good things about Palit video cards here on TPU, and TPU gave the card a favorable review (something I give a lot of credibility to). And considring it was almost R2,000 less expensive than the next lowest priced 2080, it was a easy pick in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't judging. As far as I knew, you were given the PSU. Although, with your explanation, I can see how the HX 1000 was warranted for build in it's previous form (lots of drives, 980ti SLI, AIO watercooling, ect)


I didnt feel judged.  Just felt I had to clarify.
I'm not sure what I said to make you think that I was given the 1000w PSU 



GorbazTheDragon said:


> I back barbaric's build suggestion, only thing I would be on the fence about is the WD SSD. I personally don't see the point in using M.2 slots for SATA SSDs, IMO you are better off just getting a 2.5inch drive at that point.


Could you clarify this comment?  I'm wondering why you say that a 2.5inch is better than a m.2 drive?  Almost everyone I have seen thus far is all going for m.2 drives now.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 19, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> I back barbaric's build suggestion, only thing I would be on the fence about is the WD SSD. I personally don't see the point in using M.2 slots for SATA SSDs, IMO you are better off just getting a 2.5inch drive at that point.



Good catch, I missed that. Build revised, 750 PSU removed and M2 SATA SSD replaced with M2 PCIe SSD-









Wolvyreen said:


> I didnt feel judged.  Just felt I had to clarify.
> I'm not sure what I said to make you think that I was given the 1000w PSU



It's not what you did or didn't say, and I'm not saying I thought you were given the PSU, just that I had no idea why you had it or how you got it.




Wolvyreen said:


> Could you clarify this comment?  I'm wondering why you say that a 2.5inch is better than a m.2 drive?  Almost everyone I have seen thus far is all going for m.2 drives now.



I can. Using a SATA speed rated drive in a M2 slot will not give you the read/write speeds capable though a M2 slot, hence his comment "IMO you are better off just getting a 2.5inch drive at that point" because the drive would perform the same as a 2.5" drive. The M2 PCIe SSD in the revised build will give much faster read (5*faster)/write (3*faster) times, translating into better/faster performance.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

BarbaricSoul said:


> It's not what you did or didn't say, and I'm not saying I thought you were given the PSU, just that I had no idea why you had it or how you got it.


Sorry, i misunderstood you when you said _"As far as I knew, you were given the PSU." _I thought that meant that you believed I was given the PSU.   my bad 


BarbaricSoul said:


> I can. Using a SATA speed rated drive in a M2 slot will not give you the read/write speeds capable though a M2 slot, hence his comment "IMO you are better off just getting a 2.5inch drive at that point" because the drive would perform the same as a 2.5" drive. The M2 PCIe SSD in the revised build will give much faster read (5*faster)/write (3*faster) times, translating into better/faster performance.


So if this new M.2 SSD that you revised the build to is acceptable, should I still be looking at 2.5inch ssd's??


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 19, 2019)

Up to you. I would say the 2.5 inch SATA SSDs that make the most sense nowadays are the 1TB+ sizes, if you can find them well priced the recent QLC drives such as the 860 QVO are good options for storage, they retain the relatively fast read speeds although sacrificing on the writes department (both speed and endurance). Really depends on if you want to have a fast storage drive or not, otherwise large hard drives are always still up to the task.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

Of course performance is what it is all about but I am feeling a little more confused than what I did before.  I'll compare the 2.5inches to the m.2's and see which one is a better option.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 19, 2019)

What Gorbaz is saying is a m2 PCIe will give you the best read/write times, but you can use the slower 2.5” SSD for storage drives instead of a mechanical hard drive and not have to pay the premium price tag of a M2 PCIe SSD. Just a way to save some money


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

Ahhhh. Now I get it!  Sorry I'm a bit slow on the uptake.  I'll rather go for the performance though. I want the most performance I can get for my money


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 19, 2019)

Ok, so a comparison just to show the approximate performance of the different drive options. These should all be around the same price

Samsung 960 EVO (M.2 PCIe): 500GB, 2700MB/s reads, ~1800MB/s writes
Samsung 860 QVO (2.5 SATA): 1TB, ~550MB/s reads, ~150MB/s writes
WD Red 5400RPM (3.5 SATA): 4TB, ~100MB/s reads, ~100MB/s writes

Tradeoff is basically always speed to capacity.

A 4th to add would be 860 EVO (2.5 SATA): 1TB, ~550MB/s reads, ~550MB/s writes, at ~150 euros compared to the ~100-110 of the other drives.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 19, 2019)

Thanks @GorbazTheDragon

Quick question, do you think I can stick with my current case for the new ATX Z390 board?  I could essentially save money there or do you think I will need a new case?  The case works for ATX motherboards as far as my research has shown but I am so out of the game that I'm not sure if the new ATX boards will fit on the old cases that supported ATX motherboards.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 19, 2019)

Should be fine. ATX spec hasn't actually changed. The ones you need to be careful with are wider-than-ATX boards.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 19, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> I'll rather go for the performance though. I want the most performance I can get for my money



https://www.wootware.co.za/samsung-...280-pci-express-3-0-x4-solid-state-drive.html

Then this is the most performance SSD available to you (you may as well get one big enough to keep games on as well as your your OS) BTW, this drive has
3,500MB/s Read, 3,300MB/s Write times and is 1 TB in size. Honestly, I wish I went for a 1 TB drive over my 500 GB drive, as I was quite surprised with how fast I filled it.

