Recent content by Scott

You can play that numbers game if you wish. The human eye can't see over 120hz and anything over that is to aid perception. Only the very elite get any improvement over 144hz with your typical in-house gamer having zero benefit over it other than wishful thinking. It's like snake oil, people...

I don't think the budget is realistic in honesty. Those games won't run optimally at all on the low end AMD chip. I would want at least 8 cores to get the turn based timings down a bit. It'll play though, so that's not where I see the biggest issues. The vRAM in the GPU is a huge sticking point...

144hz is good value: https://www.samsung.com/uk/monitors/gaming/odyssey-oled-g9-g91sd-49-inch-144hz-curved-dual-qhd-ls49dg912suxxu/

Few tweaks below. You're unlikely to be able to max out 240hz on at 4k no matter what you build, but I wouldn't be overly concerned with those numbers. Anything over 100hz is going to be brilliant. As you're looking to spend quite heavily on the monitor I would consider a super ultrawide OLED...

Always the key for real world performance but you do get a serious bump in sustained read/write on the bigger files with the premium drives. I found that out the hard way many moons ago when I adopted early. Thought I was hitting the highs..... which I was, for all of 16GB of cache or something...

No worries at all. That's the main thing we try to avoid all the time, better to realise now than down the line. The other thing that I tend to do, and I dare say others do as well, is give advice as if I was giving it to my own family. I don't want to see anyone overspending where they don't...

MSI was mentioned too. I'm wondering if it's an optional spec criteria given from Nvidia, that wouldn't be right IMO.

Few reasons, main one is seperation for good habits, security, performance, etc, etc. All covered here. It's not quite 32GB yet but over 16GB is quite common place now. 32GB should cover the life of the system when considering gaming and typical usage. I wouldn't recommend 16GB, it's the bare...

Opting for an AMD option on the GPU gets you inside the £1500 mark. Not quite as powerful but fine for 1080p. Has the all important VRam in place. Note that no option gets down anywhere near £1200. There's just no way I would purchase such a system as it would be like triggers brush in no time...

This is what I would want for an Nvidia build personally. If there was any potential money available I would look for a 1000w PSU to cover any future upgrades. Rest of the build is good for 10 years, save for the GPU. The 9800X3D would be a more powerful option but it's not worth the extra £110...

If you have a look around the spec threads you will see what is typically recommended. In and around the £1500 mark is where this thread goes down. You can see the starting point to where it ends up. The components are significantly more expensive than what they would have been when spec'ing...

That's down right criminal in my mind.

I would look to upgrade the current system rather than purchasing new. You're going to be on a lower tier of system overall if you go down this route. If you really want to go down the new route I would recommend budgeting around £1500. £1200 is just too low for a modern system that can handle...

Looks very healthy. Try and keep that C Drive at the 12% you've got it at now. It will bloat for sure, but even trying your best will make all the difference.

Also, even the "Slow" drive is 4TB/s, that's a DVD read per second.