Comments wanted about some planned autumn build

[shifuren]

Greetings everyone! i've been researching new parts for a few weeks now, and came up with this list for my upcoming build. Mostly not sure about SSD and RAM but all comments and advices are good.

What do i want: stylish looking, effective, and silent computer build that will handle everything well above average & still be alive and running for next ~7 years with possible minor replaces. Also transition from 2 Full HD => 4K+2 Full HD in mind later next year.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/zWKgyf

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($329.75 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: be quiet! - Silent Loop 280 94.2 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($200.51 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Motherboard: MSI - Z270 GAMING M7 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($214.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3400 Memory ($334.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 960 EVO 1TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($479.99 @ B&H)
Storage: Seagate - BarraCuda 4TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($111.87 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate - BarraCuda 4TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($111.87 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Asus - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB STRIX GAMING Video Card ($768.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: be quiet! - Dark Base Pro 900 w/Window (Black) ATX Full Tower Case ($239.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: be quiet! - DARK POWER PRO 11 850W 80+ Platinum Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($282.79 @ Newegg Marketplace)
Optical Drive: Asus - DRW-24D5MT DVD/CD Writer
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Pro OEM 64-bit ($132.89 @ OutletPC)
Keyboard: SteelSeries - Apex [RAW] Wired Gaming Keyboard ($79.59 @ Amazon)
Mouse: Razer - Naga Chroma Wired Laser Mouse ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $3348.11
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-24 14:20 EDT-0400

My other options for consideration are:

Storage: Samsung - 960 PRO 512GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($299.99 @ B&H)

As i understand, PRO is MLC based, versus EVO that is TLC. How does that affect me in terms of durability? I only see that PRO version does have more speed, but i have to trade 50% of space for it as 1 TB Pro is going above my budget (yes it's high, but i'm building with as much money i can use, and can't really go up more), so does it worth it?

Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($321.99 @ Newegg)

First memory chosen is 3400 Mhz & 16 timings, this has 3200 Mhz & 14 timings, according to table that i found, second one is actually better, is that true?

How many more 140mm optional fans would be good to add to case? And what is difference between those fans?
SILENT WINGS 3 | 140mm
SILENT WINGS 3 | 140mm PWM

I plan to build this system around autumn, starting with everything except GPU (have msi gtx 960 6gb now, 1080ti is not required until i buy 4K?) and HDDs (i'll use my WD black 2 TB for now).
Are there any new things to be released that are worth waiting for?

[Thunderball]

7 years likely not possible. Right now is a very bad time to buy anything longterm, processor market is going to escalate very soon, videocard market is already going pretty fast.

My other options for consideration are:

Storage: Samsung - 960 PRO 512GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($299.99 @ B&H)

As i understand, PRO is MLC based, versus EVO that is TLC. How does that affect me in terms of durability? I only see that PRO version does have more speed, but i have to trade 50% of space for it as 1 TB Pro is going above my budget (yes it's high, but i'm building with as much money i can use, and can't really go up more), so does it worth it?

EVO has 400TB rewrite endurance, PRO has 800TB, 3 vs 5 year warranty. Those are both pretty good, but if you plan on going for 7 years it's pretty hard to say, depends heavily on the usecase. I would go for a 500TB PRO + additional non-NVMe SSD for the rest of your stuff (500G-1TB), something like an MX300.

Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($321.99 @ Newegg)

First memory chosen is 3400 Mhz & 16 timings, this has 3200 Mhz & 14 timings, according to table that i found, second one is actually better, is that true?

Yes, it's true. Generally you're looking at 3400/16 and 3000/14 being about equal. Lower timing are typically harder to achieve than higher clocks, you probably can overclock most 3200/14 kits to 3800/15. Note than for Intel builds timings are a lot more important than clocks, it's the other way around for AMD.

How many more 140mm optional fans would be good to add to case? And what is difference between those fans?
SILENT WINGS 3 | 140mm
SILENT WINGS 3 | 140mm PWM

PWM fans are variable RPM, they can be controlled though software or automatically by the motherboard. Non-PWM fans are constant speed. For the number: you have 2 front intake and 1 rear exhaust preinstalled, you're going to have a radiator with 2 of the same fans for exhaust so your options are: 1) Removing optical drive cage (not an option for you it seems), installing 1 fan instead of it, and 1 on the bottom for intake; 2) Installing 2 intake fans on the bottom but note that intake wont be
optimal; 3) Reversing preinstalled rear exhaust fan for intake. So you're going to need 2 extra tops.

