|
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 Kingdom20323 Posts
4) Will having a single 8gb of RAM have a significant difference over 2x4gb of RAM?
Yes, and you should use 2x4GB unless you really want to upgrade to 16GB RAM at a set time in the future. Single channel 1600c9 is only something like 10GB/s bandwidth while OC'd dual channel (which you can't do here) can be 30-35GB/s, that kind of bandwidth loss makes a difference in some programs/games even if smaller RAM performance changes might not make huge differences. Sc2 is one of the engines that has shown very significant performance changes with RAM so it's a mistake to run single channel for no particular reason.
1) Will this build be able to run Sc2 1v1 at decent settings (high/medium) with >30fps?
Can't really say because performance varies so much depending on unit counts, type of units, the map etc.. I have one fight on a 1v1, huge map, 200v200 with a ton of missile turrets and seeker missiles and no CPU in the world can hold 30fps on that.. but with a weaker CPU, that 30 is instead as low as 10-15. Performance is much, much higher than that most of the time.
2) Is the PSU sufficient?
Yes
5) Should I spend $10 more on my GPU to get the ASUS or Gigabyte versions rather than the Gainward version?
I would personally, but that's not a very well educated decision
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 03 2014 12:15 Cyro wrote:4) Will having a single 8gb of RAM have a significant difference over 2x4gb of RAM? Yes, and you should use 2x4GB unless you really want to upgrade to 16GB RAM at a set time in the future. Single channel 1600c9 is only something like 10GB/s bandwidth while OC'd dual channel (which you can't do here) can be 30-35GB/s, that kind of bandwidth loss makes a difference in some programs/games even if smaller RAM performance changes might not make huge differences. Sc2 is one of the engines that has shown very significant performance changes with RAM so it's a mistake to run single channel for no particular reason. 1) Will this build be able to run Sc2 1v1 at decent settings (high/medium) with >30fps? Can't really say because performance varies so much depending on unit counts, type of units, the map etc.. I have one fight on a 1v1, huge map, 200v200 with a ton of missile turrets and seeker missiles and no CPU in the world can hold 30fps on that.. but with a weaker CPU, that 30 is instead as low as 10-15. Performance is much, much higher than that most of the time. 2) Is the PSU sufficient? Yes 5) Should I spend $10 more on my GPU to get the ASUS or Gigabyte versions rather than the Gainward version? I would personally, but that's not a very well educated decision
Thanks for the quick reply!
Seeing as I do not plan on upgrading to 16gb RAM, I think I will get the GSkill Ares (2x4gb) F1600C9D-8GAO instead which is $10 more expensive. It should also be compatable with my mother board from what I can see on their website.
I guess I should have reworded my questions on sc2 performance  . As I understand it, I should be able to play sc2 in a 1v1 setting using medium/hgh graphics with decent fps that is >30 most of the time outside of large battles on most ladder maps. Is this correct? Ideally I would be having >60fps for most of the first 10 minutes or so, although I am not sure how realistic this goal is given my only experience playing Starcraft 2 is on a terrible laptop that barely had playable fps on low.
I think I will stick to the Gainward GPU for now, but I will look a bit harder for reviews to make sure it is reliable.
