• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

wccftech presents how to waste money

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Dolk

I once overclocked an Intel
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
http://wccftech.com/build-my-pc/

These suggestions are the worse.

$1500 with AMD CPU selected, and Any GPU selected will give me a Ryzen 5 1600 paired with a 1080Ti. lol

The bias easily puts a higher priority to spending money on GPU and RAM, over savings on CPU and Mobo.
 
It's fun to play with but I wouldn't use it. Try running the slider to $5K now that's a joke for a "gaming" PC
 
2k any, any gaming build, with OC and RGB doesn't sound bad to me:
8700k + z370 mobo
1080Ti
2x8 GB TridentZ RGB
960 Evo 250GB
2TB HD
850W PSU
Some AIO cooler

No case? Maybe I should have selected 1900 then :)

1900 drops me to a Ryzen 1700X, slower SSD, and PSU down a notch.
 
Their $2k build is around what I spent on the rig in the sig. I'm not hurting in the CPU department yet and don't need a 1080 Ti for my display, and I got a case and a quad TV tuner card and a couple operating systems. And that includes the RX 480 I replaced a few months after I got it.

I like their choice of a [email protected] GHz for the 5k gaming rig. :rofl:
 
The $1k AMD/nVidia setting isn't half bad, some tweaking (mobo/ram/GPU (maybe a 1060 to even out)) and you got a good 1080p gaming rig. Oddly enough if you go from AMD/nVidia to AMD/AMD they bump the CPU from a 1500x to a 1700 and ram from 2400 to 3200...
 
isn't that the point of linking something ? to check opinions ?
I think you misinterpreted my point, K... :)

What I was trying to get at was nobody will like these articles as everyone will have their own interpretation of what to buy at each pricepoint. Authors can't win. Everyone thinks this is better at this price or would choose something different.
 
Authors can't win. Everyone thinks this is better at this price or would choose something different.

Agreed, but although all the configs in there work the fact is that more knowledgeable people can do better in most if not all, just depends on what you're aiming for. Is the author thinking that we will blindly buy whatever is shown or should we see the link as a "starter kit" of sorts, something that gives you a rough idea on what to buy ? and regardless of what the author thinks, how should the average consumer look at it ?
 
Last edited:
Is the author thinking that we will blindly buy whatever is shown or should we see the link as a "starter kit" of sorts, something that gives you a rough idea on what to buy ? and regardless of what the author thinks, how should the average consumer look at it ?

They write about that at the bottom of that page.

By using this tool you agree to the fact that 1) the build is provided on an “As Is” basis as a suggestion and 2) we cannot guarantee that the tool is free from all errors and omissions and therefore 3) Wccftech and related parties are not in any way responsible for any liability or damage resulting from the use or misuse of this tool.

Also, following may explain why they seem to balance towards GPU more than CPU.

The gaming build logic is based on a 4K60 target philosophy.

Would more options help? For example, they could target high fps over resolution, or go for a balanced approach. Personally I don't feel 4k60 is a common target many go for. For a new gaming build with not too tight a budget, high fps 1080p or 1440p are more likely the sweet spots.
 
Personally I don't feel 4k60 is a common target many go for. For a new gaming build with not too tight a budget, high fps 1080p or 1440p are more likely the sweet spots.

As i said above, $1k for 1080p and $2k looks more then enough for 4K ? what's the average gaming rig nowadays ?
 
You can build a decent 4k/vr gaming rig for 2 grands nowadays. 8700k, z370 mobo, $50 HSF, 16gigs of ram, 1080ti, 250GB nvme, 2TB storage 600W PSU, 100 bucks case and you're covered for max settings until, at least, big Volta hits the floor (end 2018 at best, AMD having nothing in the pipeline...), and certainly for a year or 2 more. Which makes a $50/month investment over 3 years...

Maybe a change in GPU when 2nd gen VR and 144Hz 4K monitors are for grab.
 
what's the average gaming rig nowadays ?

It depends on what criteria you count as a "gamer". One obvious stats source is: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Is installing Steam enough in itself? There are a lot of very old games on it that'll run on pretty much anything capable to running modern Windows. Still, looking at the stats presented right now the most common in each category are:

Windows 10 64-bit at 45% and Windows 7 64-bit at 41%
8 GB ram at 44% and 12GB+ at 24%
4 core CPU (it doesn't split out threads) at 58%,with 2 core at 37%
It only breaks out Intel CPU clock speeds, with 21% clocked between 3.3 to 3.7 GHz, and 19% clocked 3.0 to 3.3 GHz. 5% above 3.7 GHz.
Top 3 GPUs are 1060, 960, 750Ti, at roughly 7.5%, 6.6%, 6.0% respectively. So lower mid range there.
VRAM most common 2GB (28%), with 1GB closely following (27%). Each comparable to 4/6/8 GB combined (15/5/4% respectively).
1080p most common screen size by far at 57%, 2nd 1366x768 at 17%. Nothing else comes close.

