My Newegg cart...please dissect.

a c i d.f l y

ಠ_ಠ
<Donors Crew>
3,821
8d 20h 54m
Reactions
6,003 1,701 0 0
#1
I don't need a case, PSU, GPU, or cooling solution.

i7-8086K
16GB DDR4 4000 C17 (2x8GB)
Samsung Pro 1tb m.2

I don't need bells and whistles on the mobo, so just got the most solid option for my needs (max RAM frequency, 2x m.2 port, a USB-C port, single PCI Express 3.0 x16 rail). Am I missing something, such as the m.2 rails syphoning off the PCI Express rails? I know older motherboards shared a lot of those lanes, but it seems fairly segregated these days.

Screenshot_20180813-183909_Newegg.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mist

Ssraeszha Raider
15,584
16d 14h 15m
Reactions
4,230 5,545 0 0
#2
8086k is a waste of money. They are no more likely to be a high binned CPU than an 8700k.
 

Brahma

Obi-Bro Kenobi-X
<Donors Crew>
4,127
9d 3h 50m
Reactions
1,644 156 0 0
#3
WTF? RAM is HOW much?!
 

a c i d.f l y

ಠ_ಠ
<Donors Crew>
3,821
8d 20h 54m
Reactions
6,003 1,701 0 0
#4
-$70 for an 8700K. I'm not overclocking.

Yeah, admittedly could have saved $150 on RAM, but meh, 3-6fps makes a difference at 4K.
 

Soygen

Front-Hole Connoisseur
<Donor All-Stars>
23,582
14d 50m
Reactions
19,111 1,408 0 0
#5
320 bucks for 16 gigs of RAM? When will this madness end!
 

brekk

Dancing Dino Superstar
<Donor All-Stars>
1,509
2d 23h 15m
Reactions
789 171 0 0
#6
Jesus, I just bought 2x16gb of PC3200CL16 for 320. All the research I did found PC2666CL14, or PC3200CL16 to be the sweet spot for an 8700k, anything beyond that is a 1-2% gain for a significant price increase.

Why the Evo Pro? It's not faster, and way more expensive.
 

Soygen

Front-Hole Connoisseur
<Donor All-Stars>
23,582
14d 50m
Reactions
19,111 1,408 0 0
#8
I think he means why the Pro over the Evo.
 

brekk

Dancing Dino Superstar
<Donor All-Stars>
1,509
2d 23h 15m
Reactions
789 171 0 0
#9
I think he means why the Pro over the Evo.
Yup, the 970 Evo 1TB is $100 cheaper. Only real benefit of Pro is higher durability, but for home use this is basically a non-issue.

 

Crone

Trakanon Raider
5,999
5d 14h 20m
Reactions
519 52 0 0
#11
There is a Desktop Computers thread for this exact reason, isn't there?

But yes, for sure go with the 970 EVO , and save the money there as well.
 
Last edited:

Dom

Molten Core Raider
682
12d 6h 41m
Reactions
1,689 246 0 0
#13
-$70 for an 8700K. I'm not overclocking.

Yeah, admittedly could have saved $150 on RAM, but meh, 3-6fps makes a difference at 4K.
Do you already have experience gaming at 4k? Because my experience with it has the GPU as the bottleneck at all times except in a few MMO cases.

Ram can and does make a difference in some cases, but you won't see that large (6fps) except in cases where you're talking 2000 vs 3600+

Maybe aim for a much more affordable and readily available 3200?

Also, keep in mind that some boards might say they can handle 4000mhz ram, but end up only being able to do it with certain sticks. Ensure that board has the ram listed on its memory compatibility specsheet.

I also really have to question why you're not overclocking while spending this much cash. It takes little to no effort. Might as well get as much out of your rig as you can.
 

a c i d.f l y

ಠ_ಠ
<Donors Crew>
3,821
8d 20h 54m
Reactions
6,003 1,701 0 0
#14
Looks like I will be OC'ing, Turbo is supposed to hit 5GHz, but it really doesn't. I have an H105 cooler, so could easily lock it above 4.8. A 1080Ti will be here tomorrow, too. My previous hardware consisted of a FX-9590 @ 5GHz, and an R9 390X. If I run without antialiasing at 4K, I generally get between 40-60fps, with some dipping, application depending.

The RAM and mobo were perfectly compatible, btw. XMP profile loaded easily. There's a bit of irony in the cost of the RAM, as my old 16GB of 1866 CL7 is still going for $176. I don't think I paid that much for it when I originally bought that kit.

