Why Building a Gaming PC Right Now Is a Bad Idea, Part 1: Expensive DDR4 Memory

Ha, that's funny. I literally just built a PC last night.

-i7-8700k
-EVGA FTW GTX 1080
-4x4 G.Skill DDR4-2400 RAM (My buddy gave this to me for free. I got extremely lucky.)
-250GB Samsung EVO 850

All in all, after taxes it cost me $1400.68...would have been $1500+ if I had to buy RAM.
 
In August 2016 I paid $62 for Geil 2x8 Gb DDR4. Today that same vendor has that same model for $174. Yet I remember the sting of paying $190 for 2x512 MB of high-end OCZ DDR for my first build 13 years ago.
 
Reasons not build a PC

1 - overpriced RAM due to supply
2 - overpriced GPU due to mining (AND RAM suply)
3 - if you have a OC i5-2500k or better you are fine on the CPU side. New Gen consoles just launched and they simply re-used the previous consoles CPU with a slight OC. AAA pc games won't be as CPU demanding as fan boys hope for 1080p 60 FPS gaming the next few years, until replacement consoles launch (2020-2021).

LOL you're drunk with that i5 nonsense.
 
5 - 6 core+ CPUs have yet to mature on the tech and software side. Remember how great the intel Q6600 and Phenom IIx4 955 were? Great to OC, fantastic synthetic benchmarks, yet on the intel dual core 8400 was outperforming them in gaming. Fan boys stated wait until games are optimized for multicore...and they were...eventually...when the intel 2500k launched.

I used a Phenom II x4 965 until last December for gaming. And it actually worked. Can't say the same about a Core 2 duo though. Fanboys were right, once again, weren't they? Unless of course you change your CPU every 2 years, (I do, but most people definitely don't) going for the Core 2 Duo instead would be just dumb.
 
I had to update one of my rigs, and it was unfortunately right towards the end of 2017. Ended up with a Ryzen and x370 motherboard, and a single G.Skill 16GB stick of 3200 DDR4 memory. I lucked out and found it for just a hair over $150, pretty sure I just made it under the wire and got one of the last sticks they had. To get 2 x 8GB of the same G.Skill memory was $190+

So, I'll chug along with 16 until prices (hopefully) come down a bit, and grab another stick to get to the 32 GB I originally wanted.
 
I also disagree when you dismiss the half generation of Ryzen. Ryzen never really fully caught Intel, especially with the lack of ability to scale the clocks high enough of the consumer enthusiast parts for gaming or single threaded performance. It put AMD back in the game, but still not on equal footing.

The refresh might finally be the first point in over a decade where AMD can offer something that is on par for your average gamer.

What exactly are you comparing? Cause afaik, Ryzen launched back with Kabylake. Are you suggesting that an i5 7600k was a better deal for gamers than an R5 1600? Oh kay
 
An OC i3-8350 beats the AMD 1600 even when OC with ease in gaming, it even beats stock intel six cores. No need to thank me for educating you.
Thank the gods you are using fresh games that make use of lots of threads! Isn't it obvious that the game is horribly single threaded, due to the i3 beating even an 8600k? Try something more modern, like bf1 64mp, ac origins etc, and tell me how it goes.After all, we need educating

I bet you a paycheck, the vast majority of AAA games released in 2018 are going to choke anything with 4 threads.
 
Instead of reading an article that complains about the high cost of DDR4 you should have done something to increases your value, or picked a better career
 
In November I built a basic PC for a customer (something I used to do a lot but rarely do these days" and off the cuff I looked at the last PC a built in February and based my price on that. My surprise when I came to order the parts and ram is over twice the price ATM.
 
What exactly are you comparing? Cause afaik, Ryzen launched back with Kabylake. Are you suggesting that an i5 7600k was a better deal for gamers than an R5 1600? Oh kay

I already stated clearly but for you I'll repeat it. "the lack of ability to scale the clocks high enough of the consumer enthusiast parts for gaming or single threaded performance".

You picked one SKU and compared it to one SKU. It doesn't somehow invalidate my above statement. AMD's single threading performance and gaming performance for the average (1080p currently) consumer still falls below a wide array of Intel parts on the majority of modern titles tested, as has been well documented.

The Ryzen arch will only be on a level playing field with Intel when it offers single thread and gaming performance for the masses with complete parity.
 
I am still sticking with my GTX 970 and i5 2500k until I feel like gaming on 1080p (meaning until I finally jump on the 4k wagon) isn't cutting it. Right now I am content and happy.
 
It can get worse. I see no reason why NVIDIA or AMD would release anything new to the desktop GPU market. Miners are lapping up whatever GPU they can get, and AMD could easily go back to producing high end 28nm chips and still sell all of them.

RAM and Flash likely won't go down any time soon..

The Ryzen half-gen is nice, but won't be as earth shattering as Ryzen.

At least laptops might be somewhat more interesting, with the Intel/AMD chip, mobile Vega and Ryzen Mobile.

