|
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 March 20 2013 17:03 waffling1 wrote:
for CPU
the FX-8350 price for the performance is so enticing. 8 cores 8 threads for $190.
Would some of you choose intel's cores that perform similarly for a price premium (pay more)?
If so, why? which ones?
The I5-3750 is like...10 dollars more and much more powerful for games. You're never going to use 8 cores, and if you do you're still getting less performance per core than an intel series. There's hardly any use for 4 cores and 4 virtual cores. Let alone 8 physical cores. Most games are 2 cores with some being 4. Even heavy applications like encoding or graphic design you'd be better off with 4 physical and 4 virtual over 8 physical due to higher clock speed.
|
PCP&P Silencer MK II is by Sirtec (aka Highpower), pretty decent. It used to be astronomically overpriced, but at that kind of price it's not bad if you need the wattage and especially if for whatever reason you're stuck with tigerdirect. Mostly I guess you can consider it around like Corsair TX V2 / XFX Core 650W+ (XFX Core lower than 650W is significantly worse) except with worse performance.
IIRC if there's no APFC then it's not 80 plus, so that part's redundant.
Though even on Tigerdirect, Thermaltake Smart M750 is a little better, modular, and a little cheaper:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2543335&csid=_61
On March 20 2013 17:03 waffling1 wrote:
for CPU
the FX-8350 price for the performance is so enticing. 8 cores 8 threads for $190.
Would some of you choose intel's cores that perform similarly for a price premium (pay more)?
If so, why? which ones?
You need to go back far into the past (prior to 2006's Core 2 Duo) to find Intel desktop CPU cores that perform similarly per clock. The problem is that each core sucks, and furthermore they're grouped into units of two with shared resources.
But they're not 50% worse than modern Intel, so for certain workloads where you can make use of all 8 of them, they can be a good value if you can't afford something better and don't mind the extra power consumption and heat. The flip side is being a lot worse for games and most tasks, which don't actually make use of that many cores at once, working them all hard.
|
you guys are awesome.
i'm using tiger direct because it's far cheaper for me than newegg. i'll use amazon if it has free shipping. I find newegg has higher prices than tigerdirect, even if i ignore the fact that i get no tax and usually free shipping from TD. I'm not really sure what the big fuss over newegg is about. Their nominal prices aren't even that good. just my opinion.
You know what's weird? That power supply doesn't show up when i try to search for it by filtering. I can only find it when i search for it by its name specifically. That's why I didn't see it.
The tradeoff between the two power supplies would be modularity + 5 bucks and larger (quieter) fan compared to 2 additional years of warranty + name brand PP&C. Is thermal take is a reliable brand? It's not top tier from what i've read, but i suppose when people throw out brand names, it's on an aggregate basis of all their products. How is the reliability for this thermaltake PSU? how do you tell, besides from reviews?
Thank you very much for the lookouts. I've been searching and researching parts for several hours now.
|
On March 20 2013 17:07 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2013 17:03 waffling1 wrote:
for CPU
the FX-8350 price for the performance is so enticing. 8 cores 8 threads for $190.
Would some of you choose intel's cores that perform similarly for a price premium (pay more)?
If so, why? which ones? The I5-3750 is like...10 dollars more and much more powerful for games. You're never going to use 8 cores, and if you do you're still getting less performance per core than an intel series. There's hardly any use for 4 cores and 4 virtual cores. Let alone 8 physical cores. Most games are 2 cores with some being 4. Even heavy applications like encoding or graphic design you'd be better off with 4 physical and 4 virtual over 8 physical due to higher clock speed.
did you mean i5-3570?
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel Core i5-3570 @ 3.40GHz&id=827
They weren't comparable with the 3dm criteria. Can you link me to what you're looking at?
btw, i use 3dm and passmark as a starting point to compare. is there a better way that's just as easy, without hunting down individual reviews on game benchmarks (they don't do those in a comprehensive chart of all the CPUs out there).
i suppose the way the 3dm test is designed, it puts the FX8350 way ahead of the i5 3570.