Passmark comparison:
WDC WDS500G2B0A 4,457
Samsung SSD 970 PRO 1TB 22,537
UserBenchmarks have the Pro at 300% faster. I was running quad SSD's in RAID 0 (before a SATA molex adapter fried two of the drives), and that was pulling 2000MB/s. The Pro does 2500MB/s as advertised. As far as reliability, I've burned through a few sets of SSD drives before the previous incident. 4x120GB drives barely lasted a year. I'd like this setup to last a little while. I had been using an old 1TB drive that was almost 10 years old as my OS drive for the last several months, and that was painful, as well as clearly dying. Lastly, installing Windows on an NVMe drive was a minor challenge, since my existing drive was setup as a UEFI device it wouldn't override the primary boot source unless I formatted the old drive or unplugged it.

I should also mention for the first time in a long time after plugging everything in it "just worked". Fucking amazing.
 

slippery

<Donors Crew>
4,070
9d 6h 22m
Reactions
2,124 78 0 0
#15
Computer building has definitely gotten less annoying, especially with Window's not being so painful, and overclocking being literally push a button.
 

brekk

Dancing Dino Superstar
<Donor All-Stars>
1,509
2d 23h 15m
Reactions
789 171 0 0
#16
Passmark comparison:
WDC WDS500G2B0A 4,457
Samsung SSD 970 PRO 1TB 22,537
UserBenchmarks have the Pro at 300% faster. I was running quad SSD's in RAID 0 (before a SATA molex adapter fried two of the drives), and that was pulling 2000MB/s. The Pro does 2500MB/s as advertised. As far as reliability, I've burned through a few sets of SSD drives before the previous incident. 4x120GB drives barely lasted a year. I'd like this setup to last a little while. I had been using an old 1TB drive that was almost 10 years old as my OS drive for the last several months, and that was painful, as well as clearly dying. Lastly, installing Windows on an NVMe drive was a minor challenge, since my existing drive was setup as a UEFI device it wouldn't override the primary boot source unless I formatted the old drive or unplugged it.
That Western Digital linked above is a random WD Blue SATA SSD.

WD Black NVMe M.2 2280 500GB PCI-Express 3.0 x4 3D NAND Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) WDS500G2X0C - Newegg.com

Would be what people are talking about. I'm still all about Samsung SSD's, but they are no longer the defacto leader in SSD performance, its all MUCH closer then it used to be.

As for reliability with each new generation this is improving on both normal and "pro" tier SSD's. A 1TB 970 Evo is rated for 600TB of data written before mean failure, for a 970 Evo Pro it's 1.2PB. As far as I'm concerned the Evo already has a ridiculous lifetime expectancy, and the Pro is overkill outside of Enterprise environments.
 

Mist

Ssraeszha Raider
15,584
16d 14h 15m
Reactions
4,230 5,545 0 0
#17
Apparently the newest WD Black NVME drives are very competitive with the latest Samsung EVOs.
 

a c i d.f l y

ಠ_ಠ
<Donors Crew>
3,821
8d 20h 54m
Reactions
6,003 1,701 0 0
#18
The 1080Ti just added a corvette carrier sized topping to the cake. Usually I upgrade in pieces, but this time all at once, and given most of my hardware was 5+ years old, mama mia that's a spicy meat-a-ball.
 

Noodleface

Delicious Noodles
30,380
5d 14h 43m
Reactions
6,847 1,071 0 0
#19
The 1080Ti just added a corvette carrier sized topping to the cake. Usually I upgrade in pieces, but this time all at once, and given most of my hardware was 5+ years old, mama mia that's a spicy meat-a-ball.
When I built my current PC I started day 1 just buying a mobo/cpu/ram combo that was an insanely good deal (mobo came out to being free). I was like.. yeah, gonna piecemeal this over the next few months.. be responsible..

Day 2 I had ordered every single part in my PC.
 

a c i d.f l y

ಠ_ಠ
<Donors Crew>
3,821
8d 20h 54m
Reactions
6,003 1,701 0 0
#20
I'm annoyed I'm gonna have to redo my installation... AMD drivers and application failed to uninstall properly, and I discovered my UEFI boot partition is still being housed on the disk drive, so instead of 3-4s boot times it's taking 30-45s. Woe is me, but I didn't just spend $1800 to have a bullshit, sloppy install. Lessons learned.

I rebuilt a friend's system with the same hardware today (mobo, ram, cpu, minus the 1080, he kept his 580) and had that up and running in less than 90minutes. Gonna have to unplug the drive, reinstall. Not that it would take that long, just annoying.