|
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 October 04 2011 12:02 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2011 11:59 Munk-E wrote:On October 04 2011 11:52 Medrea wrote:On October 04 2011 11:50 Munk-E wrote:
So I think i should get a x16 x4 since i'm on a tight budget, which one should I get? The pervious one suggested had a lot of complaints. What resolution are you running at. I posted a graph up above that shows exactly what the situation is. 1920x1080 Then is: + Show Spoiler +Worth 25 dollars to you? Maybe, but you aren't even Crossfiring at the moment right? Your call, there is no wrong answer really. Its not like you bought some 300 dollar monster motherboard.
As much as i'd like it, I'm on a tight budget, so no it's not. Do you know of any decent motherboards that are kind of cheap that does x16 x4?
|
On October 04 2011 12:07 Munk-E wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2011 12:02 Medrea wrote:On October 04 2011 11:59 Munk-E wrote:On October 04 2011 11:52 Medrea wrote:On October 04 2011 11:50 Munk-E wrote:
So I think i should get a x16 x4 since i'm on a tight budget, which one should I get? The pervious one suggested had a lot of complaints. What resolution are you running at. I posted a graph up above that shows exactly what the situation is. 1920x1080 Then is: + Show Spoiler +Worth 25 dollars to you? Maybe, but you aren't even Crossfiring at the moment right? Your call, there is no wrong answer really. Its not like you bought some 300 dollar monster motherboard. As much as i'd like it, I'm on a tight budget, so no it's not. Do you know of any decent motherboards that are kind of cheap that does x16 x4?
The $90 one listed. The x16 x4 vs x8 x8 is entirely dependent on the motherboard, prices will vary, and sometimes the better price will be the better performance, sometimes not. The debate was very specifically between two motherboards.
|
On October 04 2011 12:07 Munk-E wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2011 12:02 Medrea wrote:On October 04 2011 11:59 Munk-E wrote:On October 04 2011 11:52 Medrea wrote:On October 04 2011 11:50 Munk-E wrote:
So I think i should get a x16 x4 since i'm on a tight budget, which one should I get? The pervious one suggested had a lot of complaints. What resolution are you running at. I posted a graph up above that shows exactly what the situation is. 1920x1080 Then is: + Show Spoiler +Worth 25 dollars to you? Maybe, but you aren't even Crossfiring at the moment right? Your call, there is no wrong answer really. Its not like you bought some 300 dollar monster motherboard. As much as i'd like it, I'm on a tight budget, so no it's not. Do you know of any decent motherboards that are kind of cheap that does x16 x4?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157249
Thats my motherboard of choice i guess since I have like, 24 of these. But watch out, they have zero onboard lights for error checking or anything like that.
One of the major reasons I chose this board is because the PCI-e slots are placed well. If I were to be just crossfiring, the two cards have some room between eachother whereas in many other setups one card is riding right behind the other one.
I can use the minislots for more cards as well since they are behind the full lanes but, thats another story completely.
|
Anyone have a Corsair 600t case? I'm having trouble figuring how to connect the fans to the fan controller
|
Can anyone explain the new GPUs in somewhat lamen terms? It seems as if there are SO many, and it is very hard differentiating what seperates them from one another.
Thanks!
|
On October 04 2011 12:34 Lith wrote:
Can anyone explain the new GPUs in somewhat lamen terms? It seems as if there are SO many, and it is very hard differentiating what seperates them from one another.
Thanks!
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU11/188
There are two major competitors each with different price/performance values and whatnot. What bout them needs explaining?
|
|
|
edit: wait this post is from the past whoops lol, but anyway...still stands
On October 04 2011 09:32 skyR wrote:
C43 is not a good board, we've already been through this.
Also this is the P67S-C43. The "normal" model is the P67A-C43, which is more expensive and has USB3 and maybe some other features as well. I'd need to check. It's not particularly a good motherboard in general and for overclocking (which I assume is why you'd get a i5-2500k).
If you can afford it, AsRock Z68 Pro3 is better, at $105:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157251
|
For some reason MSI motherboards arent very good. I forget why though. But I remember it being a good reason.
|
On October 04 2011 13:22 Medrea wrote:
For some reason MSI motherboards arent very good. I forget why though. But I remember it being a good reason.
