#3690
Without used parts that's not really going to be a good build. You'd have to cut all of the corners to even get all the parts you need for something that can boot.

#3685
Not the best is an understatement.

I don't see a GPU.
Are you going to be using CPU or GPU encoding?
Why a 10900KF? What do you need that for?
Why 64GB RAM?
Am I reading that correctly? Why are you using an NVMe SSD for storage?
What in the world do you need a 1600W PSU for? How many GPUs do you plan on adding? 4? You know you can only fit 2, right?

24" 1080p TN panel vs 27" 1440p IPS isn't even remotely the same category.
You buy a 24" 1080p TN panel because it's cheap and fast, you buy a 27" 1440p IPS panel for the pretty colours and you're willing to pay a lot for that.

Congratulations, you just selected the most expensive option for everything and realized that you can't afford it by the time you got to the monitor. Great example of living beyond your means on credit.

#3686

If it's actually the BLS8G4D240FSB you've got in the list on pcpartpicker then that's 8GB, 2400 MHz, 16-16-16-? because tRAS is apparently a secret, 1.2V. Just put in the filters and get the cheapest.

#3687
Faster in the same price bracket, same performance should be cheaper. Depends on your definition of "considerable". Supposedly starting in September, but no official announcements.
I checked again and since the mediocre VRMs of the PRIME B450-Plus they've actually improved things. If you're not going to use PCIe 4.0 you can get the same cheaper with a B450 board though.
https://fi.pcpartpicker.com/product/BHBhP6/msi-b450-gaming-plus-max-atx-am4-motherboard-b450-gaming-plus-max
or if you want µATX https://fi.pcpartpicker.com/product/h7WBD3/msi-b450m-mortar-max-micro-atx-am4-motherboard-b450m-mortar-max
if for some reason you absolutely need USB-C https://fi.pcpartpicker.com/product/jcYQzy/msi-b450-tomahawk-max-atx-am4-motherboard-b450-tomahawk-max
Or you could go with something more expensive if you're trying for a very high OC but then I'd recommend the 3900XT and a larger cooler.

#3681
Upgrade as in replace them? Because none of that is worth keeping. Maybe case and PSU, that would at least same some money.
Even a 3200G on its own should be more than twice as fast (CPU and GPU-wise), so that, a mobo and some DDR4 RAM should be enough to get you your 100 fps in CS:GO. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/FqgrzY
Cheaper if you're willing to get used parts.

#3682
Looks ok. 3900XT is an option, though maybe not the most bang for buck.
3900X(T) is much better for rendering than a 10900K(F) and the difference in graphically demanding games is going to be almost negligible since the GPU has a way bigger impact there. So I'd stick with AMD.
Mobo could be better VRM-wise, especially if you want to overclock.
If you're not in a hurry I'd wait for new GPUs. Obviously that's generally a good idea but it would be a waste to pay for B550 to get PCIe 4.0 and then buy a GPU that doesn't support it.
Slightly better RAM https://fi.pcpartpicker.com/product/ywYLrH/gskill-trident-z-16gb-2-x-8gb-ddr4-3600-memory-f4-3600c16d-16gtzkw

#3683
No, the problem is that if you want to upgrade your CPU and GPU it's either used parts or a much higher budget. GPU + RAM is barely doable with 200$, so 250$ for RAM + GPU would be fine but for the CPU you'd either have to pay 250-300$ for an obsolete CPU that's not any faster than a new 100$ CPU or buy a new mobo and new CPU which with RAM and GPU would still bring you close to 400$.
So my suggestion is better RAM first, which might fix your problem in Valorant.
Check GPU usage in Valorant (now or after getting the RAM) to figure out if it's the GPU holding you back or something else. If it is buy a new GPU.
If neither was the problem or you still want more fps in TF2 start looking for a used CPU compatible with your mobo.

#3678
Ok, if you're going with the upgrade route then depending on how much GPU power you want/need your options are either an APU build (much cheaper since there's no GPU, but obviously limited GPU-wise) or CPU + discrete GPU.
Approximate budget or performance goals (game, fps, settings)?

#3679
Depends on how you define noticeable. It's not about the 8 GB, it's mostly about doubling the bandwidth. Valorant is most likely going to see the most improvement. It seems to have been a common problem during beta
https://twitter.com/dety0/status/1253073089123975169
https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/garyks/valorant_runs_poorly/fp2jaxi/
but I don't know how bad it still is.
RAM is the cheapest part you can upgrade though, so I think that's where you should start.
For Valorant and GTA V the next step would probably be a GPU ugprade but you can barely afford that on its own, but for TF2 you'd want a better CPU and without replacing the mobo that means used parts (and replacing the mobo doesn't really make the whole ordeal any cheaper).

