|
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. |
@Talz
Yes, your saying was true in the past but now Intel has restricted overclocking. Overclocking on Sandybridge (2nd Generation Core Series) can only be done through a multiplier and this multiplier is locked to a certain degree on all non-K processors. For example: On the core i5 2500, you can only increase the multiplier up 4 notches so you will only be able to achieve a 3.8GHz overclock on all four active cores whereas with a 2500k, you can increase the multiplier to however you like.
Intel's architecture is just faster clock per clock than AMD's so I guess you can say that their engineers are better >.>
Quads allow for other applications to be ran in the background without hindering game performance.
|
On March 15 2011 01:49 skyR wrote:
@Talz
Yes, your saying was true in the past but now Intel has restricted overclocking. Overclocking on Sandybridge (2nd Generation Core Series) can only be done through a multiplier and this multiplier is locked to a certain degree on all non-K processors. For example: On the core i5 2500, you can only increase the multiplier up 4 notches so you will only be able to achieve a 3.8GHz overclock on all four active cores whereas with a 2500k, you can increase the multiplier to however you like.
Intel's architecture is just faster clock per clock than AMD's so I guess you can say that their engineers are better >.>
Quads allow for other applications to be ran in the background without hindering game performance.
That makes sense. 
But going back to the quads, why are people preferring them over six cores? Wouldn't six allow you to do even more in the background, or is there actually no gain with where applications are now, and by the time they can utilize more then four cores we'll have processors with many more cores making them already entirely obsolete?
|
On March 14 2011 17:14 skyR wrote:
@Saturnize
The 650W power supply is more than enough to power any single graphic card solution. Graphic cards are actually becoming more power efficient, not more power hungry.
Your case has a removable harddrive cage so yes it will fit the 12" monster if you remove it.
No, it is not worth it to buy pre-overclocked graphic cards because you can easily do this yourself in MSI Afterburner with a few button clicks.
yes but with the SOC you get a nice 3 year warranty. afaik you void your warranty if you overclock your cpu/gpu
|
@Talz
Most of the tasks you run in the background such as msn, aim, skype, vent, itunes, utorrent, ms office, chrome, firefox, mirc, etc aren't processor intensive and can all function off of one core for the most part. Yes, more cores would allow you do more things at once but there are only a few things that require a lot of processing power (rendering and multiboxing are just two examples). Native octo cores (8 physical cores) are set to debut this year.
@Saturnize
Overclocking a graphic cards without modifying voltages or the actual piece of hardware does not void warranty. This applies to EVGA, XFX, Gigabyte, ASUS, MSI, Sapphire, and basically every manufacturer out in the graphics card business.
There is no way for AMD or Intel to figure out that you overclocked your proocessor as all these settings are stored on the motherboard. The only obvious sign is that you lapped your CPU for better cooling or fed it some insane amount of voltage for it to burn.
|
On March 15 2011 02:57 skyR wrote:
@Talz
Most of the tasks you run in the background such as msn, aim, skype, vent, itunes, utorrent, ms office, chrome, firefox, mirc, etc aren't processor intensive and can all function off of one core for the most part. Yes, more cores would allow you do more things at once but there are only a few things that require a lot of processing power (rendering and multiboxing are just two examples). Native octo cores (8 physical cores) are set to debut this year.
So each gigahertz is the equivalent of one billion actions a second, correct?
Where does RAM factor into the speed of a computer then?
|
On March 15 2011 05:40 Talz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 02:57 skyR wrote:
@Talz
Most of the tasks you run in the background such as msn, aim, skype, vent, itunes, utorrent, ms office, chrome, firefox, mirc, etc aren't processor intensive and can all function off of one core for the most part. Yes, more cores would allow you do more things at once but there are only a few things that require a lot of processing power (rendering and multiboxing are just two examples). Native octo cores (8 physical cores) are set to debut this year.