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
On December 03 2014 12:50 Motlu wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On December 03 2014 12:15 Cyro wrote:4) Will having a single 8gb of RAM have a significant difference over 2x4gb of RAM? Yes, and you should use 2x4GB unless you really want to upgrade to 16GB RAM at a set time in the future. Single channel 1600c9 is only something like 10GB/s bandwidth while OC'd dual channel (which you can't do here) can be 30-35GB/s, that kind of bandwidth loss makes a difference in some programs/games even if smaller RAM performance changes might not make huge differences. Sc2 is one of the engines that has shown very significant performance changes with RAM so it's a mistake to run single channel for no particular reason. 1) Will this build be able to run Sc2 1v1 at decent settings (high/medium) with >30fps? Can't really say because performance varies so much depending on unit counts, type of units, the map etc.. I have one fight on a 1v1, huge map, 200v200 with a ton of missile turrets and seeker missiles and no CPU in the world can hold 30fps on that.. but with a weaker CPU, that 30 is instead as low as 10-15. Performance is much, much higher than that most of the time. 2) Is the PSU sufficient? Yes 5) Should I spend $10 more on my GPU to get the ASUS or Gigabyte versions rather than the Gainward version? I would personally, but that's not a very well educated decision Thanks for the quick reply! Seeing as I do not plan on upgrading to 16gb RAM, I think I will get the GSkill Ares (2x4gb) F1600C9D-8GAO instead which is $10 more expensive. It should also be compatable with my mother board from what I can see on their website. I guess I should have reworded my questions on sc2 performance . As I understand it, I should be able to play sc2 in a 1v1 setting using medium/hgh graphics with decent fps that is >30 most of the time outside of large battles on most ladder maps. Is this correct? Ideally I would be having >60fps for most of the first 10 minutes or so, although I am not sure how realistic this goal is given my only experience playing Starcraft 2 is on a terrible laptop that barely had playable fps on low. I think I will stick to the Gainward GPU for now, but I will look a bit harder for reviews to make sure it is reliable.
Yes
I have two vids showing performance, with CPU running at ~4.5-4.6ghz and fast RAM though. If possible, get one of the i5's that run's faster, that one only runs 3.2ghz under 4-core load, while some of the others run up to 500mhz faster than it regardless of how many cores are loaded (~15%) but the pricing on those can be higher
+ Show Spoiler +FPS monitor bottom right: 60fps in first 10 mins of a 1v1? lol 2v2 bench run sc2 performance is very strongly related to unit counts (12 cracklings/banelings will destroy performance a lot more than 1 thor will, even though they take the same supply) and the amount of attacks going off (that's why missile turrets are bad; they don't take supply, they attack very fast and they have several damage hits per attack IIRC) and also, performance is almost entirely unaffected by graphical settings, aside from Physics, Effects and Reflections (which can go from not really affecting performance at all, to being HUGE fps drops just from one of those settings, Physics can cut your FPS more than in half, effects lowers quite a lot and reflections are done on the CPU, not usually a huge problem but worth disabling maybe)
|
Picked up a 250gb samsung evo SSD (100$) and 8gb 1600 gskill ram (55$) yesterday to upgrade the comp :D
Maybe next cyber monday will be mobo/cpu/gpu ~~
|
On December 03 2014 13:00 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2014 12:50 Motlu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 03 2014 12:15 Cyro wrote:4) Will having a single 8gb of RAM have a significant difference over 2x4gb of RAM? Yes, and you should use 2x4GB unless you really want to upgrade to 16GB RAM at a set time in the future. Single channel 1600c9 is only something like 10GB/s bandwidth while OC'd dual channel (which you can't do here) can be 30-35GB/s, that kind of bandwidth loss makes a difference in some programs/games even if smaller RAM performance changes might not make huge differences. Sc2 is one of the engines that has shown very significant performance changes with RAM so it's a mistake to run single channel for no particular reason. 