New gaming computer

[kalinho]

I have not used PC for 10 years so I have lost touch what is good and what is bad when it comes to buying PC components. Lately my spark to sim racing has come back and now I wold like to build new racing/gaming machine. Budget is around 1000 euro (should cover PC, display, mouse, keyboard... everything). Planned games to play are Assetto Corsa, iRacing, Dirt Rally 2.0 and from not racing games, Cities skylines. Nothing else is planned to do with the machine, just gaming.

I found site called Logical Increments site and my budget according to that site would be the good/very good level setup. How does it relate to sim racing games?

Also what is now days the wheel set to go? Last time when I played it was Logitech G27 and such. It would be awesome if the wheel set could fit in my budget as well.

 

[Miguel Batista]

For 1000e I would go for something like this:
https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/zGLmw6

You have some leeway to play with so you can get windows and should you wish to go for a beefier you can. The CPU is a quad core that is overclockable and the screen will be a beauty to behold. Of course you can look for s one second hand parts to save a few bucks here and there but this should provide a decent baseline

 

[Case_]

Ryzen 1300 for a gaming PC? Doesn't really make sense, it doesn't have anything going for it apart from the price. If Ryzen, then at least one of the 2xxx series that have better single core performance, which is still the most important thing for gaming. Or wait for the new Ryzens that are coming soon. Or just go for something like the i5 9400F, which will be a much better gaming CPU than Ryzen 1300, even if it's a bit more expensive.

Single channel RAM? But...why? Why would you willingly cripple your system performance by quite a lot by not going for a dual channel? 2x8GB would be best, but if the price had to be kept really low, then I guess 2x4GB would do for a while (and make sure you get a MB that has 4 slots and add another 2x4 GB later).

1440p 75Hz monitor for a GPU that generally runs framerates around 40 fps in 1440p? I mean it's large and it's VA at least, and it's not exactly expensive, but still, you won't be able to use the native resolution in gaming with that kind of GPU anyway, so you might as well stay at 1080p native instead of running almost every game at non-native resolution.

The rest of it...well, I guess, but 250 GB SSD is not much and so is not 1 TB HDD, so depending on the actual budget, these should also be considered for upgrade if at all possible.

 

[RasmusP]

Like Martin said. Get an Intel i5. 8th or 9th gen.
I would go with an amd gpu like the mentioned 570 to get freesync. A 75 Hz basic gaming monitor is a good combination but I would rather go with 27" 1080p.
Bigger than that and the pixel density becomes a pain but for 1440p you gonna need a beefier graphics card or play everything on low settings...

 

[Durge Driven]

Less then 15% on GPU is not gaming

I always leave 30% for GPU and rises the dearer the build is
so for 300eu probably the GTX1660Ti they do okay 60fps 1440p

At that budget i would sacrifice SSD as well and buy cheap usb K/B mouse, like you spent more on them then 1TB drive

 

[Durge Driven]

I know this won't help over there
1000EU = 1618AU
As I said 30% ( $480AU ) minimum on GPU - No RTX but VR ready
Free shipping from Centrecom



i3-8350K is good CPU too
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_8350K/12.html

 

[Miguel Batista]

Sure you can upgrade ryzen cpu to second gen or third gen. They are almost the same and the price difference wouldn't be that high.

Single channel vs dual channel is bot much of a problem with a discrete GPU and he can always buy a secobd stick later. This was a barebones build.

Dropping te SSD is a mistake. This day and age, SSD is essencial and makes the computer faster and sharper in day to day use.

I mentioned he could splurge a bit more on a gpu but even at 1440p a 570 is enough. I mean, you don't need to run everything on ultra you know? And for productivity and media consumption that screen is awesome. The 570 is at a really good price point atm and so a good choice. Sure if you get the funds you can get a 1660ti or a 2060 which are more powerful but seriously both are fine. And the budget doesn't stretch forever.