#3675
Fps seem a bit low for that CPU and GPU. Buy another stick of RAM with the same specs (size, frequency, timings and voltage, ideally the exact same model though) and see how much that helps. 2400 MHz isn't ideal, not much you can do about that without finding a cheap Z mobo though (replacing the mobo just for getting to 2666 isn't worth it), but Valorant doesn't seem to like 8GB or dual channel so let's get both of those fixed first.
What other games?

#3676
And what kind of potato are you using now that you're not getting 100 fps on 1080p low settings I assume?
Any sort of budget?
Because there's "cheapest", which is actually "cheapest reasonable budget build" and actually cheapest which means used parts and cut corners.

16-16-16-36 is the gold standard (and anything better is insanely expensive), but generally lower timings are better (assuming the same frequency). Even something like 17-19-19-39 is significantly better and should still be around the same price.
Ideally look for something that's on the mobo's QVL, meaning it's guaranteed to work with those settings.

Yes, looking at reviews is the correct course of action, don't just follow my word blindly. Don't look at sequential read/write speeds though they look nice and might actually meet what was advertised but you're not buying an SSD for that. Look at random aka IOPS, the actual reason for buying an SSD and mixed read + write because that is where bad controllers shit the bed.

You can probably afford better RAM, 18-22-22-42 isn't exactly the cream of the crop.
Internally the BarraCuda 510 is more or less the same as the cheaper MP510 or MP34 and not any faster iirc.
If you want to stay in that price bracket but can afford an extra 10$ (you really should) the EX950 or Sabrent Rocket (not Q) would be faster, with the Rocket being the faster of the two.

Yes, keeping the PSU is fine. That's a 200W build without the GPU, official GPU TDPs are usually 250W or lower and I really don't think you're going to buy 2080 Ti or Titan so there's really no chance of you getting a GPU with an actual power consumption over 300W (most likely it's going to be something around 200W) so I don't see a reason why you'd need a PSU with more than 500W anyway. Yes, AMD and nVidia like to put 700W PSUs as recommended minimum for a 200W GPU and 850W for a 300W GPU because some vendors (not manufacturers, vendors that just print a logo on blank 20$ PSUs bought in bulk from whichever Chinese manufacturer had some lying around) decided that because hooking up hardware with a combined TDP of 600W doesn't make a shitty 20$ 400W PSU immediately explode they can just sell it as 600W PSU for 80$. If you buy any of those PSUs you're asking for a fire anyway even if get a "700W" (actually 450-500W) that can just about power your build.

#3666
Latency would be lowest at 3733 MHz but the difference is minor and there's not many of those so 3600 MHz 16-16-16-36 is usually considered the gold standard. The cheapest on the motherboard's QVL are right now would be these
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/ywYLrH/gskill-trident-z-16gb-2-x-8gb-ddr4-3600-memory-f4-3600c16d-16gtzkw
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/M2prxr/gskill-trident-z-16-gb-2-x-8-gb-ddr4-3600-memory-f4-3600c16d-16gtzsw
Nothing wrong with going one step down to 3466 though, even 3466 MHz CL17 has the same nominal latency as the kit you picked and on top of that Ryzen already benefits from the higher frequency.

Faster RAM would be worth it but I don't know your budget.

Did I mention the ridiculous cooling setup? For the 3600XT it was "only" 1.35V, but they pumped 1.4V into the 3800XT/3900XT and only got them to 74/84°C.
No, this doesn't mean anything for Zen3. It would be worse if it did. A new architecture with >10% higher IPC and similar clockrates is to be preferred over a refresh with something like 5% higher clockrates and virtually the same IPC.
Using the same chips for Desktops and Servers will always limit AMD's ability to tune for 4+ GHz since they absolutely need to preserve efficiency at 2-3 GHz lest 64(+) cores do not fit in the TDP anymore.

It'll take a while for more comprehensive statistics but I wouldn't be surprised if the all core OCs for the 3600XT are indeed higher than for the 3800XT and 3900XT. Fewer cores, after all.

The 3600 was always going to stay the best value chip. If a faster, more expensive chip with the same architecture provides a better price to performance ratio something has gone seriously wrong with the pricing. I did mention that before.