So each gigahertz is the equivalent of one billion actions a second, correct? Where does RAM factor into the speed of a computer then?
No ... hertz represents one operation ... cpus can do multiple things per operation, thats how a more modern 3ghz CPU can outperform an older CPU of the same speed
|
@Talz
A hertz represents the time it takes for the processor to complete a cycle. During a cycle, the processor receives instruction(s) to perform. How many instructions a processor can perform is measured by instructions per cycle. Newer processors will have a higher IPC rate and that's why even if it is slower in gigahertz, it'll outperform the older processors with higher GHz but a lower IPC rate.
Generally you want enough ram for your active programs and in most cases, this is 4GB for the majority of gamers. Most games (and programs for that matter) are programmed in 32bit so they'll only utilize 2GB at most (SC2 is an example). The performance gains between the different speeds of ram (1333MHz vs 1600MHz) is very negligible on the newer processors such as Sandybridge (seen here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/20377).
|
On March 15 2011 06:28 skyR wrote:@Talz A hertz represents the time it takes for the processor to complete a cycle. During a cycle, the processor receives instruction(s) to perform. How many instructions a processor can perform is measured by instructions per cycle. Newer processors will have a higher IPC rate and that's why even if it is slower in gigahertz, it'll outperform the older processors with higher GHz but a lower IPC rate. Generally you want enough ram for your active programs and in most cases, this is 4GB for the majority of gamers. Most games (and programs for that matter) are programmed in 32bit so they'll only utilize 2GB at most (SC2 is an example). The performance gains between the different speeds of ram (1333MHz vs 1600MHz) is very negligible on the newer processors such as Sandybridge (seen here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/20377).
So what exactly do the MHz mean in relation to RAM, cards, etc? I assume the space of the RAM refers to how much memory worth of programs you can have running at one time, but I don't really understand the MHz part.
|
Hey, I had a post way back on page 149, and now that the new mobo's are out at my local store I'd like to finally purchase my computer. The most demanding thing I would need the computer for is games that are coming out, cause I hope to not upgrade my computer for 3-4 years.
I'd like one last review of my build before I go ahead and purchase it. Here's what I'm thinking:
+ Show Spoiler +Case - Cooler Master CM 690 II Basic Mid Tower, Black ($99.99) or Cooler Master Elite 334 Nvidia Edition Case ($79.99)... I don't really know what I'm looking for here.
PSU - Torn between Corsair TX 650W Power Supply w/ 120mm Fan ($69.99) or Antec True Power New 650W Power Supply w/ Quad +12V, 120mm Fan ($69.99)... I suppose it comes down to the brand but which would you guys recommend?
CPU - Intel Core™ i5-2500K Processor, 3.30GHz w/ 6MB Cache - $214.99
Mobo - Asus P8P67 PRO Rev 3.0 w/ Dual DDR3 1600, 7.1 Audio, Gigabit Lan, 1394, PCI-E, Quad CrossFireX / SLI - $189.99
RAM - Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3 1600MHz CL8 Dual Channel Kit (2 x 4GB) - $114.99 (The CL9 equivalent of this is $119.99, but I'm assuming the CL8 is better since regular priced its more expensive)
HDD - Seagate 1TB Barracuda 7200.12 SATA II w/ 32MB Cache - $54.99
Optical Drive - Samsung SH-S223C 22x SpeedPlus™ DVD-Writer, SATA, Black, OEM - $18.99
GPU - eVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti FPB 1GB GDDR5 PCI-E w/ Dual DVI, HDM - $259.99 (MSI and Gigabyte versions of this card are priced pretty much the exact same... I kinda just picked this one at random)
Assembly - $40
Total - $1063.92
I'm required to buy all my parts from memory express, but they do pricematch so I'm sure I could get that total down a little bit. That total is also below my maximum I have to spend on this computer by ~$400, so if there are any upgrades that would increase performance for the cost, I'm all for it although I'm sure I could find a use for the money somewhere else. One issue that I do see with this build is a lack of a SSD, but I'm not sure I want to spend that much money for the increased read/write speed. Also, I should probably add an extra fan or something cause I want the computer to be as silent as possible, and I'll probably try OC'ing the CPU since everywhere seems to make it so trivial.
