EPTComputer Build Resource Thread - Page 1343
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
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. | ||
|
wussleeQ
United States3130 Posts
| ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
The reason I have this is because my power supply decided to die when I moved my computer with our car and the nearby store only had these as a 350-400w unit and the next cheapest was like high 50s which is way too much. So for now it seems pretty good. Power consumption of this terrible computer should be similiar to a computer that has i5 3570 and Nvidia GTX 660 Ti. | ||
|
Gumbi
Ireland463 Posts
"No, I don't paint any picture that buying used is riskless. It's just not any riskier than buying new - know the buyer, buy smart, and there's an inherent risk, as with anything" You have less of a warranty when buying second hand, or none at all. Buying second hand is demonstrably riskier for this very reason. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with buying second hand. There are deals to be had, sure. But there is risk, higher than that of buying first hand. Stop dodging that point, | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On January 13 2013 16:36 Womwomwom wrote: I It is important to note that the only GPU companies that will accept warranty claims without proof of purchase are Asus, MSI, and Gigabyte (unsurprising, they're probably the big three) EVGA has a new warranty option for second hand products, actually, but you're paying a premium for their support, and they only manufacture one side. It's also limited to 3 years from the ship date from their warehouse if you don't have proof of purchase, instead of their usual warranty coverage. And only valid on items shipped after a certain date. http://www.evga.com/support/warranty/Default.asp | ||
|
NoBanMeAgain
United States194 Posts
Asus DRW DVD burner-19.99 Rosewill CHALLENGER ATX mid tower case -54.99 Seagate barracuda 500 GB 7200rpm-59.99 ASRock 770i AM3+ 770 ATX motherboard- 54.99 MSI HD 7770 1GB DDR5 PCI Express 3.0 GPU- 124.99 Corsair CX430W PSU-34.99 Silicon Power (2x2GB) DDR3 RAM-22.99 AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition CPU-99.99 After tax this build will run me 482.92. It's mostly for gaming my wife likes to D-load pics and stuff but ill add a ssd later. What would be better values for me? and What could i stream at with this build? EDIT: ik i could save $$ and skip the burner and dload via usb or whatever but i want one | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
On January 14 2013 06:02 ImANinjaBich wrote: Hi I'm just wondering if this build i have would stream sc2 at 480p with no fps drop. This is my potential build. I would love advice on how to save money. Asus DRW DVD burner-19.99 Rosewill CHALLENGER ATX mid tower case -54.99 Seagate barracuda 500 GB 7200rpm-59.99 ASRock 770i AM3+ 770 ATX motherboard- 54.99 MSI HD 7770 1GB DDR5 PCI Express 3.0 GPU- 124.99 Corsair CX430W PSU-34.99 Silicon Power (2x2GB) DDR3 RAM-22.99 AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition CPU-99.99 After tax this build will run me 482.92. It's mostly for gaming my wife likes to D-load pics and stuff but ill add a ssd later. What would be better values for me? and What could i stream at with this build? EDIT: ik i could save $$ and skip the burner and dload via usb or whatever but i want one Everything you quoted is overpriced, where are you buying from? | ||
|
NoBanMeAgain
United States194 Posts
On January 14 2013 06:24 iTzSnypah wrote: Everything you quoted is overpriced, where are you buying from? I am using newegg right now | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Unless this budget is strict and you must run 1080p ultra, I would consider cutting some places and slightly increasing the budget to just get an i5 instead. Phenom II X4 can stream the game, but don't do that unless you have to. | ||
|
NoBanMeAgain
United States194 Posts
On January 14 2013 06:41 Myrmidon wrote: As mentioned above, a lot of parts are a bit overpriced (at newegg), so there are some more savings to be had. What do you feel about SC2 graphics settings? What's the budget range? Do you not require an OS purchase? Unless this budget is strict and you must run 1080p ultra, I would consider cutting some places and slightly increasing the budget to just get an i5 instead. Phenom II X4 can stream the game, but don't do that unless you have to. So as far as graphics settings go...i will probably be playing at medium or high ALL the time. i dont need 1080p but i want a card that will allow me to do high settings if i want. I really dont want to go over $500 for the total purchase The OS is not a big deal i get a student discount for that. Whether or not the build is intel or AMD i dont care EDIT: i honestly dont care to play on ultra | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
