|
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. |
On December 11 2012 23:21 Molinder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 23:11 Alryk wrote:On December 11 2012 23:08 Molinder wrote:On December 11 2012 22:38 Rachnar wrote:On December 11 2012 19:39 Molinder wrote:
Hello,
I want to upgrade my CPU in order to play AND stream SC2 with decent stream quality (480p or a bit higher would be enough). If possible I'd like to play on medium settings, if not then low settings to stream would be okay. Right now I have an Athlon X2 2.51GHz CPU which makes my PC lag a lot at late game situations, with an ATI Radeon 3870 which I will upgrade when i can save more money.
I'm not very confident about choosing by myself, so could you could recommend me a CPU + motherboard for approximately 170-180 euros? Should I go for an i3 3220 or would a similar AMD Quad core perform better? Maybe the Phenom ll 965 x4?
Thanks in advance recommended : You can either switch to intel, which will cost you about 250€ for an i5-3450, MSI b75ma-p45 and 4gb RAM (yours wouldn't be compatible) But you can also stick to AMD since your on a low budget and get a phenom II x4 955 (which should be compatible with your motherboard) for around 85€ depending on your motherboard, you could get a heatsink and OC it a bit too for better performance (~25€) This isn't that recommended because it is not as good an upgrade as switchong to intel would be, but it would definitly still be one, and you'll be able to stream 720p The i3 is dualcore with HT, so not good for streaming and gaming at the same time Thanks for your response. My current motherboard isn't compatible with that CPU, it's quite old. I heard i3 3220 can easily move SC2 but I'm not sure how would it perform while streaming. It can do Starcraft pretty decently, but as he said it's a dual core with hyperthreading, so it won't be that great for streaming (i.e. don't stream with it). Ok, so with that budget should I go for the 965? Or is there a better option?
You can probably have a decent 720P stream with a 965 if you overclock it, and Intel's upgrade path is kind of hamstrung since LGA 1150 comes out, so a Phenom would be good. But if you want to delay streaming for a bit, Haswell comes out in the next six months (I think?) and you'd probably manage a better quality game and better quality stream with Haswell (saving up money for it in the process). CPU performance isn't it's main initiative but it's bound to go up.
|
For that budget, no
i'd advise waiting to have enough for an i5, trust me, it will be MUCH more enjoyable
edit : read above :p
|
On December 11 2012 14:33 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 10:24 MisterFred wrote:First of all, kudos for actually posting something short. That is good. Second, to quote the article you linked: However, for the power consumption tests we re-enable everything in order to get a real-world power draw. The power draw is measured via a power meter at the wall, so the numbers below are of total system power draw from the mains, not the power consumption of a CPU itself. Measuring the power draw of any individual component in a PC is tricky to impossible to acheive. Meaning, of course, that such a measurement is not very useful for determining the power use, or heat output, of a CPU. You read the article wrong. It is not saying an i5-3570k reaches above 150w total power draw easily. It is saying an i5-3570k + mobo + RAM + case fans + HDD + GTX 590 + Power Supply inefficiency easily surpasses 150w total power draw. You are correct, but the total system draw is going to be under 100w.
A GTX 590 alone will draw more than that.
|
^ Not when idle, and I think your referring to manufacturer recommendations, which are based off the premise everyone has a shitty PSU. Or maybe you saw a power draw graph, either way, it won't be drawing much on idle. All the rest of the components would be insigificant on power draw on idle, as well.
|
On December 11 2012 19:39 Molinder wrote:
Hello,
I want to upgrade my CPU in order to play AND stream SC2 with decent stream quality (480p or a bit higher would be enough). If possible I'd like to play on medium settings, if not then low settings to stream would be okay. Right now I have an Athlon X2 2.51GHz CPU which makes my PC lag a lot at late game situations, with an ATI Radeon 3870 which I will upgrade when i can save more money.
I'm not very confident about choosing by myself, so could you could recommend me a CPU + motherboard for approximately 170-180 euros? Should I go for an i3 3220 or would a similar AMD Quad core perform better? Maybe the Phenom ll 965 x4?