It won't get worse, whether you believe it or not new Nvidia cards are coming. Nvidia will launch likely early this year, and move the game on. I have already noted the prices of mid range cards has settled somewhat and they are appearing for less than they were 6 months ago, the pressure is easing.

Memory prices won't get any higher than the peaks of 2017. They might not decrease significantly until the very end of the year, but there is a small chance they will drop a bit by the holidays 2018.

I also disagree when you dismiss the half generation of Ryzen. Ryzen never really fully caught Intel, especially with the lack of ability to scale the clocks high enough of the consumer enthusiast parts for gaming or single threaded performance. It put AMD back in the game, but still not on equal footing.

The refresh might finally be the first point in over a decade where AMD can offer something that is on par for your average gamer. If it does absolutely nothing else but allow another 10 percent clocks across the board it'll be a great 2018 for CPUs.

As for the laptops side then it's a huge year. All those APUs filtering into the market and proper mobile Ryzen parts. Potentially large integrated graphic upgrades and the year where quad core notebooks become the bottom rung, at a budget level.

Actually you're wrong about that...

Ryzen caught the Intel Processors with similar core counts and actually even surpassed them.

Look at the gaming benchmarks for the 6 and 8 Core Xeons that were out when the Ryzen 7 launched and you can see the gaming aspect was actually pretty much even.

Every other place they supassed the Intel Chip until Intel launched new chips several months later.

Also, the Ryzen 5 1600 actually appeared to be closer to the i7 7700 for gaming benchmarks, so the lower core counts appear to be helping in some ways.
 
Buying DDR4 memory recently really hurt. With the release of Ryzen, everyone online was recommending the use of G.Skill Flare X 3200 CL14 and it was next to impossible to find it in the shops. After doing a bit of research and finding out about Samsung B-dies I eventually went with G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 CL14 even though they are marketed at Intel only. But 2x8 GB still cost me €250. I probably should have gone for the cheaper 3000 CL14 but I really wanted the 3200. Maybe that Flare X is common in the US but over here in Europe it was like gold dust. I sometimes saw it go over €300.
 
Actually you're wrong about that...

Ryzen caught the Intel Processors with similar core counts and actually even surpassed them.

Look at the gaming benchmarks for the 6 and 8 Core Xeons that were out when the Ryzen 7 launched and you can see the gaming aspect was actually pretty much even.

Every other place they supassed the Intel Chip until Intel launched new chips several months later.

Also, the Ryzen 5 1600 actually appeared to be closer to the i7 7700 for gaming benchmarks, so the lower core counts appear to be helping in some ways.

Similar core counts? That's simply untrue. Ryzen is not as fast for the average gamer. It's well documented Ryzen is simply not as fast as many Intel parts for gaming in the most common resolutions.

I don't know why so many people keep trying to 'correct' me about this, when they are wrong and it's well documented even on this very site on multiple tests. Even in such a CPU dependent game like AC: Origins the very fastest consumer 8 core 1800X is not capable of matching a 4 core 7700k. Across the majority of games it is slower. A Ryzen 1600 isn't in the same league as a 7700k for gaming.

Ryzen's single thread performance is considerably inferior and their gaming performance is inferior even with existing GPU performance let alone more GPU performance heading our way this year.
 
Last edited:
Actually you're wrong about that...

Ryzen caught the Intel Processors with similar core counts and actually even surpassed them.

Look at the gaming benchmarks for the 6 and 8 Core Xeons that were out when the Ryzen 7 launched and you can see the gaming aspect was actually pretty much even.

Every other place they supassed the Intel Chip until Intel launched new chips several months later.

Also, the Ryzen 5 1600 actually appeared to be closer to the i7 7700 for gaming benchmarks, so the lower core counts appear to be helping in some ways.

Gamers are not using xeons to build gaming PCs, at the time they would have been using i5-6600/7600k and i7-6700/7700k processors so I'm not sure what the point of such a statement is. Also the 7700k has a healthy lead on the 1600 once you place the burden on the CPU rather then the GPU.

perfrel_1280_720.png


even at 1080p its a solid lead and most intel users overclock their "K" chips otherwise why get them
perfrel_1920_1080.png
 
Similar core counts? That's simply untrue. Ryzen is not as fast for the average gamer. It's well documented Ryzen is simply not as fast as many Intel parts for gaming in the most common resolutions.

I don't know why so many people keep trying to 'correct' me about this, when they are wrong and it's well documented even on this very site on multiple tests. Even in such a CPU dependent game like AC: Origins the very fastest consumer 8 core 1800X is not capable of matching a 4 core 7700k. Across the majority of games it is slower. A Ryzen 1600 isn't in the same league as a 7700k for gaming.

Ryzen's single thread performance is considerably inferior and their gaming performance is inferior even with existing GPU performance let alone more GPU performance heading our way this year.

No it wasn't documented like that... The Ryzen 7 caught up to the Broadwell E which is what they were aimed at, you said then never caught them... They absolutely did catch the chips they were aimed at with performance equal or better to that of similar core count. Trying to claim the opposite documented is completely false. You can look this up, even gaming benchmarks were similar when the chips were compared. At the launch of the Ryzen 7 the Broadwell chips were at the high end of the i7 price points.

