|
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. |
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On November 13 2014 05:02 napalmion wrote:I can forget about getting it stable at 1,38 vid unless changing some other things I didnt even think about could make this big of a difference at 1,42 vid I felt close to stabilizing under load it was 1,44 vcore so I might give 1,43 vid a shot but I will be heating 1,45 vcore and temps propably getting close to 90C okay I put it at 1,425vid(1,452vcore) no stability during test, then I bumped vid to 1,43 which actually resulted at same 1,452vcore and same vrin so I gave it last go at vid 1,435 which bumped vcore to 1,464v(2,15v input) and still no stability and temperatures of 90C on hottest cores, since Im a newbie Im not raising voltage any higher I can play with other settings if it can help me get that 47 (I couldnt find that llc in my bios you were talking about, will google that I guess) btw this is fun I must admit  Im running uncore x35(stock of 4690k?) and uncore voltage on auto(1,05v I think) I could set it to 33x like it was suggested in that guide(I have gigabyte board) and put that voltage to 1,15v but my common sense tells me it shouldnt have huge impact on stability on that 4,7ghz core
Yea juse use 46 and vrin ~0.6 above vcore with turbo llc
you're supposed to manually set uncore to 33@1.15v because default behavior auto overclocks it when you change core settings
|
Sold my last mini-atx rig this forum helped me build. I just ordered this setup for World of Warcraft : Warlords of Draenor and The Witcher 3, I'm looking for general advice to overclock and configure the setup.
Intel i7 4790K – 4.0 GHz - $330 w/ $20 promotional gift card
ASUS STRIX GTX 970 4GB - $350 on Amazon
ASUS Z79-E LGA 1150 Mobo - $120 w/ $20 promotional gift card
Noctua NHU14-S CPU Cooler - $70
Samsung 850 SSDs, 256 & 128 GB - $190 & $110
Rosewill Capstone 550-M 550W PSU - $75
Rosewill Blackhawk Case - $60
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit - $140
8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 MHz Ram - $80
ASUS VS239H-P Black 23" IPS monitor - reused
Artic Silver 5 - $9
~ $1550 w/ $40 Newegg promotional gift card
|
Save money by buying an i5-4690k instead of the i7. If you overclock manually, the default speed difference will disappear.
Additionally, there's less of a battle trying to cool the i5. An i7 runs a good bit hotter because of HyperThreading so there's a good chance that the max. speed you get through overclocking will be higher if you choose an i5 (though you could technically disable HyperThreading on the i7, but then you spent $100 for nothing). The max. speed is the sole thing that determines the framerate you'll see in WoW, nothing special about the i7 will help push it in front.
All of this is of course highly influenced by luck. What I just wrote about i5 > i7 is basically only true when thinking about averages. The particular CPU you get might be very good or very bad, no matter if you decide on i5 or i7.
You could choose Crucial MX100 to save some money on the SSDs. There's also a 512gb model for $210 or so, and a possibly more robust Crucial M550 512gb for $250.
You should look up the prices for faster RAM. If you find a memory kit with something like 2133 MHz that's close in price to that 1600 MHz kit you have on your list, then choose the faster kit. You won't gain a lot of FPS, but you will still get a little bit more. If you think about it as adding $15 or so to the price of the whole machine, it's definitely worth it. Basically, only choose 1600 MHz if you get it very cheap.
|
United Kingdom20340 Posts
|
On November 13 2014 23:59 Ropid wrote:
Save money by buying an i5-4690k instead of the i7. If you overclock manually, the default speed difference will disappear.
Additionally, there's less of a battle trying to cool the i5. An i7 runs a good bit hotter because of HyperThreading so there's a good chance that the max. speed you get through overclocking will be higher if you choose an i5 (though you could technically disable HyperThreading on the i7, but then you spent $100 for nothing). The max. speed is the sole thing that determines the framerate you'll see in WoW, nothing special about the i7 will help push it in front.
