The FPS Review has released their enthusiast AMD gaming build! It is pretty perfect except for....

[Snowdog]

There is great deal being made about the choice of processor. I dont get that. As has been pointed out this is the ultimate AMD gaming build. The 3950 is the ultimate "gaming" processor, so you have to start with that. Everything else in the build should be geared towards saving money while compromising as little performance as possible. 1tb is just fine for a gaming machine. If you ned 2 to 3tb for your games then you are not a normal user, please dont argue that. FPS review smartly opted for the 2080super, an overpriced card but not as wildly overpriced as the insanely overpriced 2080ti. A card that only gives moderate improvements in games at 4k that not only make it's price ludacris but make it kind of a dodo, if you were building today.The only criticisms I have for the build is the ridiculous case(it is so ugly and it has zero track record) and the fact that the second video card option could have been a 5700xt.

It's the AMD Enthusiast Gaming PC Build, not the AMD Enthusiast Rendering PC Build, and not even just the AMD Enthusiast PC Build. Gaming is the stated mission.

Spending $400 more on 3950x does nothing for Gaming, spending $400 more on 2080 Ti does.

So spending the same amount, and doing better at the stated mission (Gaming), by downgrading the CPU and upgrading the GPU, makes perfect sense.

 

[M76]

It's the AMD Enthusiast Gaming PC Build, not the AMD Enthusiast Rendering PC Build, and not even just the AMD Enthusiast PC Build. Gaming is the stated mission.

Spending $400 more on 3950x does nothing for Gaming, spending $400 more on 2080 Ti does.

So spending the same amount, and doing better at the stated mission (Gaming), by downgrading the CPU and upgrading the GPU, makes perfect sense.

I think even the 3900X would be overkill for a pure gaming build. The money is much better spent on a GPU, or on a decent gaming mouse and keyboard.

 

[Derangel]

So what's the rational for buying 2 x 500GB drives if price-to-performance ration is the last thing on your mind?

Didn't have a ton of money at the time, wanted to get rid of my SSD, they were extremely cheap. They also don't really effect gaming performance, so I don't really care that much. I was more interested in a cleaner looking build. Just because I buy the best I can get doesn't mean I'm paying full price for everything.

 

[ND40oz]

Didn't have a ton of money at the time, wanted to get rid of my SSD, they were extremely cheap. They also don't really effect gaming performance, so I don't really care that much. I was more interested in a cleaner looking build. Just because I buy the best I can get doesn't mean I'm paying full price for everything.

So in other words, price-to-performance ratio was on your mind for this purchase, fair enough.

 

[Dan_D]

There is great deal being made about the choice of processor. I dont get that. As has been pointed out this is the ultimate AMD gaming build. The 3950 is the ultimate "gaming" processor, so you have to start with that. Everything else in the build should be geared towards saving money while compromising as little performance as possible. 1tb is just fine for a gaming machine. If you ned 2 to 3tb for your games then you are not a normal user, please dont argue that. FPS review smartly opted for the 2080super, an overpriced card but not as wildly overpriced as the insanely overpriced 2080ti. A card that only gives moderate improvements in games at 4k that not only make it's price ludacris but make it kind of a dodo, if you were building today.The only criticisms I have for the build is the ridiculous case(it is so ugly and it has zero track record) and the fact that the second video card option could have been a 5700xt.

The fact is that a 3700X and a 2080 Ti combination is faster at gaming than a 3950X and a 2080 Super is. That's it. End of story. If gaming is the stated use for the system then having more than 8c/16t isn't necessary. Let's also be clear, a 2080 Ti is more than a little faster than a 2080 Super is. At 4K the gap in performance is the difference between a good gaming experience with everything maxed out and achieving a decent frame rate and not. Not everyone is good with medium settings or sub-60FPS game play or whatever. There are also resolutions in between 1920x1080 and 3840x2160. 2560x1440, 3440x1440 etc. all come to mind. If you want higher refresh rates, you might need the extra performance of the 2080 Ti.

The RTX 2080 Ti is the fastest consumer video card on the market right now bar none. If you are going for an ultimate gaming build, then it's what your looking at. CPU is important but to suggest a 2080 Super and 3950X is a better buy than a 3700X and 2080 Ti for gaming is ridiculous and ill informed.

It's the AMD Enthusiast Gaming PC Build, not the AMD Enthusiast Rendering PC Build, and not even just the AMD Enthusiast PC Build. Gaming is the stated mission.

Spending $400 more on 3950x does nothing for Gaming, spending $400 more on 2080 Ti does.

So spending the same amount, and doing better at the stated mission (Gaming), by downgrading the CPU and upgrading the GPU, makes perfect sense.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Ricky T]

There is great deal being made about the choice of processor. I dont get that. As has been pointed out this is the ultimate AMD gaming build. The 3950 is the ultimate "gaming" processor, so you have to start with that. Everything else in the build should be geared towards saving money while compromising as little performance as possible. 1tb is just fine for a gaming machine. If you ned 2 to 3tb for your games then you are not a normal user, please dont argue that. FPS review smartly opted for the 2080super, an overpriced card but not as wildly overpriced as the insanely overpriced 2080ti. A card that only gives moderate improvements in games at 4k that not only make it's price ludacris but make it kind of a dodo, if you were building today.The only criticisms I have for the build is the ridiculous case(it is so ugly and it has zero track record) and the fact that the second video card option could have been a 5700xt.

How in the hell can you say 1tb is plenty enough for a $2,500 gaming PC? Is no one here capable of doing Simple Math? 6 to 7 of the latest games would wipe out the entire fucking drive since there is technically less than 900 gigs to even really work with. And again an SSD gets slower when it's near capacity. 1 terabyte may be fine on a $750 budget PC but it is ridiculous on a $2,500 build. Who in the hell wants to delete games and re-download them all the time after spending $2,500? This has to be about the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard of.

