EPTComputer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 335
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read the 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. | ||
|
Kotreb
Croatia1392 Posts
| ||
|
terranimbastimamove
United States81 Posts
On July 02 2014 02:34 Cyro wrote: No, you need a specific motherboard, a decent PSU etc. You should buy with those parts (preferably from a custom build site) if you don't want to learn to build yourself or pay somebody that you know to do it A website like www.ibuypower.com ? How do I figure out which motherboards will work with these parts also? Sorry for all the noob questions I just literally know nothing about computers lol | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
Why do you want to upgrade? What do you want to achieve with the upgrade? Streaming sc2 on medium settings.Stable 60fps in 200vs200 fight No CPU is capable of this with all unit types (400 zerglings/banelings vs 400 zerglings/banelings is way more CPU intensive than 30 thors vs 30 thors) but you can get a lot better than Phenom II. For a solid upgrade, you might want an overclocked 4690k On July 02 2014 08:54 terranimbastimamove wrote: A website like www.ibuypower.com ? How do I figure out which motherboards will work with these parts also? Sorry for all the noob questions I just literally know nothing about computers lol Yea, something like that. Current Haswell CPU's for example use the lga1150 socket. If you read the OP of this thread, there's a lot of random info there that is good. | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
Poor Samsung blinded by their money grab. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On July 02 2014 14:58 iTzSnypah wrote: I think the 850 Pro is the most disappointing SSD launch since the V4. The BIG thing 3D NAND is supposed bring to the table it fails at miserably; Cost/GB. 40nm is just TOO LARGE. Some very crude math of cell sizes says that going to 32nm would almost double wafer density (40^3 (64000) - 32^3 (32768)). Second is die size, ONLY 86GBit. Seriously they should be at least 256GBit (to reduce dies/SSD and reduce cost further) and have the controller be able to access each layer of the die at the same time to get past the performance loss from using less dies for a given capacity. And last is obviously the price/GB. Seriously for the same price as 1 850 Pro SSD of a given capacity I can buy 2 MX100s plop them in RAID 5 (mirrored) and have twice the read speed and redundancy. Poor Samsung blinded by their money grab. One of the main points was to MASSIVELY increase endurance (which they succeeded in) through being able to fall back on process size without losing performance | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
On July 02 2014 15:04 Cyro wrote: One of the main points was to MASSIVELY increase endurance (which they succeeded in) through being able to fall back on process size without losing performance These aren't enterprise SSDs. Endurance doesn't matter. If it does matter at all you're shopping for the wrong type of SSD. Are you really going to write 41.18GB/day for 10 years straight? | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
This 850 Pro product is apparently to compete with things like the Sandisk Extreme Pro, what with the 10 years warranty and that endurance. I bet you are right they are thinking more about money than about crushing their competition, don't expose at all to the outside what their real cost for the internals of this drive is, are fine with less drives sold and more profits per drive. Write endurance might be neat for some people as an hour of lightly compressed video for editing can be super large. I think Cyro is actually close to murdering his current, old SSD? I remember a screenshot about the SMART data entry related to that which showed that it was close to finished.  | ||
|
Kotreb
Croatia1392 Posts
On July 02 2014 08:18 Kotreb wrote: Quick question. Would you give the advantage to the 840 basic over SSD SATA III 128 GB ADATA XPG SP900, 2.5" or SSD SATA III 128 GB ADATA SX900, 2.5". Is it that much better? adata drives have higher speeds, but everyone here swears on samsung. Eeeh, anyone? | ||
|
Westy
England808 Posts
Sometime tomorrow I am going to buy one of these two computers: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-054-OG&groupid=43&catid=2475 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-010-OG&groupid=43&catid=2475 But I am confused. If you make it so they are the same spec (Upgrade the ram on the one with only 8gb), the build with the 4790 i7 is cheaper than the 4770. But according to cpubenchmark, the 4790 is better. Why is the better computer cheaper? Am I missing something? Which of the two do you think I should buy? Thanks | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On July 02 2014 16:18 iTzSnypah wrote: These aren't enterprise SSDs. Endurance doesn't matter. If it does matter at all you're shopping for the wrong type of SSD. Are you really going to write 41.18GB/day for 10 years straight? Performance consistency, high write speeds even on 128 GB version, 10 years warranty, etc... It's just launch MSRPs, anyway, not street pricing months later, and it's not like the Samsung 840 Pro was priced for budget shoppers either. If you needed a really fast scratch space for working with uncompressed video or whatever else, a stack of RAID-0 850 Pro might make sense. Also, a lot of companies do end up using consumer drives (traditionally Intel consumer models) for servers, datacenters, and other non-client applications because the costs are so much lower. Die shrinks for NAND on current technologies are unsustainable. The actual big thing 3D NAND is supposed to bring is being able to scale capacity on a new axis because the other tech is running up into a brick wall. Others are researching and developing the same or other alternatives also out of necessity; you can't beat the laws of physics. It's just that Samsung is first to feel their technology is mature enough to productize. The current pricing reflects the relative newness of the technology, the long warranty period, and best-in-class performance. The ADATA should be faster for most workloads, but keep in mind it's a SandForce drive and those max sequential speeds you see (especially on writes) are multiple times higher than what you get in practice on data that can't be compressed much on the fly by their controller. Also SandForce should be mostly over firmware issues bricking drives or causing other problems, but they had a bad reputation in the past for a reason. People prefer drives from the larger players for a reason. 