Note the survey probably doesn't have a way to split out desktops from laptops, so the latter may skew the results somewhat.

If you were to build something to the above spec, I think you'd have a reasonable 1080p 60Hz gaming system and high fps isn't out of the question if you don't mind using lower quality settings.

Edit: just for fun, I built a hypothetical system along the lines of the above using https://pcpartpicker.com/list/kMLwxY
i3-8100 (3.6 GHz fixed, quad core)
Asrock Z370 Pro4
2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200
Crucial MX300 275GB
Toshiba 2TB 7200rpm HD
EVGA 1060 3GB
Corsair CX550M (gives a little upgrading headroom, even the 450W is more than sufficient as is)

Total $743.60 for items comparable to wccf build example

What does wccf's page come up with, set to $750, gaming, Intel, nvidia: http://wccftech.com/build-my-pc/?purpose=gaming&price=750&cpu=Intel&gpu=NVIDIA
i3-7100
GIGABYTE GA-B250-HD3
G.SKILL Aegis 8GB 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 2133
No SSD
WD Blue 1TB Desktop Hard Disk Drive - 7200 RPM
ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 STRIX-GTX1060-O6G-GAMING 6GB
EVGA SuperNOVA 650 G2, 80+ GOLD 650W

Interesting choices there... only 2c4t processor, that could choke the 1060 6GB they went for. We're matched on ram quantity, but I went for two sticks to get dual channel bandwidth, and you can also make use of higher speed ram on Z chipset even if CPU is locked, assuming they haven't changed that since Haswell/Skylake. The wccf serving suggestion doesn't even manage a SSD, and a paltry 1 TB HD? IMO the PSU is more than is needed, and the GPU is no doubt faster, but I'm not sure it'll give the full potential with the CPU and lack of SSD.

On my build, if I were to actually do it, I'd go up to the 8350k and Noctua D15 (both like I already have). I'd then also stretch to get the 1060 6GB, although not necessarily the more pricey Asus Strix. Gigabyte seem to do better in value without sacrificing performance. Total would still be sub $1000. If you then increase wccf's calculator to $1000 also, they bump it up to a 1070, still with the dual core i3 which has to be inadequate by that point, but at least they then squeeze in a 128GB SSD, and bump up to 16GB of ram. I can't say I agree with their balance choices, and would definitely go quad core by that point.

Yes, I know Ryzen exists, and that would likely provide a more rounded system for the price than above, but I'm working on the assumption the vast majority of systems around are still Intel based.
 
Last edited:
The number threads doesnt bottleneck a gpu, clocks and ipc do...

HT offers between 0 and 50% bonus from its presence. Thus the same clocked 2c4t part compared to a 4c4t part, would be between 50% and 75% of the compute performance, assuming the game software can make use of 4 threads. If games are poorly optimised and only use one or two, the i3 could keep up. I haven't done so myself but there are many others who have done it, showing that the sweet spot for high performance gaming seems to be 4c8t, and if you go 4c4t you will be losing out on some fps, not so much averages but it can help keep minimums up for a better experience.

Back to the builds, I still think it highly unbalanced to pair an dual core i3 with a 1070 class GPU, especially now that quad core i3 is available for similar money.
 
It actually really depends on the resolution you play at.

We had an interesting "hair splitting" episode with E_D a few days ago (;)).

@4K/VR, an i3 or a Ryzen3 coupled to a 1080 ti gives a (much) better experience (60 FPS@4K and 90 FPS in VR, both max settings) than a i5/i7/r5/r7/ coupled with a 1070 or even a 1080, while being actually cheaper.

Links to sh1tload of benchmarks on the thread refered above (http://www.overclockers.com/forums/...ooking-to-build-new-pc?highlight=ryzen+1080ti from #12).

Of course, if budget is not an issue, z370+8700k+1080ti is the way to go! but if somehow you need to choose, the b350 r3 1200 and 1080ti will provide roughly the same experience than the former config on the above resolutions.
 
Last edited:
Back