Help with a gaming computer - which of those options would be better?

[Erasculio.2914]

So, I'm (still) looking for a new computer. I'm not in the USA, so here the safer option would be to buy a pre-built from some big brand (part sellers are often unreliable, and never ever honor warranties). I'm trying to find something to replace the computer I have right now, which I bought in 2011, and I'm hoping for something that would allow me to play with everything set to maximum for more or less six years.

 

My options right now are:

 

A. Laptop:

* 8ª Intel® Core™ i9-8950HK

* Windows 10

* RAM: 32GB, DDR4, 2666MHz, (2x16GB)

* Graphic card: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1080, 8 GB GDDR5X

* Hard disk 01: SSD PCIe 256GB

* Hard disk 02: 1TB (7200 RPM)

 

B. Desktop:

* 8ª Intel® Core™ i7-8700 (3.2GHz)

* Windows 10

* RAM: 16GB, DDR4, 2400MHz

* Graphic card: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1060 6 GB, GDDR5

* Hard disk 01: 256GB SSD

* Hard disk 02: 2TB (7200 RPM)

 

 

C. Laptop:

* Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Coffee Lake 3.7 GHz

* Windows 10

* RAM: 32 GB DDR4 (2400 MHZ)

* Graphic card: 2x SLi NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1080 (8GB GDDR5X)

* Hard disk 01:SSD M.2 - 256GB

* Hard disk 02:HD 2TB - 5400 RPM

* This one is from a less reliable seller, so I'm kinda worried about it

 

Which of the above would be the best option for my situation?

 

My current computer, for the sake of comparison, is:

 

Desktop:

* Intel Core i7-2600

* Windows 7

* RAM: 8GB Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz (4x2GB)

* Hard disk 01: 256GB RAID 0 (2 x 256GB SATA 3Gb/s) Solid State Drive

* Hard disk 02: SATA with 1TB (1024GB) 7200 RPM 3.0Gb/s - 32MB cache

* Graphics card: 2xATI Radeon HD 6950 2GB each w/ CrossFireX

 

[Crinn.7864]

Option A is just bad as i9 CPUs are extremely bad for gaming unless heavily overlocked, and laptop i9s are basically a meme. (the 8950HK you have listed is basically a i7-8700 but with 300Mhz lower clock speed) Also i9 cpus are stupid expensive and you'd be wasting your money.

 

Option C is total bullcrap for a number of reasons.

1.) i7-8700k is a desktop processor not a laptop one.

2.) while 2x SLI 1080s has been done in a few flagship laptops that nobody actually buys, the sheer power draw and heat generation of that setup means that you'd be better off just getting a desktop if you must have SLI.

3.) 32gb of RAM is absurd for a gaming rig, you typically only see that much RAM on workstations, and moreover 32gb of RAM is literally worth >300 USD by itself at current US market prices.

The combinations of the those three reasons make me believe that your option C is probably a total lie, or if it's not it's going to be absolutely insane cost wise.

 

Option B is by far the best. 16GB of RAM is perfect amount for 2018 gaming. The i7-8700 (non-k) is a solid cpu for gaming. The GTX 1060 6gb graphics card can render every game on the market at 1080p60fps with max settings. Option B is also going to be the cheapest cost wise of the 3 options by about a mile, and since it's a desktop rather than a laptop, you'll have less fan noise and retain the option of upgrading in the future if necessary.

 

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:

> Option A is just bad as i9 CPUs are extremely bad for gaming unless heavily overlocked, and laptop i9s are basically a meme. (the 8950HK you have listed is basically a i7-8700 but with 300Mhz lower clock speed) Also i9 cpus are stupid expensive and you'd be wasting your money.

 

> 3.) 32gb of RAM is absurd for a gaming rig, you typically only see that much RAM on workstations, and moreover 32gb of RAM is literally worth >300 USD by itself at current US market prices.

 

I have 32gb. ;) Seriously, though, it is actually one of the cheaper ways to boost loading performance. Because you have gobs of free RAM, you get lots of disk caching, so things are even faster than having to reach out to an SSD, let alone a spinning rust disk. Costs frequently balance out between storage and extra RAM, though I have not checked prices today.

 

Definitely don't need it by any stretch of the imagination, though.

 

> Option B is by far the best. 16GB of RAM is perfect amount for 2018 gaming. The i7-8700 (non-k) is a solid cpu for gaming. The GTX 1060 6gb graphics card can render every game on the market at 1080p60fps with max settings. Option B is also going to be the cheapest cost wise of the 3 options by about a mile, and since it's a desktop rather than a laptop, you'll have less fan noise and retain the option of upgrading in the future if necessary.

 

This is absolutely the best choice, and all those assessments are on point.

[Crinn.7864]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > Option A is just bad as i9 CPUs are extremely bad for gaming unless heavily overlocked, and laptop i9s are basically a meme. (the 8950HK you have listed is basically a i7-8700 but with 300Mhz lower clock speed) Also i9 cpus are stupid expensive and you'd be wasting your money.