I plan to build this system around autumn, starting with everything except GPU (have msi gtx 960 6gb now, 1080ti is not required until i buy 4K?) and HDDs (i'll use my WD black 2 TB for now).
Are there any new things to be released that are worth waiting for?

I suggest waiting for Computex (this is a major computer hardware convention, starts May 30). After Computex we're going to know pretty clearly what's incoming this year.

[Lathais]

If you are planning to buildin autumn, you are wasting your time planning now. You plan you build a week or two before you plan to purchase at most. The electronic component market is so volatile it changes on a weekly basis. New stuff comes out every few months. Trying to plan for that is not wise. Best to wait to plan it until you are actually ready to pull the trigger on the purchase.

[Kagthul]

Yeah, not even worth planning.

Intel will have new CPUs out between now and then, and possibly AMD will actually be shipping Vega GPUs.

[shifuren]

Thanks for advices, i'll consider it. Almost forgot one more question - are today's integrated sound cards good enough? In my current computer i'm using Asus Xonar Xense which i bought separately, wondering if i should put in in new one, or just buy something better (is there anything?)

[Tehterokkar]

1080 TI will not be strong enough for multiple years on 4K displays. Sure right now it manages 60-80 FPS in the most demanding games at 4K Ultra settings, but if there are any newer games coming out next year, 1080 TI might struggle to hold 60 FPS stable on Ultra(Destiny 2? But I think that is more demanding on the CPU).

1440p is becoming the new sweet spot with the last few gens of GPUs showing significant leaps in GPU power and gaming industry not really growing as fast in graphical fidelity. 1080p Ultra of any game runs on a budget card like GTX 1060, so anything higher than that and you are looking at upping your resolution.

It will be a few more generations before 4K truly kicks in with a single GPU setup.

[Thunderball]

Thanks for advices, i'll consider it. Almost forgot one more question - are today's integrated sound cards good enough? In my current computer i'm using Asus Xonar Xense which i bought separately, wondering if i should put in in new one, or just buy something better (is there anything?)

You can test it out, some highend ASUS boards have pretty decent gaming oriented sound. If it's not good enough for you, you can always put your card back in. On your current card: if you're looking for a gaming oriented sound and some light music usage you're fine. If you want audiophile experience there are better options obviously, like ASUS Essence STX II/7.1

[yurano]

Or you could by an external DAC like audiophiles do.

There are cheap ones for $20, and the expensive ones go up to $100+. The only reason you'd get this is for analog accuracy to drive your expensive speakers for music/theater. Otherwise, there's no point.

[chronia]

7 Years is going to be hard. The longest a CPU lasted for me was the Intel i7 920 Nehalem CPU, which lasted me 5 years. Then i just needed to get some new stuff just because my motherboard was missing alot of features.

But if you really want 7 years (5 would imho be more realistic), i would definately go and see what Intels Core i9 / X299 platform will offer, or AMD Threadripper Platform. I don't see a 7700k last 5 years tbh in a high end system.

GPU's will also be a issue to run for 5-7 years, mine usually last 2-3 years.

[Thunderball]

But if you really want 7 years (5 would imho be more realistic), i would definately go and see what Intels Core i9 / X299 platform will offer, or AMD Threadripper Platform. I don't see a 7700k last 5 years tbh in a high end system.

Ryzen 7 is already overkill for gaming in terms of core/thread count, Threadripper is double the overkill, is gonna run hot and have lower IPC due to clock limitations (same goes for X299 but those at least seem to have competitive clocks).

[chronia]

Ryzen 7 is already overkill for gaming in terms of core/thread count, Threadripper is double the overkill, is gonna run hot and have lower IPC due to clock limitations (same goes for X299 but those at least seem to have competitive clocks).