And yes, your HAF 932 will have no issues with the new hardware


----------



## AmioriK (Mar 19, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> Never been an AMD fan so I really don't want Ryzen.  That is just personal perference.


And this is why Ryzen doesn't have the marketshare it deserves.

9900K is 45% more expensive than 2700X in your country (and the pricing for 2700X in that store is like £50 higher than it should be).. for 15-20% more performance in multi-threaded workloads like rendering, and <15% more performance in most games. In those single-threaded games you will get maybe 25-30% Tops, best case for Intel. And this is assuming you are pushing high refresh where the triple-digit FPS is worth something, for your display there will be essentially no difference. The 2700X comes with a cooler; Wraith Prism isn't that great but it's capable of cooling the 2700X to sustained 4G boost in games. The cooler that comes with the 9900K will cause your PC to thermal shutdown within 5 minutes of turning it on. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Also note the 9900K is 81% more expensive than the Ryzen 7 2700 (non X) in that store for 0% More cores and threads, but only 21% more clock speed when both are OC (I assume 4.1 for 2700, and 5 for 9900K). So around that much more performance in a lot of multi-threaded workloads. 25-30 tops in the best case games for intel that like to shag that one core.

Z390 could possibly take the new 14nm 10-core Comet Lake CPU that is rumoured to be coming from Intel, but if you expect that to be below $600 USD then you're dreaming. X470 is confirmed to take the new 7nm Ryzen CPUs launching in <6 months, giving you an upgrade path to 16 cores and potentially higher IPC and similar clock rates, what's not to love?

But only you can decide if the 9900K is worth it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not going to talk your ear off with my Pro AMD BS. if you're doing rendering at the same time as playing those Ghz loving games, sure the 9900K makes sense. But *pleeeeeeeeease don't not consider Ryzen just because you "aren't a fan". It hurts competition and that hurts everyone.*


----------



## Chomiq (Mar 20, 2019)

What's your target resolution and refresh rate range?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 21, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> What's your target resolution and refresh rate range?



from his/her system specs- Dell Ultra HD 4k Monitor P2715Q 27-Inch Screen LED-Lit Monitor


----------



## Chomiq (Mar 21, 2019)

So gaming wise he wouldn't see much difference between going with AMD or Intel, right? He'd still be limited mostly by his GPU choice. Editing wise he might see some gains with Intel due to higher clock speeds.
That being said the amount of money saved wouldn't cover the upgrade cost between 2080 and 2080 Ti so looks like Intel's a good choice with a 2080 suggested by BarbaricSoul.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 21, 2019)

Actually, considering the OP has said they want to continue to use their HAF 932 case, removing the case from my recommendation allows a 2080ti with the OP's *+-*R40,0000 budget


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 21, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> From replies on my other threads, it seems others might disagree with you there on your opinion of ASrock.   Alot of people are punting ASrock.



WRT the BIOS @GorbazTheDragon certainly has a point. And apparently, for VRM it seems there are better options on Z390. My experience stems from Z370, where AsRock pretty much killed it VRM wise from the midrange up to high end.

As for the 9900K... man. That is a monumental waste of money for gaming. 8c16t is pointless, its a hot CPU so a real task to keep cool if you are chasing 4.8 ~ 5 Ghz.

I'd certainly consider a Ryzen 5. And if you're high refresh rate gaming, surely you can find some Intel 6 core in the 8 or 9 series other than this one? That gap in CPU price will get you a higher tier GPU, ie 2070 > 2080. And that will be a bigger boost to FPS.

Then again, if you can easily free up this kind of budget, why worry about the details. Go big


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 21, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> WRT the BIOS @GorbazTheDragon certainly has a point. And apparently, for VRM it seems there are better options on Z390. My experience stems from Z370, where AsRock pretty much killed it VRM wise from the midrange up to high end.
> 
> As for the 9900K... man. That is a monumental waste of money for gaming. 8c16t is pointless, its a hot CPU so a real task to keep cool if you are chasing 4.8 ~ 5 Ghz.
> 
> ...



Did you not see the newest build recommendation, which has the 9900k with a 240mm AIO and a 2080ti within the OP's budget? OP has stated that they want to most speed they can get for +-R40,000, which the current recommendation gives. If you think a better build can be put together, then by all means, post a build recommendation.

BTW, the OP mentioned wanting to do video editing, so 8t/16c not so much a waste.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 21, 2019)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Did you not see the newest build recommendation, which has the 9900k with a 240mm AIO and a 2080ti within the OP's budget? OP has stated that they want to most speed they can get for +-R40,000, which the current recommendation gives. If you think a better build can be put together, then by all means, post a build recommendation.
> 
> BTW, the OP mentioned wanting to do video editing, so 8t/16c not so much a waste.