1) Will this build be able to run Sc2 1v1 at decent settings (high/medium) with >30fps? Can't really say because performance varies so much depending on unit counts, type of units, the map etc.. I have one fight on a 1v1, huge map, 200v200 with a ton of missile turrets and seeker missiles and no CPU in the world can hold 30fps on that.. but with a weaker CPU, that 30 is instead as low as 10-15. Performance is much, much higher than that most of the time. 2) Is the PSU sufficient? Yes 5) Should I spend $10 more on my GPU to get the ASUS or Gigabyte versions rather than the Gainward version? I would personally, but that's not a very well educated decision Thanks for the quick reply! Seeing as I do not plan on upgrading to 16gb RAM, I think I will get the GSkill Ares (2x4gb) F1600C9D-8GAO instead which is $10 more expensive. It should also be compatable with my mother board from what I can see on their website. I guess I should have reworded my questions on sc2 performance . As I understand it, I should be able to play sc2 in a 1v1 setting using medium/hgh graphics with decent fps that is >30 most of the time outside of large battles on most ladder maps. Is this correct? Ideally I would be having >60fps for most of the first 10 minutes or so, although I am not sure how realistic this goal is given my only experience playing Starcraft 2 is on a terrible laptop that barely had playable fps on low. I think I will stick to the Gainward GPU for now, but I will look a bit harder for reviews to make sure it is reliable. Yes I have two vids showing performance, with CPU running at ~4.5-4.6ghz and fast RAM though. If possible, get one of the i5's that run's faster, that one only runs 3.2ghz under 4-core load, while some of the others run up to 500mhz faster than it regardless of how many cores are loaded (~15%) but the pricing on those can be higher + Show Spoiler +FPS monitor bottom right: 60fps in first 10 mins of a 1v1? lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0jyZ0ISUGQ2v2 bench run https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUZrLywPd8ssc2 performance is very strongly related to unit counts (12 cracklings/banelings will destroy performance a lot more than 1 thor will, even though they take the same supply) and the amount of attacks going off (that's why missile turrets are bad; they don't take supply, they attack very fast and they have several damage hits per attack IIRC) and also, performance is almost entirely unaffected by graphical settings, aside from Physics, Effects and Reflections (which can go from not really affecting performance at all, to being HUGE fps drops just from one of those settings, Physics can cut your FPS more than in half, effects lowers quite a lot and reflections are done on the CPU, not usually a huge problem but worth disabling maybe)
Would an upgrade to a 4690 be the most beneficial in terms of performance while staying within the locked i5 range? From what I can tell it is 300mhz faster than the 4460. It would raise the price of the build by $40AUD, which is not ideal but still barely within affordable range so I will consider it. I think someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the 4590 is ~18% faster than the 4460, which is quite a large increase.
So long as I can have decent fps regardless of which i5 I go for I will be happy!
That ~300fps in the first video is making me rather aroused. I am used to ~40-50fps in that period of the game using my laptop D:
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
On December 03 2014 14:23 Motlu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2014 13:00 Cyro wrote:On December 03 2014 12:50 Motlu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 03 2014 12:15 Cyro wrote:4) Will having a single 8gb of RAM have a significant difference over 2x4gb of RAM? Yes, and you should use 2x4GB unless you really want to upgrade to 16GB RAM at a set time in the future. Single channel 1600c9 is only something like 10GB/s bandwidth while OC'd dual channel (which you can't do here) can be 30-35GB/s, that kind of bandwidth loss makes a difference in some programs/games even if smaller RAM performance changes might not make huge differences. Sc2 is one of the engines that has shown very significant performance changes with RAM so it's a mistake to run single channel for no particular reason. 1) Will this build be able to run Sc2 1v1 at decent settings (high/medium) with >30fps? Can't really say because performance varies so much depending on unit counts, type of units, the map etc.. I have one fight on a 1v1, huge map, 200v200 with a ton of missile turrets and seeker missiles and no CPU in the world can hold 30fps on that.. but with a weaker CPU, that 30 is instead as low as 10-15. Performance is much, much higher than that most of the time. 2) Is the PSU sufficient? Yes 5) Should I spend $10 more on my GPU to get the ASUS or Gigabyte versions rather than the Gainward version? I would personally, but that's not a very well educated decision Thanks for the quick reply! Seeing as I do not plan on upgrading to 16gb RAM, I think I will get the GSkill Ares (2x4gb) F1600C9D-8GAO instead which is $10 more expensive. It should also be compatable with my mother board from what I can see on their website. I guess I should have reworded my questions on sc2 performance . As I understand it, I should be able to play sc2 in a 1v1 