If games use 2 threads, what do the other typical multitasking programs take altogether? if the individual core is fast enough, would it just temporarily divert processing power to the task needed without hiccups in the task it put on pause?
question:
when you have 4 cores (A,B,C,D) that are virtually 8 cores via hyper threading (E,F,G,H)... can the a pair of physical and virtual cores act to combine their processing power as if it was 1 core (A+E, B+F, C+G, D+H) ? It seems like the answer would be obviously yes, since it would make sense to create the virtual thread on an as-needed basis. I just want to confirm my thinking is correct. When a virtual thread is created from a core, is the processing power diluted at all, if both threads are utilized to full capacity (total is constant for 1 physical core)?
|
"Virtual core" is a bad way of describing Intel hyperthreading. There are a certain number of actual cores. With hyperthreading, each core can keep track of two different threads simultaneously. So if one thread temporarily isn't making use of some execution resources, the other thread can use them instead. It's a method of keeping the functional units busy a higher percentage of the time and thus getting more done, as long as there's a sufficient amount of work to do. To achieve this, each core presents itself as two cores in some sense. It's not like there's a physical one and a virtual one. There's a physical one, that's being represented as two cores. If you're looking at games, pretty much nothing can keep 4 cores busy so the difference between the i7s and i5s is close to zero.
You don't need close to 750W unless your build has two HD 7970s in it. Thermaltake sells power supplies ranging from mostly bad to very good. Smart M 750 is one of the better ones, without the very high and non-competitive price tags of some of their best. You wouldn't be able to tell without a review, or a review of something confirmed to be pretty much identical.
i5-3750 is a typo; i5-3570 was meant. Or i5-3570k. Statements would be true either way.
There are a lot of inconsistencies with passmark results, so if you don't already know everything, you should probably stay away. 3DMark is mostly but not that indicative of actual GPU game performance. It's not at all indicative for CPU game performance. If you want to be really lazy with looking up benchmarks and be inaccurate, miss a lot of details and nuance, but maybe get a general idea:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/27.html
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/129
(There are also a lot of inconsistencies in the AnandTech CPU SC2 chart.)
|
I'm trying to get parts for a budget PC and I wanted to make sure they're all compatible:
CPU: Intel® Core™ i5-3470 FC-LGA4, "Ivy Bridge", boxed (170 €)
Cooler: Enermax ETS-T40-TB mit T.B.Silence 12 cm (33 €)
RAM: Transcend DIMM 8 GB DDR3-1333 Kit JM1333KLN-8GK, JetRam (50 €)
SSD: Corsair ForceGS 2,5" SSD 128 GB SATA 600, CSSD-F128GBGS-BK (103 €)
PSU: Corsair CX500M 500W schwarz, 2x PCIe, Kabel-Management (62 €)
Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Pro4 Sound G-LAN SATA3 USB 3.0 (103 €)
Case: Cooltek CT-K II White Edition (44 €)
Does this composition make sense at all? 565 € without GPU and OS seems pretty steep, maybe I've selected some too expensive parts. I definitely want an SSD and I have one larger external and one medium sized internal HDD from my old PC.
I only have the OP to work with and I'm not sure I understood everything properly.
|
i thought i5's don't have hyperthreading, except the i5 661
My graphics card is radeon 5830 (yeah, i have it), single.
My OCZ PSU popped after 5 years and my mobo and psu wont work. i tried a new psu so that's how i know the mobo isn't working. i did a test with the dead psu and a fan to make sure the psu was actually dead.
i do like the long warranty. i don't want my mobo dying along with my psu years down the road. (Thankfully my harddrives and graphics cards were fine). i'm not sure if my CPU is dead, but i heard bad cpus can hurt motherboards? it's phenom II x4 965. To test the CPU, i'd need to get a new mobo and risk it. i suppose i wouldn't need thermal paste because i'd just be testing it for a brief moment.
i'm not really sure how to tell what wattage i need. theoretically graphics cards take 150W or so, and other components 150 and 150 as well, so based on raw math it seems like 500W should be fine. but how much redundancy is good redundancy vs "redundant" redundancy?