Yeah I noticed and great work, but its still a tremendous amount of cash for this level of PC (MSDT). Im questioning not the build but the budget available, really, for the use case.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Mar 21, 2019)

What are the other options really?? If you are going to go down the TR route you are inevitably going to spend a huge chunk of the budget on a motherboard and RAM only to sacrifice gaming performance for MT... Intel HEDT? Nah I'll take a pass on that one too...


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 21, 2019)

As a 9900k owner I would personally push you more towards getting a 2700x with a x470 asus rog crosshair vii hero that should have no problem powering a 12 or 16 core Zen 2 chip. If you were doing this build 5 months ago and needed a system asap I would say yeah go 9900k but the difference in gaming at 4k will be 0 in most games and rendering/editing is really the only reason to buy one over a 2700x and even that you will get at best 20-30% more performance but at 70-90% more money. The biggest issue with the 9900k is cooling it my corsair h150i is barely adequate at 5ghz  my ambient temps are around 22c. Gaming is absolutely no problem even at 5.1ghz and maybe even 5.2 assuming your chip can do it but any sort of rendering for longer than an hour and you will be hitting 90c or more. I personally usually have no budget limit when buying PC parts and tend to overspend as well on what I need vs want but this is just my 2 cents. I think going with either cpu will make you pretty happy over your i7 and really that's the whole point of upgrading. The only other thing I will say is if you do go 9900k don't cheap out on the motherboard my Asus Maxiumus code is barely adequate in my opinion.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 21, 2019)

Just to show no real favoritism (I have had AMD systems before), here is a 2700X equivalent build so the OP (if they return before making a purchase) will see their options.






OP will save about R5,000 (about $350 USD), loose no gaming performance at 4k, and loose 20-30% rendering/editing performance. Only the OP can decide if the trade off is worth the money (either way)

Going with the 2700, the price would be R34,524, saving R6000 ($422 USD)


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 21, 2019)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Just to show no real favoritism (I have had AMD systems before), here is a 2700X equivalent build so the OP (if they return before making a purchase) will see their options.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


May as well use the budget and go with an extra 16GB RAM for 32GB, personally I wouldn't buy Gigabyte board though Asrock have solid Ryzen boards as good as any other mfr


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 21, 2019)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Just to show no real favoritism (I have had AMD systems before), here is a 2700X equivalent build so the OP (if they return before making a purchase) will see their options.
> 
> OP will save about R5,000 (about $350 USD), loose no gaming performance at 4k, and loose 20-30% rendering/editing performance. Only the OP can decide if the trade off is worth the money (either way)
> 
> Going with the 2700, the price would be R34,524, saving R6000 ($422 USD)



I agree, the price difference on a total system build is negligible. The only issue for me is timing we're pretty close to ryzen 3000 which will be a lot closer to intel and probably much cheaper. 300-400 may not seem like much now but if a 12 or 16 core comes in around 500 and can still game at 4k with identical performance that would blow. The only problem is other than AMD nobody knows how ryzen 3000 really is making both scenarios tough.  I personally plan on building a second Ryzen system in June/July or around when its released so going with a 9900k didn't really matter for me now and really is the only reason I chose it over a 2700x.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 22, 2019)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Just to show no real favoritism (I have had AMD systems before), here is a 2700X equivalent build so the OP (if they return before making a purchase) will see their options.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very nice. 1/8th / 12,5% of the cost of the system on top for the 9900K then. Seems like OP has a clear choice to make now!

For single threaded scenario's I have to say, that price gap equals or is lower than the performance gain to a 9900K. You can get 800 mhz on top, that is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 25, 2019)

Hello All,

I'm so sorry I have been so quiet!  We went camping for the weekend and my wife forbid me to have any tech with me so I wasn't allowed to touch the internet.

Now that I am back online, I have seen all these posts and am very surprised at the amount of information that you all have provided.  Thank you so much for taking the time to discuss this and give your inputs.

Some thoughts and corrections I think I should make based on the above posts:



AmioriK said:


> And this is why Ryzen doesn't have the marketshare it deserves.
> 
> 9900K is 45% more expensive than 2700X in your country (and the pricing for 2700X in that store is like £50 higher than it should be).. for 15-20% more performance in multi-threaded workloads like rendering, and <15% more performance in most games. In those single-threaded games you will get maybe 25-30% Tops, best case for Intel. And this is assuming you are pushing high refresh where the triple-digit FPS is worth something, for your display there will be essentially no difference. The 2700X comes with a cooler; Wraith Prism isn't that great but it's capable of cooling the 2700X to sustained 4G boost in games. The cooler that comes with the 9900K will cause your PC to thermal shutdown within 5 minutes of turning it on. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
> 
> ...



