Graphics

Do not get a massively overpowered graphics card to just play on 1080p when the 1060 6GB or RX580 are already overpowered for 1080p 60fps or higher almost all games currently.
Even a 2200G overclocked or 2400G iGPU is good in almost all games at 1080p, often getting 60+ fps on roughly medium settings, or 30+fps in the worst case on lower settings in all except a few exceptions that you may have to run at 720p-900p to stay above 30fps such as AC Origins.
It is currently better to save money and toward buying the next generation in 2019 that'll offers better price:performance than to overspend in the current generation.
If you are buying a more expensive graphics card, it should be for 1440p.
7970 and the 290/X were unusual outliers in how long they lastest, with many games seemingly made with GCN in mind for years. While a 1070Ti or Vega56 will surely last a long time at 1080p, they aren't good value for it when the next generation of mainstream range cards will be much cheaper for more performance. Most people tend to overrate just how powerful the 1060 6GB and RX580 are at reasonable settings, and don't realize how much graphics requirements have generally stagnated with graphics becoming more well optimized. The later is especially capable at even light 1440p on medium-high settings in almost all cases.

Issues which affect only one vendor
These are issues which are present only on a particular vendor, meaning the other(s) don't have those same problems. Including not covering equivolant but different named technology, ie Freesync is interchangable with Gsync, Virtual Super Resolution with Dynamic Super Resolution, Enhanced Sync with Fast Sync.
Therefore, problems which affect both/all vendors (ie having to occasionally roll back drivers) are not mentioned here.

Intel

  • Integrated graphics are generally terrible, and Intel seemingly gave up on improving them after the 5775C. They are, at least, serviceable for decoding, very old or low requirement games, and can be even be fine for Dolphin emulation and similar.
  • Never added Freesync/adaptive-sync support to Kabylake and beyond like Intel they said they would.

AMD

  • Out-of-the-box performance tends to be worse, especially with Vega over Polaris, compared to the performance you can get by tweaking pStates voltage and clocks.
  • Freesync, at least in 2017, has had screen flickering issues. It seems these are fixed and have stayed fixed for many driver updates, but not certain.
  • Day-1 "game-ready" drivers are sometimes not available for smaller games on release to give the better performance on launch day. Usually amounts to around a 5-10% lower or so FPS than you could have once the driver update for that game comes. Some games, like Vermentide 2, took ~3 months to get its driver update for a 9% boost.
  • Has hardware lotteries. Sometimes you buy a R5 1400, and you get a 1700 instead. Sometimes you buy a Vega 56 and get Samsung HBM (which is good for an extra 10% fps when overclocking or so over a usual Vega 56, which Vega 64 almost[?] always have) instead of Hynix. While you get at least what you paid for and what was advertised... it sucks hoping to get more but losing the lottery, especially in the case of Vega 56 with the Samsung HBM lottery.

Nvidia

  • Overclocking is far more limited, with no pState modification possible at all on Pascal (1000 series), and overclocking can even regress performance. Although, out-of-the box, they tend to perform better. More
  • Uses propritary adaptive-sync which makes Gsync monitors typically costs $80-$300 more than equivalent Freesync monitors. There are also far more limited monitor choices compared to Freesync as a result, with many 4k TVs supporting Freesync. There are also 1440p 75hz Freesync options, but no 1440p 75hz Gsync monitors, which can further increase this cost difference to more like $350+ to simply get a Gsync 1440p IPS compared to a Freesync one.
  • Does not support dithering at all, not simply not by default. This causes banding and poor quality on those $2000 local-dimming Gsync monitors if your content doesn't dither natively.
  • Using multiple monitors that aren't the same refresh rate (ie one 60hz, one 144hz), causes stuttering even during web browsing.
  • Telemetry (spying on the games you have, how often you play them, etc) is now tied to the driver itself and not Geforce Experience. The service is reinstalled and enabled after each driver update, so you must disable it after each driver update.
  • Geforce Experience, which has many basic features which shouldn't require an account for any reason, requires an account tied to an email address to use.
  • Shadowplay reduces FPS by a more significant amount than Relive. AMD Nvidia No h.265 HEVC option despite Pascal hardware encoders supporting it, afaik.

