@simsical-musical The 1650 is somewhere around 30% faster in gaming than the 1050 ti, although that depends a lot on the game involved. The 7700K is a few percentage points faster than the 3600, and the 11600KF is significantly faster, but that's not nearly as relevant: for comparison's sake, a 7700K can drive a 2080 ti without issues.
Both graphics cards support Reshade, but if you're planning to overload your game with Reshade filters and custom content, you may want the faster graphics right away. While the 1650 is more than fast enough to maintain 60 fps (and then some) on ultra settings under normal circumstances, its margin isn't so high that it can also absorb a heavy load on top of the game.
If you want to get an idea of what you're looking at, try playing without Reshade and with zero cc, then add both back, and compare framerates. I can't give you an accurate picture because a lot of this depends on what kind of cc you have, and Reshade's impact can vary depending on which features you use. But if the fps hit from adding Reshade and cc is around 10%, the 1650 should still be fine. If it's around 30%... well, the 1650 would still be fine overall, but you'll probably notice some fps drops too.
I also want to be clear that Sims 4 will slow down from time to time on even the most powerful hardware. This can't be helped: it seems to be something about the game engine and what it needs to process. I've seen slowdowns where my CPU and GPU were nowhere near maxed out on any statistic, and I've heard the same from enough other people, and seen the benchmark tests in some cases, to know it's not about my machine.
Having said that, the faster the card, the more of a buffer you have for the fps drops, up to a point. The speed of the processor can also help resolve some types of slowdowns, but it won't eliminate them completely either. So there's an argument to be made for both builds.
In the end, this may all be moot, of course, if the second Cyberpower option doesn't come back into stock. (On that note, you could contact the company and ask; maybe they'll let you know whether they plan to bring it back any time soon.) If the first one is the only option, I think you'd be happy with its performance overall, even if it's not perfect 100% of the time. It should certainly outperform the 7700K/1050 ti by an obvious margin, so if that's your standard, you should be fine.
@puzzlezaddictOkay, thank you so so much for your help, I think I’ll probably go with the $900 option! One last ask though... any recommendations for a monitor off Amazon? One of the complaints I have about my current laptop is that the screen quality is such a drop from Apple screens and it made anything look a bit fuzzy, not just the game. So I'm just looking for a decent sized monitor that probably has 144 fps and good brightness (that's a problem too on my current one) and easy for a beginner to set up and use...
@simsical-musical How large a monitor do you want, and what resolution? I personally would get a QHD (2560x1440) panel in the 25-32" range, rather than 1920x1080, but a lot of people are fine with the lower resolution. Below 25", virtually all monitors are 1080p, and the resolution looks fine at that size.
Monitors are extremely easy to set up initially: you really just need to know how to use a screwdriver to mount a stand. Calibration is another matter, but you can leave that until later if you want, or just play with it and see what happens.
@simsical-musical I guess then the question becomes how much you want to spend, and which features are worth a premium price tag. Since you don't want blurriness and are looking at around 27", I don't think you'd want a 1080p monitor, especially if your current laptop screen is already a bit fuzzy. A 4K monitor would look the best, but the price of a 4K 144 Hz screen is still incredibly high.
Do you really need 144 Hz, or would 75 be okay? The price difference is significant, for example these are the two cheapest good screens with a 2560x1440 resolution and an IPS panel (the highest color quality):
https://www.amazon.com/LG-27QN600-B-FreeSync-Virtually-Borderless/dp/B089NZCLHW
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XV272U-Pbmiiprzx-Technology-DisplayHDR400/dp/B07MQBPMJ2
Their typical brightness is 350 nits, significantly higher than the 300-nit level to be considered decently bright. In contrast, current Mac laptops have a brightness of 500 nits, but you're not likely to find that in a standalone monitor until you get into the professional-grade options. The LG has a 75 Hz refresh rate; a lot of people can't tell the difference between that and 144 Hz. But if you can, maybe the extra cost is worth it to you.
If you do want a higher refresh rate, a compromise would be to get a VA panel. Their color range is good, but not as good as IPS models, and their brightness is typically in the 250 nits range. A few examples:
https://www.amazon.com/ViewSonic-VX2768-2KPC-MHD-Monitor-FreeSync-Premium/dp/B08D5N4R1D
https://www.amazon.com/MSI-Non-Glare-Resolution-Optix-MAG27CQ/dp/B079NGSWRL
https://www.amazon.com/GNV27DB-2560x1440p-Curvature-G-Sync-Ready-Zero-Tolerance/dp/B084CYSSBG
(third party seller)
These are certainly not all the available models, just the cheapest good ones I could find on Amazon. If you want to see more from one of these categories, let me know. And if you're open to shopping elsewhere as well, you might have more options or slightly better prices.
@simsical-musical I checked a few other sites and didn't find much that was clearly better, or cheaper, than the ones on Amazon. (There were a lot of the same options, of course.) But there are a few options worth mentioning.