setting using medium/hgh graphics with decent fps that is >30 most of the time outside of large battles on most ladder maps. Is this correct? Ideally I would be having >60fps for most of the first 10 minutes or so, although I am not sure how realistic this goal is given my only experience playing Starcraft 2 is on a terrible laptop that barely had playable fps on low. I think I will stick to the Gainward GPU for now, but I will look a bit harder for reviews to make sure it is reliable. Yes I have two vids showing performance, with CPU running at ~4.5-4.6ghz and fast RAM though. If possible, get one of the i5's that run's faster, that one only runs 3.2ghz under 4-core load, while some of the others run up to 500mhz faster than it regardless of how many cores are loaded (~15%) but the pricing on those can be higher + Show Spoiler +FPS monitor bottom right: 60fps in first 10 mins of a 1v1? lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0jyZ0ISUGQ2v2 bench run https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUZrLywPd8ssc2 performance is very strongly related to unit counts (12 cracklings/banelings will destroy performance a lot more than 1 thor will, even though they take the same supply) and the amount of attacks going off (that's why missile turrets are bad; they don't take supply, they attack very fast and they have several damage hits per attack IIRC) and also, performance is almost entirely unaffected by graphical settings, aside from Physics, Effects and Reflections (which can go from not really affecting performance at all, to being HUGE fps drops just from one of those settings, Physics can cut your FPS more than in half, effects lowers quite a lot and reflections are done on the CPU, not usually a huge problem but worth disabling maybe) Would an upgrade to a 4690 be the most beneficial in terms of performance while staying within the locked i5 range? From what I can tell it is 300mhz faster than the 4460. It would raise the price of the build by $40AUD, which is not ideal but still barely within affordable range so I will consider it. I think someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the 4590 is ~18% faster than the 4460, which is quite a large increase. So long as I can have decent fps regardless of which i5 I go for I will be happy! That ~300fps in the first video is making me rather aroused. I am used to ~40-50fps in that period of the game using my laptop D:
The 4460 runs at 3.2ghz under 4-core load and 3.4ghz under 1-core load, while the 4690 runs at 3.7ghz under 4-core load and 3.9ghz under 1-core load
also.. that FPS is in a 2v2 at faster x8
h81 mobo's are not guaranteed to be compatible with haswell refresh CPU's (released in ~2014) so you should pick a board that supports them guaranteed, or get one from 2013 release shown here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Haswell-DT.22_.28quad-core.2C_22_nm.29 - there's no performance difference, it's just a refresh with same technology for no real reason that introduces compatibility issues, because Intel is Intel
It's up to you if you care about ~15% more CPU performance that much
|
On December 03 2014 14:27 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2014 14:23 Motlu wrote:On December 03 2014 13:00 Cyro wrote:On December 03 2014 12:50 Motlu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 03 2014 12:15 Cyro wrote:4) Will having a single 8gb of RAM have a significant difference over 2x4gb of RAM? Yes, and you should use 2x4GB unless you really want to upgrade to 16GB RAM at a set time in the future. Single channel 1600c9 is only something like 10GB/s bandwidth while OC'd dual channel (which you can't do here) can be 30-35GB/s, that kind of bandwidth loss makes a difference in some programs/games even if smaller RAM performance changes might not make huge differences. Sc2 is one of the engines that has shown very significant performance changes with RAM so it's a mistake to run single channel for no particular reason. 1) Will this build be able to run Sc2 1v1 at decent settings (high/medium) with >30fps? Can't really say because performance varies so much depending on unit counts, type of units, the map etc.. I have one fight on a 1v1, huge map, 200v200 with a ton of missile turrets and seeker missiles and no CPU in the world can hold 30fps on that.. but with a weaker CPU, that 30 is instead as low as 10-15. Performance is much, much higher than that most of the time. 2) Is the PSU sufficient? Yes 5) Should I spend $10 more on my GPU to get the ASUS or Gigabyte versions rather than the Gainward version? I would personally, but that's not a very well educated decision Thanks for the quick reply! Seeing as I do not plan on upgrading to 16gb RAM, I think I will get the GSkill Ares (2x4gb) F1600C9D-8GAO instead which is $10 more expensive. It should also be compatable with my mother board from what I can see on their website. I