CPUs

Issues which affect only one vendor

Intel

  • Countless security vulnerabilities, with new ones seeming to pop up every month which rarely and/or never seriously affect AMD. You can stay on top of these by regularly updating your BIOS updates, however the BIOS updates are sometimes buggy and require a rollback.
  • Gains less performance with MCE compared to PBO compared to the old fashioned way of overclocking. On AMD X CPUs, simply maxing PBO will often give you better performance than a traditional manual OC. However, single core performance potential with said manual overclocks if you go through the extra cost and tweaking.
  • Chipsets are typically obsolete roughly every 2 years, sometimes much less. (Z170 launched on August 5th, 2015. Z370 launched on October 5th, 2017 and was not backwards/forwards compatible) Meaning, if you're hoping to get an 8400 now and uprade to the Coffeelake 8 core later on, it is very likely that the Coffeelake 8 core won't be compatible with the current Z370 boards and may require Z390, Z470, or whatever comes next.
  • More prone to stutters and hitches. More prone to freezing your entire PC just because one program freezes. Intel's HT is an inferior implementation of SMT made to dodge IBM's patents on SMT, which seems to be the architectural cause of this. for example: Ryzen can have 100% load on all 12 threads of a 6c/12t CPU, and you can still web browse fine with pages just loading a bit slow. Same situation on an 8700k, same 6c/12t that's seemingly more powerful, and it stutters and hitches constantly trying to do another task at the same time. Similarly, one programming freezing on modern Intel CPUs tends to free the OS entirely while on Ryzen you can more typically freely tab to something else fine. (need confirmation that the freezing programs freezing the entire OS affects Intel CPUs with HT. Only confirmed to affect CPUs with one thread per core)

AMD

  • Ryzen has more trouble with memory compatibility, given that memory controllers are built into CPUs now days, not the northbridge, with motherboard only mildly affecting it. Samsung B-die (any 3000 or 3200 MHz RAM at CL14) reliably runs at the advertised clocks and can overclock well, but for any other RAM you may want to check your motherboard vendor's QVL.
  • Non-X CPUs are liable to have slightly worse memory compatibility, as memory controller is part of what they're binned on. Still, B-die and QVL should still apply.
  • Ryzen 1000 series has worse memory compatibility than described above. Some games, especially smaller indie games, are more memory latency bottlenecked than anything else (contrary to popular belief that they're single thread bottlenecked, the problem is usually too slow of RAM and not enough muh GHz).
  • Ryzen 2000 series still has a bit worse memory latency than equivalent Intel CPUs. However, it's very close with fast RAM.

General component advice

Mice

http://www.rocketjumpninja.com/top-40/ tends to be the best for mouse reviews, but the best mouse for you is subjective as he states many times. Don't assume that the #1 or even the top 10 on the list are the best for you.

There are also many mice on that list under $40, like the Nixeus Revel, Ninox Venator, Roccat Kiro, and perhaps some others. Steelseries Rival 310 can also be found under $40 refurbished.

First thing you want to do is figure out what features are most important to you ie:

  • Price - Good mice are usually $30-$90, but there are cheaper ones. Always go for a decent optical sensor and NOT laser
  • Shape - semi-ergo like most Rival models, traditional like the Ultralight Pro, in between like the semi-semi ergo like Fnatic Clutch 2, or even more ergo like Mionix models
  • Texture - smooth finish, rubberized plastic, rubberized, or plain abs plastic
  • Hold type - fingertip, claw, palm
  • # of buttons - 5-7 is standard now days, including middle mouse click, and some mice have swappable side panels, like the Corsair Glaive and Razer Trinity
  • Button feel - Zowie tend to require a lot of force for clicks so you don't accidentally fire in an FPS, which some people like. Someone clicking 300 times a minute probably won't want that
    ... and narrow down to mice on that list, or well user reviewed ones on Amazon (some people seem to think Tecknet ones are nice. Red Dragon, as well), which fit those features you're looking for.

For example, the top 3 mice on that list tend to fit a lot of people, but if you have very large hands and also want the swappable button options, then the Corsair Glaive might be the perfect mouse for you even though it's not "the best" mouse nor good for a lot of other people.

Keyboard

Again highly subjective. You're going to have particular switches, layout, keys, and so on that you like. Only thing that can really be said is that the most popular brands are pretty much all overpriced garbage.
Try mechanical keyboard general.

Storage(SSD)

Newer models with a cache are recommended for main drive, like the MX500 or any on this list:
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/internal-hard-drive/#sort=price&t=0&S=400000,4000000&c=4096,2048,1024,512,256&page=1
860 Evo if price is similar is also good.
Patriot SSDs are generally not recommended due to reliability.

