|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
^ You want to use a Xeon server processor? you sure you aren't talking about the i5 or i3?
i7-3770 is ridiculously expensive. You could probably get by on a lot less...
what is your stream resolution? what kind of settings are you okay with? what is your internet upload (well i dont know if that matters, if you have the money to buy a 3770 i dont think it'd be a second thought to upgrade but maybe you might not be able to upgrade in your area...)?
I stream 720p on an athlon ii x4 3.4ghz on 1750/1750 vbv/buffer. Here's a sample vod of it:
http://www.twitch.tv/belialtester88/b/337264579
That said, I'm aware that my system is probably the very limit of what could stream and play sc2, so I'd recommend an older generation intel (pentium g860) or an i3. The i5 2500k or 2600k is really the pinnacle of awesomeness for sc2 but it really depends on your budget. there's just no reason to go for an i7 for gaming, that's like getting a lamborghini to race at stop lights. just my opinion...
I bought a Phenom 955 for $31. Unfortunately it's a c2 revision, and at stock it's just the same as my unlocked, overclocked athlon ii x4 3.41ghz... but with my 7 case fans and 212+ hsf, i could probably go far in overclocking this, and at 3.6+ ghz thats a major improvement i think. or one at least worth $31. worst case scenario i could sell thsi chip for $60 easily.
guess no one else wanted to stay up until 5am to bid on this thing.
|
I read that the E3-1230/40 is really price worthy for desktop users using multitasking heavy programs. The E3-1230V2 is a lot less than an i7, is slower but has the same hyperthread (8). While the i5 is probably the better choice when it comes to playing SC2 alone I was thinking the 1230/40 could be better when it comes to streaming as well. E3-1230V2 cost the same as i5 3570, the 1240 is cheaper than i7 but more expensive than i5 3570.
I wish to stream at the best possible quality, at the maximum price of the i7 3770. If the E3-1230/40 does the job at the slighty better price compared to the i7, I'd ofc choose the Xeon one and save some money.
|
If you're not overclocking, as you say, the Xeon E3 V2 (1230 and above) are pretty much just like Core i7, if you use them on a normal consumer motherboard.
Some motherboards may not officially support these processors, though they should work. AFAIK, the whole AsRock lineup includes those Xeons in the supported CPU list, so those are probably safe choices.
Difference between E3-1230 V2 and E3-1240 V2 is just 200 100 MHz, maybe not worth it. What's the price difference?
|
Xeon E3-1230 V2 - 1990 SEK ($297)
Xeon E3-1240 V2 - 2240 SEK ($334)
i7 3770 - 2490 SEK ($372)
I'm thinking about picking either the 1230 or just go with the 3770 if it's much better
Edit: Yeah, I am not going to overclock
|
No, the i7-3770 is the same chip (same architecture, same performance, same die I think), just with slightly different configuration.
Core i7-3770: 4 Ivy Bridge cores, 8MB L3, 3.4-3.9 GHz, hyperthreading, integrated HD 4000 graphics (Quick Sync too, etc.), no ECC memory support, instructions through AVX, VT-d, VT-x, vPro
Xeon E3-1240V2: 4 Ivy Bridge cores, 8MB L3, 3.4-3.8 GHz, hyperthreading, no integrated graphics, ECC memory support, instructions through AVX, VT-d, VT-x, vPro
Xeon E3-1230V2: 4 Ivy Bridge cores, 8MB L3, 3.3-3.7 GHz, hyperthreading, no integrated graphics, ECC memory support, instructions through AVX, VT-d, VT-x, vPro
At those prices, I would choose E3-1230V2. It is slower, but not by much at all. The difference is just in the clock speed.
|
On November 02 2012 12:48 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:40 Medrea wrote:
The only issue with that is that dual core games will also take 2 hyperthreads away. Lots of people think hyperthread means you get two cores for gaming and 2 cores for streaming and 4 hyperthreads for streaming when in actuality its 2 hyperthreads.
So generally speaking benchmarks arent going to take this into account. Game streaming is a bit of a special monster. No doubt hyperthreading is a boon but i think it does half as well as benchmarks say it does. Are you talking about thrashing or otherwise, concurrency issues, for cores trying to run a game and encoding simultaneously? I'm not sure I agree with your bookkeeping; it may not be as good as a pure encoding benchmark would imply, but I wouldn't interpret it the way you do either. Then again, I don't think that it's much of a useful model to think of the scheduling in terms of hyperthreads or vitual cores, though that seems to be the way most people discuss it (that's also the model that comes naturally from looking at what Task Manager displays). It's kind of an awkward topic, so I don't blame anybody for using any model; I'm not sure what to say either. Anyway, I'm not sure about the performance, and I don't think real data is out there either. Anybody with a i3 or i7 want to run a test for us?