I was looking at the price tags on lower wattage ones and it didn't seem to make a huge difference. the brand, reliability, and premium features for a small additional cost seemed worth it. i'd LOVE to spend like 50 bucks on a reliable PSU rather than 80.
Is multi rail actually safer for components? single rail is preferred by overclockers but i don't think i'll be doing too much of that. maybe if i get the urge to figure it out.
|
On March 20 2013 19:31 kafkaesque wrote:
I'm trying to get parts for a budget PC and I wanted to make sure they're all compatible:
CPU: Intel® Core™ i5-3470 FC-LGA4, "Ivy Bridge", boxed (170 €)
Cooler: Enermax ETS-T40-TB mit T.B.Silence 12 cm (33 €)
RAM: Transcend DIMM 8 GB DDR3-1333 Kit JM1333KLN-8GK, JetRam (50 €)
SSD: Corsair ForceGS 2,5" SSD 128 GB SATA 600, CSSD-F128GBGS-BK (103 €)
PSU: Corsair CX500M 500W schwarz, 2x PCIe, Kabel-Management (62 €)
Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Pro4 Sound G-LAN SATA3 USB 3.0 (103 €)
Case: Cooltek CT-K II White Edition (44 €)
Does this composition make sense at all? 565 € without GPU and OS seems pretty steep, maybe I've selected some too expensive parts. I definitely want an SSD and I have one larger external and one medium sized internal HDD from my old PC.
I only have the OP to work with and I'm not sure I understood everything properly.
if u take the i5-3470 you don't need a mobo with z77 chip set, a h77 or b75 is enough.
I recommend the Asrock b75 pro3 mainboard for you.
|
On March 20 2013 20:22 waffling1 wrote:
i thought i5's don't have hyperthreading, except the i5 661...
As far as CPU goes, I suspect the main issue you're missing is that AMD Ghz do not equal Intel Ghz. A chip's clock speed really doesn't say much about its per core performance. The real answer for CPU 'speed' is clock speed (Ghz) multiplied by instructions per clock (IPC). Currently Intel processors have much higher IPC. What that means is: if you have a modern Intel core and a modern AMD core & both are running at the same Ghz, the Intel core will perform much better.
Many people look at Intel vs AMD and they say "4 cores vs 8 at about the same Ghz, how is AMD not better?" But they don't realize Ghz is not actually a reflection of relative CPU strength unless the comparison is between two chips of the same architecture (Intel chip vs Intel chip, for example). Now maybe you already knew that. But just in case it was worth stating.
P.S. That's correct, i5s don't have hyperthreading.
|
Hello! So I am going to build a new computer, as my old one is, well, old. My hardware is outdated and quite worn out.
I am going to answer the questions that you've asked the best I can.
What is my budget?
My budget is around the 1k$ mark.
What is my resolution?
Well, currently I play on highest resolution on my computer, which is 1680x1050. I would however like to play on 1920 × 1080.
What am I using it for?
Entertainment. Gaming mostly. Watching some videos, listening to some music and so on. I would like it to be able to stream the games I play. Which can range from a new fps to SC II.
What is my upgrade cycle?
I usually have my technology for 3 years+. I know how to take care of it, and how to maintain it. So yeah, my upgrade cycle is 3 years at the bare minimum. (I'm not sure if I understood this question entirely correctly)
When do I plan on building it?
Now. ASAP.
Do I plan on overclocking?
Nope.
Do I need an OS?
Nope
Do I plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
I'm not entirely sure. That is for you guys to decide with the budget I have set, kept in mind.
Where am I buying my parts from?
Well, I'm from Denmark. Just north of Germany. Shops are pretty expensive in Denmark, and you are not 100% sure that you can get all the new parts that other countries might have access to, but keep in mind I live close to germany.
Thank you guys for this thread, I see that it has helped lots of people, and you deserve some recognition for your work.