I have mentioned already in the thread that I am not AGAINST AMD, I have always just focussed my attention on Intel.  I certainly would buy an AMD if thats what makes more sense for my use case. I admit that I am a intel fanboy and always have been and from some videos I have seen online, there still seems to be some merit to my bias towards intel as there are many cases that support buying Intel over the AMD like this video from Linus Tech Tips.  I'm posting the link directly to the conclusion part of the video for AMD vs Intel *for Gaming*. YouTube Video - AMD vs Intel for Gaming



BarbaricSoul said:


> from his/her system specs- Dell Ultra HD 4k Monitor P2715Q 27-Inch Screen LED-Lit Monitor


Actually, I have been thinking of ditching the 4K monitor for a 1440p monitor instead as I can get a higher refresh rate monitor for less money than the 4K and I can sell the 4K monitor for some decent cash to recoup some money after the new purchase.  So win win...

Does that change the final build suggestion slightly?



BarbaricSoul said:


> Did you not see the newest build recommendation, which has the 9900k with a 240mm AIO and a 2080ti within the OP's budget? OP has stated that they want to most speed they can get for +-R40,000, which the current recommendation gives. If you think a better build can be put together, then by all means, post a build recommendation.
> 
> BTW, the OP mentioned wanting to do video editing, so 8t/16c not so much a waste.


When I referred to the most speed I can get I was specifically referring to the SSD drives.  The rest of the machine needs to be focussed on FPS for gaming.



Vayra86 said:


> Yeah I noticed and great work, but its still a tremendous amount of cash for this level of PC (MSDT). Im questioning not the build but the budget available, really, for the use case.


The use case is for Gaming and SOME video editing.  Bulk of the crunching is for gaming.



oxrufiioxo said:


> As a 9900k owner I would personally push you more towards getting a 2700x with a x470 asus rog crosshair vii hero that should have no problem powering a 12 or 16 core Zen 2 chip. If you were doing this build 5 months ago and needed a system asap I would say yeah go 9900k but the difference in gaming at 4k will be 0 in most games and rendering/editing is really the only reason to buy one over a 2700x and even that you will get at best 20-30% more performance but at 70-90% more money. The biggest issue with the 9900k is cooling it my corsair h150i is barely adequate at 5ghz  my ambient temps are around 22c. Gaming is absolutely no problem even at 5.1ghz and maybe even 5.2 assuming your chip can do it but any sort of rendering for longer than an hour and you will be hitting 90c or more. I personally usually have no budget limit when buying PC parts and tend to overspend as well on what I need vs want but this is just my 2 cents. I think going with either cpu will make you pretty happy over your i7 and really that's the whole point of upgrading. The only other thing I will say is if you do go 9900k don't cheap out on the motherboard my Asus Maxiumus code is barely adequate in my opinion.
> View attachment 119237



This is definitely an interesting point of view and very valuable.  As we discuss this, I am starting to lean more and more towards AMD but the FPS has to show it.  Check out the video above and if you disagree with it, then I would like to know your thoughts on why it's innacurate when they recommend Intel over AMD for higher FPS.



BarbaricSoul said:


> Just to show no real favoritism (I have had AMD systems before), here is a 2700X equivalent build so the OP (if they return before making a purchase) will see their options.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The trade-off is definitely worth it as the video editing is maybe 10% of the workload compared to gaming.

One thing that I am still on the fence about though is PALIT GPUs.  I have NEVER bought Palit and steered clear of them but just like my biased opinion of Intel vs AMD, maybe I am unjustly prejudicial towards PALIT compared to MSI or other brands??  Some thoughts about PALIT would be nice,


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 25, 2019)

https://www.techspot.com/review/1744-core-i9-9900k-round-two/

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...paste-delid-gaming-benchmarks-vs-2700x/page-4


I would look at these they explain the 2700X vs 9900k and what use case either makes more sense far better than I ever could. The bigger thing with Ryzen is in 4-5 months you may be able to upgrade to a much better CPU and sell your 2700X. With Intel you're stuck with 9900k speeds most likely unless you buy a new motherboard. I had this same issue back in October deciding between a 9900k and 2700X for me the only thing I needed was Mobo and CPU so the cost difference was something like $600 vs $900 and I went with the 9900k but only because I plan on doing a second Ryzen based pc in the summer. Honestly though if I gamed at 4k I would have grabbed the 2700X and used the money I saved upgrading my gpu down the line. Who knows the 3080 Ti might be $1500 msrp lol.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 26, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> I have mentioned already in the thread that I am not AGAINST AMD, I have always just focussed my attention on Intel.  I certainly would buy an AMD if thats what makes more sense for my use case. I admit that I am a intel fanboy and always have been and from some videos I have seen online, there still seems to be some merit to my bias towards intel as there are many cases that support buying Intel over the AMD like this video from Linus Tech Tips.  I'm posting the link directly to the conclusion part of the video for AMD vs Intel *for Gaming*. YouTube Video - AMD vs Intel for Gaming



It's not like a AMD based system isn't capable of being a very good gaming system. In fact, as already stated, at 4k resolutions, there really is no difference between a AMD based system and a Intel based system. But....