This one is a bit smaller, still IPS with the same resolution, in case you decide 27" is a bit too large:
This one is a gaming monitor with a high refresh rate and brightness that's also from a reputable company. It's a bit more expensive than the 144 Hz Acer, and I don't think it's necessarily better, but no harm in taking a look.
This one is a professional-level display, not necessarily any better for gaming but worth considering anyway. Its refresh rate is 75 Hz.
https://www.newegg.com/asus-pa278qv-27-wqhd/p/N82E16824281062?Item=N82E16824281062
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1562006-REG/asus_pa278qv_27_wqhd_ips.html
I'm actually a bit surprised by the low variety, at least in terms of good options, but I guess a lot of people now working from home realized they needed to invest in something higher quality.
@puzzlezaddictIf I'm looking at smaller options on Amazon, are these good ones or no?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JGYM5H6/?coliid=I3Q171BE6F4DSU&colid=TKK0JX3AXVEU&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GG8RVXP/?coliid=I3JX9B4VJ3O7PK&colid=TKK0JX3AXVEU&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B088VMY23M/?coliid=I2BU7GYCDZ49LX&colid=TKK0JX3AXVEU&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Update: I'm especially looking at the curved Sceptre one...
@simsical-musical The first one has a TN panel (as opposed to IPS or VA), the lowest quality in terms of color and viewing angles. The second has a VA panel, which is fine but still not as good as IPS. Additionally, Sceptre is not a brand I would completely trust. Apparently it gets panels that higher-end companies reject for whatever reason, so you could get good quality or not, depending on how lucky you are.
If your priority is a high refresh rate, there really aren't any good options, at least as far as I can see, for under $200. The cheaper ones usually have TN panels, which would be a shock to the system coming from a Mac.
I did see these two at Best Buy, if you want more options:
Please keep in mind though that if you get the computer with the GTX 1650, you're not going to get anywhere near 144 fps unless you turn down the graphics settings. Even a 1660 ti doesn't maintain 144 fps in 1080p, so with a 1650, you might not get any benefit above a 75 Hz monitor. Of course, you might want that monitor for the future, but that's a different question.
Additionally, before you buy a 1080p monitor, please find one you can physically look at in the size you prefer. (If you're comfortable going to a store, Best Buy usually has a variety of monitors hooked up and playing videos on a loop.) Your laptop screen is likely 1080p, but that's a lot more pixels per inch when the screen is so small. Even a 27" 2560x1440 monitor looks a tiny bit grainy to me, although I don't notice it unless I'm paying attention. The point is, you don't want to spend $200 on a monitor that won't look good to you.
Okay, so should I be looking for options with 75hz... I'm not sure I understand the bit at the end, though. If I'm looking for a smaller monitor, will I be sacrificing quality?
@simsical-musical The resolution is literally the number of pixels in the monitor. The larger a screen those pixels are spread out over, the grainier the monitor will look. That doesn't mean that a 24" 1920x1080 monitor will look terrible, but you might find it's too grainy for your taste. The point is, before you spend all that money, see for yourself.
Monitors that run at 75 Hz are significantly cheaper, even when you want an IPS monitor. If you want a smaller 1080p screen, I can probably find good options in the $120 range. If you want a 2560x1440 resolution, the first option I mentioned when you originally asked is a good choice, and I can try to find more as well. Let me know either way.
The I9 uses a FCLGA1151 socket while the B560M-A AC M-ATX Motherboard has an LGA1200 socket so if that was the one you ended up getting then you will need to get another MB for the I9.
That part @puzzlezaddict will be better at answering.
@simsical-musical The most important thing here is to get your temperatures under control. The more powerful processor options your motherboard supports produce more heat than the one I believe you currently have, so swapping out the CPU would only exacerbate the problem.
Unless. How comfortable are you with taking off the CPU cooler and examining it? It's possible that the cooler isn't mounted properly, or that the thermal paste wasn't applied properly, or even that the shape of the piece that contacts the processor's heat spreader isn't perfectly flat, which would make it less efficient. All of these are entirely fixable and for a much lower cost than a better CPU.
First though, please let me know what kind of temperatures you're seeing. Download hwinfo from here:
https://www.hwinfo.com/download/
You don't need to install anything if you don't want to; just choose the Portable version, unzip it, and launch it from Downloads or wherever you want. (If you would like to install, be sure to click the button for hwinfo itself and not for lansweeper.) Restart your computer, and don't open any other apps. Launch hwinfo, choose "sensors only," and click the icon that's a sheet of paper with a + sign to start logging. Save the file to your desktop for easy access later.
Wait five minutes, open Origin, launch Sims 4 and play for 20 minutes or until your computer crashes. Click the same button to end logging, or if your computer shut down, the log should be intact to that point. You can upload it to a third-party free filehosting site and link it here. Please leave it in .csv format, or if you use OneDrive to share, please compress it in .zip format instead.
Next, please remove the side panel of your case, the one that gives you access to the hardware, and repeat the test. This will show whether the issue is mostly airflow, which might be fixable with more fans; or more about the CPU cooler not doing its job.