|
Adding fans is often a good way to increase the noise, not the other way around. If you're serious about reducing noise, a case with thicker construction, less mesh, and better airflow and fan placement/quality would be a good start. They're expensive, but the Silverstone FT02 and RV02 have very good cooling and low noise. An overall decent budget case would just be an Antec 300 for $50:
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/PID-MX20934(ME).aspx
Antec TruePower New is significantly better than the old Corsair TX650. Keep in mind that a decent 430W unit would run all that with a little margin at full load (read: unrealistically high load via synthetic benchmarking).
I imagine you want an aftermarket CPU cooler for overclocking the CPU--keeping it cool enough while not being too loud. Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus is a popular budget option:
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/PID-MX25192(ME).aspx
Scythe Mugen 2 Rev. B is more expensive and larger, but it cools better and with lower noise:
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/PID-MX26863(ME).aspx
$190 is maybe $40-50 too high for a P67 motherboard. Do you need the SLI support or all the other ports and extras?
$115 is maybe $30 too high for 8GB of RAM, though granted that kit is of higher spec than the budget stuff. Also, if you're just planning on gaming with no heavy workstation-type usage, you probably won't get any use from having any more than 4GB of RAM. I'll repost this link about the (lack of) benefits with higher-spec RAM:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20377
By maybe saving money with the above suggestions, you could increase performance for the cost by getting an SSD.
|
Thanks Myrmidon, you provide great insight - again (you were the one that helped me back in January).
Ok so a case fan is a definite no, but I'll probably grab that Scythe Mugen 2 Rev. B fan. That is actually the cheapest P67 board that the store carries. If I wanted to get a cheaper mobo, I would have to go down to the H67's which I don't want. Also, even if I drop down to a 430W PSU it would cost me $59.99 for ANTEC EarthWatts 430W Power Supply. It's essentially the same price for the 650W...
In terms of the RAM, I could go for Kingston HyperX Genesis 8GB DDR3-1600MHz CL9 Dual Channel Kit (2 x 4GB) ($94.99), Kingston ValueRAM 8GB PC3-10600 DDR3 Dual Channel Kit (2 x 4GB) ($94.99) or Mushkin PC3-10666 Silverline DDR3 SDRAM, 8GB Dual Channel Kit (2 x 4GB) ($89.99). I wouldn't know which one to pick.
I don't mind spending some extra money, and SSD is low priority (especially since I see deals on them all the time... I saw a vertex2 120gig for like $140 the other day but I missed out on the one day deal). Again, I want the computer to be essentially future proof, at least for the next 2-4 years. I don't want to cheap out if its gunna make me upgrade something quicker.
|
Hi guys. I would like some advice mainly on coming up with a price range needed to build a PC that will be optimal for streaming games at crystal clear quality (think 1080p or better, Trump/Destiny's streams are good examples of what I'm looking for.
Right now, I am basically dry on parts. I have a case for the actual desktop, a keyboard and a monitor, but I'll need to buy everything internal.
I'll go ahead and post my answers to the questions listed in the OP;
What is your budget?
Luckily, I am on a sponsored team now and there is no budget. However, I would like to keep it reasonable for the guy paying for it. Basically, I want performance but don't need to overkill on any hardware.
What is your resolution?
Currently 1600x900, however this is on my laptop. I have purchased a monitor with HDMI capabilities and I'm not sure what resolution I will use when I switch over.
What are you using it for?
Mainly starcraft 2 and streaming. As I already stated I would like to be able to stream in 1080p or better quality without lagging. This will be on either low or medium graphics for Sc2 though.
What is your upgrade cycle?
