I have built all our PCs since 2014 and have always been able to find a well-defined guide to help pick components. Seems a bit more difficult now. Does anyone know of any good guides? My current is an AMD Ryzen 7 5800.... I would like to go with one that will last me a good while. Any guidance would be appreciated. Tom's Hardware hasn't been the help it always has been in the past.
BillinTexas wrote:
I have built all our PCs since 2014 and have always been able to find a well-defined guide to help pick components. Seems a bit more difficult now. Does anyone know of any good guides? My current is an AMD Ryzen 7 5800.... I would like to go with one that will last me a good while. Any guidance would be appreciated. Tom's Hardware hasn't been the help it always has been in the past.
I have not built a PC in nearly 20 years, but I do build various computers for Windows and Linux.
The 5800 is a couple generations back, but not more than 1/3 slower per core than the current CPUs. Of course if you can use 12 or 16 cores that is much better than 8, but most single-user consumer software doesn't scale very well with more cores.
I replaced a user's 5700G system with a 9700X (8-core TDP_Up at 120W) system when they came out in 2024 and the CPU-bound tasks are better, but not a massive improvement. The 40 series card was much better than integrated video or older and lesser cards.
What are you lacking in CPU vs. GPU? If your GPU is less than a 40 series (like 4070), then that is probably a more important upgrade for games or many AI image processing programs also.
I use numerous machines, but a 9950X and RTX 5080 are adequate for image processing and some gaming too in Windows. I have Linux drivers for most of everything in that box, but lately am using other machines for that.
I have not built a PC in nearly 20 years, but I do build various computers for Windows and Linux.
The 5800 is a couple generations back, but not more than 1/3 slower per core than the current CPUs. Of course if you can use 12 or 16 cores that is much better than 8, but most single-user consumer software doesn't scale very well with more cores.
I replaced a user's 5700G system with a 9700X (8-core TDP_Up at 120W) system when they came out in 2024 and the CPU-bound tasks are better, but not a massive improvement. The 40 series card was much better than integrated video or older and lesser cards.
What are you lacking in CPU vs. GPU? If your GPU is less than a 40 series (like 4070), then that is probably a more important upgrade for games or many AI image processing programs also.
I use numerous machines, but a 9950X and RTX 5080 are adequate for image processing and some gaming too in Windows. I have Linux drivers for most of everything in that box, but lately am using other machines for that.
Thanks for your response. That is good information about the CPU. I did recently upgrade the GPU to a 5060 and it made a world of difference. Below is my current PC.
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
CPU cooler: ID-COOLING IS CPU Cooler Low Profile 5 heat pipes 120x120x15mm
Motherboard: Gigabyte B550 UD AC-Y1 (AM4)
Ram: Patriot 32GB Viper Steel DDR4 3200 MHz UDIMM (2 x 16)
SSD/HDD: Lexar SSD NS100 2TB
GPU: Gigabyte NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060
PSU: Seasonic FOCUSGX-750, 750W 80+ Gold Full Modular ATX Form Factor Chassis: Zalman Z3 Black Steel/Plastic Mid Tower
OS: Window 10 Pro
Monitor: Dell S3219D
It was a good article, with thoughtful parts lists for PCs at different price points and performance levels. The comments section had a number of useful additional thinking from the community there.
While emphasis was on gaming PCs, much of the information is useful to those of us doing post-processing, as well.
It was a good article, with thoughtful parts lists for PCs at different price points and performance levels. The comments section had a number of useful additional thinking from the community there.
While emphasis was on gaming PCs, much of the information is useful to those of us doing post-processing, as well.
I dont claim to be an expert on this, but I think most of it is a GPU these days, you already have a good one it sounds like. Not sure you need much of an upgrade unless you're doing video or having a problem.
BTW no more updates on 10 after October 14 or so, unless you pay, you might see if you can update to 11 or something. Looks like it's potentially free
AmbientMike wrote:
I dont claim to be an expert on this, but I think most of it is a GPU these days, you already have a good one it sounds like. Not sure you need much of an upgrade unless you're doing video or having a problem.
BTW no more updates on 10 after October 14 or so, unless you pay, you might see if you can update to 11 or something. Looks like it's potentially free
Hey, Mike, yeah, I need to get this one switched over, but it is going to my wife, as hers is not up to date enough to update to 11. I would like to build one more to last me for a good while.
If the build you mentioned above is not the high performance one, then it's probably fine.
I would go higher for mostly image processing. Lots of improvements are possible there.
SSD/HDD: Samsung 870 QVO 4 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive
GPU: Gigabyte GeForce RTX 5060 Eagle (HAVE)
PSU: Seasonic FOCUSGX-750, 750W 80+ Gold Full Modular ATX Form Factor
Chassis: Zalman Z3 Black Steel/Plastic Mid Tower (HAVE)
Monitor: Dell (HAVE)
A Samsung 870 QVO 4 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive makes no sense unless you have one lying around. They were extra slow being early QLC and the later ones just a minor improvement. You want to boot and run programs from an NVMe (M.2) SSD.