In conclusion, dual channel is it that important, screen is for productivity and media consumption (and it looks gorgeous) but it works really well in gaming too. The you can be upgraded if you change components around and SSD is mandatory.

 

[RasmusP]

Don't wanna get too involved but he states it would be gaming only pc, no productivity or media.
So for simracing it's either Intel i5 or upcoming ryzen 3000. You can lower graphics settings but you can't run bigger fields of cars with an i3 or a not-upper-end ryzen.

 

[Case_]

Sure you can upgrade ryzen cpu to second gen or third gen. They are almost the same and the price difference wouldn't be that high.

The point is...the CPU you picked for the build (clearly stated to be for gaming only) is pretty much one of the worst CPU you could've picked for such build. So why pick a CPU that is clearly inferior from the start?

Single channel vs dual channel is bot much of a problem with a discrete GPU and he can always buy a secobd stick later. This was a barebones build.

Single channel vs dual channel is a *huge* difference, regardless of GPU. Nobody should *ever* go with a single channel RAM, no matter how barebones their build is. It can mean a difference of 1/3 or even more in performance.

And adding a second stick to make a one channel config into a dual channel is a lot more riskier than adding a second dual channel kit to your system (which can still be problematic too, yes). You have to be extra careful about picking the correct stick, and even if you get the exact same model, you might run into trouble if you mix and match sticks in a dual channel setup, because the exact specs and RAM chips used might change even when the RAM model is seemingly the same. There's a reason everyone always recommends getting the sticks in matched pairs for dual channel.

And again, why pick the clearly inferior memory setup from the start? It costs more or less the same to go with dual channel right away.

 

[Miguel Batista]

The point is...the CPU you picked for the build (clearly stated to be for gaming only) is pretty much one of the worst CPU you could've picked for such build. So why pick a CPU that is clearly inferior from the start?

It was based on a previous build I had. The CPU just stayed over.

Single channel vs dual channel is a *huge* difference, regardless of GPU. Nobody should *ever* go with a single channel RAM, no matter how barebones their build is. It can mean a difference of 1/3 or even more in performance.

It can mean a difference in CPU bound conditions. Otherwise it is fine. And it is a third tier update. This way he can get faster ram and then buy a similar stick.

And adding a second stick to make a one channel config into a dual channel is a lot more riskier than adding a second dual channel kit to your system (which can still be problematic too, yes). You have to be extra careful about picking the correct stick, and even if you get the exact same model, you might run into trouble if you mix and match sticks in a dual channel setup, because the exact specs and RAM chips used might change even when the RAM model is seemingly the same. There's a reason everyone always recommends getting the sticks in matched pairs for dual channel.

Not really. I mean technically if the speed and timings are the same you are fine and if they are slightly different it will just default to the slowest value. And he can update to 32 gigs down the line if he decides to do productivity work there.
Sure he can g 8GB dual channel. Up to him to chose. I just gave an example of something so would build for myself.

But there you are, not to hurt your sensitivities,
https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/cq2FRJ

Crap keyboard and mouse, fast dual channel 8 GB and a ryzen 5 2600.

 

[Case_]

I mean really, why would you voluntarily cripple your system's performance right from the start when the price difference is negligible? We're talking like a couple of euros worth of difference. It's not a question of "get a single channel 16 GB or dual channel 8 GB", or even a question of "get a single channel 8 GB 3200 or dual channel 8 GB 2333". It really makes absolutely zero sense to not go dual channel.

And while the Ryzen 2600 is certainly a better option than the 1300, it is still not an ideal choice, especially if simracing is considered. Intel CPUs are a clear winner here thanks to their single core performance. I mean...I have a 2600 myself, I know very well what it's capable of, and for simracing alone, I would absolutely go Intel, without a single doubt.