Thanks in advance
You can actually stream very well on AM3 quads, I had both an Athlon ii x4 3.4ghz and Phenom ii x4 3.8ghz and they both stream like champions on 720p@45fps. The Athlon was pushing high CPU utilization on all cores during streaming, but it was still very smooth and I'm talking 20-25fps minimum in the biggest of 1v1 battles for just a second, ie at the very worst I could still micro (obviously it's no i5).
Could you tell us what model CPU , Motherboard, and RAM you have? Your motherboard needs a special BIOS in order to support AM3 phenom ii x4's, otherwise your choices are even further limited. I'm assuming your on AM2 socket, but please let us know if your on am2+ or am3.
A Phenom ii x4 would be a significant upgrade for you, for cheap. I would strongly recommend you upgrade to a Phenom ii x4 given your budget, and desire to stream. Any quadcore am3 chip will stream 720@45+ fps just fine. The i5 is obviously the best, but if you simply can't spend more than $200.... then a $50-80 Phenom would be a significant step up and allow you to stream HD.
Your 3870 should be able to play on at least high graphics on 720. It'd help to know your resolution and what graphics settings you prefer to play on (low/medium/high/ultra/ultra with AA and-or must absolutely be the top top graphics settings), but your GPU should be fine for SC2 unless you insisted on bleeding edge. Overclock the 3870 for appreciable increase in performance, it should overclock very well and rather easily.
Do you know how to overclock? Overclocking changes the dynamics a lot as well. If you can, an i5 really is the best to go for, but if you can't afford it, any AMD quadcore will stream 720HD on 30-60fps.
Be aware that using an AM2 motherboard and AM3 processor will be a bit gimped.
|
On December 12 2012 04:27 Belial88 wrote:
^ Not when idle, and I think your referring to manufacturer recommendations, which are based off the premise everyone has a shitty PSU. Or maybe you saw a power draw graph, either way, it won't be drawing much on idle. All the rest of the components would be insigificant on power draw on idle, as well.
A GTX 590 draws 50 watts at idle...
|
And is the rest of the system going to be drawing more than 50w?
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/7
So according to this link, with ~100w in system, your still way over 150w, especially with SB.
Then i7's, phenoms, fx, are wayyyyy over 150w. ib-i5 is one of the few chips that comes even close to 150w, but they run way hotter than sb so I don't think a 150w thermal plate is accurate for one of the hottest running i5 per watt. Power consumption is just part of the heat, you also have to figure die size, and the 3570k is a smaller die. A big ass thermal plate isn't going to have heat concentrated as much as a CPU, whos really only dispering heat off the die in the middle of the IHS, not the entire IHS.
|
Yes, the rest of their system is going to be drawing way more than 50W. GTX 590 itself draws... well 48W at idle here, measured from the card:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_590/21.html
They're using higher-end (more power hungry) motherboards, with a power supply maybe only 86-88% efficient in the range of interest, so about 12-14% of every figure there is lost in the power supply itself.
IVB i7 should have a hard time reaching 150W without extreme cooling too, definitely nowhere near there on a 24/7 overclock. You generally don't get 2-2.5x power consumption on what people would call normal overclocking.
i5-3570k at 5 GHz is really not realistic. That's too high for i5-2500k too, but less of a stretch there.
Quoting again a second time...
On December 09 2012 01:26 Myrmidon wrote:Here is some approximate CPU load consumption (i5-2500 @ 62.2W with 95W TDP listed, 106.8W from the wall for the system). Ivy Bridge clearly draws less power, as seen here and here at least by system power consumption. As for scaling under overclocking, see here, keeping in mind that 45W or so is lost in places other than the CPU for the stock i5-2500k, with the number scaling up with load because the power supply and CPU VRMs consume more power as the processor takes more.
(xbitlabs with some 85-88% efficient or so PSU under load, though less than that at the idle draws)
|
On December 12 2012 05:16 Belial88 wrote:And is the rest of the system going to be drawing more than 50w? http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/7So according to this link, with ~100w in system, your still way over 150w, especially with SB. Then i7's, phenoms, fx, are wayyyyy over 150w. ib-i5 is one of the few chips that comes even close to 150w, but they run way hotter than sb so I don't think a 150w thermal plate is accurate for one of the hottest running i5 per watt. Power consumption is just part of the heat, you also have to figure die size, and the 3570k is a smaller die. A big ass thermal plate isn't going to have heat concentrated as much as a CPU, whos really only dispering heat off the die in the middle of the IHS, not the entire IHS.