A hyperthreaded core is still just a core that is allowed to run two instructions concurrently granted the instructions are small enough to actually fit 2 at a time. To do this the core is run as if it were two cores. When a large word is encountered, as in double-precision floating-point format or quadruple-precision floating-point format (or maybe it was just quad and extended precision), the hyper thread virtual core is set to park.
There are also times where the processor has to park its hyperthread even if two instructions are set to run two at a time as well since core parking is something that needs to happen anyway. Which is why high quality parts are chosen to be hyperthreaded, hence the added cost.
I can tell you my i3-2100 demonstrates this while gaming and doing a lot of other things. You can see in the task manager the hyperthread is almost completely flatlined on at least one core. Its not actually flatlined since the resolution of the graph isn't that advanced, but its clear its not running as if it was its own core.
And that is, if I'm not way off base, why hyperthreaded doesnt deliver double performance like it sorta looks like it should. It's also why hyperthreaded processors look like octo and quad cores. Rather than any sort of under the hood implementation.
I'm gonna take a stab at how this normally looks using a 16 width register. Maybe you can correct me.
Core without Hyperthread
+ Show Spoiler +
x = process 1 width 8
z = process 2 width 10
0 = no operand (not the same as zero)
xxxxxxxx00000000
0xxxxxxxx0000000
00xxxxxxxx000000
000xxxxxxxx00000
0000xxxxxxxx0000
00000xxxxxxxx000
000000xxxxxxxx00
0000000xxxxxxxx0
Core appears maxed out.
or running 10:
zzzzzzzzzz000000
0zzzzzzzzzz00000
00zzzzzzzzzz0000
000zzzzzzzzzz000
0000zzzzzzzzzz00
00000zzzzzzzzzz0
000000zzzzzzzzzz
z000000zzzzzzzzz
Core appears maxed out.
Core with Hyperthread
+ Show Spoiler +
x = process 1 width 8
z = process 2 width 10
0 = no operand (not the same as zero)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
zzzzzzzzzz000000
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0zzzzzzzzzz00000
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
00zzzzzzzzzz0000
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
000zzzzzzzzzz000
If you had a perfect task manager graph it would tell you your hyperthread is being turned on and off rapidly (or it looks to be running at 50 percent). But the core is still maxed out.
If what we were doing needed 8 operations each to complete both our x and z processes, We would be done in 16 cycles with our non hyperthreaded processor, and 12 cycles in our hyperthreaded one, yielding a performance increase. The above is not a literal interpretation of whats going on since its way more complex than that.
Now I havent followed the evolution of hyperthreading since Netburst so Im sure Im missing a lot of different things. But thats my explanation as to why task manager looks like it does. Why we see the performance gains we do. Why I think a lot of capture tools sometimes have issues with hyperthreading (especially in the past). And why my bookkeeping was the way it was. I probably should have specified this in more detail. As to say the game permanently steals 2 hyperthreads away was not entirely as cut and dry as I was implying. The game only steals 2 hyperthreads away while it is currently being cycled. I think its also why Prime 95 destroys my i3 in heat (fully hyperthreaded) and why it doesnt even really dent my i5.
And I agree, we need real data. And for that we need a real benchmark that isn't just a benchmark for encoding, and then just a benchmark for gaming. But a benchmark for encoding while gaming at the same time. It would also help put AMD v Intel in its true light. Im certain there is processor interplay between the two types of processes and that Intel looks better than it actually does, for streamers only of course.
|
Well, maybe my own thinking is too simplistic as well.
On modern Intel architectures (but this is changing for Haswell), there are six execution ports, each tied to different execution resources like ALUs, load/store, etc. Forget about what the OS is reporting. Forget about the rest of the pipeline, except to realize that they're not keeping all the execution resources occupied all the time because of dependencies, cache misses, and so on. With hyperthreading, you can execute µops from the second thread sometimes in parallel on a couple of the spare ports maybe, sometimes when the first thread is stalled. This is going to happen to some extent, as long as there's a second thread to actually handle, and if the first thread isn't using all the resources all of the time that the second thread might want to use.
Maybe that's too much hand-waving and simplification on the front end and scheduling issues, but you should be seeing higher useful** execution resource utilization with hyperthreading, even if we're talking about handling a game and encoding together on the same core.
