I used to build PCs for fun, but I have no time or interest these days. I'm also fairly well entrenched with Dell and comfortable with their systems, so I'm looking at New XPS towers. I also have pretty decent financing and other offers available from them. (Feel free to suggest better options if there's a truly compelling reason, but I'm trying to keep this simple.)

As a user, I'm not a gamer. I am, however, a business power-user. Lots of simultaneous apps and windows w/ remote server access. We might also use this for light photo editing (nothing that would surpass the business use in terms of resources, honestly).

That said, I could use your collective wisdom on the following options. I'd usually be the "max it all out" kind of guy, but I'm not paying $3,500+ for a desktop.

Let's say I have $400-500 to spend on "upgrades". I'll tell you what I've got in the configurator currently and you tell me where you'd spend that extra money based on my user profile as described above - basically, where is my ROI the greatest vs. diminishing return.

PROCESSOR
Intel i7 13700K (16 Core, 3.4-5.3GHz)
Intel i9 13900 (24 Core, 2.0-5.2GHz) +$200
Intel i9 13900K (24 Core, 3.0-5.4GHz) +$300

GRAPHICS
NVIDIA GTX 1650 Super (4GB)
NVIDIA RTX 3060 (12GB) +$300

RAM
16GB DDR5
32GB DDR5 +$200
64GB DDR5 +$300

Power Supply
750W
1000W +$50

What do you all think? Where does the upgrade money go?

-Rob

For your stated purpose, I would go with the 64gb of RAM and the mid level i9 processor.

Based on your useage profile, I'd get the i7, and just toss the money at max ram.

None of the other upgrades will do you any good. (IMHO)

Okay - so neither of you think the RTX upgrade is worth it. I was already thinking the same thing, but I was concerned with end of life issues for the GTX line, even though the 1650 is actually newer than the older RTX generations.

Any chance NVIDIA screws me over in a few years by ending support for GTX? (Of course, I could always upgrade if that ever became an issue...)

-Rob

I see no need for a separate graphics card or 1KW PS.
I9 is fine, extra memory won't hurt but it makes little difference for most all desktop use.
Gen5 DDR is the latest.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
I see no need for a separate graphics card or 1KW PS.

Every machine I've ever had with integrated graphics has sucked donkey balls for anything other than checking email and basic word processing. YMMV, but a dedicated graphics card is a must-have for me based on bad experiences.

I agree about the power supply. No idea what I'd have to be doing to draw 1KW, but I thought I'd throw it in there since it's only an extra $50 and maybe someone knows something I don't.

-Rob

Don't forget to check out the outlet very good deals with same warranty as new.

Here's a reasonably priced one that may fit your needs.

https://m.dell.com/h5/m/r/outl...h5A%2f7dBUPe7hZhfQrm

I agree, if NVidia ends support for the gtx, just get new card when the time comes. RAM is always your best bang for the buck.

quote:

Okay - so neither of you think the RTX upgrade is worth it. I was already thinking the same thing, but I was concerned with end of life issues for the GTX line, even though the 1650 is actually newer than the older RTX generations.

Personally, I don't think the GPU or the higher-end CPUs are worth it for what you're planning to do. It's excess heat and extra fans that you don't really need. Ultimately you could put the $ into a pot for a future machine. If money's no object, blow the doors off and buy every upgrade because there really isn't an argument against the idea of "future-proofing".

I just don't see the need. (Again, COMPLETELY my opinion) Once you start adding extra fans and heat you also increase the amount of air it needs to move and the amount of dust and animal hair and other junk. I don't know the thermal profiles for those CPUs though either. I just assume the i7 will be less power hungry. It's totally possible that, to my ignorance, the non-K CPU is one of the lower power versions vs. the K version i7. I have no idea.

That being said, if you end up with an application or piece of photo-editing software that requires you to light up 16 cores, you're doing a lot more than I've ever seen any "general business use with some photo editing" folks do.

64GB ram isn't a bad investment though. You'd probably never push 32GB, but 64 gives you tons of room to spread out over the course of a day or week, or month, depending on how often you reboot/restart/etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Don't forget to check out the outlet very good deals with same warranty as new.