+ Show Spoiler +Uh, considering the power supply will account for 40W alone? Anandtech draws 150W at load, 200 W on a 4.6 Ghz overclock (with higher voltages than is actually needed as has been proven. They measure Ivy bridge at 80 W Idle (the system). That's a 120W increase, and even if you attribute it 100% to the CPU, seeing as IVB idles at < 10W, you're STILL not hitting 150W. Is Anandtech unreliable, or how should I interpret this? SO: They use a 5870 - 20W Idle They don't specify power supply, (afaik) so I'm going to be as conservative as possible, and make it 10% - 20 Watts Ram is at least 10 Watts, and probably more. You are already at 50 watts, and that's with me being 1) conservative and 2) ignoring the rest of the parts. Again, IVB takes about 10W or less at Idle, so the rest of the system is using at least 70 Watts of power to start with, and the only place it can go is up.
See Myrmidon's post.
|
On December 12 2012 04:38 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 19:39 Molinder wrote:
Hello,
I want to upgrade my CPU in order to play AND stream SC2 with decent stream quality (480p or a bit higher would be enough). If possible I'd like to play on medium settings, if not then low settings to stream would be okay. Right now I have an Athlon X2 2.51GHz CPU which makes my PC lag a lot at late game situations, with an ATI Radeon 3870 which I will upgrade when i can save more money.
I'm not very confident about choosing by myself, so could you could recommend me a CPU + motherboard for approximately 170-180 euros? Should I go for an i3 3220 or would a similar AMD Quad core perform better? Maybe the Phenom ll 965 x4?
Thanks in advance You can actually stream very well on AM3 quads, I had both an Athlon ii x4 3.4ghz and Phenom ii x4 3.8ghz and they both stream like champions on 720p@45fps. The Athlon was pushing high CPU utilization on all cores during streaming, but it was still very smooth and I'm talking 20-25fps minimum in the biggest of 1v1 battles for just a second, ie at the very worst I could still micro (obviously it's no i5). Could you tell us what model CPU , Motherboard, and RAM you have? Your motherboard needs a special BIOS in order to support AM3 phenom ii x4's, otherwise your choices are even further limited. I'm assuming your on AM2 socket, but please let us know if your on am2+ or am3. A Phenom ii x4 would be a significant upgrade for you, for cheap. I would strongly recommend you upgrade to a Phenom ii x4 given your budget, and desire to stream. Any quadcore am3 chip will stream 720@45+ fps just fine. The i5 is obviously the best, but if you simply can't spend more than $200.... then a $50-80 Phenom would be a significant step up and allow you to stream HD. Your 3870 should be able to play on at least high graphics on 720. It'd help to know your resolution and what graphics settings you prefer to play on (low/medium/high/ultra/ultra with AA and-or must absolutely be the top top graphics settings), but your GPU should be fine for SC2 unless you insisted on bleeding edge. Overclock the 3870 for appreciable increase in performance, it should overclock very well and rather easily. Do you know how to overclock? Overclocking changes the dynamics a lot as well. If you can, an i5 really is the best to go for, but if you can't afford it, any AMD quadcore will stream 720HD on 30-60fps. Be aware that using an AM2 motherboard and AM3 processor will be a bit gimped.
First of all many thanks for the complete answer. My current setup is:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+ 2.51GHz
Asus M2N SLI AM2+
2Gb DDR2 memory (saved money to upgrade it after changing motherboard)
ATI Radeon HD 3870 512Mb
My max resolution is 1680x1050 but I usually play on 1024x768 to reduce lag, so I don't really care if I'll need to play with a medium resolution. Also I normally play on low settings, if I could I'd like to play on medium but I won't have problems if I have to play on low.
