New $1,100 PC build – no preferences, help me out!

Hey there,

I’m looking to pull the trigger on a new build with a budget somewhere between $3.25 and $3.75.
I've already got my monitor and storage covered—I have a 500GB SSD and a 2TB HDD ready to go, so no need to factor those into the new setup. I definitely need a DVD+RW drive, though that’s only about $50 of the cost, so...
My workflow is mostly web work and graphic design. I spend most of my time living in Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Adobe, Assistant, WAMP, Final Cut Pro, and basically every browser under the sun.
As far as gaming goes, I’ve got an Xbox One X for that, so I won't be using this PC for any heavy lifting in the gaming department.

To recap: I need a tower only. No peripherals, no extra SSD or HDD (since I’m repurposing what I have), but please include a DVD+RW drive.

If you could put together two options—one centered around Intel and one around AMD—that would be great. It feels like everyone and their mother is obsessed with AMD right now, but for my specific design and web needs, Intel feels like it might have more muscle, even if it hits the wallet harder.

I see that Intel's 10th generation is hitting the market soon...

I’d really appreciate any advice or recommendations you guys can throw my way!

Intel build:

Intel Core i7-10700 2.9 GHz LGA1200 Asrock Z490 EXTREME 4
Asrock Z490 EXTREME 4, s.1200, 90-MXBC20-A0UAYZ
DDR4 32GB (2x16) G.Skill 3200Mhz Ripjaws V, F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Pure bas 500 Gray paliti GTX1660 dual, 6GB GDDR6, DVI, HDMI, DP, NE51660018J9-1161A
Core GM 650 w 80 + Gold Semi-Modular, GM-650
Be quiet! Pure base 500 Gray
Fortron Windale 6 cooler, s1151/AM4
LG DVDRW GP57EW40 USB

Total: $3284 Craigslist price for cash/bank transfer

AMD All in build:

CPU AMD Ryzen-9-3900X (4.6GHz,70MB,105W,AM4) box
Noctua NH-D14
MSI B450 Tomahawk Max, AM4, 7C02-020R
DDR4 32GB (2x16) G.Skill 3200Mhz Ripjaws V, F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Core GM 650 w 80 + Gold Semi-Modular, GM-650
Be quiet! Pure base 500 Gray
Pure bas 500 Gray paliti GTX1660 dual, 6GB GDDR6, DVI, HDMI, DP, NE51660018J9-1161A
LG DVDRW GP57EW40 USB

Total: $3540 Craigslist price for cash/bank transfer

AMD balanced build:

CPU Ryzen 7 3700 x (4.4GHz,36MB,65W,AM4, 8C/16T) box with Wraith Prism cooler
MSI B450 Tomahawk Max, AM4, 7C02-020R
DDR4 32GB (2x16) G.Skill 3200Mhz Ripjaws V, F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Core GM 650 w 80 + Gold Semi-Modular, GM-650
Be quiet! Pure base 500 Gray
Pure bas 500 Gray paliti GTX1660 dual, 6GB GDDR6, DVI, HDMI, DP, NE51660018J9-1161A
LG DVDRW GP57EW40 USB

Total: $2753 Craigslist price for cash/bank transfer

You can save some money by going with the Ryzen 7 3700 x; there's a 90% chance you'll never actually tap into the 3900X's full potential. Since it fits the budget better, I just wanted to show the value comparison for Intel VS AMD.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how much of a boost those specific software programs will get from the GPU—you probably know that better than I do. If you don't think you'll really need the extra power, you could drop down to a GTX1650 and save about $167.

Thanks, I can see you really put some work into this.
What’s the actual difference between the AMD All in and the AMD balanced builds?

The All-in setup features a Ryzen-9-3900X. That’s a 12-core beast that actually rivals the top-tier Intel desktop chips, like the i9 10900K, while being significantly more efficient on power.

Look, it's total overkill. You don't need it. But if you're chasing extreme performance and money is no object...

So, I'm scrolling through this userbenchmark(.)com site, and according to their data, the Intel Core i7-10700 2.9 GHz LGA1200 Asrock Z490 EXTREME 4 somehow edges out the Ryzen-9-3900X, all while being about twenty bucks cheaper.
Is that actually a realistic comparison, or am I just looking at a glorified paid advertisement for Intel?

It’s not some paid ad—UserBenchmark is just a total pile of garbage.

Stick to actual reviews and benchmarks for the specific apps you actually use.

CLICK

Everything should be pretty clear from the video.

By the way, UserBenchmark is actually banned on Reddit 😁

It's such a sad website. For instance, if someone searches Google for R3 3300 x vs i3 10100, the very first result they hit will be UserBenchmark, claiming that the i3 is about 10% faster. But if you actually look at a legitimate review, the R3 3300 x absolutely crushes it (running 15-30% faster in benchmarks), and it even outperforms it in gaming. It's a totally misleading site.