Wolvyreen said:


> Actually, I have been thinking of ditching the 4K monitor for a 1440p monitor instead as I can get a higher refresh rate monitor for less money than the 4K and I can sell the 4K monitor for some decent cash to recoup some money after the new purchase.  So win win...
> 
> Does that change the final build suggestion slightly?



When you go down in resolution, making the GPU work less, you will start to see a benefit in performance with a Intel based system. With the lower resolutions, the GPU doesn't have to work as hard, which starts to put the CPU as the bottle-neck (slowest system component) of the system So the extra performance of the Intel CPU can be noticed easier at lower resolutions.



Wolvyreen said:


> When I referred to the most speed I can get I was specifically referring to the SSD drives.  The rest of the machine needs to be focussed on FPS for gaming.



FPS=speed



Wolvyreen said:


> This is definitely an interesting point of view and very valuable.  As we discuss this, I am starting to lean more and more towards AMD but the FPS has to show it.  Check out the video above and if you disagree with it, then I would like to know your thoughts on why it's innacurate when they recommend Intel over AMD for higher FPS.
> 
> The trade-off is definitely worth it as the video editing is maybe 10% of the workload compared to gaming.



Only you can truly answer that question as it is you that has to be satisfied with the build. Intel will give the best gaming performance, but it is possible to build a AMD based system where that difference in gaming performance will only be shown in benchmarks.



Wolvyreen said:


> One thing that I am still on the fence about though is PALIT GPUs.  I have NEVER bought Palit and steered clear of them but just like my biased opinion of Intel vs AMD, maybe I am unjustly prejudicial towards PALIT compared to MSI or other brands??  Some thoughts about PALIT would be nice,



All I can say is that I haven't heard of people having any more issues with Palit cards as I have with ASUS, or Gigabyte, or MSI, or anyother major video card producer.


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 26, 2019)

After reading through those articles I can see why AMD is so enticing now.  However, I still feel though that the Intel is the faster chip even though it runs out of spec on the TDP.  at the end of the day the chip is under warranty and Intel must honour that warranty if the chip overheats and fries.  On the flip side though, it makes a lot more sense to purchase the AMD because you can reallocate the additional budget to other parts of your build. The additional FPS is just not worth the money.

Thank you for those articles it has been very enlightening.

it would be nice to see the same type of articles comparing the different manufacturers for GPUs. As I am still on the fence regarding Palit. However from the benchmarks I have seen, the FPS difference between the different manufacturers are very minimal indeed even when comparing the overclocked cards and therefore Palit does seem to make sense. I am just concerned about the warranty of the card only being one year.



BarbaricSoul said:


> FPS=speed


I agree but that wasn't the context when we were talking about speed. The context was regarding SSD drives vs m.2 drives.


BarbaricSoul said:


> All I can say is that I haven't heard of people having any more issues with Palit cards as I have with ASUS, or Gigabyte, or MSI, or anyother major video card producer.


 That may be true but the warranty is far shorter on Palit cards making the purchase a bit more risky if something goes pear shaped with the card.


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 26, 2019)

1.  Is this a gaming rig ?    If so, what applications need the extra cores as opposed to a 9600k ?  Saves ya R2750 ... and it's 5+% faster than the closest 32% more expensive Ryzen option

9900k = 101.8% for R7599   ... relative value (100 x % / cost)= 1.34
9600k - 100% for R4849   ... relative value = 2.06
Ryzen 2700X = 94.5% for R6399 ... relative value = 1.48






At 4k ....

9900k = 100.3% for R7599   ... relative value (100 x % / cost)= 1.32
9600k - 100% for R4849   ... relative value = 2.06
Ryzen 2700X = 99.8% for R6399 ... relative value = 1.56

At 1440p

9900k = 101.3 for R7599   ... relative value (100 x % / cost)= 1.33
9600k - 100% for R4849   ... relative value = 2.06
Ryzen 2700X = 97.2% for R6399 ... relative value = 1.52


If doing video editing, unless ya spending more than a third of your hours doing that. take # of cores out of consideration.

2.  On the MoBo side, there's many things to consider.

BIOS and Manuals - Asus > MSI > Gigabyte
Support - MSI > Gigabyte > Asus / AsRock  .. the last to seem to have adopted GFU approach.
Performance - Asus suffered a bit from Z87 thru Z170 but has since returned to form .... have to give MSI a slight edge but by the smallest of margins, then AsRock and overall Gigabyte.  The Asus TUF series has been a lot more reliable for us than the RoG line.
Price - Everybody else and then Asus

My favorite MoBo right now in a  reasonable price range is the MSI Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon

3.  RAM - I recommend the most attractive to your taste pair of 2 x 8GB of DDR4-3000 CAD 15 or DDR4-3200 CAS 16

4.  I concur with your GFX card selection ... it tested 2nd highest (144.5 fps) so far here on TPU in overclocking test (0.9 fps behind leader) and makes 0 noise at idle .  If ya jump up to the 2090, than it came out 1st place in fps on TPU OC test (180.2 ... 5.2 fps over next closest competitor
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2070_Gaming_Z/36.html