 

[Durge Driven]

I have 2 x Evo 970 M2 for OS and first 2 Steam folders and another 4 2.5"
I would hardly call performance for sims earth shattering over say Black Caviar

500mb /s up and down and 3000mb/s for M2 is nonsense
In real world application multi tasking they are nothing like that

 

[Miguel Batista]

I mean really, why would you voluntarily cripple your system's performance right from the start when the price difference is negligible? We're talking like a couple of euros worth of difference. It's not a question of "get a single channel 16 GB or dual channel 8 GB", or even a question of "get a single channel 8 GB 3200 or dual channel 8 GB 2333". It really makes absolutely zero sense to not go dual channel.

And while the Ryzen 2600 is certainly a better option than the 1300, it is still not an ideal choice, especially if simracing is considered. Intel CPUs are a clear winner here thanks to their single core performance. I mean...I have a 2600 myself, I know very well what it's capable of, and for simracing alone, I would absolutely go Intel, without a single doubt.

In CPU bound situations dual channel is better but most situations are GPU bound not CPU in which case single channel is enough. And latter on he can get another stick of ram. It is just the way I like to do things. As for Intel vs AMD, in Assetto Corsa where single thread performance is key, I agree that Intel holds an advantage. For other titles that do a better job at using multiple threads, not that much. And the price of performance of AMD is better.

And you are not crippling system performance. You will have worse performance in some situations but at any time you can get that extra stick of ram. And if those 40 odd euros you save allow you to upgrade the GPU it would be better spent there. As I mentioned in the first post. 40 euros would allow the OP to go for a 580 maybe stretch a bit more and do a 1660 which would take the build from 860 euros to over 900 which is closer to the limit if you consider you need to buy OS and games. And frankly all this is a mute point and some sort of masturbation as I indicated to the OP a possible viable build. He can downgrade the screen for instance and get something beefier for a gpu or whatever. That was merely a starting point and frankly this conversation is as pointless as trying to teach my cat how to sing since as I mention in my first post, it is merely a baseline. Now if you have anything important to add that is not epeen gibberish that is, quite frankly taking too much of my time, please do otherwise, shhhhhh.

As for SSDs in gaming, they do reduce loading times in games, but their big advantage is in day to day use stuff like turning your computer on or accessing program. SSDs just make your computer feel snappier and better. Frankly a build without one in 2019 is wrong.

 

[Case_]

As for Intel vs AMD, in Assetto Corsa where single thread performance is key, I agree that Intel holds an advantage. For other titles that do a better job at using multiple threads, not that much. And the price of performance of AMD is better.

There's not a single simracing title on the market today that would benefit from more threads over single core performance. The six threads of current gen i5 will always offer more performance than anything AMD currently has on offer. Even a good four core Intel CPU might do that, in fact. And with overclocking, some AMD CPUs might come fairly close.

And frankly all this is a mute point and some sort of masturbation as I indicated to the OP a possible viable build. He can downgrade the screen for instance and get something beefier for a gpu or whatever. That was merely a starting point and frankly this conversation is as pointless as trying to teach my cat how to sing since as I mention in my first post, it is merely a baseline. Now if you have anything important to add that is not epeen gibberish that is, quite frankly taking too much of my time, please do otherwise, shhhhhh.

It's OK to be wrong, there really is no need to act like an asshole about it.

 

[RasmusP]

I don't want to continue this argument, both of you have solid reasons and standing points! But I don't like the tone of this discussion from either of you.
Anyway
@Miguel Batista your experience seems to highly differ from mine. Maybe I'm wrong.
May I ask what cpu, ram and gpu configuration yoh have?

Now my personal experience:

Checked via process explorer. You should always have more cpu cores than threads but 1 spare is enough. More than that doesn't give much performance boost anymore).

