|
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 June 29 2011 23:15 Womwomwom wrote:
Depends on how lucky you are. Shouldn't be too hard to hit 950mhz clock speeds on stock voltages though anything higher than that probably needs voltage manipulation. You pretty much need to hit 1000mhz to start matching the GTX570 or HD6950, though I sometimes wonder if its actually worth it since the acoustics and power consumption is seriously terrible without aftermarket cooling.
so a stock 6950 @ 800mhz = a 560ti at 1000mhz? wow, i thought the 6950 would get totally smoked. i saw a review on techpowerup on the 6950 with the twin frozr III cooler and it got about 1050mhz with voltage tuning, safe to say its a hard rapist?
|
I'm new to building computers and I'm just checking if the build I've designed should all work together. I'm fairly sure it all should do, I'm just making sure. It's the size of the case and whether it will all go in that I'm wondering about. Also, if anyone has any ways that I can save money that would be appreciated (for example, I'm not sure if I need the sound card, the wireless adaptor or the fan) and any advice on the actual parts themselves would be great. So for instance if there is a way I cna get a better graphics card for cheaper or whatever. I'll be using it mainly for SC2 and I'll probably be playing on lowest setting anyway for maximum fps. I do play other games on the computer though, so I don't want to be downgrading too much or anything. I live in the UK by the way. So essenitally I'm looking for general advice as a newbie to building computers and thanks in advance for any help. 
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 29 2011 23:07 JingleHell wrote:
Oh, no, you don't need to pay more for a case to cool it, you would just need to pay more for a case to cool it quietly. But you already said you're insane and like hearing your computer.
Most people like sleek japanese racing cars. Then there are some that like the raw power and noise of a muscle car. I present to you....white noise at its finest:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 29 2011 23:29 Bambipwnsu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 23:07 JingleHell wrote:
Oh, no, you don't need to pay more for a case to cool it, you would just need to pay more for a case to cool it quietly. But you already said you're insane and like hearing your computer. Most people like sleek japanese racing cars. Then there are some that like the raw power and noise of a muscle car. I present to you....white noise at its finest: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfQOU3T0O3Q
I love a good muscle car too. But my computer should NOT sound like a hair dryer. Granted, it does make a bit of noise under heavy gaming loads, but nothing obscene, and I'm working on that.
|
On June 29 2011 23:22 Legatus Lanius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 23:15 Womwomwom wrote:
Depends on how lucky you are. Shouldn't be too hard to hit 950mhz clock speeds on stock voltages though anything higher than that probably needs voltage manipulation. You pretty much need to hit 1000mhz to start matching the GTX570 or HD6950, though I sometimes wonder if its actually worth it since the acoustics and power consumption is seriously terrible without aftermarket cooling. so a stock 6950 @ 800mhz = a 560ti at 1000mhz? wow, i thought the 6950 would get totally smoked. i saw a review on techpowerup on the 6950 with the twin frozr III cooler and it got about 1050mhz with voltage tuning, safe to say its a hard rapist?
The 6950 at stock already beats the 560Ti at stock, and even more so in non-nVidia friendly games. And apart from maxed AA at 2560x1600 resolutions, and in only a few games at that, 1GB of VRAM is more than enough for the 6950. But the real bone to pick is with nVidia's decision to have the reference cards release with such a low core, when they can hit 950+ with stock voltage. They made the same mistake 460 (336SP) and they did it again with the 560Ti; they are leaving too much performance off the table. So in allowing AIB partners to make extra coin on "mega overclocked editions", this makes SKU vs. SKU comparisons more convoluted and difficult than they should be.
I'm still chuckling that nVidia had the galls to release the 560 (non-Ti) so late. It's an 336SP part (not 384SP) so you know it's just an overclocked 460 in the end. Why nVidia continues to play these "look how much headroom you can haz" mind-games is beyond me though.
|
I just wish EVGA made AMD cards... can you imagine the fun?
|
Oh, actually there is a 560ti I can get for $199.99 after rebates and stuff, so basically about the price of a 6870 (if I get it from a major manufacturer).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130634
Now to find one that looks like it should be good for OC without too much difficulties with heat and stuff...
|
On June 29 2011 23:53 EtherealDeath wrote:Oh, actually there is a 560ti I can get for $199.99 after rebates and stuff, so basically about the price of a 6870 (if I get it from a major manufacturer). http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130634Now to find one that looks like it should be good for OC without too much difficulties with heat and stuff...
EVGA is an excellent choice to OC.
|
That's nice to know. 1 fan good enough?
|
Well, that's just a reference cooler, which isn't as efficient as their non-reference, but in a wind tunnel of a case with side fans force feeding it, it should be fine.