Street prices will take a bit longer than a few hours to be affected.
Why would a newer 3600X overclock better? Where do you think the 3600XT bins are coming from?

And yes, I'm also pleasantly surprised. I didn't dare to predict this, but I try to mantain a cautious "you'll never know" stance. Because sometimes things do go very right.

https://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/articles/2020/07/05083806133l.jpg

4.65 GHz all core on the 3600XT, "only" 4.6/4.55 for the 3800XT/3900XT.
No stock cooler is a bit of a bummer and with a less ridiculous cooling setup it won't go that high but it's still a massive improvement in overclockability, especially for the 3600X(T).
Very spicy I must say.

That's a secondary source mixing speculation with what AMD said.
https://www.techpowerup.com/268650/amd-confirms-vermeer-zen-3-not-delayed-to-launch-in-2020
"AMD in an official briefing call with us confirmed that the company's "Zen 3" client processors are on-track for launch within 2020."

The way the tapeouts are scheduled means that they could release something in September. If everything goes as planned, which is never guaranteed.
The rumours were that that something would most likely be Milan (EPYC, server CPUs) and that Vermeer (Desktop CPUs) might even be delayed to 2021. AMD denied that, but only said they were on track for 2020. Because the source are the client-segment product managers it is assumed that that includes at least some client CPUs.
We still don't know when and which models exactly. Launches are always spread out over a couple of months so even if you're 100% certain that some Vermeer CPUs will be released in September that doesn't mean we'll see a 4600(X). That could very well take until December.
So stop acting like AMD confirmed a 4600 for September.

The rumours of delays were fueled by Matisse Refresh and yes, that is different from the 2700X Anniversary Edition. The AE was purely cosmetic.
Releasing actually different CPUs, no matter how minor that difference is, in the same segment within 3 months is almost unheard of. Though in this case I can definitely see it being a response to Comet Lake.

Your argument about overclocking makes no sense. What does the 3800XT have to do with this? Why does that mean a 3600XT will overclock worse than a 3600?
You also don't know how binning works. Silicon "quality" is not some one dimensional parameter. It's a combination of frequency, voltage and power consumption. There is some correlation, but a core using less power at the same frequency does not guarantee it can't reach a higher frequency.
And the trick to getting the same power consumption with more cores and near identical clock speeds is the "near".
Power consumption increases massively for Zen2 with every little bit of extra frequency when you're close to or above 4 GHz.
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15043/3950X%20PowerLoading.png
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15043/3950X%20RHP%20Freq2.png
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15043/3950X%20Power.png
A core at 4.125 GHz needs 14-15W, while at 3.875 GHz it only needs 7-7.5W. A measly 250 MHz extra double the power consumption.

About prices: This is about branding. Navi got different numbers and AMD tried to raise the prices at the same time. It didn't work.
You want the same model numbers (with a different digit for the generation obviously) to stay around the same price. You change how many cores/threads and what frequency the customer gets at that price. That's why Intel "added" HTT to the i5s instead of making i7s cheaper. That's why they added i9s to cover 400-500$ instead of letting i7s cover 300-500$. That's why a 3950X exists, which got 33% more cores and is 50% more expensive than a 3900X instead of selling the 3800X as 3750X. Because x700(X) models in AMD's naming scheme shall cover the low 300s range. That's why the 2700X is called 2700X even though it's faster than the 1800X. Because it doesn't cost 400$.
That is why I can guarantee that there will be a 4900X at around 500$ and there will be a 12 core, but I can't guarantee that they will be the same. Same for 3700(X)/3800(X) and 8 cores.

About fps:
https://www.teamfortress.tv/post/902719/tf2-benchmarks
Better comparision because the 4790K is clocked higher.
So yeah, Haswell needs somewhere between 4.4 and 5.0 GHz for 240 fps, depending on the settings. The lower end of that is definitely doable.

Can you not see the problem? If his current pc could get him 240 avg and a 3600 gets him 270 fps average, but his problem is that he gets drops to 120 how do you expect the 3600 to solve that?

You said yourself that an OC not even high enough to get 240 fps would somehow fix the dips.
I still don't know how you imagine that would work.

Yeah, that's why I asked

Of course it's hard to notice when it slowly builds up over the course of 5 years.