We have :
- AC = 1.5 threads
- AMS = 1.5* threads (thanks Martin)
- Rf2 = 2 threads
- Acc = 2.5 threads
- Pcars 2 = 3.5 threads (stuck at 60% cpu load though and the fps drop to 50 in some occasions. Average about 80, goes up to 130+.
GPU lowered to be below 60% so this is CPU limited)
- F1 2018 = 6+ threads (lowering graphic settings = 160+ fps)

Yeah for F1 2018, the amd will be okay, for the rest an i5 9400 will be quite a lot better.
Gpu vs cpu bound: I'm cpu limited in every sim I listed above. I have a 3440x1440 monitor and a gtx 1070.
Sure that's a bit of a different system but with my old I7 2600k @ 4.4 GHz I'm having problems to hold 60 fps the moment there are more than 20 cars.
That's online or offline.

Single thread performance of my old i7 is as good as the ryzen 5 2600x. Only due to the amount of cores the ryzen beats my cpu slightly even for simracing titles but it's not much.
It for sure beats the crap out of my i7 for rendering etc though.

In the end my main concern is that one can easily swap out the gpu for a better one. It's plug and play, sometimes not even re-installing the drivers.
Replacing a cpu though...
- switch the cooler = highly annoying task
- probably switch the Mainboard
- change bios settings if not
- probably re install of Windows
- taking out the Mainboard and therefore all cables etc

Depending on how future proof the system should be, I would even consider the 9600k and a windows key from ebay. The 9400f beats a 2600x even for project cars 2, which already is the best multithreading title.
But the 9400f is locked at 3.9 GHz whereas a 9600k basically always auto-overclocks itself to 4.8 GHz or more.
It blows everything else out of the water and is still pretty affordable.

You can always turn down graphic settings but when the cpu comes to its limit you get ugly micro stutters are hugely limited with grid sizes.
I'm experiencing this myself and I absolutely hate it.
I can understand if it's too much money though, ofc.

And since from my experience basically all simracing titles are cpu limited and not by the graphics card I would also go with dual channel ram. For simracing you want as much cpu power as possible. Single thread performance though, not overall power. If 2 sticks can help there, definitely do it.

Here are some results from benchmark videos I've skimmed through:
(They nicely show the problem with cores vs single thread performance!)

Project Cars 2:
R5 2600 = 99 fps, 29% load ; i5 9400f = 111 fps, 55% load

GTA V:
R5 2600 = 98 fps, 45% load ; i5 9400f = 113 fps, 71% load

PlayerUnknow's: Battleground:
R5 2600 = 98 fps (1% low) ; i5 9400f = 111 fps (1% low)

Anyway, an overclocked R5 2600 to 4.2 GHz turns the table around!
To not post endless gaming benchmarks of games that are not good at multithreading (like all our simracing titles), here's Cinebench R15:
R5 2600 stock: 164 ST, 1279 MT
i5 9400f: 173 ST, 958 MT
R5 2600 @4.2 GHz: 180 ST, 1458 MT

Now you take a 9600k and also a R7 2700x into the equation:
i5 9600k: 198 ST, 1074 MT
R7 2700x: 178 ST, 1774 MT
and overclocked:
i5 9600k @5.0 GHz: 214 ST, 1221 MT
R7 2700x @4.3 GHz: 186 ST, 1913 MT

So for simracing we need like 75% of the ST score and 25% of the MT score to replicate simracing title FPS.
The ST performances show that the 9400f isn't a great cpu. Cheap but not great. You can't overclock it sadly... An overclocked R5 2600 is almost as good as an overclocked R7 2700x though, making the 2600 the better budget-gaming cpu.
However for 100€ more, you get the 9600k which is extremely easy to overclock. You get a ST score of 214 against 180!
And remember, the gaming fps I listed above are the difference of 164 ST to 173 ST. Now the 9600k pushes out 214 ST!

Anyway, I find budget PC gaming difficult. I can always accept a cheaper GPU and lowered graphics settings but a CPU is something you stick with for years and hugely pays off to get a more expensive one vs being always a bit unhappy and having to spend the same amount of money in a few years again.
So I would always go with a 9600k. Not the i7 or i9, that's way too pricey but a 9600k really is the sweetspot for simracing.

 

[Case_]

AMS - 1.5 threads.