Regards,
Dejan // Nuf
P.S - This is a copy of a post I did before. I was told that they couldn't help me because of the time frame I had set before.
Hopefully now everything is well, and I am helpable :D
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
On March 20 2013 15:09 Craton wrote:Friend's working on a build. Has optical drive/monitor/KB/mouse. Don't think he needs a HDD/OS. $600 budget. Plays things like SC2, Skyrim, LoL. Will be buying everything from Newegg (not all items on list have store set correctly). Probably will do a medium (simple) OC. I'd probably have him swap RAM to http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231445 or something similar rather than a 9-9-9-24-2N. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/KVWf (He picked most of these) GPU not included in this budget. Leaning toward a second-hand 5850. Thoughts?
That does indeed seem like pretty much perfect fit for 3570k build
|
On March 20 2013 20:22 waffling1 wrote:
i thought i5's don't have hyperthreading, except the i5 661
My graphics card is radeon 5830 (yeah, i have it), single.
My OCZ PSU popped after 5 years and my mobo and psu wont work. i tried a new psu so that's how i know the mobo isn't working. i did a test with the dead psu and a fan to make sure the psu was actually dead.
i do like the long warranty. i don't want my mobo dying along with my psu years down the road. (Thankfully my harddrives and graphics cards were fine). i'm not sure if my CPU is dead, but i heard bad cpus can hurt motherboards? it's phenom II x4 965. To test the CPU, i'd need to get a new mobo and risk it. i suppose i wouldn't need thermal paste because i'd just be testing it for a brief moment.
i'm not really sure how to tell what wattage i need. theoretically graphics cards take 150W or so, and other components 150 and 150 as well, so based on raw math it seems like 500W should be fine. but how much redundancy is good redundancy vs "redundant" redundancy?
I was looking at the price tags on lower wattage ones and it didn't seem to make a huge difference. the brand, reliability, and premium features for a small additional cost seemed worth it. i'd LOVE to spend like 50 bucks on a reliable PSU rather than 80.
Is multi rail actually safer for components? single rail is preferred by overclockers but i don't think i'll be doing too much of that. maybe if i get the urge to figure it out.
Multi-rail vs single rail is not relevant.
Not sure what you mean by long warranty. The standard is five years. To get seven years of warranty, you're going to have to spend close to $100 or more for platinum units like the Seasonic Platinum or Corsair AX.
Not sure how you came up with 300w for the other components. Unless you have the Phenom II overclocked, it doesn't consume 150w and the typical mobo, ram, drives, and fans come no where close to 150w.
A quality ~500w unit is already more than enough. Not sure what you're talking about with price tags. The Rosewill Capstone 450 starts at $60, most other ~500w units that does not compare to it also start at $60. So in other words, you're ripping yourself off if you are spending $60 and not getting a Capstone.
|
On March 20 2013 18:06 waffling1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 20 2013 17:07 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2013 17:03 waffling1 wrote:
for CPU
the FX-8350 price for the performance is so enticing. 8 cores 8 threads for $190.
Would some of you choose intel's cores that perform similarly for a price premium (pay more)?
If so, why? which ones? The I5-3750 is like...10 dollars more and much more powerful for games. You're never going to use 8 cores, and if you do you're still getting less performance per core than an intel series. There's hardly any use for 4 cores and 4 virtual cores. Let alone 8 physical cores. Most games are 2 cores with some being 4. Even heavy applications like encoding or graphic design you'd be better off with 4 physical and 4 virtual over 8 physical due to higher clock speed. did you mean i5-3570? http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel Core i5-3570 @ 3.40GHz&id=827They weren't comparable with the 3dm criteria. Can you link me to what you're looking at? btw, i use 3dm and passmark as a starting point to compare. is there a better way that's just as easy, without hunting down individual reviews on game benchmarks (they don't do those in a comprehensive chart of all the CPUs out there). i suppose the way the 3dm test is designed, it puts the FX8350 way ahead of the i5 3570. If games use 2 threads, what do the other typical multitasking programs take altogether? if the individual core is fast enough, would it just temporarily divert processing power to the task needed without hiccups in the task it put on pause? question: when you have 4 cores (A,B,C,D) that are virtually 8 cores via hyper threading (E,F,G,H)... can the a pair of physical and virtual cores act to combine their processing power as if it was 1 core (A+E, B+F, C+G, D+H) ? It seems like the answer would be obviously yes, since it would make sense to create the virtual thread on an as-needed basis. I just want to confirm my thinking is correct. When a virtual thread is created from a core, is the processing power diluted at all, if both threads are utilized to full capacity (total is constant for 1 physical core)?