Wasn't that an AM3 issue? Something to do with boards going all melty and shit? Or am I thinking of something else?
I'm a fan of either Asus or Asrock. EVGA was good for high end, but since their new motherboard team, they seem to have lost some of the common sense, although build quality and support shouldn't be changed.
|
On October 04 2011 13:25 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2011 13:22 Medrea wrote:
For some reason MSI motherboards arent very good. I forget why though. But I remember it being a good reason. Wasn't that an AM3 issue? Something to do with boards going all melty and shit? Or am I thinking of something else? I'm a fan of either Asus or Asrock. EVGA was good for high end, but since their new motherboard team, they seem to have lost some of the common sense, although build quality and support shouldn't be changed.
I thought it was just because they were bad at overclocking in general.
Its a shame too because I like MSI video cards. Many of which run cooler than the CPU they are teamed with, which is always impressive.
|
On October 04 2011 13:33 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2011 13:25 JingleHell wrote:On October 04 2011 13:22 Medrea wrote:
For some reason MSI motherboards arent very good. I forget why though. But I remember it being a good reason. Wasn't that an AM3 issue? Something to do with boards going all melty and shit? Or am I thinking of something else? I'm a fan of either Asus or Asrock. EVGA was good for high end, but since their new motherboard team, they seem to have lost some of the common sense, although build quality and support shouldn't be changed. I thought it was just because they were bad at overclocking in general. Its a shame too because I like MSI video cards. Many of which run cooler than the CPU they are teamed with, which is always impressive.
IDK about MSI for OCing, but I know Gigabyte will make your soul bleed with the BIOS.
Oh, and to qualify my earlier statement: I personally love EVGA boards, and the brand in general. But objectively, the new motherboard team has their work cut out to be as good as the old.
|
yeah the am3 msi boards had xtreme vrm fireworks lol.
the new boards seem fine though
|
On October 04 2011 13:53 Legatus Lanius wrote:
yeah the am3 msi boards had xtreme vrm fireworks lol.
the new boards seem fine though
Exploding motherboards... guess they aren't kidding about those military grade components.
|
On October 04 2011 14:12 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2011 13:53 Legatus Lanius wrote:
yeah the am3 msi boards had xtreme vrm fireworks lol.
the new boards seem fine though Exploding motherboards... guess they aren't kidding about those military grade components.
Heh. I don't even know what they mean by that to be honest. Pretty sure its just fluff language to attract all the call of duty nerds.
|
|
|
On October 04 2011 13:18 Myrmidon wrote:edit: wait this post is from the past whoops lol, but anyway...still stands Show nested quote +On October 04 2011 09:32 skyR wrote:
C43 is not a good board, we've already been through this. Also this is the P67S-C43. The "normal" model is the P67A-C43, which is more expensive and has USB3 and maybe some other features as well. I'd need to check. It's not particularly a good motherboard in general and for overclocking (which I assume is why you'd get a i5-2500k). If you can afford it, AsRock Z68 Pro3 is better, at $105: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157251
kk thx, ill go with the asrock
|
Its late and maybe im not thinking right. Whats the easiest way to find out the actual wattage consumption under load for a 6970.
Friend of mine thinks he needs a 1200W for quad 6970's and Im saying he probably only needs like 1100W or maybe 1000
EDIT: Holy shit its late. You know Im tired when Im wondering what arbitrary number they put at the end of there PSU I should look for.
I figured the card uses about 250W under load so that means about 83amps across all of the rails.
EDIT: Just checking to make sure. If I have a power supply that supplies 34A across each of 4 Virtual rails. I can load 34A on every rail right?
|
A 6970 has power requirements similar to that of a GTX 570 so about 220-240w under load.
And no, having four 12v rails rated at 34a each does not mean you can have a 136a.
|
On October 04 2011 15:57 skyR wrote:
A 6970 has power requirements similar to that of a GTX 570 so about 220-240w under load.
And no, having four 12v rails rated at 34a each does not mean you can have a 136a.
What does it mean then. How much do I have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.bestofmicro.com/6/P/284065/original/image027.png)
(