At least 500GB minimum is recommended now days due to costs coming down, and install sizes increasing. ~256GB is acceptable with StoreMi, however.
You can see why 120 or 250gb is not enough as games now days are generally at least 40Gb to install, examples being: Destiny 2(62Gb), The Division(49Gb), GTAV(76Gb), Fallout 4(84Gb), Wolfenstein 2(48Gb), Eder Scrolls Online(114Gb), Far cry 4(55Gb), R6 Siege(66Gb), WoW(88Gb), Doom(80Gb), FFXIV(83-150Gb),

Cache-less but newer model and decent quality SSDs like the WD Blue, ADATA SU900, and Mushkin Source are also fine if significantly cheaper.
Do not use a low TBW rated and limited warranty drive like the Micron 1100 for your main drive. Those are intended as a storage HDD replacement, and not as a main drive. Such a drive would be fine as the slow tier drive with StoreMi, however.

Consider StoreMi. It actually works well, unlike Intel's caching software. It is tiered storage which merges a fast and slow drive together and automatically, in the background, moves the files which are accessed least often onto the slower drive.
StoreMi can actually end up making your drives last longer since you don't have to keep changing the install location of large programs/games, and it will just automatically load the files of those applications which are accessed the most to the fast drive, unlike cache which more frequently copies files to the fast drive.
License that allows 2GB of RAM and 256GB fast tier (generally SSD/optane/NVMe) comes free with 400 series AMD motherboards. License for 4GB of RAM and up to 1TB fast tier drive is $60.

Optane 900p/905p is worth considering with StoreMi if budget is high enough and if doing professional work.

Memory(RAM)

Modern games and many indie games are very reliant on low memory latency, as they fit much less in cache now days. 2666 CL14 is generally a good budget option, 3200 CL 15-16 for higher end budget. Look for

Games now days typically greatly benefit from fast and low latency RAM on all CPUs, and a lower end CPU with fast RAM can typically outperform a higher end CPU with slow RAM. The difference from 2133 and 3466 can often be in the range of 20-40%. Source where LL = Low Latency = Samsung B-die. Highly binned Hynix/Micron can also get close to that performance. Source2 until I can find a better one
You will typically get a much greater benefit from fast RAM, than you do from Overclocking an already fast CPU, if you had to chose between doing one or the other.
This is namely because programmers can no longer fit all that is frequently accessed on the cache even more, not even with the high 16MB of cache of Ryzen, or just because of plain bad programming.
You want the lowest true latency for gaming, which is calculated by 2000/MHz*CL. IE 3000 CL15 and 3200 CL16 are both 10ns true latency. 3466 CL14 is 8.07ns.
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#L=0,140&s=402933,403000,403200,403300,403333,403400,403466&sort=price for B-die.

For non-gaming, or light gaming, 2666 is typically a good speed to go with and the minimum you should try to squeeze in even on a low end build. Few applications tend to be as much of a memory-hit-test as games are, though there are applications that care a lot about memory bandwidth (MHz) less so than latency like games do.
2666, is also fine if just 60fps is your goal.

Overclocking memory
If your motherboard supports it, you can often overclock your memory. This will vary by luck of both the quality of your RAM's dies, your CPU's memory controller, and your motherboard's voltage regulation.
When buying 2666MHz or lower memory, only get memory which runs at 1.2v as that means you'll surely get more out of it when you increase the voltage. XMP overclocked memory is typically at 1.35v. If it is 2666 at 1.35v already, you surely have very little headroom to overclock.
In your motherboard's BIOS/UEFI, under the OC tab, you can try setting the DRAM frequency up once or twice. IE if you have 2666 @ 1.2v, you could try 2999 @ 1.35v or 1.4v.
1.45v and 1.5v are considered more "extreme" overclocks on DDR. Make sure your RAM is kept cool at that voltage, and even then 1.5v is not very recommended as it can degrade the dies.
I would start at 1.35v or 1.3v, find something stable enough to boot, but which crashes running memtest (you can also see more stutters in poorly optimized games as an indication that RAM isn't very stable), then add another 0.05v to then make it stable in actual use.
Leave "auto stepping" or whatever your BIOS calls it on. This will automatically try to downclock until it can find bootable settings.
Under advanced timings, leave them on auto. Save and exit.

If it boots, use a program like CPU-Z, SIV, or Ryzen Timing Checker to view your timings. They may be something high, like 19-19-19-19-48. Go back into BIOS and back to advanced timings, and try to manually input timings 10-20% lower instead of auto, and try booting again. Again there should be an auto stepping setting here. Like say you try 16-16-16-16-40, it might autostep to 16-17-17-17-42, an improvement.
The most important setting here is the first one, Cas Latency.
If your PC * turns on but does not boot* just leave it. It could take 15 minutes or so to step down and find bootable timings before it eventually drops to 2133 and you have to start over and try something more conversative like 2800.