Sorry I haven't been around to reply—life just moves fast and doesn't wait for anyone. Thanks for all the effort you put into this.
I’m asking a ton of questions because I’m building this rig to last me at least the next three years. I can't afford to make any rookie mistakes here—I'm not looking to gamble my budget on a setup that's going to fall apart halfway through its lifespan. 😁It's all in the bag!
So, some guy cornered me yesterday and insisted I should hold off for a few months because some new Zen 3 from the AMD 4th generation Ryzen lineup is right around the corner. He was rambling on about technical specs and whatnot—honestly, I wasn't really paying attention to his lecture—but basically, he’s telling me to wait. Is there any actual truth to this, or is he just blowing smoke?

Yeah, word is it's dropping in October (definitely before the end of the year). It could be a total game-changer for your budget, provided you can hold out that long.
Also, keep in mind that sticking with the Ryzen 3000 series might actually be your smartest move once those new releases hit, simply because the discounts could make it the best value for your money.

Yeah, I’ve got 11k on hand, though I could probably scrape together up to 12k if things get tight.
So, you think it's actually worth holding out?

"Worth it" is a pretty subjective term. If you've got a job sitting there waiting for you, IMO, there’s zero point in holding out for another six months. By then, this 3000 series will have already paid for itself 😁
Sure, it'll be an upgrade, but don't expect it to absolutely blow the current tech out of the water. We're talking maybe a 10-15% bump in IPC, while clock speeds and core counts will likely stay right where they are now.

I’ve always operated with two machines—it’s just how I’ve structured my workflow for years. My system is simple: whenever I pick up a new rig, I sell off the oldest one. About a month ago, I actually gave my previous setup away to a kid whose parents were struggling to afford one. So, right now, I’m down to a single PC running an i5 6400 paired with an RX 470 and 16GB of RAM (I did try swapping in another machine, but it didn't stick). For the last few months, everything was smooth sailing, but lately, things have started to hitch. Once I have Wamp, Ps, Affinity, and YouTube open all at once during a heavy workload, the whole system starts to stutter. It’s driving me crazy because the hardware seems fine; I’ve checked the temperatures, updated all the drivers, and done everything else in the book. Plus, I make sure to blow out the dust every three months like clockwork. I went looking through the official software sites, and it turns out my 6th Gen Intel chip is basically hitting its floor—it's the absolute bare minimum for what I need. Naturally, everyone on the forums is preaching about moving up to an 8th or 9th Gen i5, i7, or i9. It seems I’m not alone in this, either; plenty of other people using 6th Gen setups are reporting this exact same "stuttering" issue.
I can definitely limp along with this machine until the end of the year (and I won't lose my mind, because I know a better machine is coming 😁), but I'm hoping it holds up since I view my next upgrade as a serious three-year investment!
So, I guess the real question is: is it worth holding out?

Look, the 6th gen isn't actually that ancient. Believe it or not, the 10th gen Intel chips that just dropped last month are still running on that same Skylake architecture. When it comes down to IPC, they haven't really moved the needle since the 5th gen; the 6th gen just uses a 14nm process. The difference today is that the manufacturing node is much more refined (think 14nm+++), which allows newer generations to hit higher clock speeds and pack in more cores. You’re probably feeling the sting from having fewer cores, but honestly, if you can hang tight, we'll see everything we need by the end of the year.

You're not wrong, though waiting is pure torture. There’s honestly nothing quite like the rush of unboxing a brand-new PC 🙂

Anyway, I’ll hang tight for a bit longer. I might even be able to scrape together some extra cash before the next Ryzen deal drops. Luckily, I've already got my drives (both SSD and HDD) and peripherals ready to go. Plus, it'll give us some more time to see how the Ryzeni i7 10 generation actually holds up in the real world.
Historically, I’ve always been an Intel guy because they didn't really have any real competition back in the day. Those old AMD processors used to start running hot after a year or two... so, is Ryzen's quality finally on par with Intel's?

Well, the reviews are already out there. The Intel Core i7-10700K is essentially just a rebranded i9 9900K, though it does run a bit cooler than its predecessor.

And look, regarding heat management—you’re going to need a solid cooler regardless of which one you pick. That’s especially true if you opt for Intel, given their higher clock speeds. On the bright side, they did shrink the die and thicken the IHS, so they don't run quite as hot as the 9th Gen chips used to. If you look at the history, Ryzen 1000 series was incredibly cool, the 2000 series was a bit faster and slightly warmer, and the 3000 series saw a significant jump in both speed and temperature. It's basic physics: as components get faster and the manufacturing process advances, temperatures rise because you're packing more transistors into the same surface area, making it much harder to dissipate that heat.