And while the F1 2018 does seem to use about 9 threads on my 2600, they're far from maxed out, so it would very likely run just as well on a CPU with less threads.

 

[RasmusP]

AMS - 1.5 threads.

And while the F1 2018 does seem to use about 9 threads on my 2600, they're far from maxed out, so it would very likely run just as well on a CPU with less threads.

It does yep. I tested the real limit and ran it in 800x600. GPU was about 20% and CPU at 50% or something like that. I got 180-200 fps but there it was just stuck although all the threads would indicate that the CPU could really get maxed out completely...

btw, edited my post to be a bit longer...

 

[Miguel Batista]

I don't want to continue this argument, both of you have solid reasons and standing points! But I don't like the tone of this discussion from either of you.
Anyway
@Miguel Batista your experience seems to highly differ from mine. Maybe I'm wrong.
May I ask what cpu, ram and gpu configuration yoh have?

Now my personal experience:

Checked via process explorer. You should always have more cpu cores than threads but 1 spare is enough. More than that doesn't give much performance boost anymore).

We have :
- AC = 1.5 threads
- AMS = 1.5* threads (thanks Martin)
- Rf2 = 2 threads
- Acc = 2.5 threads
- Pcars 2 = 3.5 threads (stuck at 60% cpu load though and the fps drop to 50 in some occasions. Average about 80, goes up to 130+.
GPU lowered to be below 60% so this is CPU limited)
- F1 2018 = 6+ threads (lowering graphic settings = 160+ fps)

Yeah for F1 2018, the amd will be okay, for the rest an i5 9400 will be quite a lot better.
Gpu vs cpu bound: I'm cpu limited in every sim I listed above. I have a 3440x1440 monitor and a gtx 1070.
Sure that's a bit of a different system but with my old I7 2600k @ 4.4 GHz I'm having problems to hold 60 fps the moment there are more than 20 cars.
That's online or offline.

Single thread performance of my old i7 is as good as the ryzen 5 2600x. Only due to the amount of cores the ryzen beats my cpu slightly even for simracing titles but it's not much.
It for sure beats the crap out of my i7 for rendering etc though.

In the end my main concern is that one can easily swap out the gpu for a better one. It's plug and play, sometimes not even re-installing the drivers.
Replacing a cpu though...
- switch the cooler = highly annoying task
- probably switch the Mainboard
- change bios settings if not
- probably re install of Windows
- taking out the Mainboard and therefore all cables etc

Depending on how future proof the system should be, I would even consider the 9600k and a windows key from ebay. The 9400f beats a 2600x even for project cars 2, which already is the best multithreading title.
But the 9400f is locked at 3.9 GHz whereas a 9600k basically always auto-overclocks itself to 4.8 GHz or more.
It blows everything else out of the water and is still pretty affordable.

You can always turn down graphic settings but when the cpu comes to its limit you get ugly micro stutters are hugely limited with grid sizes.
I'm experiencing this myself and I absolutely hate it.
I can understand if it's too much money though, ofc.

And since from my experience basically all simracing titles are cpu limited and not by the graphics card I would also go with dual channel ram. For simracing you want as much cpu power as possible. Single thread performance though, not overall power. If 2 sticks can help there, definitely do it.

Here are some results from benchmark videos I've skimmed through:
(They nicely show the problem with cores vs single thread performance!)

Project Cars 2:
R5 2600 = 99 fps, 29% load ; i5 9400f = 111 fps, 55% load

GTA V:
R5 2600 = 98 fps, 45% load ; i5 9400f = 113 fps, 71% load

PlayerUnknow's: Battleground:
R5 2600 = 98 fps (1% low) ; i5 9400f = 111 fps (1% low)

Anyway, an overclocked R5 2600 to 4.2 GHz turns the table around!
To not post endless gaming benchmarks of games that are not good at multithreading (like all our simracing titles), here's Cinebench R15:
R5 2600 stock: 164 ST, 1279 MT
i5 9400f: 173 ST, 958 MT
R5 2600 @4.2 GHz: 180 ST, 1458 MT