guess I should have reworded my questions on sc2 performance . As I understand it, I should be able to play sc2 in a 1v1 setting using medium/hgh graphics with decent fps that is >30 most of the time outside of large battles on most ladder maps. Is this correct? Ideally I would be having >60fps for most of the first 10 minutes or so, although I am not sure how realistic this goal is given my only experience playing Starcraft 2 is on a terrible laptop that barely had playable fps on low. I think I will stick to the Gainward GPU for now, but I will look a bit harder for reviews to make sure it is reliable. Yes I have two vids showing performance, with CPU running at ~4.5-4.6ghz and fast RAM though. If possible, get one of the i5's that run's faster, that one only runs 3.2ghz under 4-core load, while some of the others run up to 500mhz faster than it regardless of how many cores are loaded (~15%) but the pricing on those can be higher + Show Spoiler +FPS monitor bottom right: 60fps in first 10 mins of a 1v1? lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0jyZ0ISUGQ2v2 bench run https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUZrLywPd8ssc2 performance is very strongly related to unit counts (12 cracklings/banelings will destroy performance a lot more than 1 thor will, even though they take the same supply) and the amount of attacks going off (that's why missile turrets are bad; they don't take supply, they attack very fast and they have several damage hits per attack IIRC) and also, performance is almost entirely unaffected by graphical settings, aside from Physics, Effects and Reflections (which can go from not really affecting performance at all, to being HUGE fps drops just from one of those settings, Physics can cut your FPS more than in half, effects lowers quite a lot and reflections are done on the CPU, not usually a huge problem but worth disabling maybe) Would an upgrade to a 4690 be the most beneficial in terms of performance while staying within the locked i5 range? From what I can tell it is 300mhz faster than the 4460. It would raise the price of the build by $40AUD, which is not ideal but still barely within affordable range so I will consider it. I think someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the 4590 is ~18% faster than the 4460, which is quite a large increase. So long as I can have decent fps regardless of which i5 I go for I will be happy! That ~300fps in the first video is making me rather aroused. I am used to ~40-50fps in that period of the game using my laptop D: The 4460 runs at 3.2ghz under 4-core load and 3.4ghz under 1-core load, while the 4690 runs at 3.7ghz under 4-core load and 3.9ghz under 1-core load also.. that FPS is in a 2v2 at faster x8 h81 mobo's are not guaranteed to be compatible with haswell refresh CPU's (released in ~2014) so you should pick a board that supports them guaranteed, or get one from 2013 release shown here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Haswell-DT.22_.28quad-core.2C_22_nm.29 - there's no performance difference, it's just a refresh with same technology for no real reason that introduces compatibility issues, because Intel is Intel It's up to you if you care about ~15% more CPU performance that much
:O
That does seem like quite a large performance increase. Makes the 4690 almost too tempting to pass up >.<. I am always attracted to larger numbers (speaking of larger numbers, that fps...)
According to the ASRock website the H18m-HDS is compatible with the 4690:
http://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/H81M-HDS/?cat=CPU
But it also says it is only compatible since BIOS P1.6. Does this mean anything significant?
|
Old stock sitting on shelves may not have the updated BIOS. Or maybe it does. There may be headaches if it doesn't like things not working.
By the way, I don't know if the GTX 760 model comes with molex -> PCIe power connectors in the box. You need two connections from the power supply and the CX430 models only have one natively.
|
H81 boards with Haswell refresh is kind of a lottery unfortunately, so I've heard. Someone once told me that they had had no issues with that whatsoever in terms of BIOS and whatnot, I've also seen customer reviews on amazon where people buy Haswell refresh with H81 boards and the BIOS aren't updated and things become a mess.
You might as well lose 0.1 GHz to get an i5 4670 instead of an i5 4690 or you can buy an H97 boards for safety.
|
Is there any way from this page to find if the mother board has an updated BIOS?
http://www.msy.com.au/qld/morningside/pc-components/1249-asrock-h81m-hds-intel-h81-s1150-2xddr3-sata3-front-usb3-d-sub-dvi-hdmi-microatx-motherboard.html
I read through it but most of it was gibberish to me. I might have to contact the store to find out if there is nothing on the page as getting a 9 series mother board as well as a 4690 is a bit to expensive for me  .