840 basic 120 GB is pretty slow on sequential writes and nothing to write home about. Generally you wanted 840 250 GB or at least 840 EVO 120 GB if you cared about marginal performance differences. Usually these options were cheaper than those from competitors and just as or more reliable, so that's why they are frequently recommended. Nobody swears by anything but fanboys. Generally, at current pricing I would buy more than 120 GB, but between those two it depends on what you're looking for. I mean, how much more is Crucial MX100 256 GB? On July 03 2014 00:12 Westy wrote: Quick question. Sometime tomorrow I am going to buy one of these two computers: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-054-OG&groupid=43&catid=2475 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-010-OG&groupid=43&catid=2475 But I am confused. If you make it so they are the same spec (Upgrade the ram on the one with only 8gb), the build with the 4790 i7 is cheaper than the 4770. But according to cpubenchmark, the 4790 is better. Why is the better computer cheaper? Am I missing something? Which of the two do you think I should buy? Thanks There are differences in other components too. However, a Super Flower 80+ Gold power supply would be in something of the same price range as the Corsair RM750, and depending on the model the Super Flower might be better. Maybe the motherboard on the i7-4790K is worse. However, it's most probably that the second configuration is ripping you off. These things are rarely priced in ways that make too much sense. £1331.98 looks a bit on the high side still but not egregious when you consider they need to spend time on the build and testing while making a profit. And I guess you're paying for a guaranteed 4.6 GHz overclock (unless that's just a best-effort thing hidden in some fine print). Oh yeah, and the 4 GB GTX 770. edit again: I would consider the 250 GB SSD option. Also probably one of the i5-4690k options instead unless you're really doing work (read: not games) where a ~25% speed boost is a big deal to you. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-049-OG http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-050-OG If you're considered about video card VRAM (btw you probably shouldn't be if playing on a single monitor in the 1080p range), take the R9 280X rather than take a price hike from the normal GTX 770 to a 4 GB edition. | ||
|
Westy
England808 Posts
| ||
|
Kotreb
Croatia1392 Posts
i have these options (financially): SSD Samsung 120GB 840 EVO Basic; Crucial SSD 128GB Crucial M550 SATA 6Gbps 2.5; and those adata drives. Should i still go with samsung or is crucial better here? Would go for higher gb, but ssd will be used only for windows and cs and 250 gb is almost more than double priced so it's out of my budget. | ||
|
Hyren
United States817 Posts
edit: @ Kotreb- take this with a grain of salt, but my cousin who is a Tech Dev Specialist says there are rumors of a big price war over SSDs coming up | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Kotreb
Croatia1392 Posts
On July 03 2014 02:21 Hyren wrote: edit: @ Kotreb- take this with a grain of salt, but my cousin who is a Tech Dev Specialist says there are rumors of a big price war over SSDs coming up So the prices should drop? Hmmm, interesting. In a way, i'm in a big need of new one, but on the other hand getting those cheaper sounds wonderful :D thx for the tip :D | ||
|
Nisyax
Netherlands756 Posts
My question: the only reasonably good part in this desktop is the CPU: "Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz" (note: just that, not the S or K). It's quite old, and my PC is always on whenever I'm home and not sleeping. I've got my eye on the "Intel Core i5 4670K" as I am now basically convinced i7 is overkill for me. So any recommendation on my old CPU vs. that new one? Can it still last a couple more years, would it potentially pull the system down (hard to answer without knowing what I'm getting yet, but I'm looking for pretty high end  ), other CPU's that might be better? (the i5 is about 200 euro's here) | ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
On July 03 2014 02:21 Hyren wrote: So all of my computer parts except for my graphics card will be arriving today. The CPU has a built in GPU, would it be better to build the computer minus the graphics card today and get everything turned on, drivers installed etc and add the graphics card when it comes or should I wait on the graphics card? edit: @ Kotreb- take this with a grain of salt, but my cousin who is a Tech Dev Specialist says there are rumors of a big price war over SSDs coming up Sure, definitely. Just make sure you accommodate your impending GPU in your cable management (i.e. route the necessary cabling and just tie it off near the slot). It's very simple to just plop in a GPU after-the-fact and this'll let you get everything else installed and tested. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On July 03 2014 05:53 Nisyax wrote: Hello guys, I've recently (1 hour ago) decided to start looking for parts for my new desktop. My current one is three years old, and that is about the rate I renew them, and I can notice this one starting to struggle and being outdated (it was only average back then). My question: the only reasonably good part in this desktop is the CPU: "Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz" (note: just that, not the S or K). It's quite old, and my PC is always on whenever I'm home and not sleeping. I've got my eye on the "Intel Core i5 4670K" as I am now basically convinced i7 is overkill for me. So any recommendation on my old CPU vs. that new one? Can it still last a couple more years, would it potentially pull the system down (hard to answer without knowing what I'm getting yet, but I'm looking for pretty high end ), other CPU's that might be better? (the i5 is about 200 euro's here)I wouldn't yet buy a new board+CPU. I bet you'll be disappointed. Your CPU is still pretty close to the current top and you won't feel a difference. You might be less disappointed if you overclock the new CPU, but even then, I think there's only a few games and programs that will actually feel different for a human, the rest will just be noticed in benchmark numbers. You should wait with upgrading board+CPU until the next generation or the one after that and DDR4 RAM and stuff, so maybe think about this again in two years or so? You didn't mention anything about the rest of the parts in your PC, but I bet the PC struggling is just the graphics card. You might also want to buy an SSD if you don't yet have one. Perhaps think about using your money to change something else that would improve sitting at the PC like a better monitor or a new chair. | ||
|
Hyren
United States817 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
| ||