All of this is of course highly influenced by luck. What I just wrote about i5 > i7 is basically only true when thinking about averages. The particular CPU you get might be very good or very bad, no matter if you decide on i5 or i7.
You could choose Crucial MX100 to save some money on the SSDs. There's also a 512gb model for $210 or so, and a possibly more robust Crucial M550 512gb for $250.
You should look up the prices for faster RAM. If you find a memory kit with something like 2133 MHz that's close in price to that 1600 MHz kit you have on your list, then choose the faster kit. You won't gain a lot of FPS, but you will still get a little bit more. If you think about it as adding $15 or so to the price of the whole machine, it's definitely worth it. Basically, only choose 1600 MHz if you get it very cheap.
I knew I impulsively spent extra on the i7 and the SSDs...I should have waited until Cyber Monday, but thanks for the analysis Ropid!
|
Thank you very much Cyro~!
|
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On November 14 2014 00:20 Alabasern wrote:Thank you very much Cyro~!
np
most of the downside from strix comes from voltage limit (it's something like 1.18v or 1.212v on stock bios while the msi gaming 970 and the g1 can do 1.25v) and the restrictive power limit
power limit on strix is 196w max. You can't really raise it - because of the single power connector and some limits on the card level - unless you use a custom bios and voilate pci-e power draw specs, so there's not much fix for it. The MSI gaming 970 does 220w on stock bios (which some games are completely fine with and stay well under, others can't use a max OC at 1.25v with because they throttle a bit) and the g1 does ~280w. Those are just three of the big cards on release, there are a few killer cards like the HOF coming out. For most standard users the differences are not very important
|
On November 14 2014 00:19 Alabasern wrote:
I knew I impulsively spent extra on the i7 and the SSDs...I should have waited until Cyber Monday, but thanks for the analysis Ropid!
I apologise... overlooked that one sentence. 
It's a great PC and nothing of what I wrote would have made it better, instead a tiny bit worse but cheaper.
|
On November 14 2014 00:29 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2014 00:19 Alabasern wrote:
I knew I impulsively spent extra on the i7 and the SSDs...I should have waited until Cyber Monday, but thanks for the analysis Ropid! I apologise... overlooked that one sentence. It's a great PC and nothing of what I wrote would have made it better, instead a tiny bit worse but cheaper.
Oh no problems, I wrote it afterward, I'm just excited to play esports again!~ And finish the Witcher 2 & 3.
|
On November 14 2014 00:23 Cyro wrote:np most of the downside from strix comes from voltage limit (it's something like 1.18v or 1.212v on stock bios while the msi gaming 970 and the g1 can do 1.25v) and the restrictive power limit power limit on strix is 196w max. You can't really raise it - because of the single power connector and some limits on the card level - unless you use a custom bios and voilate pci-e power draw specs, so there's not much fix for it. The MSI gaming 970 does 220w on stock bios (which some games are completely fine with and stay well under, others can't use a max OC at 1.25v with because they throttle a bit) and the g1 does ~280w. Those are just three of the big cards on release, there are a few killer cards like the HOF coming out. For most standard users the differences are not very important
Never seen a HOF card until now, cool stuff. Thanks for the detailed observations, I will adjust my configuration accordingly.
|
On November 14 2014 00:23 Cyro wrote:np most of the downside from strix comes from voltage limit (it's something like 1.18v or 1.212v on stock bios while the msi gaming 970 and the g1 can do 1.25v) and the restrictive power limit power limit on strix is 196w max. You can't really raise it - because of the single power connector and some limits on the card level - unless you use a custom bios and voilate pci-e power draw specs, so there's not much fix for it. The MSI gaming 970 does 220w on stock bios (which some games are completely fine with and stay well under, others can't use a max OC at 1.25v with because they throttle a bit) and the g1 does ~280w. Those are just three of the big cards on release, there are a few killer cards like the HOF coming out. For most standard users the differences are not very important
My personal worry of the Strix Design overclocking is fan failure over time with constant winding up-down of its fans from 0 to 50% Since its a new design that hasn't been time-tested.