Probably 2 years or more, as I'll only be using it for starcraft 2, and if it works now, it will work for however long.
When do you plan on building it?
Within the next few weeks.
Do you plan on overclocking?
I'm not entirely sure what this means, but I'm guessing no unless someone recommends it.
Do you need an Operating System?
Yes, probably windows 7.
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
I'm not sure on this one either, I'll leave this up to someone's recommendation. If it is required for what I'm looking for, then yes. If not, then no.
Where are you buying your parts from?
Again, I'll need advice here. Probably shopping online for most of them.
Thanks to anyone that can help
|
|
|
Hey fellas, long time TL lurker. Spend about 2 hours a night watching the streams and reading the forums. I have come to a point in my life where I have been able to save up some money while still paying the bills that I have some extra cash. So I would like to treat myself to a new computer. Thanks for your help, and I love the TL community.
What is your budget?
$900
What is your resolution?
I have a 19" monitor atm, but I am thinking that I will get a new monitor in the future, around a 21" widescreen.
What are you using it for?
Starcraft 2, web design (dual monitors in future), basic computer use, and Natural Selection 2.
What is your upgrade cycle?
At least 2 years. I have had my current desktop for 5 years.
When do you plan on building it?
ASAP hopefully by this weekend, but I can wait a little while if it means a lot better deal or a better product.
Do you plan on overclocking?
Probably not, hope with the new computer there will not be much of a practical use to do so.
Do you need an Operating System?
Yes, probably windows 7.
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
Not sure, I am vaguely familiar with how this works, so basically if it makes sense in my budget to provide the best GPU performance.
Where are you buying your parts from?
I have a microcenter right down the road from me, and I will also be using newegg.
|
Quick additional question : I've been reading most of the posts on this thread since I first posted and I noticed you guys usually recommend the GTX 560 quite often but not the Radeon 6950. From the various tests I've read, the 6950 seems to be better on paper - at least to me. I'm saying this based on the following link :
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=641&card2=639
The only number that's really higher for the 560 is the Shader clock. Now, I have absolutely no idea what all that means which is why I'm posting. Does it all just not matter, or? I read a few reviews and all that, I'm just interested in knowing a bit more about the "in depth" stuff.
I'm still hesitating between both for my new build seeing as the price difference is really next to nothing, if anyone can give me a clear answer and sort of support it, I'd be very grateful.
|
|
|
Alright, thanks for the answer. I like both brands, but what would make me decide would be the drivers - are both reliable these days? ATI used to have major driver issues back in the days but I had a Radeon a few years ago on one of my computers and it worked just perfectly. Not sure what the current state of things is regarding this. Sorry about all the questions, it's just really important for me to have a reliable comp even if it means paying a few more bucks.
|
That's really a subjective question. You'll get one person saying they're absolute garbage and another saying that they haven't experienced any issue with ATI. But most games favor Nvidia (Blizzard games are one example) if that matters at all.
|
Thanks skyR for the help! Is there anything in the build that I should be concerned with, or area of improvement if I spent a little bit more that would make a difference in the build?
|
On March 16 2011 03:52 coramdeo wrote:
Thanks skyR for the help! Is there anything in the build that I should be concerned with, or area of improvement if I spent a little bit more that would make a difference in the build?
Well performance wise, I'd think you should stick to the 6950 and core i5 2400 if your primary concerns are just NS2, SC2, and web design. You would have to spend $100 more for a GTX 570 if you wanted more FPS (not worth it for 1920x1200 resolution for those 2 games).
The H67 motherboard does not allow for overclocking and the Core i5 2400 has limited overclocking capabilities only when coupled with a P67 motherboard. So if you think you may want to overclock sometime in the future, you may want to spend an extra $100 on a Core i5 2500k, a low-end P67 motherboard, and a Coolermaster Hyper 212+.
You could also pick up an 60GB SSD (ex. OCZ Vertex 2) for around $100 if you want to reduce load times and improve system responsiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