5.  Fro the options on the sistes you listed the SF leadex Gold is the best option to my eyes.

6.  The Phanteks 600S is my pick for a the best quiet case with great air flow ... see hardware canucks review on youtube ... the the best case in the under $200 category , the Phanteks Evov X is stunning ... but it adds R430

7.  For storage, I's start with a 500 GB M.2 SSD + a 2 TB SSHD (50% faster than a WD Black HD) in gaming

8.  Cooler options are limited.... I can not recommend CLC type AIOs and the only open loop, all copper system they have is expensive at R6,276 and the only air coolers there of note are Phanteks ... if ya can find a Scythe Fuma, grab it
https://www.wootware.co.za/ekwb-ek-kit-p280-performance-diy-open-loop-liquid-cooler-kit.html

Base build (using your stated 2 sources) :


Intel 9700k  - *R7,599*
MSI Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon - *R3,89*9
2 x 8 GB 3200 CAS 16 - *R2,476*
MSI 2070 Gaming Z - *R11,999*
Superflower Leadex II 750 - *R1,799*
Phanteks 600S - *R2,079*
Samsung M2 970 Evo 500 GB - *R2,499*
Seagate 2 TB SSHD - *R1,790*
Phanteks PH-TC14PE - *R1,079*

That totals  *R35,219*

Upgrades / Downgrades worth considering :

Upgrade to MSI Gaming X 2080 = *(+R5,000)*
Downgrade to 9600k* = (-R2,7000)*
Upgraded To Phanteks Evolv X *= (+R430)*

If you do all 3 total is* R37,899*
If you keep the 9900K for the extra 1%,  it will be *40,649*

*Questions:  *

The HAF 932 was a great case ... 8 years ago... not today.

Does 1440p change the picks ... No.    No but even the 2080 Ti is pushing it at 4k.   To my eyes,  the best gaming experience still is at 1440p w/ a 165 HZ 10 bit IPS panel from AUOptronics (turning G-Sync off and using ULMB instead) ... but that may cost more than ya would get from selling the existing 4k panel ... Acer XB271HU (10 bit)  ... Asus PG279Q (8 bit)

How does Palit compare performance wise ?  .... this is how they shook out in TPUs Max speed at max clock testing for the 2080s

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2080_Gaming_X_Trio/images/overclocked-performance.png

MSI Gaming X Trio - 180.2 fps
Asus Strix OC - 175.0
Zotac AMP Extreme - 177.7
Gigabyte Gaming OC - 172.2
Palit Gaming Pro OC - 172.7
Palit Super Jet Stream - 171.7
Nvidia FE - 169.0


As for RMA rates ....most manufacturer's fall within the statistical margin of error ..., this is for the latest period available (August 2017) for cards returned after between 6 and 12 months of usage.

 Zotac 1,13%
EVGA 1.19%
Gigabyte 1,19% 
MSI 1,29% 
ASUS 1,30%
Palit/Gainward 1,49% 
Inno3D 1,56% 
Sapphire 2,90%

As for specific cards ...

_7,69% Sapphire NITRO+ Radeon RX 480 4G
7,00% Inno3D iChill GeForce GTX 1070 X4_
6,69% Sapphire NITRO+ Radeon RX 480 8G OC
5,98% Sapphire Radeon RX 480 8GD5
_5,08% MSI Radeon RX 470 GAMING X 4G
5,00% Sapphire NITRO+ Radeon RX 480 8G_

_And specific series_

2,21% Radeon R7 370
4,33% Radeon R9 380/X
1,62% Radeon RX 460
3,78% Radeon RX 470
5,61% Radeon RX 480

0,83% GeForce GTX 950
1,06% GeForce GTX 960
2,52% GeForce GTX 970
0,43% GeForce GTX 1050/Ti
1,29% GeForce GTX 1060
1,69% GeForce GTX 1070
1,39% GeForce GTX 1080


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 27, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> 1.  Is this a gaming rig ?    If so, what applications need the extra cores as opposed to a 9600k ?  Saves ya R2750 ... and it's 5+% faster than the closest 32% more expensive Ryzen option


Its 90% a gaming rig and 10% video editing.
but also keep in mind that I'm not only buying for the now.  I'm buying for the future too.  I don't want to have to buy a new rig in 2 years time just to get more cores.  Developers are finally starting to use more cores in their games which means that more cores will be needed.



John Naylor said:


> 9900k = 101.8% for R7599   ... relative value (100 x % / cost)= 1.34


I think you meant to say 9700K here as the 9900K is much more expensive.  Correct?



John Naylor said:


> If doing video editing, unless ya spending more than a third of your hours doing that. take # of cores out of consideration.


Surely not if game developers are going to start taking more advantage of multi-core processors.  With the release of 9900K evidently trying to compete with AMD's multicore CPUs, developers are now jumping on the band wagon to get their games working with multiple cores.  I've seen this being stated in multiple tech videos that I have watched over the past 2 weeks when comparing processors.



