Purchasing a custom build - Intel or AMD? Asus or MSI?

PerpetualCycle said:

, the company is behind AMD by quite a bit

Click to expand...

...if you play games and/or you have 9950X3D money.

hdmi said:

...if you play games and/or you have 9950X3D money.

Click to expand...

The OP seems to have the funds. (Post 5.)

AMD may be a sound choice for non-gamers.

A 9950X3D seems to be about 100USD more than an Intel Core Ultra 9 285k. Not much difference in the total for a system of that caliber.

Puget Systems doesn't list configs for Topaz software, but for Adobe:



I give these just as examples. Puget is a very expensive builder, aimed at professionals. A DIYer could use their parts lists to build pretty nice systems, at a significant cost savings. (You'd have to provide your own support.)

I've assembled my own desktop systems since 1997. I've had a few disasters over the years, but mostly it has been painless.

By choosing not to build your own PC you're robbing yourself of knowledge that would otherwise be useful in the long run. You'd likely save yourself some cash for one thing, but more importantly you'd have more intimate knowledge of your hardware. Building your own is a bonding and rewarding experience. You have more control over what you have and what you do with your unit and you can eliminate so much of the garbage that you don't want or need. Gone are the days of soldering guns and static sensitive chips. Everything just clicks into place. Building your own has never been easier. I wish I had seen this post earlier but I was out on the highway and just got back.

ASUS is okay, and I'm a bit of an ASUS fan myself but MSI and GIGABYTE aren't anything to sneeze at either. It really all depends on what you're trying to get from your build. There is no 'one size fits all' but some builds come pretty close.

bobkn said:

The OP seems to have the funds. (Post 5.)

AMD may be a sound choice for non-gamers.

A 9950X3D seems to be about 100USD more than an Intel Core Ultra 9 285k. Not much difference in the total for a system of that caliber.

Puget Systems doesn't list configs for Topaz software, but for Adobe:

Adobe Photoshop

Our workstations for Adobe Photoshop are tested and optimized to give you the best performance and reliability.

www.pugetsystems.com

Adobe Premiere Pro

Our workstations for Adobe Premiere Pro are tested and optimized to give you the best performance and reliability.

www.pugetsystems.com

Click to expand...

Where do you see me claim the opposite? Everyone and their cat already knows that AMD Ryzen X3D CPUs are much better for gaming than Intel CPUs if the total cost of the rig will be similar. The Core Ultra 9 285K overclocks significantly better than the Ryzen 9 9950X3D does, but then you also need to factor in the higher cost of the Intel Z-series motherboard plus the higher cost of the more potent cooling solution that will prevent the overclocked Intel from crashing. Worse, the FCLGA1851 socket becomes essentially useless probably long before Zen 5 starts being phased out. Even if the Intel motherboard has better features and these features are useful for what you had in mind, it's still overall going to be a significantly poorer value when compared to the 9950X (or even when compared to the 9950X3D if you do play games but when it comes to determining whether the AMD is better than the Intel you're only looking at productivity scores vs the total cost, like, simply because you can). With only few exceptions, that is. For the most part, this is why so many people avoid Intel.

The reason why I said "and/or if you have 9950X3D money" was because if you don't need/want to spend anything close to that kind of cash, you might want to do a little bit extra research before making hollow statements of "Intel is behind AMD by quite a bit". Because, that depends, and it depends quite a bit.

The OP hasn't offered enough information to say which is better. If money is no object perhaps Epyc or Thread Ripper is more in their venue. Are they looking for a work station or a gaming rig. Nobody can say which is better without knowing the full intended usage. Better for what ? Video and Photo AI?? How much storage do they need? What sort of memory do they want? Will it be networked? Just leaving all these things wide open and asking which is better is pointless.

hdmi said:

(snip)

The reason why I said "and/or if you have 9950X3D money" was because if you don't need/want to spend anything close to that kind of cash, you might want to do a little bit extra research before making hollow statements of "Intel is behind AMD by quite a bit". Because, that depends, and it depends quite a bit.

(snip)

Click to expand...

Sorry. It seemed like it was a bit snarky. Too subtle for me, I guess.

bobkn said:

Regardless, a Threadripper 79X0 or 99X0 PC isn't a $4k machine.

Click to expand...

Unless it is. That could be remedied easily just with storage. I wouldn't suggest that the following is exactly cheap either.

AMD EPYC

Scannerman said:

Unless it is. That could be remedied easily just with storage. I wouldn't suggest that the following is exactly cheap either.

AMD EPYC

Click to expand...

You quoted a post I deleted. I don't understand your comment, "Remedied easily just with storage"?

I admit that the lowest-end Threadrippers are closer to $1.5k. It may be possible to assemble a $4k system with one. But you'd still want 4 DDR5 Registered DIMMs, and the least expensive TRX50 motherboard I know of is $600 new.

bobkn said:

You quoted a post I deleted. I don't understand your comment, "Remedied easily just with storage"?