Each core consists of a bunch of modules that can do different tasks. At the start, there's the decoder which prepares the instruction for the different paths it can take as it flows through the core from module to module. With hyperthreading, the decoder can shovel instructions from two concurrent threads into the rest of the core. It can make more modules have something to work on at the same time, so the core can finish more instructions overall than if it would only do one thread at a time.
For some instructions, there is more than one path that can do the required work, and hyperthreading looks just like AMDs solution. And on the flip side, what you may not know about AMDs solution is, it shares the floating point units between two cores. So at least for instructions that need that path, the 8 cores do not behave better than Intel's 4 cores with hyperthreading, and also cannot be better than the i5 without HT. Finally, there's also tasks that run slower with 2 threads per core than with 1 thread per core, and in that case the i5 can come out on top because it's like you suspect: the processing power gets diluted by HT (though programmers can simply take care to only have one thread per core on the i7 for that case).
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
Maybe not suited for this thread but has anyone done tests particularly on ivy bridge with overclocking on a limited number of cores active in BIOS? Im getting rather insane results here, stuff i never expected
For some numbers, two core 4.4ghz at 1.06v - four core takes 1.13
One core 5ghz at 1.3v - did not go lower - 30 min prime95 custom blend max RAM 1 minute per fft lengh and 10 runs IBT high, no signs of instability
Two core 5ghz, made it fail at 1.32v but it took some pushing.
Four core wont boot til 1.35, i doubt it's stable til 1.4
Maybe not good practical use, but this is more stuff i did not know and there's at least a chance of niche usefulness.
|
Haha people have done the 1 or two core suicide SuperPI runs in the past for that purpose.
I suppose that could warrant an argument for a low heat, maxed dual-core Ivb OC if it was a purely SC2 machine.
This was actually something that was supposed to be more exciting from the AMD side of things too, just too bad BD didn't pan out.
|
On March 20 2013 16:31 Myrmidon wrote:
Mobo is a much bigger deal for usability, reliability to some extent, if you're making use of the extra features (which most people asking, will not), but I figure people can use good power supplies for ~7 years or longer. Though with respect to reliability, something that's open box may be more likely to have issues...
You might have to (or want to) replace a CX or something like that, at least once in that kind of time period. Also, the ~5% efficiency difference is small and often overstated, but it'll add up to something by several years, closing the price gap. Also, CX has high incidence of coil whine it seems? But if you're counting savings over time, it makes sense to count rebate savings too, unless you're assuming laziness.
Looks like from here on out, you need to toss a mobo pretty much every time you get a new CPU, so that doesn't really have the same staying power.
edit: doesn't seem like corners are being that shaved if going with Phantom 410? depends on perspective.
CX could last many years, and for someone replacing their computer, they could also just sell it all in one instead of saving the psu. Obviously the capstone would be a better buy for the long term, it'd retain more value over the years, but I think if they want to shave a corner, a cx430 would be the best place for that build.
And yea, the phantom. I think what's going on is the guy wants to save money but is intent on the phantom. I recently built a computer for someone, and they were intent on the nzxt guardian 921 RB, which is an absolutely atrocious case in terms of design but in terms of aesthetics it's not bad. I mean it's not like they are going to be caring about the nuances of a better designed case anyways, and phantom is an amazing case.