As for the Ryzen 5 1600x, that was the closest of the gaming options for AMD... It actually produced higher FPS than the 1700 even when the 1700 was Overclocked.

Of course, if you pushed your machines resolution above 1080P (As I do), then the 7700K was a waste of money next to the 1600X or 1700 for that matter. Reality is, my 1070 is going to run the same on either chip at 4K Resolutions, where gaming is concerned.
 
Gamers are not using xeons to build gaming PCs, at the time they would have been using i5-6600/7600k and i7-6700/7700k processors so I'm not sure what the point of such a statement is. Also the 7700k has a healthy lead on the 1600 once you place the burden on the CPU rather then the GPU.

perfrel_1280_720.png


even at 1080p its a solid lead and most intel users overclock their "K" chips otherwise why get them
perfrel_1920_1080.png
I made a mistake, they weren't Xeons, they were Broadwell E variants of the I7.

And you're wrong if you think gamers aren't using them... Some people game, but that's not the only thing they do with their PC...

So, with that said, if you spent greater than $1500 just to game, then you better be a pro, otherwise you would have gotten a better return from a Ryzen 7 CPU.

Oh and also, about 40% of gamers are gaming above 1080P... Many are multi monitor setups where they're running 3840 x 1080 and then the 7700K advantage is mostly gone.
 
In view of all this 2018 can only get better.

It can get worse. I see no reason why NVIDIA or AMD would release anything new to the desktop GPU market. Miners are lapping up whatever GPU they can get, and AMD could easily go back to producing high end 28nm chips and still sell all of them.

RAM and Flash likely won't go down any time soon..

The Ryzen half-gen is nice, but won't be as earth shattering as Ryzen.

At least laptops might be somewhat more interesting, with the Intel/AMD chip, mobile Vega and Ryzen Mobile.
Geforce 1080 cards are no longer available.... anywhere. So I expect the volta refresh soon.
there are still 3 on newegg but 2/3 are single fan and they're over $1k. not worth it
 
I wasn't really sure about the state of pricing in recent times, so I looked on Newegg for graphics card prices and OUCH! 1070s going for $900+? 1050s for $300?!? Absurd. Just ridiculous. Supply and demand, yeah right. This reeks of price fixing.
 
I wasn't really sure about the state of pricing in recent times, so I looked on Newegg for graphics card prices and OUCH! 1070s going for $900+? 1050s for $300?!? Absurd. Just ridiculous. Supply and demand, yeah right. This reeks of price fixing.

The prices were normal during the holidays, but now they're just stupid. Glad I bought my 1070 twin fan EVGA OC for $365 when it was on sale last year. I probably should have bought 2 of them.

Oh and if you're hesitant to buy the single fan configs, don't be... I'm amazed at how infrequent the fans turn on under normal load and I'm not so sure it really needs dual fans to keep it from throttling.
 
Price gauging has been a feature of home PC hardware for some time. I'd been getting increasingly surprised that it hadn't been called out by the tech media.

Great article. Keep it up.
 
So, with that said, if you spent greater than $1500 just to game, then you better be a pro, otherwise you would have gotten a better return from a Ryzen 7 CPU.
True but then you could have even gotten a better return then the ryzen with the i7-7700k, proven facts above.
Oh and also, about 40% of gamers are gaming above 1080P... Many are multi monitor setups where they're running 3840 x 1080 and then the 7700K advantage is mostly gone.

And that is lie as proven by facts through steam hardware survey with resolution above 1080p at under 5%. You were wrong with the xeons, wrong with the ryzen and wrong with the resolution. Its fun embarrassing you with facts.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
trans.gif


trans.gif

1920 x 1080
76.07%

-0.34%

trans.gif

1920 x 1200
0.44%
+0.01%

trans.gif

2560 x 1080
0.70%
+0.02%

trans.gif

2560 x 1440
3.48%
+0.14%

trans.gif

3840 x 2160
0.45%
+0.03%

trans.gif

Other
0.96%
+0.01%
 
Bought a 32GB kit for $299 just back in April of 2017, sucks to buy anything right now.

I can't even upgrade my RX480 GPU because of all this cryptocurrency BS. I wish that bubble would just pop already and those guys will be on to the next "get-rich-quick" scheme. I'm not even sure they'll be able to dump their rigs, no one wants a GPU that's been cranking away for 24 hours a day with stock fans. I certainly wont, maybe for $150.
 
Memory prices high? wait for it..I guess most here are young enough to not have bought memory back in the day when 2 x 1 gig of OCZ titainium Alpha DDR2 was 549.00 ,I have 2 x 512mb kit of Geil ddr 3200 that was 350.00 cdn.my first DDR3 was 2 kits of 2x2 gig of patriot viper Extreme cas 7 for 8 gig on my 790i ultra, they were 379.00 per kit of 4 gig,cdn.
I hope memory prices don't go back to the way they used to be ,video cards as well my 6800gt agp was 711.00 cdn

price fixing? ya THINK???
 
Back