The 7900 is a low power (65W) version of the 7900X mainly for SFF and OEM compact builds.
However, your case is a mid tower, so why the low power CPU and wimpy cooler? You would be losing a lot of performance vs. a relatively small difference in cost. The 9000 series is definitely more power efficient, so you can get a 9900X and run it at 120W with better results.
The B650 chipset is still fine if it supports all the slots and devices you need. I have B650/M builds with 7950X, 9700X, etc.
DDR5-6000 is a practical baseline for the 7000 and 9000 series and supported by most all boards. Your BIOS should support XMP RAM settings so it is easy to set up.
EB-1 wrote:
A Samsung 870 QVO 4 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive makes no sense unless you have one lying around. They were extra slow being early QLC and the later ones just a minor improvement. You want to boot and run programs from an NVMe (M.2) SSD.
The 7900 is a low power (65W) version of the 7900X mainly for SFF and OEM compact builds.
However, your case is a mid tower, so why the low power CPU and wimpy cooler? You would be losing a lot of performance vs. a relatively small difference in cost. The 9000 series is definitely more power efficient, so you can get a 9900X and run it at 120W with better results.
The B650 chipset is still fine if it supports all the slots and devices you need. I have B650/M builds with 7950X, 9700X, etc.
DDR5-6000 is a practical baseline for the 7000 and 9000 series and supported by most all boards. Your BIOS should support XMP RAM settings so it is easy to set up.
I'll start by saying, I haven't kept up with current hardware, hence the reason for asking for recommendations.
Thanks for the info on the SSD. I'm assuming the NVMe SSD are the flat ones? I'll stick with what I know here. This is likely my last build.
First, I'm going with the fan in my current machine, not the one listed. That changed after posting the list. I h would listen to suggestions you have there.
I would really like suggestions on a good AMD CPU that is more current than the Ryzen 7 that I currently have. It would need to play well with the GPU listed. Again, likely my last build so sticking with what I know in the mid tower.
The 9900X (12C/24T) is the best bang for the buck current AMD CPU for general use at ~$370. The 9800X3D is much better for gamers, but is about $100 more for only 8 cores.
You can get a TLC 4TB SATA SSD (Sandisk 870 EVO) or NVMe M.2 (WD Black SN850X, Samsung 990 Pro) for about the same price $270.
EB-1 wrote:
The 9900X (12C/24T) is the best bang for the buck current AMD CPU for general use at ~$370. The 9800X3D is much better for gamers, but is about $100 more for only 8 cores.
You can get a TLC 4TB SATA SSD (Sandisk 870 EVO) or NVMe M.2 (WD Black SN850X, Samsung 990 Pro) for about the same price $270.
EBH
It appears I'll be looking at the newer form factor SSDs since that is where everyone is suggesting. I've always used WD in old HDDs and I suppose they are still good?
I have 52TB of the WD_BLACK SN850X and no problems yet, knock on the woods. The oldest two 4TB have been in service since late 2022. I don't have access to any logs from my location, but plenty of POH and they were used for WIP of photo and image files, etc. As always you never know when a drive will die so be prepared for it.
EB-1 wrote:
I have 52TB of the WD_BLACK SN850X and no problems yet, knock on the woods. The oldest two 4TB have been in service since late 2022. I don't have access to any logs from my location, but plenty of POH and they were used for WIP of photo and image files, etc. As always you never know when a drive will die so be prepared for it.
EBH
I have decided to go with two of the WD drives, one as the main and one as the bootable backup. This is what I'm going with.
EB-1 wrote:
How did it work out? Inquiring minds want to know.
EBH
I'm very sorry for not replying sooner, I didn't see this until just now. I also recently had cataract surgery on one of my eyes.
I am very pleased with the results. It is very fast and the GPU I had put in the old machine reduced Denoising time from a best of 15 seconds per image to 8 to 10 seconds. Programs open quickly, everything is almost instantaneous. There were some adjustments that were required with programs going to a new machine but for the most part, they have been made.
I do appreciate all the advice and input you provided me through all of this.
BillinTexas wrote:
... I also recently had cataract surgery on one of my eyes...
If your experience is anything like mine then you should avoid editing photos for 6 to 12 months.
Everything was so very much more colourful and brighter than before my operation! I could hardly cope with the monitor even at its minimum brightness.
My second eye was not as bad as the first but both were operated on two weeks apart. That kind of balanced the brightness and colours but of course I was then unable to adjust my eye focus at all. You'll probably end up with one eye set to focus closer than the other so that you'll cope better when not wearing glasses; especially handy when driving.
These operations are beneficial but they mess with using a camera in the field: trying to focus on subjects in the distance, seeing what you're treading on, and seeing your camera settings is trickier than it used to be when your eyes are set for only two focus distances.