If your memory is already at 1.35v, say with 3200 CL14 Samsung B-Die, you can still probably get it a little faster and tighter. 3466 CL15 almost always works with B-die, and sometimes 3466 CL14 does as well.
With adjustments to base clock (BCLK) you can also get more specific timings like say 3400 CL14 if 3466 CL14 isn't stable for you, but not all BIOS supports that.
Intel CPUs also generally have more default steps without BCLK adjustment that they can attempt to run on, but midrange boards do not support RAM over 2666 on 300 series boards, or 2400 on 200 series boards.

Always go with the lowest true latency. EG 3466 CL 15 = 2000/3466*15 or 8.655ns, while 3600 CL16 = 2000/3600*16 or 8.888ns. The later is slower.

Monitor

AHVA(IPS) is ideal but only with Freesync/Gsync due to the lower response time. Receiving a new frame at a time mismatched from the GPU and mismatched from the Monitor's refresh rate while it's currently already drawing one is what causes it to draw the newer frame only partially at the bottom with the older frame still above it, while monitors draw the frames quickly line by line from top to bottom.
A faster response time means it draws that frame faster, so there is less of a window where a new frame could come at the same time it's drawing a frame to make a tear.

There is an easy to figure out formula to figure out how many tears per second average you'll get at a given framerate, refresh rate, and response time, but it's not exact because that "1ms response time" monitors advertise is for the gray-to-gray and the actual response time for color-to-color is slower and almost never tested/listed. So without knowing the actual non-bullshit response time, you can't calculate it.
But because AHVA have slower (but still fast) response times of 4-6ms typically, adaptive sync is a big deal for them.

If you don't want the better quality picture of AHVA/IPS, then get a TN or VA to have minimal perceivable tearing and use a frame rate target limit that is your monitor's refresh rate, or half it for demanding games that won't run at that refresh rate, and enable Fast Sync for Nvidia and Enhanced Sync for AMD.

PSU

Minimum quality of PSU you should consider is typically something like an Seaonic M12II, EVGA B, or Corsair TX###M (2017 model, not the older one). Semi-modular or modular is nice to have. Nothing that's not at least 80+ bronze rated.
That said most newer PSUs tend to be quite good in general, with newer lower end models typically of similar quality to higher end models from 8 years ago.
Lots of brands can be good, it just depends who manufactures them, which can be hard to figure out. Many Silverstone, high end Corsair, and Antec PSUs tend to be Seasonic, for example. Superflower and other manufacturers have gotten A LOT better now days. Even some Rosewill PSUs are good except for their low end models.
Simply put: look at the user reviews for red flags.

Don't get more than 100-200w than your system actually needs. Your system will rarely be at 100% load, and will usually be more around half load or near idle, so just 25-50% above the pcpp calculated usage is a good PSU size. 500-550w is typically a good PSU size for a 1070Ti/Vega56(undervolted)/RX580 with a 2600X since peak total system power consumption is likely to be around 300-400w, gaming around 200-300w, and you'd thus have around a 100-250w buffer either for an upgrade, or as your PSU ages and loses efficiency. OEMs would typically use a PSU around 350-450w on such a build. Thus 550-650w would be considered "reasonable overkill" for such a build.
Most decent PSUs are overrated, and will still perform at their rating for years.
A 2200G/2400G build with room to upgrade would be fine with 400-550W max, but would be fine on 150W and still have room to overclock if you plan to never add a dGPU for mATX builds.

Getting a severely larger PSU has the negative consequence of your power consumption more often being outside of the efficient range of your PSU, which at most models is something roughly like 80% peak efficiency at 20% load, 95% at 40%, 100% at 50%, 95% at 60%, 90% at 80%. Keeping your general load around 50% of rating and making sure idle is around that 20% of rating is ideal so long as you also have more than enough to handle peak load. So no, it is not simply worthwhile to get a 750W PSU instead of 650W when they're the same price and model and 650W is already overkill for your build.

Graphics cards may have overkill PSU recommends like 1000w when you really only need 500-600 is because if your PSU is a piece of shit and/or dying, then your PC not booting after you install the new graphics card will be blamed on them by most people. It allows them to deflect blame. You do NOT need a PSU that oversized if you get a decent one.

Edit
Pub: 28 Jun 2018 23:03 UTC
Edit: 01 Jul 2018 04:27 UTC
Views: 1230