I'm saying waiting for 7/7 is worth it because even if you don't get a 3600XT the prices for the 3600(X) could still drop a bit and worst case you've "wasted" a week. Waiting for Zen3 (and new GPUs) in Q4 would get you more bang for your buck but that's obviously a lot longer than just a few days.
Which model mostly depends on how much more performance you actually need. My main worry is that a 3600 should only be about 15% faster than a 4770K single threaded (though I think it might be a bit more in TF2), which isn't that much of an upgrade.

Yes, you can get a slight overclock even with the stock cooler. The main advantage of AMD for overclocking is that you don't need a more expensive CPU or mobo and you get a stock cooler for free anyway so you can always just try it and order an aftermarket cooler later if it's not cooler or quiet enough for your taste.

For now I'm not recommending anything. See what's wrong with your current PC, that might already fix your problem. Then you can consider better oc (maybe delidding and/or a better cooler) vs a new build.

Like I said, why not a 1600 AF then? If the performance is irrelevant anyway?
Or a 3300X? 4.3 GHz for 120$. By your logic the 3600 is not worth it at all for TF2.
Value is only worth considering after the initial performance goal has been met. Another 50$ for the GPU budget don't increase the fps in TF2. Will another 50$ spent on RAM increase the fps by 7%?
And the 3600XT can't be overclocked? Or do you think it'll somehow overclock worse? Have you already seen reviews that aren't out yet?
Why are you acting like this is a choice only between CPUs? This isn't about another 50$ for 5% performance on a (sub) 200$ CPU purchase, this is about 50$ for 5% performance on a 1000$ build, which is absolutely worth considering.

You're also forgetting that a 3600 is not that much faster than a 4770K single threaded. The "value" of an upgrade providing 25% more fps is drastically different from one that only gets you an extra 15% fps. Like I said the cheapest course of action would be to buy nothing but that also gets him no extra fps. Yes, it's also a GPU upgrade and MT is much better, but is it really worth saving 100$ (or even 200$) and losing half the benefit for TF2? That is not your decision. Neither is it mine. That's why I want to figure out how much of an upgrade he needs before declaring which CPU is or isn't worth the money. I've only said that a 2070 Super and a 3600XT would be something he can afford, not that that is what he needs.

Of course waiting 2 years is not the same as waiting 3 months, but that's still not the same as waiting for a week either. There will always be new CPUs. Waiting for a week should be possible for all but the most impatient. Anything on the scale of months "being worth it" is very subjective.

AMD has not confirmed anything other than 2020. I don't know where you're getting September from.

Yes, congratulations on predicting that AMD will in fact continue to release CPUs between 200 and 800$. I thought they'd stop that and only release >2000$ CPUs starting with Zen3.
Do you want a cookie for predicting that there will be a 4600? I can already tell you that your prediction won't work out because it'll be the 4600X at around 250$ and the 4600 and around 200$.

I'm not sure why you think a single digit percentage overclock would somehow remove the fps dips. Is 4.1 GHz = 120 fps minimum, 4.2 GHz = 160 fps and so on how you think it works?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. AMD released CPUs on 7/7 last year and they'll release CPUs on 7/7 this year.
I didn't even mention GPUs and both Navi 2X and Zen3 are planned for Q4 according to the roadmaps, not September, unless you know something I don't.

If he wants to wait for Zen3 he can. He could also wait for Zen4 in 2022, which will be even better.

What is your point? Should he buy a 3600 now before the price drops when the 3600XT is released? Should he wait until September?
Why buy a 3600 at all? A 1600 AF for 85$, not even half the price still gets you 3.6 GHz. The higher the performance, the worse the price to performance ratio. Hell, he could just not buy anything and leave everything as is. That's absolutely free. Oh wait, he needs a faster CPU, not whatever you think would give him the most bang for buck.

Just recommending the 3600 because it's cheaper and hoping it'll magically double his minimum fps is a bad strategy.
It does not matter how cost effective a build is when it fails to meet the original performance goal of upgrading.
That's why I was trying to figure out how much faster than a 4770K his new CPU would have to be.

Anyway, my hopes for overclocking solving his problem are very low. Going from 4.1 to 4.2 isn't going to fix the problem. Instability usually arises from voltage, not temperature so I think he's just too inexperienced and timid. Most 4770Ks should do 4.4, maybe 4.5 or even 4.6+ if he's lucky, but a non-delidded 4770K cooled by a 212 will always be thermally limited way before that. Either way it's not something that'll double the minimum fps so I don't think it's worth spending time on that for now.

Cleaning and maybe reverting to stock settings should tell us if this was a temperature/throttling problem, but otherwise he might just have to lower his expectations for the new build.