Here's a reasonably priced one that may fit your needs.

https://m.dell.com/h5/m/r/outl...h5A%2f7dBUPe7hZhfQrm

This is sagely wisdom. The Dell Outlet people are mostly local to the US, and Rakuten often offers 10% cashback at the Dell Outlet. The systems are all backed up by Dell, love them or hate them.

You didn't mention storage. If not already equipped, put any exce$$ into NVMe/M2 SSDs as your main/sole storage, you'll probably have to give up capacity for the performance gain. Choosing a host OS with integrated RAM/swap/paging, and an up-to-date file system architecture (ZFS or BtrFS) will also boost performance. You can always run Windows in a VM if you have to have it.

Otherwise, I'm in the camp that favors spending the money on RAM over a hot graphics sub-system, CPU integrated graphics are a lot better now than they used to be.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
You didn't mention storage.

I already have a 2TB NVMe/M2 SSD in the configuration.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
I see no need for a separate graphics card or 1KW PS.

Every machine I've ever had with integrated graphics has sucked donkey balls for anything other than checking email and basic word processing. YMMV, but a dedicated graphics card is a must-have for me based on bad experiences.

I agree about the power supply. No idea what I'd have to be doing to draw 1KW, but I thought I'd throw it in there since it's only an extra $50 and maybe someone knows something I don't.

-Rob

Don't know what you are currently using or have experienced.
The Integrated graphics in Intel CPU's have been pretty great for quite a while now.
That includes for advanced use including gaming, graphic editing > but not heavy use.
Opening multiple windows will have no real issues either.
I do recognize under certain circumstances of extreme use to consider a separate unit such as I mentioned > serious gaming or video/audio editing, CAD or similar.
But for everyday use including power use sans the above the built-in is quite good.
Additionally, the other metrics of today's computers have been improved so much to take the load off the CPU/Graphics such as in the new NVMe drives, and better memory DDR5.
You could always add in a card at a later date if you still deem it necessary or you start intense operations that actually tax the graphics unit.
As someone who has built many computers for many clients I have seen the increase in graphic performance that would rival many add-in cards of prior.
.02

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
I see no need for a separate graphics card or 1KW PS.

Every machine I've ever had with integrated graphics has sucked donkey balls for anything other than checking email and basic word processing. YMMV, but a dedicated graphics card is a must-have for me based on bad experiences.

I agree about the power supply. No idea what I'd have to be doing to draw 1KW, but I thought I'd throw it in there since it's only an extra $50 and maybe someone knows something I don't.

-Rob

Don't know what you are currently using or have experienced.
The Integrated graphics in Intel CPU's have been pretty great for quite a while now.
That includes for advanced use including gaming, graphic editing > but not heavy use.
Opening multiple windows will have no real issues either.
I do recognize under certain circumstances of extreme use to consider a separate unit such as I mentioned > serious gaming or video/audio editing, CAD or similar.
But for everyday use including power use sans the above the built-in is quite good.
Additionally, the other metrics of today's computers have been improved so much to take the load off the CPU/Graphics such as in the new NVMe drives, and better memory DDR5.
You could always add in a card at a later date if you still deem it necessary or you start intense operations that actually tax the graphics unit.
As someone who has built many computers for many clients I have seen the increase in graphic performance that would rival many add-in cards of prior.
.02

I admit that it has been a few years. Going w/ integrated graphics would certainly free up some of the budget...

-Rob

Agree with the integrated graphics comments. If not hard gaming or cad or recoding video, current integrated graphics are pretty darn good IMO.

I'd go with the i9 processor, either the 32 or 64 RAM, and 1000w power supply.

When looking at building a desktop for some intensive photo editing, I ended up getting a Thinkpad P52 with 64GB, 1TB SSD, Nvidia graphics, 4K screen, and dock for under $500. Refurbished business laptops can be good options, even if I leave it in the dock with a big monitor most of the time.

i7 is plenty of CPU, you can never have too much RAM so take the 64. Based on your use case, that's enough.

Skip the graphics card for now,

Get the i7
64 Ram

Once you have it up and running if you find the onboard graphics isn't keeping up then add the other NVIDA, if it is you save the money.

Put the money into a second drive for data storage/backup.