If you're willing to play the rebate game, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130651 is $220, with what should be a better cooler.
|
Also, reading a overclocking guide on the 560ti now (which btw seems trivial), it mentioned in passing that some motherboards don't work so well and some work better. Then again, the ASRock I am probably going to use seems to be pretty good, so there should be no issues there I think.
P.S. you're bad at the rebate game, that card is actually $219.99 :
edit again: NVM I CANT READ $220 = $219.99 lol thought you typed $229.99
|
On June 30 2011 00:05 EtherealDeath wrote:Also, reading a overclocking guide on the 560ti now (which btw seems trivial), it mentioned in passing that some motherboards don't work so well and some work better. Then again, the ASRock I am probably going to use seems to be pretty good, so there should be no issues there I think. P.S. you're bad at the rebate game, that card is actually $219.99 : edit again: NVM I CANT READ $220 = $219.99 lol thought you typed $229.99
Yeah, I'm lazy and round off the penny.
|
It's good practice, just a marketing ploy anyways.
|
5930 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:34 mav451 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 23:22 Legatus Lanius wrote:On June 29 2011 23:15 Womwomwom wrote:
Depends on how lucky you are. Shouldn't be too hard to hit 950mhz clock speeds on stock voltages though anything higher than that probably needs voltage manipulation. You pretty much need to hit 1000mhz to start matching the GTX570 or HD6950, though I sometimes wonder if its actually worth it since the acoustics and power consumption is seriously terrible without aftermarket cooling. so a stock 6950 @ 800mhz = a 560ti at 1000mhz? wow, i thought the 6950 would get totally smoked. i saw a review on techpowerup on the 6950 with the twin frozr III cooler and it got about 1050mhz with voltage tuning, safe to say its a hard rapist? The 6950 at stock already beats the 560Ti at stock, and even more so in non-nVidia friendly games. And apart from maxed AA at 2560x1600 resolutions, and in only a few games at that, 1GB of VRAM is more than enough for the 6950. But the real bone to pick is with nVidia's decision to have the reference cards release with such a low core, when they can hit 950+ with stock voltage. They made the same mistake 460 (336SP) and they did it again with the 560Ti; they are leaving too much performance off the table. So in allowing AIB partners to make extra coin on "mega overclocked editions", this makes SKU vs. SKU comparisons more convoluted and difficult than they should be. I'm still chuckling that nVidia had the galls to release the 560 (non-Ti) so late. It's an 336SP part (not 384SP) so you know it's just an overclocked 460 in the end. Why nVidia continues to play these "look how much headroom you can haz" mind-games is beyond me though.
Isn't it to do with market segmentation? By conservatively clocking their midrange cards, they give consumers enough reason to splash $100 more for the high end cards, cards with huge profit margins, since there appears to be a enough of a performance difference to warrant it. If they increase clocks too high, the high end section of GPUs loose their attractiveness and people will just stick with the "good enough" midrange even more so then they currently do.
If they increase the clocks and leave prices the same, AMD will just price cut and I wonder if nVidia wants to play this game considering the die sizes of Fermi.
Also cards that overclock well seem to review well on websites, like Bit Tech and Hardware Canucks, it seems since its seen as free performance and the fact it can reach GTX570 levels is amazing apparently, nevermind the terrible power draw and heat.
With professional markets, I know they segment features and hardware. If you want to use CUDA in professional applications like Adobe Premiere Pro, you are forced to buy nVidia's high end lineup. I'm not sure if its a driver-level lock done by nVidia or a lock done by Adobe, but its seriously annoying for the little consumer.
|
|
|
Any particular reason you're buying 1866 RAM? The performance increase is pretty tiny. I mean, it does exist, but really, a lot of the time it isn't worth the hassle to go past 1600 at most. My memory is rated for 2000, but I just tightened the timings at 1600 instead. Much less abusive.
|
Hmm, well, $15 difference between 1866 and 1600mhz ram. 2% increase for $15 seems pretty trivial imo when the computer as a whole is near $1200.
|
On June 30 2011 00:32 EtherealDeath wrote:
Hmm, well, $15 difference between 1866 and 1600mhz ram. 2% increase for $15 seems pretty trivial imo when the computer as a whole is near $1200.
Are you sure you'll get the performance increase? Nothing wrong with it as an informed decision, but it's not guaranteed to be plug n play. You may have to tweak settings to get it stable at it's max rated spec, which can be a nightmare, and potentially require some significant overvolting. That's one of the reasons my RAM is just at 1600.
|
Or perhaps get 8 cas latency 1600mhz instead of 9 and 1866mhz? Actually $5 less for this option.
|
On June 30 2011 00:35 EtherealDeath wrote:
Or perhaps get 8 cas latency 1600mhz instead of 9 and 1866mhz? Actually $5 less for this option.
Probably be easier to get that working to spec, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