John Naylor said:


> 4.  I concur with your GFX card selection ... it tested 2nd highest (144.5 fps) so far here on TPU in overclocking test (0.9 fps behind leader) and makes 0 noise at idle .  If ya jump up to the 2090, than it came out 1st place in fps on TPU OC test (180.2 ... 5.2 fps over next closest competitor
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2070_Gaming_Z/36.html


 I assume you meant 2080 here?  I am leaning towards the 2070 purely because of price to performance ratio but to be honest, I am still "up in the air" as I currently have a 4K monitor and if I am *not *going to swop it out for a 1440p monitor, then the 2080ti would be more of a sensible buy as gaming at 4K vs gaming at 1440p would require the larger VRAM allocation of 11gb on the 2080ti and ultimately give out better performance than the 2070.  However, I also have to take in to account longevity of the system.  If newer games are going to start using multiple cores in the next 2-3 years, the CPU starts becoming less of a bottle neck and the 2070 card will start working harder meaning I will need more processing power from the card and I would hate the card to become the bottle neck later down the line just because I skimped out on the card in the beginning.



John Naylor said:


> 5.  Fro the options on the sistes you listed the SF leadex Gold is the best option to my eyes.


My current 1000w Corsair PSU should be able to do the job shouldn't it?  I don't see a need to buy another PSU if I have one already that works?



John Naylor said:


> 8.  Cooler options are limited.... I can not recommend CLC type AIOs and the only open loop, all copper system they have is expensive at R6,276 and the only air coolers there of note are Phanteks ... if ya can find a Scythe Fuma, grab it
> https://www.wootware.co.za/ekwb-ek-kit-p280-performance-diy-open-loop-liquid-cooler-kit.html


I've had my coolermaster H100 for years now and has never given me 1 second of issues.  Other than the led's looking a little dimmer than when I bought it originally, imo, i don't see why CLC coolers are a major problem as long as you buy quality.



John Naylor said:


> The HAF 932 was a great case ... 8 years ago... not today.


You need to keep in mind that if I have a case that works fine, why the need to buy another?  I have 2x 250mm fans blowing cool air in to the case from the side and front.  Another 2x 120mm fans pulling cool air in from the top where the cooler radiator is and 1x 120mm fan exhaust out the rear.  I don't think cooling will be that much better with a newer case.



John Naylor said:


> To my eyes,  the best gaming experience still is at 1440p w/ a 165 HZ


This is ultimately why I'm thinking of ditching the 4K as I just feel it makes more sense all round.  Sure it might cost me some money to make the switch but I think it might be worth it.



John Naylor said:


> How does Palit compare performance wise ?  .... this is how they shook out in TPUs Max speed at max clock testing for the 2080s
> 
> https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2080_Gaming_X_Trio/images/overclocked-performance.png
> 
> ...


This is great information but I did notice that fps is minimally different between the manufacturers which makes a good case for the Palit.  However, Palit came in at 6th place out of those 9 manufacturers when it comes to RMA which isn't anything to write home about.

Thank you for your post John, always very informative ;-)


----------



## Wolvyreen (Mar 29, 2019)

BarbaricSoul said:


>


Just something interesting I picked up now while watching some tech videos on motherboards. Gamers Nexus reckons not to use a 2700X in the Gigabyte AORUS Ultra motherboard


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 29, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> Just something interesting I picked up now while watching some tech videos on motherboards. Gamers Nexus reckons not to use a 2700X in the Gigabyte AORUS Ultra motherboard



I would definitely go Aorus Gaming 7, Asus Crosshair VI, or Taichi ultimate for X470. 

Z390 probably the Aorus Master being the best high end mobo when it comes to what you get for the money as far as VRM. The Z390 ultra is also pretty good from what I've read. The pro is probably fine but connectivity blows. 

The Asus line really just comes down to how much you love their bios and aesthetics. That being said the Z390 Gene and Z390 Apex are both very good. I do like the Code but for what it cost I would never reccomended it to anyone unless they love the aesthetics.

The Z390 Taichi ultimate is very solid but not as good as the aorus master overall it does have pretty sweet ethernet though.


----------



## John Naylor (Apr 10, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> 1.   Its 90% a gaming rig and 10% video editing.
> but also keep in mind that I'm not only buying for the now.  I'm buying for the future too.  I don't want to have to buy a new rig in 2 years time just to get more cores.  Developers are finally starting to use more cores in their games which means that more cores will be needed.
> 
> 2.  I think you meant to say 9700K here as the 9900K is much more expensive.  Correct?
> ...




1.  Future proofing is a meaningless term.  Nobody starts out doing a build thinking, I'm only in it or today.  The only applicability here is buying current generation or choosing to save moeny buying a generation on it's way out.  I recommend the former.

2.  I am saying that the return on investment for each alternative is not equal.  It's not only more expensive, the extra performance you get for investing the extra money is providing less value.     It pays to spend more if you get more .... If you can buy 8 apples for R8 and 12 appples for R11.... its like getting a  free apple.  However what is better buying 8 apples for R8 of buying 12 apples for R22 ?   With just 10% video editing, it's not possible to make a case for Ryzen ot other high core CPU here.