Normally, the "silencer mk" are manufactured by seasonic, but this one is by "PC Power & Cooling ". How is this manufactuer's reliability? It's not listed in the OP
Silencer mk3 is better. PC Power and Cooling is great but for they got bought by OCZ, which makes some pretty shoddy PSUs (some good ones in there too though). Not the worst psu, but not great for $80 there. PC P&P is very reliable but the mk2 series is basically ocz.
I'm unable to confirm their RMA process, I've been trying to for the last 2 weeks because I was looking into buying a PC P&P used but they wouldn't say if they cover used so I didn't get it.
for CPU
the FX-8350 price for the performance is so enticing. 8 cores 8 threads for $190.
Would some of you choose intel's cores that perform similarly for a price premium (pay more)?
If so, why? which ones?
Because it's not really 8 cores, it's more like 4 'modules'. It's 8 core similar to the sense that maybe an i7 is 8 core. These 'fake' extra cores, modules, HT, they are useless in gaming, and even in heavily multi-threaded applications, you are talking only a 20-40% performance boost.
FX has a place but for gaming, general usage, and overclocking, FX chips are much worse than Intel both absolutely and for price to performance. Literally, FX chips are equal to Phenom II chips for gaming. What you want is single core performance.
Not to mention that in every way other than pure performance, FX is worse than Intel. If you want to save money, Phenom II is the way to go, not FX. Literally, SC2 performance is the same with Phenom and FX, in some games PH2 even beats FX. The types of applications that FX shines in, are not gaming or general usage.
Although BF3 might be the one game where FX might be better than i5... I still wouldn't go for it even if I played bf3 though.
You know what's weird? That power supply doesn't show up when i try to search for it by filtering. I can only find it when i search for it by its name specifically. That's why I didn't see it.
It's because it's a bit dated, they don't want to advertise that unit. Newegg does the exact same thing, ie AM3 motherboards, GTX 4xx series (well now they are completely out of stock of 4xx's), etc.
The tradeoff between the two power supplies would be modularity + 5 bucks and larger (quieter) fan compared to 2 additional years of warranty + name brand PP&C. Is thermal take is a reliable brand? It's not top tier from what i've read, but i suppose when people throw out brand names, it's on an aggregate basis of all their products. How is the reliability for this thermaltake PSU? how do you tell, besides from reviews?
Thermaltake is not a good brand for power supplies. Their TR2 series is 'okay' for a really cheap PSU, but you need to make sure it's v2, the TR2 v1 are absolutely atrocious power supplies that'll blow out on you and should be destroyed on sight.
i'm not really sure how to tell what wattage i need. theoretically graphics cards take 150W or so, and other components 150 and 150 as well, so based on raw math it seems like 500W should be fine. but how much redundancy is good redundancy vs "redundant" redundancy?
Don't worry about wattage. Quality > Wattage. As long as you pick a good quality PSU, you will be covered. Any 300w+ psu will be more than enough for a single GPU build. Redundancy and having more than necessary power isn't quite as useful as it once was, psu's are made with better parts and better PSUs won't have issues like degrading or derating over time.
|
I experimented a bit with that, Cyro. If you run something like prime95 with two threads, it seems to jump between cores, so I first experimented with setting core affinity, and then tried switching cores off in the BIOS to have some of the cores completely off for the experiments. I did not look at a different vcore, but the temperature was super low with cores off, and it seemed I could go up something like two notches for the multiplier. I had the idea to try to set something like Intel does by default, a different turbo multiplier when the OS puts some of the cores to sleep. Overall, I got bored as it felt stupid to set a higher multiplier for one or two cores. Windows mostly runs with no core in sleep, from what I've seen.
|
Planning to build a gaming PC and would greatly appreciate help.
What is your budget?
~$1500. Going a little over / under is fine.
What is your resolution?
Not sure. I have a fairly big screen and I usually run things on max resolution so...16x9 or 16x10?
What are you using it for?
Gaming mostly. Obviously other things (movies, homework, music) but nothing that would tax a pc.
What is your upgrade cycle?
2+ years
When do you plan on building it?
As soon as possible
Do you plan on overclocking?
Yes.
Do you need an Operating System?
No.
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
No.