I even started finding combo deals: i5-3470 $174.99 with promo code EMCNJNB33, ends 1/14 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115234 ASRock B75M-GL and 8GB DDR3-1600 $85 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1181265 edit: lol that motherboard combo just went out of stock. | ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
it seems that the 'CLEARLY 3570k' suggestions weren't so 'clearly' Or? | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
On January 14 2013 07:04 n0ise wrote: so, what do my brothers have to say about this (apparently, quite controversial) vidya http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE it seems that the 'CLEARLY 3570k' suggestions weren't so 'clearly' Or? Trusting no name YT video over a slew of trusted review sites is cool right? | ||
|
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115234 Cooler Master GX450 - $30 after rebate http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817171060 Zalman Z5 - $30 after rebate http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811235037 AsRock B75M-DGS - $55 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157335 Cheaper DVD burner - $17 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136259 HD 6670 GDDR3 - $50 after rebate http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127666 Seems like you were counting rebates before. Anyway, the above should get you in under $500. | ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
Also, as Belial said, regarding the same tests - I would also be curious how they hold up when you actually OC both of them to their standard potential | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
On January 13 2013 23:42 Gumbi wrote: "Saying there is a risk in second hand products is retarded, you are just fearmongering" "No, I don't paint any picture that buying used is riskless. It's just not any riskier than buying new - know the buyer, buy smart, and there's an inherent risk, as with anything" You have less of a warranty when buying second hand, or none at all. Buying second hand is demonstrably riskier for this very reason. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with buying second hand. There are deals to be had, sure. But there is risk, higher than that of buying first hand. Stop dodging that point, You realize most companies have warranties that go from the manufacturer date, not the sale date. So buying a second hand, say, intel CPU, that's a year old, actually has more warranty then an intel CPU bought new that's 2 years old. I don't see any higher risk with buying second hand - know what you are doing, and you will mitigate risk to be the same as buying new. You can buy from a shady seller, you could buy an Alienware. You get ripped off either way. And I don't see ebay as buying second hand. Many big companies list their products on ebay, would you consider buying from seller Newegg on ebay risky? Many companies will sell their refurbs and open box on ebay as well. There's risk with buying second hand, there's risk with buying ebay, but the risk isn't any larger than buying new, as long as you know what you are doing and buy smart. I'd trust a 100% positive feedback, 3,000 sales seller on ebay just as much as I'd trust a small start-up (not going to make examples, companies like frozencpu are awesome, but they are a small company run by just a few people). | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
On January 14 2013 07:11 iTzSnypah wrote: Trusting no name YT video over a slew of trusted review sites is cool right? I haven't seen anyone post a real criticism of the video yet, and when I watched it, I didn't see anything immediately wrong. This is coming from someone who says Anandtech is crap and TH is crap, most of the time. Not to say I think it's right, but I am curious what people have to say about it too. It definitely does fly in the face of all other reviews out there, from respected websites too, and they did cherrypick some very multi-threaded games. I did appreciate, for example, their Crysis vs Streaming Crysis bench though. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Then only tested gaming+streaming on one game, where results are hugely in question. Summary: + Show Spoiler [results] + FX-8350 - Vishera 4 modules (two integer cores each), 4.0-4.2 GHz, 8MB L3 **Crysis Warhead xsplit** 1080p - 26.44 900p - 39.28 720p - 48.28 -Crysis Warhead- 1440p - 26.772 1080p - 35.64 i5-3570k - Ivy Bridge 4 cores, no HT, 3.4-3.8 GHz, 6MB L3 **Crysis Warhead xsplit** 1080p - 24.920 1600p - 31.040 720p - 37.120 -Crysis Warhead- 1440p - 18.720 1080p - 26.840 i7-3770k - Ivy Bridge 4 cores, HT, 3.5-3.9 GHz, 8MB L3 -Crysis Warhead- 1440p - 23.880 1080p - 38.440 i7-3820 - Sandy Bridge-E 4 cores, HT, 3.6-3.8 GHz, 10MB L3 **Crysis Warhead xsplit** 1080p - 26.00 900p - 36.6 720p - 42.88 -Crysis Warhead- 1080p - 26.840 Huge red flags: 3770 > 8350 at 1080p, yet 3770 < 8350 at 1440p. Uh, changing resolutions changes the workload on the GPU, not the CPU. 3770 > 3570 by huge margin without streaming, despite only 100 MHz / 2MB L3 / HT difference (and HT being irrelevant here). We all know 100 MHz won't make that kind of change, for processors running 3+ GHz, and if 2MB extra L3 and/or HT were somehow so important—they're not—then one would expect the 3820 to do a lot better despite being SB-E instead of IVB. Some other issues too. PS: who plays fps at those kinds of frame rates? I didn't bother looking more after seeing the above. But what were the streaming settings? You can always choose a faster encoding preset for slightly worse quality. | ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
On January 14 2013 07:50 Myrmidon wrote: The problem is the complete lack of consistency in results. Does this really need to be spelled out? If you can't interpret results like these, then you need to seriously develop some critical thinking skills. Then only tested gaming+streaming on one game, where results are hugely in question. Summary: + Show Spoiler [results] + FX-8350 - Vishera 4 modules (two integer cores each), 4.0-4.2 GHz, 8MB L3 **Crysis Warhead xsplit** 1080p - 26.44 900p - 39.28 720p - 48.28 -Crysis Warhead- 1440p - 26.772 1080p - 35.64 i5-3570k - Ivy Bridge 4 cores, no HT, 3.4-3.8 GHz, 6MB L3 **Crysis Warhead xsplit** 1080p - 24.920 1600p - 31.040 720p - 37.120 -Crysis Warhead- 1440p - 18.720 1080p - 26.840 i7-3770k - Ivy Bridge 4 cores, HT, 3.5-3.9 GHz, 8MB L3 -Crysis Warhead- 1440p - 23.880 1080p - 38.440 i7-3820 - Sandy Bridge-E 4 cores, HT, 3.6-3.8 GHz, 10MB L3 **Crysis Warhead xsplit** 1080p - 26.00 900p - 36.6 720p - 42.88 -Crysis Warhead- 1080p - 26.840 Huge red flags: 3770 > 8350 at 1080p, yet 3770 < 8350 at 1440p. Uh, changing resolutions changes the workload on the GPU, not the CPU. 3770 > 3570 by huge margin without streaming, despite only 100 MHz / 2MB L3 / HT difference (and HT being irrelevant here). We all know 100 MHz won't make that kind of change, for processors running 3+ GHz, and if 2MB extra L3 and/or HT were somehow so important—they're not—then one would expect the 3820 to do a lot better despite being SB-E instead of IVB. Some other issues too. I didn't bother looking more after seeing the above. But what were the streaming settings? You can always choose a faster encoding preset for slightly worse quality. Absolutely agree, with my basically zero-knowledge there were some inconsistencies spotted, fps's jumping up and down when they should've went the other way around. Some things may have been messed up, or not, I'm curious to see more results regarding similar benchmarks, because - with proof or no proof, the question is raised that for a streamer, the fx 8350 may be hands down the best choice. On January 14 2013 07:50 Myrmidon wrote: The problem is the complete lack of consistency in results. Does this really need to be spelled out? If you can't interpret results like these, then you need to seriously develop some critical thinking skills. Do our mothers know each other? Have I been over for Thanksgiving and drank too much again? I only post on TL naked, with my bow tie on and a while sipping from a glass of red wine. Let's try to be at least half as gentleman-ish, shall we? | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Don't even need a benchmark to know that qualitatively. If you're streaming something where per-core CPU performance counts, like SC2, the choice is obvious. If you're getting fewer frames and thus jerkier movement prior to encoding, your stream is going to look worse no matter what kind of stream settings you can use. If you have 1000 Vishera cores, it's not going to help xsplit find those frames that were never generated. | ||
| ||