I admit that the lowest-end Threadrippers are closer to $1.5k. It may be possible to assemble a $4k system with one. But you'd still want 4 DDR5 Registered DIMMs, and the least expensive TRX50 motherboard I know of is $600 new.

Click to expand...

Again. It depends. Most folks these days want silicon storage. Some (whom I believe to be a bit more frugal) still want to run with magnetic storage. :::shrugs::: I have no idea regarding our mainframe friend's background or personal preferences. As a PC builder this can be helpful in determining what they are looking for in a PC. Driving those costs past $4k is easy. Keeping them under 4K would be challenging but not entirely impossible. Just because our friend says what the most intensive software they're currently using is doesn't give me enough indication that they don't want a PC capable of doing considerably more or something entirely different in addition to whatever their current PC is managing.

As a rule I don't build PCs for people anymore. I'm retired and I'm no longer up to date on all this bleeding edge hardware. That aside I'm pretty sure the #1 rule pertaining to PC building still applies: Determine what it will be used for before you begin.

Scannerman said:

Again. It depends. Most folks these days want silicon storage. Some (whom I believe to be a bit more frugal) still want to run with magnetic storage. :::shrugs::: I have no idea regarding our mainframe friend's background or personal preferences. As a PC builder this can be helpful in determining what they are looking for in a PC. Driving those costs past $4k is easy. Keeping them under 4K would be challenging but not entirely impossible. Just because our friend says what the most intensive software they're currently using is doesn't give me enough indication that they don't want a PC capable of doing considerably more or something entirely different in addition to whatever their current PC is managing.

As a rule I don't build PCs for people anymore. I'm retired and I'm no longer up to date on all this bleeding edge hardware. That aside I'm pretty sure the #1 rule pertaining to PC building still applies: Determine what it will be used for before you begin.

Click to expand...

As regards storage, I presume that someone building a system for photo and video work will need a lot.

My primary system uses a 2TB SSD for the OS, programs, and some files. A 4TB SATA SSD for photos. And an 18TB spinner for large files or ones that aren't frequent accessed.

Maybe some could specify a PC based on its uses, but I'm not such a person. Topaz software, for example, can run fairly well on PCs over a wide range of specs. I don't do video, but I assume that wants more RAM and VRAM than the photo software. It may come down to whether the OP is a professional or enthusiast who need to process many images or video from a single shoot, and is willing to pay for a system that saves a little processing time per file.

bobkn said:

As regards storage, I presume that someone building a system for photo and video work will need a lot.

My primary system uses a 2TB SSD for the OS, programs, and some files. A 4TB SATA SSD for photos. And an 18TB spinner for large files or ones that aren't frequent accessed.

Maybe some could specify a PC based on its uses, but I'm not such a person. Topaz software, for example, can run fairly well on PCs over a wide range of specs. I don't do video, but I assume that wants more RAM and VRAM than the photo software. It may come down to whether the OP is a professional or enthusiast who need to process images or video from a single shoot, and is willing to pay for a system that saves a little processing time per file.

Click to expand...

Yes. I'm leaning toward the idea that they're looking for a work station. They didn't say and these days the market is calling just about anything a work station. My 4TB CMR drives and my 12TB EXOS combined are enough for me with respect to storage and I'm sure having 128GB of RAM doesn't hurt when it comes to moving data around. But I'm not averse to using older tech and one can only speculate when one does not have all the details regarding the needs of the user. If I were to venture any additional guesses I'd suggest that what they're looking for is band width.

Anyway, until the OP can be a little more specific about what they're looking for in a PC all bets are off.

I'm using an AMD processor and a ASUS motherboard... overall I'm happy with it and I would only switch the motherboard with an MSI

I'm not planning a new build (neither money nor necessity) but I like to be up to date and I'm seriously worried about one aspect of modern powerful builds: heat dissipation. I think this aspect must be covered in this build. A watt is a watt regardless of brands, quality, etc

I've not read the whole thread but one of the gfx cards mentioned consumes it alone (600 W) as double as my most powerful "heater" ever (330 W, Phenom II 125W + HD4890 190W theoretically, in practice I'm sure my sample didn't surpass 140W, 330W measured outside the PSU, what means the parts were getting about 270 W; in this age the TDP spec used to be higher than real consumption in general).

Dissipating 125W and 140W w/o excessive noise is easy. I got the impression (wrong?) that 125-150W is the limit for air, you'd need water beyond that.

But not only water. You need heatsinks (2 for say a 200W processor and a 600W vcard) and several fans per heatsink in the worst case. The water does only transport the heat to a more convenient place, why more convenient? Because in the destination you can fit a huge heatsink and several fans that you simply cannot fit close to the chip.

In theory 200W needs 2x120mm fans and a heatsink double as big (240x120mm) as a typical "normal" one for 100-125W?

In theory 600W needs 4-5x120mm fans and a heatsink quadruple or quintuple as big (480-600x120mm) as a typical "normal" one for 100-125W?