3.  This has been the claim for many years but it has simply not come to pass.  I dunno if you follow the posts for CAD boxes for example where folks are pushing $4,000 GFX card and 24 core CPUs.  AutoCAD is a single threaded application .... while some tasks  may use a second core, thats it.  Where does this come from ?  Twp reasons.  Back in the day the requirements for CAD far exceeding gaming ... now gaming has far outpaced CAD.  The 2nd reason is folks confusing CAD drawing and CAD rendering.    If rendering that $4k card will quickly pay for itself, that 24 core CPU, no.  Look at the graph, on average the 9900k delivers  0.1% more fps and in some games it loses ground.

4.  4k presents a conundrum in that it's rarely viewed correctly.   It's generally accepted that IPS is better than TN ... you think that is true  ?  Better said , "the best IPS panel are better then the bet TN panels".   But at 1440p, the best IPS panels are near on $700.   Ask the question, is a $300 1440p IPS panel better than a $300 TN panel.   No, the $300 IPS is likely unplayable.   To my eyes the best gaming experience available will happen on a 1440p, 10 bit IPS 165 Hz panel playing using ULMB  @120 Hz.    I would love to play on a  on a 2160p, 10 bit IPS 165 Hz panel playing using ULMB  @120 Hz but a) no such panel exists b)  I don't think a cable exists to carry the necessary bandwidth and c) no card exists that can driuve it.  Right now there are two moniotors that do 144 hz at 4k but manufacturerss report that they couldn't do ULMB ... IIRC, because of bandwidth limitations.  I don't have the link I use to check on my lappie or Id look.   Until 4k can do ULMB and cards exist that can get us up to 85+ fps in most games, the folks using 144 / 165 Hz screens will be reluctant to jump.   We now have 144 hz at 4k but no ULMB and that costs about $1900 ,,, Im thinking $2700 when it arrives with ULMB and or a single card to drive it we are 1 maybe 2 generations away.

That being said, if you have 4k, you have already decided that 60 hz is fine.  To my understanding, the monitor does not support any kind of adaptive  sync (neither G-Sync nor Freesysn.  Start here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2070_Gaming_Z/7.html

How many games will you play and what fps will you be satisfied with ?    If you don't like the numbers, an uof=grade would seem required.


5.  You had talked about a PSU... if you don't need one, stick with what you got.

6.  There are numerous issues with the H100i...

a)  It is outperformed by air coolers at 1/3 of it's price.
b)  it's extremely loud
c)  I has a science experiment inside.  With an aluminum rad, and copper block, corrosion is taking place.  In inhibitors have a useful life of 18 - 24 months.  What's going on ? 
https://martinsliquidlab.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/corrosion-explored/









7.  I do understand that you have an existing case ... but you entire existing  computer works fine too.   You also said "The new build will mostly be new components except for the storage drives " so that's what I started with.    At a certain point it's time to give up the ghost.  I never reuse a case in a new build, it has more value to having it exist as a working PC.   I fond newer cases have so many more features ... like USB 3.1, better cooling, less noise, that for 5- 10% of the PC cost, it's well worth the investment.

8.  Yes, can't argue that ... I have avoided for the same reasons.

9.  If you're making a  choice ... at the same price ...  if you were selling your monitor.   First guy offers you $300, 2nd one offers you 5% more .... all things being equal, would you take the1st one or the second ?   But that's not the only reason.  Not saying any one of these are deal breakers but.... I'll use the Palit since you mentioned it.

The difference between the RMA rates are statistically insignificant.
MSI is 9 fps faster OC'd than the Palit
The warrantee varies as has been noted.
MSI has aluminum backkplate, Palit painted metal
MSI has0 noise at idle, Palit has no passive cooling capability
MSI has 6 heat pipes, Palit 5
Palits max power allowance is lower than FE.

Again, not saying that any one of those is a dealbreaker, but this is data that you can find in TPU reviews, much of which may be important to you

And anytime, I collect this data for put own user's decision making, .... might as well share it.


----------



## wolar (Apr 10, 2019)

I believe gigabyte boards are only good on z390, if you choose other chipset you most likely will have better options from different companies.


----------



## Mac2580 (Apr 23, 2019)

Wolvyreen said:


> Its 90% a gaming rig and 10% video editing.
> but also keep in mind that I'm not only buying for the now.  I'm buying for the future too.  I don't want to have to buy a new rig in 2 years time just to get more cores.  Developers are finally starting to use more cores in their games which means that more cores will be needed.
> 
> 
> ...



You wont go wrong with either processor. Graphics wise in the SA market, I have to say if I was you I would keep using the 980Ti until such a time comes where you really want to play a certain game at 4K60FPS. Simply put the 2080TI cant do 1440P165Hz in alot of titles. The prices are high right now for the 2080Ti due to demand from miners. I will probably buy one next year when the price dips. If you really want the card now, go for the strixx, my 7 year old ASUS card is still going strong.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Apr 26, 2019)

Gotta agree - 2070 is not really a mind boggling upgrade over a 980Ti; personally I wouldn't step up to anything less than a 1080Ti/2080


----------

