|
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 Kingdom20333 Posts
On January 25 2015 06:36 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2015 04:35 Cyro wrote:Nvidia seemingly incorrectly lists the memory bandwidth of the 970 to be the same as the 980 on their website. Are you sure? If the bus is 256 bits and is fully operational, it is what it is. End-to-end throughput is something else. It doesn't mean that resources behind the bus to handle and access the memory is the same as on the GTX 980 or anything else.
It's kinda misleading to write them as the same when the functionally achieved memory bandwidth is ~23% higher on the 980.
I mean; if they released a 192 bit, 3GB VRAM card, it would be almost identical to the 970 in VRAM benchmarks, with the 980 being a mile above both. I think they should have honestly used either 12 or 14 SMM and called it 192 bit @3GB or 3.5gb @224 bit; it's much more transparent.
They did that with the mobile gm204's - they proportionally called them lower bus widths with SMM counts dropping
|
On January 25 2015 07:02 skyR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2015 06:56 Jormundr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Is this good? Build+ Solid+ coolerMy understanding is that I can get another 970 of the same type at any time later on if I want/need to double up? (granted I'm not exactly sure how likely this is, considering I'm already multiplying my current capabilities by a factor of 4) All retail motherboards include SATA cables, you do not need to buy additional SATA cables for one drive. You need a 4690 k to overclock. 650w variant of the Capstone is more than sufficient for SLI GTX 970.
Updated, still buying a few sata cables, I was short a few last time and it's cheaper to overbuy them here than it is to buy them at most physical retailers (I moved and don't know where to get reasonably priced cables yet and I could easily resort to arson if I have to buy a sata cable for $10 at best buy.)
Also 650w capstone is out of stock, 650w corsair is more expensive and has numbers that are different but mean nothing to me. Are there drawbacks to having that much extra power (the 750w)?
also added cd/dvddrive
Also forgot ssd
|
|
|
On January 25 2015 07:32 skyR wrote:Drawbacks of having extra power is it's a waste of money and less efficiency. Also, if the power supply isn't modular, there'll be more cables to deal with. Antec Truepower Classic is a good choice for $50 after mail in rebate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371072
Ty! Also is my gtx 970 choice good? I chose it because it has more fans, and fans = good, burned video cards = bad. Literally my entire thought process.
|
Unless you are going down to the nitty-gritty details, any of the GTX 970 from the big 3 (Gigabyte, ASUS, and MSI) are fine. Overheating on modern video cards isn't a common thing these days.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
In order of preference if you're going for high OC at the cost of a little money~ HOF (way too expensive) > gigabyte g1 (the best commonly bought) > msi 970 / gigabyte windforce > other stuff
|
On January 25 2015 07:13 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2015 06:36 Myrmidon wrote:On January 25 2015 04:35 Cyro wrote:Nvidia seemingly incorrectly lists the memory bandwidth of the 970 to be the same as the 980 on their website. Are you sure? If the bus is 256 bits and is fully operational, it is what it is. End-to-end throughput is something else. It doesn't mean that resources behind the bus to handle and access the memory is the same as on the GTX 980 or anything else. It's kinda misleading to write them as the same when the functionally achieved memory bandwidth is ~23% higher on the 980. I mean; if they released a 192 bit, 3GB VRAM card, it would be almost identical to the 970 in VRAM benchmarks, with the 980 being a mile above both. I think they should have honestly used either 12 or 14 SMM and called it 192 bit @3GB or 3.5gb @224 bit; it's much more transparent. They did that with the mobile gm204's - they proportionally called them lower bus widths with SMM counts dropping
If there is 4 GB of VRAM physically there / addressable / accessible, you advertise it as 4 GB. If the bus is 256 bits wide and transfers over all of that, it is 256 bits. They don't get to argue it's effectively 320 bits because their architecture uses compression and is more efficient with memory usage than the previous generation. They also don't have to say it's less than 256 bits when physically it is operating at 256 bits.
The mobile parts probably have part of the IMC actually disabled.
It's up to consumers and reviewers to do the deep dive on architecture details and performance testing if they care about performance minutiae. Actually, we should probably be glad Intel, AMD, and Nvidia actually disclose as much architecture details as they do. Certain other chip designers are much less forthcoming.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
If there is 4 GB of VRAM physically there / addressable / accessible
But it's only accessible in certain situations (shadow of mordor will crash or page to HDD before allocating more than ~3.5GB) and the bandwidth of the sister GPU with 256 bit bus is ~20% higher even on the "fast" part of the VRAM
|
Hi Guys!
This is a build request.
What is your budget?
1800€ including monitor
What is your monitor's native resolution?
1920x1080 on my then "second" monitor
What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings?
Currently playing: Battlefield 4, Heroes of the Storm, Dragon Age: Inquisition, CS:GO, Diablo 3, Civilization: Beyond Earth, Endless Legend
Im also open to a lot of Games in general, so probably most games coming out over the next years as well 
Guess I want to be able to play everything on High, while still being able to do something on my second monitor.
What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming?
Streaming
Do you intend to overclock?
Not necessarily.
Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire?
Not necessarily.
Do you need an operating system?
Nope..
Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget?
Yes. I need a monitor. I really want to try a 120/144hz monitor for CS:GO, because thats the game I play about 70% of the time at the moment. Dunno about the other Games.
If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify.
Pretty much used Nvidia Graphics Cards my whole life, never having any problems. So thats probably my preference, but im open to other brands as well.
What country will you be buying your parts in?
Germany
If you have any retailer preferences, please specify.