(I know there're 140mm fans available, that should be preferred to these, provided they've used the higher size to increase airflow, instead of to get quieter fans; simply I don't have experience with 140mm fans)

If you have a "classic wattage" processor and a "semi-modern wattage" GPU (up to 450 W), you can use a case with top mountings for a 360x120mm heatsink and 3x120mm fans for the GPU and any good "classic design cooler" for the processor, I've seen such cases, but I haven't seen one that can attend two multi big fans heatsinks, one for the CPU and one for the GPU.

-----------------------------------------

Predictably I would never use an "irrational" GPU, but I fear the following about processors (all this can be bad info, I'm just asking): they can have a TDP that is valid 90% or 99% of the time, say 120W, but the remaining 10% or 1% it's 200W (turbo mode etc). The 2nd spec is relatively hidden (it isn't called TDP). Whatever the name, you'd need cooling for 200W, not for 120W. Does this exist at all?

-----------------------------------------

I use Gigabyte boards for my 3 desktops, all old and 2 of them 2nd hand (one of them uses DDR2). When buying 2nd hand you try to hunt opportunities so this is likely a coincidence. Last time I chose brand and model of a new motherboard I compared photos from 2 or 3 mobos with the same chipset and I chose the one that had, in my opinion, better layout and cooling. I'm not very knowledgeable about Intel or AMD, I'm listening about that.

JLArranz said:

I'm not planning a new build (neither money nor necessity) but I like to be up to date and I'm seriously worried about one aspect of modern powerful builds: heat dissipation. I think this aspect must be covered in this build. A watt is a watt regardless of brands, quality, etc

Click to expand...

Yup. This fact is often overlooked. Ambient temperature is also often taken for granted these days when it shouldn't be.

JLArranz said:

I've not read the whole thread but one of the gfx cards mentioned consumes it alone (600 W) as double as my most powerful "heater" ever (330 W, Phenom II 125W + HD4890 190W theoretically, in practice I'm sure my sample didn't surpass 140W, 330W measured outside the PSU, what means the parts were getting about 270 W; in this age the TDP spec used to be higher than real consumption in general).

Click to expand...

TDP is hardly even mentioned anymore. It used to be a big concern back in the days of Haswell, Ivy Bridge, and Sandy Bridge chips. It also used to be a big deal with high end AMD CPUs.

JLArranz said:

Dissipating 125W and 140W w/o excessive noise is easy. I got the impression (wrong?) that 125-150W is the limit for air, you'd need water beyond that.

Click to expand...

Not in all cases (no pun intended). High end tower coolers such as the classic Noctua NH-D15 can deal with TDP of this calibre quite easily. My own case (featured in my thumbnail @ the top left) comes stocked with 2 X 200mm fans, one bringing in outside air while the other exhausts the flow through the top. Good air flow and positive pressure can go a long way.

JLArranz said:

But not only water. You need heatsinks (2 for say a 200W processor and a 600W vcard) and several fans per heatsink in the worst case. The water does only transport the heat to a more convenient place, why more convenient? Because in the destination you can fit a huge heatsink and several fans that you simply cannot fit close to the chip.

In theory 200W needs 2x120mm fans and a heatsink double as big (240x120mm) as a typical "normal" one for 100-125W?

In theory 600W needs 4-5x120mm fans and a heatsink quadruple or quintuple as big (480-600x120mm) as a typical "normal" one for 100-125W?

(I know there're 140mm fans available, that should be preferred to these, provided they've used the higher size to increase airflow, instead of to get quieter fans; simply I don't have experience with 140mm fans)

Click to expand...

My 200mm fans are incredibly quiet. GFX cards these days come with very specific cooling solutions tailored to the requirements of the card, but to an extent you are correct: You will need more fans to deal with the ambient temperature all the same. I've never quite understood these companies that put high end chips in teeny-tiny little cases with next to nothing for airflow. This strikes me as a recipe for disaster. To each their own, I suppose.

JLArranz said:

If you have a "classic wattage" processor and a "semi-modern wattage" GPU (up to 450 W), you can use a case with top mountings for a 360x120mm heatsink and 3x120mm fans for the GPU and any good "classic design cooler" for the processor, I've seen such cases, but I haven't seen one that can attend two multi big fans heatsinks, one for the CPU and one for the GPU.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this is because it really isn't necessary when you have proper airflow in the case to begin with. The thing about heat sinks is that they also hold heat. Airflow is equally important as it drives that heat out. What makes liquid cooling popular is the fact that the liquid so readily conducts on contact, quickly absorbing heat from the source. After that, however, the heat still needs to be removed. In the case with liquid cooling the liquid gets moved to a radiator where it gets cooled. Ironically, it gets cooled by air.

Here's a picture of what is in one of my daughter's PC. She uses standard (tower) air cooling in a push/pull fan configuration and a modest MSI 1050 Ti graphics card. She refuses to upgrade. For her purposes an i7 920 Bloomfield is enough. She runs 24GB of RAM with a CAS latency of 7-7-7. She has multiple drives, multiple OS, and Intel RAID 1.