I have zero experience with overclock.
|
On December 12 2012 06:16 Molinder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:38 Belial88 wrote:On December 11 2012 19:39 Molinder wrote:
Hello,
I want to upgrade my CPU in order to play AND stream SC2 with decent stream quality (480p or a bit higher would be enough). If possible I'd like to play on medium settings, if not then low settings to stream would be okay. Right now I have an Athlon X2 2.51GHz CPU which makes my PC lag a lot at late game situations, with an ATI Radeon 3870 which I will upgrade when i can save more money.
I'm not very confident about choosing by myself, so could you could recommend me a CPU + motherboard for approximately 170-180 euros? Should I go for an i3 3220 or would a similar AMD Quad core perform better? Maybe the Phenom ll 965 x4?
Thanks in advance You can actually stream very well on AM3 quads, I had both an Athlon ii x4 3.4ghz and Phenom ii x4 3.8ghz and they both stream like champions on 720p@45fps. The Athlon was pushing high CPU utilization on all cores during streaming, but it was still very smooth and I'm talking 20-25fps minimum in the biggest of 1v1 battles for just a second, ie at the very worst I could still micro (obviously it's no i5). Could you tell us what model CPU , Motherboard, and RAM you have? Your motherboard needs a special BIOS in order to support AM3 phenom ii x4's, otherwise your choices are even further limited. I'm assuming your on AM2 socket, but please let us know if your on am2+ or am3. A Phenom ii x4 would be a significant upgrade for you, for cheap. I would strongly recommend you upgrade to a Phenom ii x4 given your budget, and desire to stream. Any quadcore am3 chip will stream 720@45+ fps just fine. The i5 is obviously the best, but if you simply can't spend more than $200.... then a $50-80 Phenom would be a significant step up and allow you to stream HD. Your 3870 should be able to play on at least high graphics on 720. It'd help to know your resolution and what graphics settings you prefer to play on (low/medium/high/ultra/ultra with AA and-or must absolutely be the top top graphics settings), but your GPU should be fine for SC2 unless you insisted on bleeding edge. Overclock the 3870 for appreciable increase in performance, it should overclock very well and rather easily. Do you know how to overclock? Overclocking changes the dynamics a lot as well. If you can, an i5 really is the best to go for, but if you can't afford it, any AMD quadcore will stream 720HD on 30-60fps. Be aware that using an AM2 motherboard and AM3 processor will be a bit gimped. First of all many thanks for the complete answer. My current setup is: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+ 2.51GHz Asus M2N SLI AM2+ 2Gb DDR2 memory (saved money to upgrade it after changing motherboard) ATI Radeon HD 3870 512Mb My max resolution is 1680x1050 but I usually play on 1024x768 to reduce lag, so I don't really care if I'll need to play with a medium resolution. Also I normally play on low settings, if I could I'd like to play on medium but I won't have problems if I have to play on low. I have zero experience with overclock.
Well he essentially said what we did (albeit more detailed, but not necessarily more complete)... you CAN stream on a Phenom, but saving and waiting for six months will give you a much more enjoyable, and higher quality, stream.
You would definitely need to overclock your Phenom to stream/play SC2 imo. Late game, you'll have dips into the 20s or worse on anything above low CPU settings (the effects essentially) and just from the sheer number of units. For reference, an i3 3220 drops down to about 20fps on med effects in a late PvZ engagement with mothership/BL/infestor/storm/eggs etc. (source: me testing w/ fraps). And an i3 will beat a Phenom clock for clock, so you'd definitely need to be over 3.3, i.e. overclock. And if he says an AM2/AM3 processor would be gimped, I guess performance would be worse than that, exacerbating the problem a bit more (he can prob give more description here)
Pretty much the one thing he did also bring up as well that's important is the BIOS update, you'd need that I think. And you probably need a RAM upgrade as well; I don't think 2GB is enough to stream and play SC2, that's already cutting it close with just the game itself.