>

> > 3.) 32gb of RAM is absurd for a gaming rig, you typically only see that much RAM on workstations, and moreover 32gb of RAM is literally worth >300 USD by itself at current US market prices.

>

> I have 32gb. ;) Seriously, though, it is actually one of the cheaper ways to boost loading performance. Because you have gobs of free RAM, you get lots of disk caching, so things are even faster than having to reach out to an SSD, let alone a spinning rust disk. Costs frequently balance out between storage and extra RAM, though I have not checked prices today.

DDR4 RAM prices have inflated over 130% since 2016.

 

 

[RedShark.9548]

id recomend to never get a "gaming" laptop for your normal gaming at home, if you dont have a desktop computer, dont get a laptop,

they usually have smaller screens, no way to get a bigger one, you dont have many choices for future upgrades and they usually dont bring the power that desktops bring for the same price (because everything has to be smaller)

...also i hate laptop keyboards

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > > Option A is just bad as i9 CPUs are extremely bad for gaming unless heavily overlocked, and laptop i9s are basically a meme. (the 8950HK you have listed is basically a i7-8700 but with 300Mhz lower clock speed) Also i9 cpus are stupid expensive and you'd be wasting your money.

> >

> > > 3.) 32gb of RAM is absurd for a gaming rig, you typically only see that much RAM on workstations, and moreover 32gb of RAM is literally worth >300 USD by itself at current US market prices.

> >

> > I have 32gb. ;) Seriously, though, it is actually one of the cheaper ways to boost loading performance. Because you have gobs of free RAM, you get lots of disk caching, so things are even faster than having to reach out to an SSD, let alone a spinning rust disk. Costs frequently balance out between storage and extra RAM, though I have not checked prices today.

> DDR4 RAM prices have inflated over 130% since 2016.

 

O_o I didn't think I got lucky with timing my purchase. I guess I did. Thank you.

[Seera.5916]

> @"RedShark.9548" said:

> id recomend to never get a "gaming" laptop for your normal gaming at home, if you dont have a desktop computer, dont get a laptop,

> they usually have smaller screens, no way to get a bigger one, you dont have many choices for future upgrades and they usually dont bring the power that desktops bring for the same price (because everything has to be smaller)

> ...also i hate laptop keyboards

 

This. Don't get a laptop unless you can only afford one computer and you need it to be mobile.

 

Though, desktops are cheaper than laptops so you may be able to get a desktop for gaming and a general use laptop for what you need it to be mobile to do for about the same cost. So you may want to do some research into that, especially if you have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse already.

[Malediktus.9250]

Fast RAM helps a lot with this game (especially if you manually tighten the timings even further). I would not touch anything with worse than 3200CL14 RAM.

 

2400/2666 is complete garbage, especially because no further information about that RAM are presented

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> Fast RAM helps a lot with this game (especially if you manually tighten the timings even further). I would not touch anything with worse than 3200CL14 RAM.

> 2400/2666 is complete garbage, especially because no further information about that RAM are presented

 

Actual benchmarks showing the effect of RAM speed (and other timing considerations) in the real world: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K_Coffee_Lake_Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html

[Crinn.7864]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> Fast RAM helps a lot with this game (especially if you manually tighten the timings even further). I would not touch anything with worse than 3200CL14 RAM.

>

> 2400/2666 is complete garbage, especially because no further information about that RAM are presented

 

A few points

 

1) What RAM speed can be used depends on motherboard. The prebuilt desktop in question is using a non-k CPU which means it's probably using either a H-series or B-series chipset, and H and B series motherboards typically do not support RAM faster than 2666. He'd need a Z370 board in order to run >2666 RAM.

 

2) there are only a few RAM kits on the US market that can do 3200CL14, and they demand a heavy premium. The OP isn't even in the US, so he might not even be able to get a 3200CL14 kit and even if he did it probably would cost him both arms and both legs.

 

3) 3200 is the maximum for gaming, not a minimum. Beyond 3000Mhz you get very little return as most games simply can't make use of the speed. Not to mention that it's only really relevant if you are going for 144hz gaming. For 60fps gaming a 2133 kit would be fine let alone a 2400 kit.

[Malediktus.9250]

It is worth any premium for CPU limited games. Maxing out RAM performance will give better performance advantage than going from Sandy Bridge 4.5GHz to Coffee Lake 5GHz CPUs.

I have 16GB of 4266CL19 and overclocked it to 4266CL17 and I feel the game would profit from even better RAM. Saying RAM does not matter much is nothing but a meme.

 

The reason why reviews show low performance plusses is because they usually test with the XMP profiles, which are garbage and designed to run on as many mainboards as possible.

[Seera.5916]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> It is worth any premium for CPU limited games. Maxing out RAM performance will give better performance advantage than going from Sandy Bridge 4.5GHz to Coffee Lake 5GHz CPUs.