For now yes, but for example a 7700K is already heavily taxed in games like BF1 and thats only going to get worse, and if you want a PC that will last you 7 years with minimal upgrades i would never bet on a 4c/8t cpu like the 7700k, i mean no one can look into the future, but demands on core count definately won't get lower, and over the course of 7 years these quite a chance that more cores will be the winner and imho its a safer gamble that a x299 / Threadripper system will last 7 years than that a 7700k will last that long.

Ofc dropping the "lasting 7 years" for lets say "last 3 years" would be a alot more realistic and would require alot less gambling on how the industry is going to move forward.

[Kagthul]

7 Years is going to be hard. The longest a CPU lasted for me was the Intel i7 920 Nehalem CPU, which lasted me 5 years. Then i just needed to get some new stuff just because my motherboard was missing alot of features.

But if you really want 7 years (5 would imho be more realistic), i would definately go and see what Intels Core i9 / X299 platform will offer, or AMD Threadripper Platform. I don't see a 7700k last 5 years tbh in a high end system.

Haven't been paying attention lately then. The 2700K is 6 1/2 years old, and still going strong. It's JUST starting to get to where ultra-modern games that are heavily multi-thread aware dont perform "great" on them (but still get playable framerates well above 60fps).

GPU's will also be a issue to run for 5-7 years, mine usually last 2-3 years.

This is more likely to be an issue, i'd agree. Especially with GPUs leaping forward like they did these last two generations, and Volta by all accounts about to be a bigger leap for nVidia than Maxwell > Pascal was.

For now yes, but for example a 7700K is already heavily taxed in games like BF1

Wut?

Well over 150fps with a decent high-end GPU even at 1440p and over 100fps at 4k.

Hell, the 2700K still gets 60-100fps.

and thats only going to get worse,

Unlikely. Most games, even ones that do benefit from multiple cores, are still perfectly playable on a 2c/4t Pentium G4560 - BF1, for example, still average over 60fps with some drops into the high 40s in areas with lots of people on big servers.

Developers dont code for the 5% of people playing on enthusiast rigs. They code for consoles and what consumers actually have (and there a lot of metrics tracking going on - the Steam Hardware Survey, for instance). Half of people are still one dual core chips. We're not even to the point where half of people are on quad cores, and a TINY percentage are people with CPUs that run more than 4 threads. (Like... 4-5%).

No one is going to be shipping games that require more than a quad-core in the next 5-6 years.

and if you want a PC that will last you 7 years with minimal upgrades i would never bet on a 4c/8t cpu like the 7700k, i mean no one can look into the future, but demands on core count definately won't get lower,

No, not likely. But they aren't going to skyrocket, either. The next five years is not going to see tens of millions of people throwing away perfectly good computers to get 8c/16th machines or something (that arent even sold to consumers anyway.). Most people buy their computers at places like Worst Buy, Frys, MicroCenter, etc.

and over the course of 7 years these quite a chance that more cores will be the winner

AMD trippled down on that assumption with the FX-series. Never materialized.

and imho its a safer gamble that a x299 / Threadripper system will last 7 years than that a 7700k will last that long.

Ofc dropping the "lasting 7 years" for lets say "last 3 years" would be a alot more realistic and would require alot less gambling on how the industry is going to move forward.

Threadripper is not for gaming, and definitely not for consumers. The CPU alone is likely to cost what a midrange enthusiast rig does. Same with X299 chips. They aren't for gaming, and nothing gaming does requires them. Since -consumer- level Coffee Lake chips are going to jump to 6c/12th, a 4c/8th CPU will be PLENTY fine for gaming for at least 4-5 years, and more likely 5-7, at the current rate of advancement (which is now hitting actual physics limitations on die shrinking. Electron Migration is a thing.)

[chronia]

Haven't been paying attention lately then. The 2700K is 6 1/2 years old, and still going strong. It's JUST starting to get to where ultra-modern games that are heavily multi-thread aware dont perform "great" on them (but still get playable framerates well above 60fps).

Is that 1080P or 4K with "with more than average settings" that OP is looking at. And don't get me wrong, the 2700K has been a beast of a cpu

This is more likely to be an issue, i'd agree. Especially with GPUs leaping forward like they did these last two generations, and Volta by all accounts about to be a bigger leap for nVidia than Maxwell > Pascal was.