Essentially, if you're just -dying- to stream right now, get a Phenom, but it is generally a better choice to wait and buy an i5 when you have a little bit more money to spare. An i5 will also have more reserves than a Phenom when later games come out.
|
If you run Phenom II on an AM2+ board, you get a lower speed on the HyperTransport link between the CPU and northbridge than you would on AM3. Without checking benchmarks, I'd guess it wouldn't be so much of a big deal. Memory access is from the CPU straight to the RAM. Sure, slower speeds to the graphics cards and drives aren't a good thing, but you don't need a huge transfer rate to handle a single graphics card running a relatively graphics-undemanding game at lower resolutions.
|
On December 12 2012 05:39 Myrmidon wrote:Yes, the rest of their system is going to be drawing way more than 50W. GTX 590 itself draws... well 48W at idle here, measured from the card: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_590/21.htmlThey're using higher-end (more power hungry) motherboards, with a power supply maybe only 86-88% efficient in the range of interest, so about 12-14% of every figure there is lost in the power supply itself. IVB i7 should have a hard time reaching 150W without extreme cooling too, definitely nowhere near there on a 24/7 overclock. You generally don't get 2-2.5x power consumption on what people would call normal overclocking. i5-3570k at 5 GHz is really not realistic. That's too high for i5-2500k too, but less of a stretch there. Quoting again a second time... Show nested quote +On December 09 2012 01:26 Myrmidon wrote:Here is some approximate CPU load consumption (i5-2500 @ 62.2W with 95W TDP listed, 106.8W from the wall for the system). Ivy Bridge clearly draws less power, as seen here and here at least by system power consumption. As for scaling under overclocking, see here, keeping in mind that 45W or so is lost in places other than the CPU for the stock i5-2500k, with the number scaling up with load because the power supply and CPU VRMs consume more power as the processor takes more. (xbitlabs with some 85-88% efficient or so PSU under load, though less than that at the idle draws)
Your reaching 128w just on stock load on the i5, a cooler chip.
i5 sb is running 150+, phenom ii's are running high over 150+, FX is running way over 150+. Even if IB-i5 is overclocked, running at 150w, the argument here isn't about the power usage of one CPU over another (not everyone has an i5-ib you know), it's about whether or not a large, 150w thermal plate is an accurate testbed for testing heatsink performance.
To which I'd say hell no, and I clearly showed that everyone on the internets believe that Frostytech's hotplate testing method is utter shit too. You might be able to show that I5-IB is running around 150w, but even then, it's on a small, what, 5mmx5mm die, NOT a 50x50mm plate where the heat is evenly distrubed.
IB is a much smaller die than SB, then Phenom. It's going to run way hotter simply because of the smaller size, it's a hotter chip. You can't compare the heat output of a chip solely based on it's wattage, some chips run much hotter for the same wattage, such as IB, because it's a smaller chip. Your going to tell me a big ass heat plate running 150w over inches^2 is more accurate of a CPU test than an actual CPU where your talking 150w+ over nm^2?
IB runs hotter than SB, your going to need a high performance cooler on it. There's a reason everyone recommends H100s and NH-D14 class coolers for the 3570k, it runs hot. A 150w thermal plate is not an accurate test of what a heatsink will be like on the 3570k.
|
On December 12 2012 06:43 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 12 2012 05:39 Myrmidon wrote:Yes, the rest of their system is going to be drawing way more than 50W. GTX 590 itself draws... well 48W at idle here, measured from the card: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_590/21.htmlThey're using higher-end (more power hungry) motherboards, with a power supply maybe only 86-88% efficient in the range of interest, so about 12-14% of every figure there is lost in the power supply itself. IVB i7 should have a hard time reaching 150W without extreme cooling too, definitely nowhere near there on a 24/7 overclock. You generally don't get 2-2.5x power consumption on what people would call normal overclocking. i5-3570k at 5 GHz is really not realistic. That's too high for i5-2500k too, but less of a stretch there. Quoting again a second time... Show nested quote +On December 09 2012 01:26 Myrmidon wrote:Here is some approximate CPU load consumption (i5-2500 @ 62.2W with 95W TDP listed, 106.8W from the wall for the system). Ivy Bridge clearly draws less power, as seen here and here at least by system power consumption. As for scaling under overclocking, see here, keeping in mind that 45W or so is lost in places other than the CPU for the stock i5-2500k, with the number scaling up with load because the power supply and CPU VRMs consume more power as the processor takes more. (xbitlabs with some 85-88% efficient or so PSU under load, though less than that at the idle draws) Your reaching 128w just on stock load on the i5, a cooler chip. i5 sb is running 150+, phenom ii's are running high over 150+, FX is running way over 150+. Even if IB-i5 is overclocked, running at 150w, the argument here isn't about the power usage of one CPU over another (not everyone has an i5-ib you know), it's about whether or not a large, 150w thermal plate is an accurate testbed for testing heatsink performance. To which I'd say hell no, and I clearly showed that everyone on the internets believe that Frostytech's hotplate testing method is utter shit too. You might be able to show that I5-IB is running around 150w, but even then, it's on a small, what, 5mmx5mm die, NOT a 50x50mm plate where the heat is evenly distrubed. IB is a much smaller die than SB, then Phenom. It's going to run way hotter simply because of the smaller size, it's a hotter chip. You can't compare the heat output of a chip solely based on it's wattage, some chips run much hotter for the same wattage, such as IB, because it's a smaller chip. Your going to tell me a big ass heat plate running 150w over inches^2 is more accurate of a CPU test than an actual CPU where your talking 150w+ over nm^2? IB runs hotter than SB, your going to need a high performance cooler on it. There's a reason everyone recommends H100s and NH-D14 class coolers for the 3570k, it runs hot. A 150w thermal plate is not an accurate test of what a heatsink will be like on the 3570k.