The nightmare scenario of Strix OC would be a state in which the fans end up spinning up and down repeatedly while doing medium tasks, which admittedly is a bigger concern on AMD cards as opposed to Nvidia 9-- series.
|
On November 14 2014 00:57 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2014 00:23 Cyro wrote:On November 14 2014 00:20 Alabasern wrote:Thank you very much Cyro~! np most of the downside from strix comes from voltage limit (it's something like 1.18v or 1.212v on stock bios while the msi gaming 970 and the g1 can do 1.25v) and the restrictive power limit power limit on strix is 196w max. You can't really raise it - because of the single power connector and some limits on the card level - unless you use a custom bios and voilate pci-e power draw specs, so there's not much fix for it. The MSI gaming 970 does 220w on stock bios (which some games are completely fine with and stay well under, others can't use a max OC at 1.25v with because they throttle a bit) and the g1 does ~280w. Those are just three of the big cards on release, there are a few killer cards like the HOF coming out. For most standard users the differences are not very important My personal worry of the Strix Design overclocking is fan failure over time with constant winding up-down of its fans from 0 to 50% Since its a new design that hasn't been time-tested. The nightmare scenario of Strix OC would be a state in which the fans end up spinning up and down repeatedly while doing medium tasks, which admittedly is a bigger concern on AMD cards as opposed to Nvidia 9-- series.
Observations noted, and cool profile kupon3ss.
|
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On November 14 2014 00:57 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2014 00:23 Cyro wrote:On November 14 2014 00:20 Alabasern wrote:Thank you very much Cyro~! np most of the downside from strix comes from voltage limit (it's something like 1.18v or 1.212v on stock bios while the msi gaming 970 and the g1 can do 1.25v) and the restrictive power limit power limit on strix is 196w max. You can't really raise it - because of the single power connector and some limits on the card level - unless you use a custom bios and voilate pci-e power draw specs, so there's not much fix for it. The MSI gaming 970 does 220w on stock bios (which some games are completely fine with and stay well under, others can't use a max OC at 1.25v with because they throttle a bit) and the g1 does ~280w. Those are just three of the big cards on release, there are a few killer cards like the HOF coming out. For most standard users the differences are not very important My personal worry of the Strix Design overclocking is fan failure over time with constant winding up-down of its fans from 0 to 50% Since its a new design that hasn't been time-tested. The nightmare scenario of Strix OC would be a state in which the fans end up spinning up and down repeatedly while doing medium tasks, which admittedly is a bigger concern on AMD cards as opposed to Nvidia 9-- series.
I set my MSI card to never spin down because of that; in certain situations when you can't idle properly (like 144hz screen + secondary screen) it just spins up and down every 10 seconds all night unless you use a very high temperature before fans start, like 65c
|
Hi guys,
This is my first post on TL, hope I'm posting in the right place! I'm intending to build my first PC to run SC2/DotA/WoW/Random FPS games, and hoepfully anything else that takes my fancy in the next few years (I don't care about settings really, just wanna be able to play new titles). My budget's about £700 but I could maybe be convinced to spend (a little) more or less if anything I've chosen is really stupid. Also it's not on list but I'll be buying a 1tb mechanical hard drive. I don't intend to overclock. I am a total noob to computer hardware going into this, but have tried to research as much as possible. My questions, other than just general opinions, are:
1/ I don't really care an awful lot about load time. Should I sack off the SSD and spend more money on a better processor/graphics card?
2/ Would buying a more expensive motherboard make any difference considering I am not running two graphics cards? Mostly thinking of longevity here
3/ If I do get an SSD, is anything about my motherboard bottlenecking its speed? I read something about this but couldn't really decipher whether my motherboard was fine or not
4/ Windows 7 vs 8 - I don't care about windows 8 shitty interface. Is there any reason to get windows 7 over windows 8 given this? and practical concerns to do with performance or ease of installation/updating for example
Here's a link to the build! http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/c4fkzy
Thanks guys, if there's anything I've done wrong in terms of forum etiquette let me know and I'll do my best to fix it!
|
United Kingdom20340 Posts
^A reference 290x for £250 is pretty bad. 290x only performs something like ~4% faster than 290 at similar clock speeds, and the reference coolers are awful.
