Well, if you're asking directly...
Yup, this is what I'm trying to do (your methodology) and this is the kind of info I'm looking for, thanks.
I think 1 thing I misunderstood right off the bat is there is apparently a difference between pcie (what I know) and pcieX. At first, I thought we were just spelling it different.. Also, I thought M.2 was just what the SSD drive manufacturers were calling their interface to Pcie(x...) I did not realize it was new tech.
Both initialisms. They both stand for PCI-Express. PCI-E and PCI-Ex are the same thing. Sometimes I get lazy and cut off the X.
So.. M.2. is the new hard drive Storage bus of choice when it comes to performance. Specifically, M.2 Pcie..x
M.2 is the new name of NGFF (Next Generation Form Factor), or Intel's way of making a slot that resembles Mini-PCI-Ex on a laptop into a hard drive connector as well as an accessory connector.
More info...The numbers of a M.2 module refer to sizing. 22mm is the default width, with 40, 60 and 80mm lengths. So if you're looking at a 2280 M.2, it's 22mm wide by 80mm long. The longer modules have room for higher capacity when it comes to SSDs. Shorter ones have less capacity. It's physics. (There are short M.2s with high capacity, but you pay out the nose for it.)
What I'd go with? A M.2 2280 SSD with NVMe (make sure the motherboard has a M.2 PCI-Ex slot vs. a M.2 SATA slot first).
Any recommendations on processor? Anything especially bangy for the buck or to avoid? (AMD)
Don't worry too much about
Meltdown and Spectre in the news, because damn near everything is affected and there's still no clear path for regular users to 'immunize' their systems. You can't win for ideal security at the moment.
Intel had the "tick/tock" cycle where every even year they'd do a die shrink and every odd year, they'd optimize their platform to take the most advantage of it. After 14nm, it's been fundamentally broken, we've been on 14nm with Intel the last 4 generations of the Core i Series. So anything in the last four years is good. From the latest releases, Intel is making processors with "as many cores as you can afford" with Core i3 falling by the wayside for Core i5, i7 and now i9. The most expensive, Core-i9 7980 is 18 cores (36 threads total) for $1999. (Building such a system is well past $4,000 altogether.) For gaming, media creation, and heavier workloads, I'd lean towards Core i5/i7. If you tend to run one application at a time and multitasking isn't a major deal for you (maybe one browser open while playing a game), you can get away with a Core i3.
Intel's most popular processors for gaming tend to be the Core i7-X700 (6700, 7700, 8700 depending on the generation you want), and the Core i5 6400 and 7400 chips, which are quad core. The newest chip at the same Core i5 tier (Core i5 8400) is hex core (6 cores) with a price bump to match. All three are in the $150-180 price range price-wise.
AMD has been at Intel's heels with budget systems that didn't quite meet up with Intel's bar, but with the die shrink slowdown, AMD is catching up. Their hot ticket right now is Ryzen. These processors not only get within 5-10% of Intel's performance,
but also do it with more threads available. The main difference between AMD's method to accomplish the performance and Intel's is more of a voltage draw and a larger surface area for the chip. But even with that, the price difference is not too far off. In the comparison link above, Ryzen is more expensive (both boxes have no coolers, as the 2600X would be $30 higher), but when the advanced ones are compared (Ryzen Threadripper 1950X vs. Core i7 7900) it's splitting hairs. Ryzen comes out cheaper, but Intel accomplishes 4% better performance with less threads for a $60 difference. (Both are over $800, which is too rich for my blood.) AMD is getting much better in competing with Intel lately.
Definitely give the Ryzen 5 (Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 5 2600X) and 7 (Ryzen 7 2700 and Ryzen 7 2700X) a look. The X models have a cooler in the box, which is recommended as most AM4 motherboards are hard pressed for matching brackets for new coolers. (That was my experience last summer, it might have changed since then.) The 1500X is $189 MSRP, while the 2700X is about $400. Intel just released a Core i3 processor this last iteration (Coffee Lake) squashing the rumor that Core i3 was being discontinued. If you want to look at AMD's offering, check out Ryzen 3. Quad core for about $96. Not bad in any man's english.
What I'd go with: Depends on the budget. If you want the processor to be $200 or less, a Core i5-8400 is $20 less than Ryzen 2600/2600X. If less than $150, I'd be all about Ryzen 3. Core i3-8300 is $120, but the Ryzen 3-2200G is $27 less for a -11% performance hit. Now for the first time in 5-6 years is a good time to make a budget desktop!
Pretty much the same question as above except substitute 'memory' for 'processor' : )
Memory will become clear when you get the processor and motherboard lined up. Generally, faster memory will slow down for a slower motherboard, but you don't want to overspend, either. A DDR4-2333 motherboard will take DDR4-3200, so if there's a sale and you want capacity over speed, that's fine.
If speed is what you're after, then look carefully at the support page of a motherboard before buying it. Some motherboards have native support for memory speeds out of the box, some require certain processors (more $$) or firmware updates to support faster speeds. Be safe and get the native speed memory first. If you get memory with an overclock speed and the motherboard doesn't support that maximum, you might be stuck not being able to start your new machine. Also, timings still matter. The timings are the four numbers you see in memory specs (16-18-18-38 as an example). The first number, the CAS Latency, is the easiest comparison between two memory modules: think golf. (Lowest number wins.) CAS Latency is also the dividing line between cheap memory and better memory. Cheap memory modules ("Value" or "Budget" named ones) have slower timings, where the gaming and enterprise memory are quicker at a higher price.
What I'd go with: 8GB is the new normal. 16GB or 32GB is better if you can afford it, but I would not build a system with less than 8GB anymore. Don't worry too much about memory at the onset, this is something you can upgrade later.
Once I research and digest the above info and come up with specific hardware (what video card bus to have - and is that compatible with what I have, and which exact SSD and memory to get), the motherboard choice should be fairly clear. I'll go with Gigabyte just due to my history with them and pick the one that has the slots I need.
No more Seagate!... *sigh* now I have to come up with a new favorite "hard drive" manufacturer. My first PC with no moving parts except fans..
Like mentioning Anti-Virus providers in public discord, saying what brand you use in parts will always be divisive. There's just as many vocal haters of Seagate as there are Western Digital. If the hard drive doesn't fail in AT LEAST 5 years, you got your money's worth out of it, no matter what anyone says. Longer is better, of course.
What I'd go with: Pick two hard drives. You'll need a SSD hard disk for your operating system, but those trade speed for capacity. ($100 for an SSD gets you around 128GB or less, $100 for a platter Hard Disk is 2-4TB.) Then get a regular Desktop Hard Disk for room to grow. Put your operating system and one or two FAVORITE games (online ones) on the SSD to mitigate load times. Everything else (videos, music, single player games, etc.) on the big drive, where patience is a virtue.
Good luck in your adventure!