Where are you buying your parts from?
Probably newegg or ncix
I already posted on reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/buildmeapc/comments/186z16/ca_building_a_gaming_pc_1500/
Is that build decent or is there anything I should change. Kinda clueless about building pcs so help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
|
On March 21 2013 03:46 TheSubtleArt wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Planning to build a gaming PC and would greatly appreciate help.
What is your budget?~$1500. Going a little over / under is fine. What is your resolution?
Not sure. I have a fairly big screen and I usually run things on max resolution so...16x9 or 16x10? What are you using it for?Gaming mostly. Obviously other things (movies, homework, music) but nothing that would tax a pc. What is your upgrade cycle?2+ years When do you plan on building it?As soon as possible Do you plan on overclocking?Yes. Do you need an Operating System?
No.
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?No.
Where are you buying your parts from?Probably newegg or ncix I already posted on reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/buildmeapc/comments/186z16/ca_building_a_gaming_pc_1500/Is that build decent or is there anything I should change. Kinda clueless about building pcs so help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
NCIX and other Canadian retailers offer pricematching and have their warehouses in Canada so there's little point in purchasing from Newegg.
non-K suffix processors such as the core i5 3570 has a limited multiplier increase, you need a core i5 3570k and you can not use a H77 to overclock. Overclocking requires a K suffix processor and Z77 chipset.
Hyper 212 EVO is available at BestDirect for $29. Example of why PCPartPicker sucks...
16gb of memory is just a waste of money as games don't even make full use of 4gb yet. 2x4gb is more reasonable for a gaming configuration.
16: 9 and 16:10 are display ratios, not display resolution. A big screen implies 27" or 30" which are 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 and the 7970 would be fine. Otherwise, it's overkill for most games on the typical 22" - 24" screens that are 1920x1080.
Western Digital Reds are designed for NAS use. If you're not a heavy NAS user than it's a waste of money over their Caviar Greens and Blues. You have a 256gb SSD selected so not sure why you would need a 2TB 7200 RPM HDD unless you were planning to record. A slower Caviar Green would be perfectly suited with a 256gb for gamers.
Samsung burner less expensive by nearly $5: http://www.bestdirect.ca/products/245882/Samsung/SH_224BB_BEBE/
A 650w power supply is also unnecessary. A quality ~500w unit is more than adequate for such a configuration. There's nothing better than a Rosewill Capstone 450 for $60 (using the new customer -$10 coupon) + $4 shipping.
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
On March 21 2013 03:39 Ropid wrote:
I experimented a bit with that, Cyro. If you run something like prime95 with two threads, it seems to jump between cores, so I first experimented with setting core affinity, and then tried switching cores off in the BIOS to have some of the cores completely off for the experiments. I did not look at a different vcore, but the temperature was super low with cores off, and it seemed I could go up something like two notches for the multiplier. I had the idea to try to set something like Intel does by default, a different turbo multiplier when the OS puts some of the cores to sleep. Overall, I got bored as it felt stupid to set a higher multiplier for one or two cores. Windows mostly runs with no core in sleep, from what I've seen.
Well with two cores enabled at the lower voltage needed, temps are of course massively lower than four core, its more the lower vcore that intrigues me - I mean there's a gap of like 0.07-0.12v on voltage requirements for 4 core vs 1-2, at least on this CPU, that's not at all small.
I have to question why more cores enabled needs more vcore - i was under the impression, at first (not having any idea of inner workings) that voltage requirements would stay the same (with current? rising as you need more concurrent power), but that's obviously not the case, not at all when 4 core needs 1.35v to get into windows yet 1 core prime's at 1.28
If we had some kind of advanced turbo controls we could really abuse this, i mean if i needed for example 1.42v for 5ghz - with that same voltage 5.2 could be achievable two core, 5.3 one-core or something - with the other cores running at a much lower frequency (2.5-4ghz, does not really matter often) and something like sc2 could benefit quite a lot, it's a whole lot of messing around for like 5-7% higher framerates but something that seems pretty entertaining to play with or think about
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