None.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970
That clears things up a lot, so 970 is officially effectively missing 18.75% cores, ROP's, 12.5% L2 cache; the last 1/8'th of the memory can't run at high speeds and is partitioned off, sometimes working alright and sometimes being stubborn and causing memory related crashing and error messages without ever being utilized.
Memory bandwidth loss is ~12.5% overall, at least, even on the fast portion of the VRAM - because it's now running with seven 32 bit channels instead of eight; in 224 bit mode, and the last memory chip cannot be accessed without cannibalizing bandwidth elsewhere so it's more of a very low speed buffer (1/8'th of the speed of the VRAM on a 770 or 980) for use when it would be beneficial to give up bandwidth elsewhere to access
Peak memory bandwidth as well as ROP's and Cache amount were advertised to be the same as the 980. That was outright wrong, and a mistake of Nvidia.
Those changes are a huge part of the 980 performing almost linearly stronger with core count at the same clock speed as 980, because so many resources are tied to it. The 980 has 23% more SMM; but also 23% more ROP's, 14.3% higher memory bandwidth, cache amount and memory amount.
@Hirosh i'l give that a look a bit later 
|
|
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
That mobo is not very suitable for overclocking a quad core (it was designed for weak to moderate overclocks on the g3258, which draws less than half of the power of a 4690k at the same voltages), 650w is overkill on the PSU (would personally get 550 for plenty of power for single 980 and everything overclocked), cooling weaker than i like although it would work, slightly tall memory (need to check compatibility with coolers)
also i can't remember the performance of the m550 and if it was better than the mx100.
The 970 is still a good option, but it's not quite what the specs say it is. I still don't think the 980 is worth the money difference, unless you want proprietary nvidia stuff and 3.5GB VRAM ~r9 290 performance isn't enough for you - just because the price difference can be very extreme. You can argue for 970 price over 290 in some places, especially in some cases (it's a no brainer if you want nvenc or if you care about performance in a few games like WoW and Wildstar which are cpu bound and run over 1.5x faster on nvidia driver) but 980 is pretty much just a bigger 970 with ~14% more VRAM, ~20% more performance but costing over 1.5x more.
That price gap has narrowed some with 980's falling a little and 970's rising, but it's still huge, and it's only there as a "haha this is the best single GPU" tax that might not even last long into q2 of this year.
|
Hey thinking about upgrading my PC.
At the moment I have:
i7 - 950
6 * 2 gb Corsair memory
Asus Sabertooth X58
2 * R9 270x Crossfire
Silverstone Strider Plus 750W
My friend has a barely used, like a month or so i5-4670k cause he wanted an i7 for streaming. He is willing to sell it to me for $150 AUD
Is that a good price? Is it current enough to be a worthwhile upgrade?
If I do upgrade is their a particular Mobo that is good for that architecture?
Do I need to buy new ram with a different voltage?
Thanks in advance.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
What stuff do you use the CPU for that's CPU intensive? Are you running / will you be running overclocks?
Also do you mean 4690k or 4670k? The 4690k has been the newer (and a bit better) product for about 6 months now, that replaced the 4670k.
Your current RAM would be fine, but you could only use 4GB of it at full speed (unless you bought new RAM, or bought an extra 2GB stick to run 4x2GB with potential compatibility issues)
150 AUD sounds good to me (not sure what crazy australian prices are up to these days) and it's a substantial upgrade for some stuff, but less so for others because you're losing hyperthreading
|
On January 27 2015 13:09 Cyro wrote:
What stuff do you use the CPU for that's CPU intensive? Are you running / will you be running overclocks?
Also do you mean 4690k or 4670k? The 4690k has been the newer (and a bit better) product for about 6 months now, that replaced the 4670k.
Your current RAM would be fine, but you could only use 4GB of it at full speed (unless you bought new RAM, or bought an extra 2GB stick to run 4x2GB with potential compatibility issues)
150 AUD sounds good to me (not sure what crazy australian prices are up to these days) and it's a substantial upgrade for some stuff, but less so for others because you're losing hyperthreading
I mean 4670K not 4690K it's used which is probably why it's older.
For comparison a new 4690k is $310 plus postage.
I do plan on overclocking. I overclocked my i7 - 950 to ~ 4ghz for a couple of years but recently set it back to stock cause I started to worry about temps. (ended up replacing my heat sink)
I play games mostly. Don't do video encoding or anything, don't stream, just games and general use stuff. But if it isn't a substantial upgrade over my current and quite old CPU I probably won't bother.
I have 6 sticks of memory so I could run 4*2 already.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
Could get maybe 1.4x on most cpu bound games
|
On January 27 2015 13:31 Cyro wrote:
Could get maybe 1.4x on most cpu bound games
Is the socket 2011 stuff any better?
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
CPU performance has only gone -up- that much. You can build sideways by adding more cores but depending on the load, doubling core count could double performance, or it could add no performance at all. Few games scale well onto 5-6 threads, and of those, the ones that typically run badly that are played competitively for multiplayer etc are not among really them (stuff like WoW, sc2, planetside 2)
|
On January 27 2015 14:10 Cyro wrote:
CPU performance has only gone -up- that much. You can build sideways by adding more cores but depending on the load, doubling core count could double performance, or it could add no performance at all. Few games scale well onto 5-6 threads, and of those, the ones that typically run badly that are played competitively for multiplayer etc are not among really them (stuff like WoW, sc2, planetside 2)
Ok I get ya. Thanks so much for your help, I think I may do it just cause it is gonna be pretty cost effective and I find myself cpu bound quite often recently.
Is This Mobo ok?
It's pretty and I love the gimmicks.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
if you wanna pay $100 for gimmicks without improving cpu overclock, sure it's probably good
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