> I have 16GB of 4266CL19 and overclocked it to 4266CL17 and I feel the game would profit from even better RAM. Saying RAM does not matter much is nothing but a meme.

>

> The reason why reviews show low performance plusses is because they usually test with the XMP profiles, which are garbage and designed to run on as many mainboards as possible.

 

You're missing Crinn's main point: that the cost to get maxed out RAM is not worth the price to do so.

[crepuscular.9047]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:> Option C is total bullcrap for a number of reasons.> 1.) i7-8700k is a desktop processor not a laptop one. > 2.) while 2x SLI 1080s has been done in a few flagship laptops that nobody actually buys, the sheer power draw and heat generation of that setup means that you'd be better off just getting a desktop if you must have SLI. > 3.) 32gb of RAM is absurd for a gaming rig, you typically only see that much RAM on workstations, and moreover 32gb of RAM is literally worth >300 USD by itself at current US market prices.> The combinations of the those three reasons make me believe that your option C is probably a total lie, or if it's not it's going to be absolutely insane cost wise.it's not that farfetched... there are plenty of last gen gaming laptops with 7700K already, and there are reputable makers said they are going for 8700K versionshttps://www.techpowerup.com/238809/originpc-announces-gaming-laptops-powered-by-core-i7-8700k but I would still say NO to it with different reasons1. it's extremely heavy and poor battery life, unless you need something very portable to go to LAN parties2. Laptops have never been a good format for servicing due to specific components are only available from manufacturers, whereas a desktop you can pop into your local shop or eBay for replacement parts; since you said you want it to last 6 years, your warranty does not last that long, and it's natural for components to fail after a few years of use3. It's a massive premium you are paying for the identical setup against a desktop

I agree with others, B is a good choice, but I would make some adjustments**RAM: 16GB DDR4**, get a 2 stick module, throw in another 2 stick module (same model) later on if you find you need more to get it to 32GB; DDR4 is still expensive right now**Graphic card: change to a GTX 1080 Ti**, there isn't a lot of difference in price; the prices should come down since crypto mining craze has died down in recent months, and the recent report that Nvidia have an excess of 300,000 GPUs sitting around**Hard disk 01: 500GB SSD**, 1TB if you think it's not enough.**Hard disk 02: Ditch this**, and get a large external drive instead and back up all your game files once a month.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> **Graphic card: change to a GTX 1080 Ti**, there isn't a lot of difference in price; the prices should come down since crypto mining craze has died down in recent months, and the recent report that Nvidia have an excess of 300,000 GPUs sitting around

I dont know what planet you live on, but if the OP example of an 8700/1060 is a ~$1000 basic vendor machine, just making it a 1080Ti would literally add 50% to the total machine cost. Or in reality probably more like 80-100% more since you'd prolly want a better PSU, a better mobo and maybe a better cooled case.

 

The laptops specced like that is in a whooooole other pricing league. $3k+? I dont quite see how they are rival options...

[Crinn.7864]

> @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> **Graphic card: change to a GTX 1080 Ti**, there isn't a lot of difference in price; the prices should come down since crypto mining craze has died down in recent months, and the recent report that Nvidia have an excess of 300,000 GPUs sitting around

 

Two things

1) GPU choice should be determined by the monitor resolution. You only need a 1080Ti if you plan on 4k gaming. A 1060 6gb/RX 580 will do all 1080p gaming with no problems. A 1070/1070Ti/Vega56 are best for 1440p gaming, and 1080/1080Ti/Vega64 are for 4k.

 

2) Nvidia has a excess of GPU *cores*, not GPUs. The reason Nvidia has all these extra cores is due to OEMs ramping down their production volume due to lesser demand. So there is actually less new GPUs coming onto the market than there where before.

 

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> > **Graphic card: change to a GTX 1080 Ti**, there isn't a lot of difference in price; the prices should come down since crypto mining craze has died down in recent months, and the recent report that Nvidia have an excess of 300,000 GPUs sitting around

> I dont know what planet you live on, but if the OP example of an 8700/1060 is a ~$1000 basic vendor machine, just making it a 1080Ti would literally add 50% to the total machine cost. Or in reality probably more like 80-100% more since you'd prolly want a better PSU, a better mobo and maybe a better cooled case.

 

Eh he probably wouldn't need a new mobo, has long as the mobo as a PCIE 16x slot its fine. You can put a 1080Ti in a 200$ Dell from Best Buy if you wanted to. (I know this because my University actually did this in one of their labs.) Although you'd better get a blower style cooler cuz putting a recirculating cooler in a Dell is a one-way trip TJMax

 

 

 

 

[rzedlav.8034]

Choice B by far. I've owned gaming laptops and they were huge heat bricks. If it's a laptop, it should be light, slender, and cool. Gaming means you need it to take a higher processing load as well as heat. With option B you can add better fans with higher CFM, more RAM (though not necessary), and go liquid cooling if you have the dough.