 

[Derangel]

How in the hell can you save 1tb is plenty enough for a $2,500 gaming PC? Is no one here capable of doing Simple Math? Seven or eight of the latest games would wipe out the entire fucking drive. 1 terabyte not be fine on a $750 budget PC but it is God damn Ludacris on a $2,500 build. Who in the hell wants to delete games and re-download them all the time after spending $2,500? This has to be about the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard of.

More storage does not make a system faster.

 

[Ricky T]

More storage does not make a system faster.

Actually an SSD does gets lower when it's nearly filled. The point is not about the system being faster though it's about having plenty enough storage we don't have to delete stuff every goddamn week. But hey if some of you want to be nuts and only have 5 or 6 games on your hard drive and delete them all the time when some other game comes out then knock yourself out. In my opinion that is laughably stupid and is not an inconvenience that I would tolerate on a $2,500 PC.

 

[Derangel]

Actually an SSD does gets lower when it's nearly filled. The point is not about the system being faster though it's about having plenty enough storage we don't have to delete stuff every goddamn week. But hey if some of you want to be nuts and only have 5 or 6 games on your hard drive and delete them all the time when some other game comes out then knock yourself out. In my opinion that is laughably stupid and is not an inconvenience that I would tolerate on a $2,500 PC.

Even a full SSD (as long as it's not a QLC drive) is going to be many times faster than a standard hard drive.

I currently have 18 (that I know of off hand) games installed on my internal drives. One SSD still has 80GB of space left while the other (my primary) is at 163GB of free space. And my primary also has all my other installed apps and several GB worth of random other files taking up space. So, please, try to tell me how I don't have enough space for games.

 

[Ricky T]

Even a full SSD (as long as it's not a QLC drive) is going to be many times faster than a standard hard drive.

I currently have 18 (that I know of off hand) games installed on my internal drives. One SSD still has 80GB of space left while the other (my primary) is at 163GB of free space. And my primary also has all my other installed apps and several GB worth of random other files taking up space. So, please, try to tell me how I don't have enough space for games.

Again all you have to do is simply look up the install size of some of the latest games. With the right combination you could literally completely fill up 900 gigs with just six or seven current games especially with DLC and patches. The fact that you magically seem to have installed games that don't take up much size does not change that fact. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone having this absolutely ridiculous argument in 2020. For fucksake this wasn't even much of a debate 4 or 5 years ago as far as I'm concerned. That's why even the goddamn consoles had to come out with 1 gig models and even those we're absolutely not enough and people had to buy external hard drives. But yet here we are today arguing that 1 TB is enough for a $2,500 gaming PC? Really what the hell is wrong with you people LOL.

 

[Derangel]

Again all you have to do is simply look up the install size of some of the latest games. With the right combination you could literally completely fill up 900 gigs with just six or seven current games. The fact that you magically seem to have installed games that don't take up much size does not change that fact.

"With the right combination". That's it right there. You're assuming that everyone is going to install this mystical combination of games that will instantly eat up all the space on a 1TB drives. I have the following current (released in the last year-ish) games installed:

Borderlands 3
Wolfenstein: The New Blood
DBZ: Kakarot
Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order
Far Cry New Dawn
Resident Evil 2 Remake
Destiny 2 (not within the timeline, but still a big game currently)

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Need to consider a separate QLC (or any cheap SSD) for a 2TB storage drive. You'll never hit the limitations of QLC using games, outside of copying from another SSD. In use, you won't see a difference, even if comparing against a PCIe 4.0 drive. Also, you'd want a board that could take a third M.2 drive, you know, just in case.

For the GPU, anything less than a 2080Ti is a disservice for any high-end gaming-focused build. Honestly this should have been the first part considered with the rest of the build planned around it.

For the CPU, the 3900X and even 3700+ make quite a bit more sense. Anything more than that would only be justified by additional budget room. Additionally, the potential argument for longevity isn't really there; we have no idea whether future games will respond better to more threads or better single-thread performance. We just know that games today don't use more threads.

For the RAM... yes, 16GB is clearly enough for gaming today, and nearly all consumer-level workloads. However, getting memory that is faster than usable at a price where double the memory could be had at a usable speed is silly.

 

[M76]

More storage does not make a system faster.

Yes if you have to constantly switch up the installed games it makes it 30-60 minutes faster when you want to play a different game. I'd rather have a cheap 2TB SSD than the fastest 1TB one. Even a SATA SSD would be preferable to a 1TB one. The real world difference in loading times is negligible after you switch to an SSD. 20 seconds vs 5 seconds is significant. 5 seconds vs 2 seconds is not.

 

[Ricky T]

"With the right combination". That's it right there. You're assuming that everyone is going to install this mystical combination of games that will instantly eat up all the space on a 1TB drives. I have the following current (released in the last year-ish) games installed:

Borderlands 3
Wolfenstein: The New Blood
DBZ: Kakarot
Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order
Far Cry New Dawn
Resident Evil 2 Remake
Destiny 2 (not within the timeline, but still a big game currently)

Yeah I guess how silly of me to think somebody building a $2,500 gaming PC would dare be installing the latest largest AAA games...

 

[Derangel]

Yeah I guess how silly of me to think somebody building a $2,500 gaming PC would dare be installing the latest largest AAA games...

Not everyone plays the exact same games or is going to play all the games.

 

[IcePickFreak]

AMD Gaming PC, using an NV gfx card and not an AMD card.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

AMD Gaming PC, using an NV gfx card and not an AMD card.

It's only funny because it isn't...