**not getting discarded in a branch misprediction
|
Yes I do demonstrate this idea in the second spoiler. HT does benefit even in both circumstances.
I was wrong to say gaming cuts your apparent hyperthreading benefits in half. What I should have said is that it cuts your hyperthreading benefits into some fraction of one half the full amount.
Im also obviously seriously boiling things way down because otherwise I could write a book (or a long pamphlet), but I'd like to keep it down to a long post. Without talking about branch prediction, code paths, instruction sets, and all that (namely because I cant without being wrong or having to go back and refresh myself). And also without dependencies (because encoding is not in its nature to be very serial).
My expression was that I think hyperthreading is perhaps not as beneficial to game streaming as benchmarks might lead us to think.
I think more constructive would be to find a way we can ascertain how much of an impact, in numbers, hyperthreading does make. While gaming of course.
|
you know, ive been putting together these mock builds because when i'm ready to purchase everything i want to have everything all set and ready to go. after putting a few builds together i've realized that i might as well just go for a high-end budget computer. i want a beastly computer but it doesn't need to have anythin unnecessary. if you guys could review this build for me now i'd appreciate it
i5-3570k @ $169.99 - MicroCenter
ASrock Z77 Extreme 4 @ 124.99 - MicroCenter
- $40.00 for motherboard & cpu combo.
Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus @ $25.99 - MicroCenter
- $15.00 Coupon
Cooler Master HAF 912 @ $59.99(Free Shipping) - Newegg
LITE-ON DVD Burner iHAS124-04 @ 17.99(Free Shipping) - Newegg
Patriot Intel Extreme Master, Limited Edition 8GB RAM @ $37.99(Free Shipping) - Newegg
Thermaltake Toughpower XT 575W (Possibility of using CrossFire) @ $54.99 + 5.99 Shipping
Samsung 830 Series 128 GB @ $99.99(Free Shipping) - Amazon
Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 7950 @ $299.99(Free Shipping) - Amazon
(2) Dell UltraSharp U2312HM @ $410.94(Free Shipping) - Amazon
Total: $805 (No RAM or Monitors included)
Total: $1215 (No RAM, Both Monitors)
And I think I'm just going to pirate Windows 7. Already have it burned on a cd and i can't see a good reason to spend $100 on that or Windows 8.
Some of my own thoughts: I have 2 sticks of Team Elite RAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313123) and was curious if I should invest another $40 in RAM or if these are good enough to rock with, what would you do?
I don't want a cheap feel to the computer but i'm leaning away from an aesthetically pleasing case and more toward a more generic or plain "it's what's on the inside that matters"
if i can save money here what should I do? I think it's a pretty good high-end budget PC but i'll let you guys, the pros, decide.
|
You can't pirate Windows 7 thats illegal. + Show Spoiler +you can totally pirate windows 7
Your current RAM is fine honestly.
You dont need the CAPSTONE 650W, you can just get the 450W CAPSTONE for less money if you want.
|
On November 03 2012 05:14 Medrea wrote:You can't pirate Windows 7 thats illegal. + Show Spoiler +you can totally pirate windows 7 Your current RAM is fine honestly. You dont need the CAPSTONE 650W, you can just get the 450W CAPSTONE for less money if you want.
yeah, i went 650 in case i ever crossfire. shoulda said that lol. thanks :D
|
As long as you don't overclock the GPUs (assuming two 7950s) a whole lot and run unrealistic loads on everything regularly, you can just get the Thermaltake Toughpower XT 575W for $35 less:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153125
It's a high-end-ish power supply, based on CWT DSG (same as old Corsair HX750 and HX850, which were top in their day, though the Corsair versions are slightly souped-up). Efficiency is only a couple points below the Capstone, for what that's worth. It's also modular, which I guess is dandy and all if you're looking above 500W, aren't using many drives, and aren't even using the second graphics card (yet).
|
On November 03 2012 05:58 Myrmidon wrote:As long as you don't overclock the GPUs (assuming two 7950s) a whole lot and run unrealistic loads on everything regularly, you can just get the Thermaltake Toughpower XT 575W for $35 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153125It's a high-end-ish power supply, based on CWT DSG (same as old Corsair HX750 and HX850, which were top in their day, though the Corsair versions are slightly souped-up). Efficiency is only a couple points below the Capstone, for what that's worth. It's also modular, which I guess is dandy and all if you're looking above 500W, aren't using many drives, and aren't even using the second graphics card (yet).
sweet thanks! Yeah, even when i get the crossfire if i ever even do i will not be overclocking them or anything most likely.