You are incorrect about IB being a hotter chip that SB. It has more heat problems, but it is in fact cooler. The heat problems are in localized areas in the chip and are NOT due to total heat output.
The problem is the speed of heat transfer from CPU->IHS->Heatsink, not the ability of the heatsink to dissipate heat.
Now I dunno, maybe the top-end heatsinks are going to do better in facilitating that transfer... but practically any aftermarket heatsink is more than capable of dissipating the overall heat output of an ivy bridge chip.
Maybe you understood this, but you expressed yourself poorly if so.
As for what 'everyone' says in terms of heatsink recommendations for Ivy Bridge, 'many people' suggest just going for a moderate overclock & not overvolting near as much as Sandy Bridge - then going for whatever cheap heatsink. Ivy Bridge only has those heat problems if you run a lot of voltage through it. And for the average user, there's not a ton of difference between 4.4ghz & 4.9ghz.
Edit: Apparently my terminology is off regarding the definition of hotter & cooler. Myrmidon corrects me on the next page.
|
Imma go back to spoilers and less clogging.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't think anybody here's recommending extrapolating thermal plate test results to real-world CPU cooling without filtering the results and running some automatic sanity checks. I think we get it about hot plates... On December 12 2012 06:43 Belial88 wrote:
Your reaching 128w just on stock load on the i5, a cooler chip.
i5 sb is running 150+, Where's 128W on stock (system???) load for i5? Where's 150W for SB i5? (unless you're talking max synthetic load way past the point of 24/7 overclocks) On December 12 2012 06:43 Belial88 wrote:
IB runs hotter than SB, your going to need a high performance cooler on it. There's a reason everyone recommends H100s and NH-D14 class coolers for the 3570k, it runs hot. IVB is only really really hot once you crank the voltages past a certain point. For most everybody that's not a benchmarking / overclocking enthusiast, what you do when faced with the wall is back down 200 MHz and save 0.15V (or more), rather than trying to scale the wall with brute force $80+ cooling set hurricane wind speeds, probably needing to set things lower and lower over time because the chip really can't handle it 24/7 for years on end. Usually it's not going to kill you to have 5% worse performance in the rare times your workload is CPU limited. On December 12 2012 07:03 MisterFred wrote:
It has more heat problems, but it is in fact cooler. The heat problems are in localized areas in the chip and are NOT due to total heat output. Higher temperatures = hotter. Less heat, but higher temperatures (hotter). This implies you want something that mounts well and consistently, with the heatpipes/fins structure being of less importance. I think. Anybody actually know about thermodynamics?
|
United States66 Posts
|
64 bit always. 32 bit only supports 3.25GB of usable ram. And your GPU link is broken.
|
United States66 Posts
|
Nothing really wrong with the build. There probably could have been deals and such to save some money, but you got at least some of them. RAM could have been better like somebody said (mb) but it's better than what you had initially, and it will work fine.
|
Anyone know of a heatsink that has green LED's that fits the 1155 socket? :D Preferably under $50...
Much appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