As for the PCIe connectors, does that mean that I would need to buy power connectors seperately? I really hope it does not mean the two are incompatible >.<
Edit: I don't want to brick my computer! D:
Would a i5 4590 be compatible? It is the only other CPU my local store offers in the i5 range that isn't the 4460 or 4690. D:
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
All three of those are refresh CPU's and not guaranteed to be compatible with h81 without a bios update
|
|
|
Hi guys, I'm planning on upgrading my processor (and consequently my mobo) pretty soon. I am currently running a core i5 2400 with an h67 mobo. I plan to overclock this time around.My question is should I wait until broadwell is released and get an unlocked broadwell cpu? Or maybe even wait for skylake since that is supposed to come really soon after broadwell. Or just get a haswell refresh now and call it good.
Thoughts on waiting to see how broadwell performs?
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
On December 04 2014 06:43 Brettatron wrote:
Hi guys, I'm planning on upgrading my processor (and consequently my mobo) pretty soon. I am currently running a core i5 2400 with an h67 mobo. I plan to overclock this time around.My question is should I wait until broadwell is released and get an unlocked broadwell cpu? Or maybe even wait for skylake since that is supposed to come really soon after broadwell. Or just get a haswell refresh now and call it good.
Thoughts on waiting to see how broadwell performs?
Broadwell probably won't be a really notable upgrade, just get a 4690k now or wait a year for skylake
|
Ok. Under the assumption that I am buying a 4690k now, looking at CPU coolers, memory express only have the Noctua NH-D15 on for special order. The NH-U12S and NH-U14S is out of stock. Should I special order the NH-D15 or just get a NH-D14?
Edit:
This PSU or this PSU? It needs a bit of an upgrade too.
|
On December 03 2014 14:40 Myrmidon wrote:
Old stock sitting on shelves may not have the updated BIOS. Or maybe it does. There may be headaches if it doesn't like things not working.
By the way, I don't know if the GTX 760 model comes with molex -> PCIe power connectors in the box. You need two connections from the power supply and the CX430 models only have one natively.
Last motherboard I bought was at least 1.5 years out of date in terms of Bios revision.
You basically can't upgrade the bios without a compatible CPU (maybe the manufacturers have some kind of special tools, idk), which basically means it's a total crapshoot if you buy a CPU for a mobo that only supports it since revision X.
I strongly recommend NOT buying any mobo/cpu combination unless they're known compatible (i.e. you know for sure the bios is at the minimum revision or it's supported since revision 1).
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
On December 04 2014 07:52 Brettatron wrote:Ok. Under the assumption that I am buying a 4690k now, looking at CPU coolers, memory express only have the Noctua NH-D15 on for special order. The NH-U12S and NH-U14S is out of stock. Should I special order the NH-D15 or just get a NH-D14? Edit: This PSU or this PSU? It needs a bit of an upgrade too.
They're a bit overkill+overpriced coolers for i5 if you're not looking to buy the best stuff and throw it in a case with great airflow to spend many nights tweaking OC settings and benchmarking. Pretty nice to have, but the D15 in particular can have pretty big price premium on it.
For PSU, what PSU do you have right now? What GPU?
|
|
|
On December 04 2014 07:56 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2014 14:40 Myrmidon wrote:
Old stock sitting on shelves may not have the updated BIOS. Or maybe it does. There may be headaches if it doesn't like things not working.
By the way, I don't know if the GTX 760 model comes with molex -> PCIe power connectors in the box. You need two connections from the power supply and the CX430 models only have one natively. Last motherboard I bought was at least 1.5 years out of date in terms of Bios revision. You basically can't upgrade the bios without a compatible CPU (maybe the manufacturers have some kind of special tools, idk), which basically means it's a total crapshoot if you buy a CPU for a mobo that only supports it since revision X. I strongly recommend NOT buying any mobo/cpu combination unless they're known compatible (i.e. you know for sure the bios is at the minimum revision or it's supported since revision 1).
Just to provide a positive story; my bro just purchased an i7 4790k and a h81 (and got it running without issue - purchase from newegg).
|
Which brand / exact board did he get?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