Tri-x 290 is ~£15-20 cheaper and should perform better while being quieter if you tweak it at all. If you don't, it'd still be a better experience.
There's also reference 970's are very cheap prices. They're much better to use than reference 290/290x, because they are ~1.5-2x as power efficient as 290's and much more easily kept cool and quiet.
There's probably some better PSU option, that one is very expensive there for the quality
The i5 4440 does 3.1ghz under 4-core load, some others do 3.5, 3.6 or 3.7ghz under 4-core load which is a significant performance difference and maybe worth the money for you
no modern mobo will significantly hold back an SSD i think, they all use sata 3.0 (6gbit/s)
1/ I don't really care an awful lot about load time. Should I sack off the SSD and spend more money on a better processor/graphics card?
2/ Would buying a more expensive motherboard make any difference considering I am not running two graphics cards? Mostly thinking of longevity here
3/ If I do get an SSD, is anything about my motherboard bottlenecking its speed? I read something about this but couldn't really decipher whether my motherboard was fine or not
4/ Windows 7 vs 8 - I don't care about windows 8 shitty interface. Is there any reason to get windows 7 over windows 8 given this? and practical concerns to do with performance or ease of installation/updating for example
1; There's not really better CPU/GPU available than Haswell i5 and 290/970 that makes sense to buy, so that would mostly be cost saving for you. At those SSD prices i think you should take SSD even if you don't really care for load times, the performance differences are too big.
2; I don't think so
3; answered
4; Biggest reason for me using windows 7 is that it has the ability to use a more basic theme with vsync disabled. Windows 8/8.1 forces you to use vsync unless maybe you use a hacky method to disable desktop composition, so it has quite a lot of lag added to cursor movement and desktop window interaction, basically anything that you do on your system ever that's not a game being rendered in exclusive fullscreen mode
|
Hi Cyro!
First off, thanks a lot for the advice, I appreciate the detailed answer
A few things. Reference just means the totally original model? What about the name of that card told you that it was reference as opposed to non-reference? I hadn't considered that there would be differences within models of GPU and all the numbers/letters are pretty confusing.
So I did a little research and it looks like the gtx 970 is indeed a comparable card and quieter/less power hungry, thanks for the heads up. Do I still need a 600w power supply for the 970 or is 500w fine?
Sorry to be dense, but just to be sure, here is the build with the change of GPU and a 500w power supply. Is it all fine? also is this gonna be able to run sc2 no problem?
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/VJ79yc
Thanks a lot for the advice!
|
I also take what you mean about windows 8, I'll go for windows 7 ^^
Edit: I forgot the edit function existed, sorry for the useless post!
|
|
|
okay looks like Im propably very stable(5h x264 and few hours of aida while working on computer) at x46 vcore 1,368v(1,34vid) my rams were at 1333mhz 1,5v I think they are good rams 8-8-8-24 1600mhz /w xmp(was not 100% sure what it was but after reading a little just decided to enable it and all it did I think was bumping it up to 1600mhz, is there easy way to play with memory to get more out of it?
Im about to throw x264 for a night to keep checking stability (I will also bump uncore to 38@1,2v from 35@1,15v) I already confirmed that going 47x is going to be hard(core#1 did 4,7np@1,34vid but core#2 is bottlenecking me it seems)
also small question, before I decide on buying sweet gpu Im running on intel hd 4600 integrated graphics, its 1250mhz and temps are incredibly low(under aida gpu stress they are like 35-40) can I bump it up to like 1500mhz or higher and how do I go about it? not really looking to fiddle around with it a lot because I will propably be buying gpu in 2-6weeks time
|
United Kingdom20340 Posts
I don't know anything about iGPU oc, sorry
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