so my last question to you would be
wait for black friday cyber monday or go for it now
|
Hello guys. I'm looking to build a new comp and just taking suggestions on what I should build. I don't really have a strict budget, but I'm looking to keep it around $2k if possible. I'm not looking to really overclock anything immediately, but would love to have the option to overclock in the future. I already have a mid-ATX case that I will link on the bottom that I got during a shell shocker deal, but I am considering returning the case and getting a more heavy duty ATX case(Something along the lines of HAF X). Mainly for the case, I thinking of getting something that sufficient airflow with just fans(although I would also love to have the option to upgrade to liquid cooling when I ever have a chance to overclock). Other needs would be some type of wifi as I would like to reduce as many lines as possible. Processor I would like to stick with intel and considering either an i5 or i7. The only heavy lifting my desktop would be doing is some gaming;however, I would like to get max settings on sc2 as well as pair up the desktop with a 120Hz monitor at some point. GPUwise i would like to stick with nvidia(usually evga). I am pretty sure I want to just have one main video card, but I would also like the option to maybe SLI in the future. Well here is the link of the case I have currently unopened,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811112239
Thank you guys in advance =) !
*EDIT*
I am also thinking of waiting for black friday to buy my parts, but I feel like the parts I'm probably aiming for are not going to be on sale during black friday =/
|
e only heavy lifting my desktop would be doing is some gaming;however, I would like to get max settings on sc2 as well as pair up the desktop with a 120Hz monitor at some point. GPUwise i would like to stick with nvidia(usually evga). I am pretty sure I want to just have one main video card, but I would also like the option to maybe SLI in the future. Well here is the link of the case I have currently unopened,
Starcraft is an old game, it's no battlefield 3 or black ops 2.
There's no reason to get an i7, even for gaming. It's a professional's processor.
An i5 would really be top of the line stuff, like the absolute top tier for starcraft 2. It's really more power than necessary but it's obviously an improvement over anything else, whereas i7 is just unappreciated.
If all you plan to do is play starcraft though, I'd recommend something like a pentium g860 on the low end (which still is better than anything amd in terms of sc2 performance), to an i3 or i5.
Do you plan to stream? What resolution do you plan to play on? The difference in a 720 and a 1080 build can be hundreds of dollars.
How important is overclocking to you? K edition is kind of unnecessary (overclocking through fsb is much better than multiplier overclocking anyways), but you will need a better motherboard if you plan to overclock.
I mean I can stream 720p sc2 on 60fps at a competitive level on a system that cost $300 (i just won a phenom ii x4 for $30 on ebay so technically its a $250 system now, maybe even $200 given price drops). Sc2 is not really that demanding.
If you want to play battlefield 3, call of duty black ops, all that sort of stuff, then you might want an i5, high end gpu, etc. If you want to play starcraft 2, you really dont need much. What resolution you plan to play at, if you plan to stream... that's really the biggest deals. You can make a system that plays ultra 720 for $300 easily, for 500-600 you could have forced AA and all those ridiculous settings on 1080.
edit: when i talk about prices im not including monitor, keyboard, mouse, OS, just to be clear. im just talking about the pc itself, since i assume you and most people have monitor,keyboard, mouse,os already.
|
FSB does not exist anymore.
A K variant processor is necessary for overclocking. Okay, if you want to be a wimp about overclocking - you can get a non-K variant and increase the multiplier by 4 and increase the base clock by like 3 to increase the turbo by ~500MHz. Oh wait... a Pentium doesn't even have Turbo so the most you could hope for is like maybe 200MHz on air.
|
i stand corrected. god that sucks.
|
So the fractal design core 1000 page says I can mount 2 x3.5" HDDs or 3x2.5" drives. I'm doing an HDD and an SSD. OBviously the 3.5 will fit, do I need an adapter for the SSD (Getting a Crucial M4) to make it fit or anything?
|
No you don't need an adapter.
|
5930 Posts
Don't even need an adapter, you can probably double-side sticky tape the SSD somewhere inside the chassis. No moving parts and all that.
On November 03 2012 14:40 Belial88 wrote:
i stand corrected. god that sucks.
Its actually the best thing to happen to overclocking. You literally change the multiplier and you've got your overclock. If its not stable, decrease the multiplier or up the core voltage. Piss easy and also has eliminated the purpose of fast RAM.
Overclocking is kind of a waste these days. This isn't the age where you could physically modify CPU/GPUs or overclock them so heavily that they beat products better than them. All it is is just a stop-gap so you can delay obsolesce and system performance has pretty much hit a brick wall anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