Agree here fully.

Wut?

Well over 150fps with a decent high-end GPU even at 1440p and over 100fps at 4k.

Hell, the 2700K still gets 60-100fps.

Not looking at FPS here, but at cpu usage, BF1 is already capping a i5 7600k to 100% cpu usuage in quite a few instances, and i've seen it getting really close to capping a 7700k @ 4.8Ghz (in Multiplayer ofc).

Unlikely. Most games, even ones that do benefit from multiple cores, are still perfectly playable on a 2c/4t Pentium G4560 - BF1, for example, still average over 60fps with some drops into the high 40s in areas with lots of people on big servers.

Developers dont code for the 5% of people playing on enthusiast rigs. They code for consoles and what consumers actually have (and there a lot of metrics tracking going on - the Steam Hardware Survey, for instance). Half of people are still one dual core chips. We're not even to the point where half of people are on quad cores, and a TINY percentage are people with CPUs that run more than 4 threads. (Like... 4-5%).

No one is going to be shipping games that require more than a quad-core in the next 5-6 years.



No, not likely. But they aren't going to skyrocket, either. The next five years is not going to see tens of millions of people throwing away perfectly good computers to get 8c/16th machines or something (that arent even sold to consumers anyway.). Most people buy their computers at places like Worst Buy, Frys, MicroCenter, etc.


AMD trippled down on that assumption with the FX-series. Never materialized.

Yes, this could be true, and this is part of the "gamble" you need to take if you have "demands" like OP has, which is build a system in a few months, that will last him years (To autumn 2024) with minimal investments afterwards that can run games in 4K during that full period on "well above average settings" (which is a bit vague, but to me atleast implies high settings). Would i ever recommend a X299 / Threadripper system for gaming now and the coming 3 years, no ofcourse not. I wouldn't ever recommend to build a PC to last 7 years for those criteria as you need to put up alot of cash upfront for a monster build and even then there are no guarantees, and upgrading ever 3-4 years in the end will be cheaper and probably yeild better results.

But if you really want to take "the needs to last 7 years" plunge, you will need to look at a monster build now, and Kaby lake is just not the platform for that. And i don't see Coffee Lake becoming that platform either, unless Coffee lake gets some really big IPC improvements, more PCIE lanes directly to the cpu which i doubt it will. HEDT will still be a gamble, like i said in my earlier posts but has a bigger chance of lasting than a 7700K has (with a much bigger investment also) with the requirements OP has since running . Not that would advise him to stick by his requirement, i would personally drop them. But if he wants to stick by them then i would definitely look into HEDT.

[Thunderball]

For now yes, but for example a 7700K is already heavily taxed in games like BF1 and thats only going to get worse, and if you want a PC that will last you 7 years with minimal upgrades i would never bet on a 4c/8t cpu like the 7700k, i mean no one can look into the future, but demands on core count definately won't get lower, and over the course of 7 years these quite a chance that more cores will be the winner and imho its a safer gamble that a x299 / Threadripper system will last 7 years than that a 7700k will last that long.

Ofc dropping the "lasting 7 years" for lets say "last 3 years" would be a alot more realistic and would require alot less gambling on how the industry is going to move forward.

BF1 doesnt tax 7700K, it just can produce 250 FPS in 1080p if you pair it with a 1080Ti. Does it make 7700K insufficient? Nope, that makes choosing 1080p for that pair stupid. Run it in 4K and you're going to see 2x less processor load. Threadripper on the other hand is going to obsolete as soon as AMD improves their IPC as most of the cores are going to be idle (we're very lucky if games are going to be fully utilizing 8c/16t CPUs in 7 years) and performance is going to struggle because of cores being used not putting enough processing power.

[moremana]

BF1 doesnt tax 7700K, it just can produce 250 FPS in 1080p if you pair it with a 1080Ti. Does it make 7700K insufficient? Nope, that makes choosing 1080p for that pair stupid. Run it in 4K and you're going to see 2x less processor load. Threadripper on the other hand is going to obsolete as soon as AMD improves their IPC as most of the cores are going to be idle (we're very lucky if games are going to be fully utilizing 8c/16t CPUs in 7 years) and performance is going to struggle because of cores being used not putting enough processing power.