Now you take a 9600k and also a R7 2700x into the equation:
i5 9600k: 198 ST, 1074 MT
R7 2700x: 178 ST, 1774 MT
and overclocked:
i5 9600k @5.0 GHz: 214 ST, 1221 MT
R7 2700x @4.3 GHz: 186 ST, 1913 MT

So for simracing we need like 75% of the ST score and 25% of the MT score to replicate simracing title FPS.
The ST performances show that the 9400f isn't a great cpu. Cheap but not great. You can't overclock it sadly... An overclocked R5 2600 is almost as good as an overclocked R7 2700x though, making the 2600 the better budget-gaming cpu.
However for 100€ more, you get the 9600k which is extremely easy to overclock. You get a ST score of 214 against 180!
And remember, the gaming fps I listed above are the difference of 164 ST to 173 ST. Now the 9600k pushes out 214 ST!

Anyway, I find budget PC gaming difficult. I can always accept a cheaper GPU and lowered graphics settings but a CPU is something you stick with for years and hugely pays off to get a more expensive one vs being always a bit unhappy and having to spend the same amount of money in a few years again.
So I would always go with a 9600k. Not the i7 or i9, that's way too pricey but a 9600k really is the sweetspot for simracing.

Yeah. I kind of lost it a bit. I just got really annoyed at having to justify myself in a situation where I am spending my time helping someone, clearly mention that the build is a baseline and op can pick and change components, and still get questioned rather rudely about it. Just FYI, I do assemble systems as part of my job.

My configurations are on one machine i7-6700k, 16GB DDR4 in dual channel and a 980ti and on another (laptop) an i5 7400H, 8GB single channel DDR4 and a 1050ti. Both are fine and I game in both and work in both though I only play sims in tge laptop with a controller and not that many.

Right now, for CPUs, the intel offering at a similar price is not very good imho. As you shown in your benchmarks an OC 2600 will outperform it by quite a bit for the same price. Going 9600k is more expensive out of the box and you need a Z series mobo which are more expensive too.
The value proposition is just not there for me. And most of all, the difference in performance is usually meaningless.

Lastly, the 1000 euro price point for a full system is at a really awkward spot imho. If you take the screen out and the software you are looking more at a 650 to 700e price point for the computer itself which is a really awkward price point at this moment. The cheap rx570 and 580 mitigate that a bit since you can get a great GPU for under 200e but I think it kinda removes the option of Intel CPUs (the 9400f also doesn't have an integrated GPU iirc which makes it awkward to troubleshoot if the GPU goes out) since the i3s are not as good as the rysen platforms and the i5s are too expensive for a 700e build.
Regardless, a 2600 CPU will serve you well for years to come.

For comparison, here is the same build but with an overclockable i5:
https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/TtyfXP

It goes over 1000e already without any OS or games. It is an almost 200e price hike that is just not worth it imho. The 9400f is a better value proposition since you can get a cheaper motherboard but, overclock your ryzen 5 and you get more performance out of it.
Sure you can downgrade the screen but honestly, less than 200e for a 31.5 inch ips display is a really good proposition. But yeah, a 1080p tn panel 27 inch or so would provide a decent experience too.

 

[David Turnbull]

the 200e extra more than justifys the performance improvement.

as someone whos had the 9600k i can safely say the performance is awesome and will give longevity. I also have that very same monitor and its awesome too.

regardless of os and games that system would last for years with nothing more than an extra 8gb ram and gpu added in couple of years.

 

[Miguel Batista]

the 200e extra more than justifys the performance improvement.

as someone whos had the 9600k i can safely say the performance is awesome and will give longevity. I also have that very same monitor and its awesome too.

regardless of os and games that system would last for years with nothing more than an extra 8gb ram and gpu added in couple of years.

No argument there. If the OP has the money, increasing budget by 200e would help a lot.