I agree here, people running 7700k's arent using 1080p monitors. 1080p is for budget builds, and yes there are more of those, that is a given, BF1 still runs perfectly fine on a 7600k with a 1060 or higher at 1080p on ultra, the 7700k runs better at 1440p and higher.

Here is a video of just such a build.

Plays perfect no stuttering or lag.

Game manufacturers arent going to make games unplayable on 4c cpus anytime soon or the majority of their games wont sell as most people cant afford to upgrade every time a new game comes out, that would be bad business. maybe in 5 years, history has shown otherwise.

OT, @op, I would wait like others said to even contemplate a build that far off, things are going to change last Q 2017

[Thunderball]

I agree here, people running 7700k's arent using 1080p monitors. 1080p is for budget builds, and yes there are more of those, that is a given, BF1 still runs perfectly fine on a 7600k with a 1060 or higher at 1080p on ultra, the 7700k runs better at 1440p and higher.

Well I dont think 7700K is for specifically for anything higher than 1080p, I just think 1080 Ti is overkill in 1080p and whatever it's paired with doesnt matter: you dont need all those 160+ FPS numbers.

[moremana]

Well I dont think 7700K is for specifically for anything higher than 1080p, I just think 1080 Ti is overkill in 1080p and whatever it's paired with doesnt matter: you dont need all those 160+ FPS numbers.

Indeed, a 1080Ti should be used for higher than 1080p or you might as well get a 1060 or RX580, there is that few that do have a 1080p 144hz monitors though.

[Kagthul]

I agree here, people running 7700k's arent using 1080p monitors.

Ehh.. yeah, plenty of them are.

Almost half of people aren't even using 1080p yet. Monitors above 1080 are single-digit percentages of the user-base. Im using a 4790K (largely indifferent from a 7700K in terms of performance, and the top of the line CPU when i bought) and a GTX 1080, and run a 1080p monitor. Because i already had a good 1080p monitor and dont have the cash to justify running out and buying something "better" for several hundred dollars right now.

Lots of people in my boat.

[chronia]

BF1 doesnt tax 7700K, it just can produce 250 FPS in 1080p if you pair it with a 1080Ti. Does it make 7700K insufficient? Nope, that makes choosing 1080p for that pair stupid. Run it in 4K and you're going to see 2x less processor load.

Is that when running single player or multiplayers though, i'm talking multiplayer exclusively here when i tested BF1 and then esp in high player count maps CPU usage goes well up compared to single player. then again i didnt have a 4K setup for testing at the time. So it was mostly 1080P / 1440P testing with a GTX1080 (non Ti).

Didn't test it later on as i don't play it myself, only tests on systems i've build for friends after they bought the components or systems they build themselves.

Ehh.. yeah, plenty of them are.

Almost half of people aren't even using 1080p yet. Monitors above 1080 are single-digit percentages of the user-base. Im using a 4790K (largely indifferent from a 7700K in terms of performance, and the top of the line CPU when i bought) and a GTX 1080, and run a 1080p monitor. Because i already had a good 1080p monitor and dont have the cash to justify running out and buying something "better" for several hundred dollars right now.

Lots of people in my boat.

Oh definately, here its pretty common to buy upgrades staggered like a CPU / Mobo / Mem combo one year, then a GFX card the next, a new screen every 5-6 years or something of that order just to spread out the costs / budget a bit.

[Thunderball]

Is that when running single player or multiplayers though, i'm talking multiplayer exclusively here when i tested BF1 and then esp in high player count maps CPU usage goes well up compared to single player. then again i didnt have a 4K setup for testing at the time. So it was mostly 1080P / 1440P testing with a GTX1080 (non Ti).

Didn't test it later on as i don't play it myself, only tests on systems i've build for friends after they bought the components or systems they build themselves.

Well I dont play multiplayer extensively but my rig (6700K@4.6+GTX 1070) runs BF1 MP with 130-140 FPS with processor being on 45-60% load (1080p, all settings maxxed except antialiasing). GTX 1080 shouldnt have any problems aswell.