EPTComputer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 464
| 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. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On March 11 2015 06:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: question about Solid state drives. I'm getting a solid state drive to run my operating system off of and was wondering if it was worth it to get a 500 gb solid state drive instead of a 250gb. I've got 570 gb left on my current 1TB hard drive(which is just a normal hard drive) so I don't think I need the extra space necessarily and I think that I probably won't even use the full 250 gigs on the ssd. what do people who know more about this think? if you don't think you will fill up that 500 Gb SSD, then the 250 gb should be enough. that should be enough for your OS + a couple of games you want to load faster / are playing atm. for storage (media and whatnot), using SSDs is, I guess, a waste. if you're building a new computer, then it's definitely worth getting a 250 gb SSD and spending the money elsewhere (GPU) | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 11 2015 06:38 Incognoto wrote: if you don't think you will fill up that 500 Gb SSD, then the 250 gb should be enough. that should be enough for your OS + a couple of games you want to load faster / are playing atm. for storage (media and whatnot), using SSDs is, I guess, a waste. if you're building a new computer, then it's definitely worth getting a 250 gb SSD and spending the money elsewhere (GPU) thanks for the answer I figured it was that way but didn't want to miss something. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20321 Posts
Back when i got it, a good 128GB drive was £170. Now, a good 256GB drive is £80 (: Over 4x the storage per £ and performance has gone up too. My old drive does 350MB/s and 60k IOPS, while new ones will do 550MB/s and 100k IOPS. That results in ~1.5x faster speed no matter what you're reading, small files or big. I'd buy a 256GB SSD today for sure and will probably get 256-512GB SSD new, but i'm holding out a bit for Sata 4 with skylake (or anything to break past the ~550MB/s ~100k IOPS speed cap that ssd's have been at for quite a while) 0.5TB ssd is a bit luxurious still :D but back in the day, a lot of people got 60GB ssd's. It was only 4 years ago that i'm quoting price/performance from. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 11 2015 05:35 Danglars wrote: i5-4590 3.5 ghz with GTX970. Case is bitfenix neos midsize tower, two intake fans on front. Nothing's overclocked. Sorry if I didn't make it obvious that the cooling demand is very low, just that I want to spend a little extra on quiet operation if that comes under budget. On March 11 2015 06:00 Cyro wrote: IDK what fans you have on there now, but you could get quiet fans and run ~2x front intake, 1x rear exhaust and then set a custom GPU fan curve. I'm not sure how loud the stock intel CPU cooler is That's just the thing man. It didn't come with two intake fans. It simply has the bays. This will be my first purchase of aftermarket fans. I'm looking for recommendations in that budget. Intel's basic included fan is very quiet, not an issue. So, suggestions? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20321 Posts
On March 11 2015 09:25 Danglars wrote: That's just the thing man. It didn't come with two intake fans. It simply has the bays. This will be my first purchase of aftermarket fans. I'm looking for recommendations in that budget. Intel's basic included fan is very quiet, not an issue. So, suggestions? Aha! Well.. i don't know many individual fans very well, not really anything that fits what you want. But a quick search brings up some stuff like this~ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4UF2E16703 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835209050 both of those look excellent, so probably worth googling around for a bit of verification and then buying 3x of one of those models, or a similar good one. I'd imagine either of those to be quieter than the stock case fan which is on rear exhaust by default I think out of those, the Antec one is probably better choice - 600rpm vs 200rpm minimum is basically irrelevant AFAIK, because it's already extremely quiet and the noise is probably overpowered by other stuff in the environment or case. It has those things on the corners to help with removing vibration etc - i have two fans without those ATM and they are -really- annoying sometimes, because the noise of them vibrating against the case can randomly become louder than the fan itself. You can control the 970 noise with custom fan curve and maybe even a custom power limit - with a bit of testing you can set a power value that will give you the temperatures that you want, and then increase or decrease the performance and noise to where you're happy with the noise and temperatures. 970's undervolt very well, so the power usage and heat output would drop much faster than the performance, particularly if your card is non-reference. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
The BitFenix Neos has pretty restrictive intakes, this behind that mesh: http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/4202#1 Basically at the lower fan speeds, you're getting very little airflow from most fans anyway because of those hard drive cages. However, that is probably going to help and be better than nothing because with no other venting (nothing on the side, no other fan mounts) this thing is big trouble when it comes to cooling hardware. This is basically a bad case design for low noise operation except for cooling more minimal setups because it suffocates internal components, which will force them to use higher fan speeds. Custom fan curves on the CPU and GPU coolers should help (as well as lowering the speed on the back fan and maybe replacing that one too), but there's only a certain amount you can dial down before temperatures get too high. Normally adding intake fans only marginally improve things, but it might make a little more difference here. Also, if you don't mind permanently uglifying the back, taking out the back expansion slot covers may help slightly too. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20321 Posts
| ||
|
GinyuSC
United States63 Posts
- DotA 2 - Starcraft 2 - H1Z1 - Minecraft - Dark Souls 2 - L4D2 Heres the build! Everything is purchased and im putting it together this weekend http://pcpartpicker.com/p/qFQsBm | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
max 99% of the time max max unless you have way too many things max max | ||
|
GinyuSC
United States63 Posts
- Diablo 3 - World of Warcraft - Counter Strike - Skyrim/Fallout | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
For Elder Scrolls 5, for example, http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/9 Basically a GTX 970 is overkill to play older games at 1080p, though I guess you may want something in the ballpark for that 144 Hz. I guess there's always DSR (dynamic super resolution). Price-conscious 1080p gamers going for the newest AAA titles get something along the lines of the GTX 960 more often or the AMD equivalent. Also, I hope you didn't get a $140 motherboard and K series processor not to overclock it. You have a heatsink not listed? | ||
|
GinyuSC
United States63 Posts
On March 11 2015 13:52 Myrmidon wrote: Those games are mostly old and mostly not that demanding even on release, so max/max/max/max/max. For Elder Scrolls 5, for example, http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/9 Basically a GTX 970 is overkill to play older games at 1080p, though I guess you may want something in the ballpark for that 144 Hz. I guess there's always DSR (dynamic super resolution). Price-conscious 1080p gamers going for the newest AAA titles get something along the lines of the GTX 960 more often or the AMD equivalent. Also, I hope you didn't get a $140 motherboard and K series processor not to overclock it. You have a heatsink not listed? I actually didnt plan to get said mobo and gpu, i planned to get a locked i5 an a much lesser mobo but when i walked into micro center the other day they had the i5-4690k on sale for $199.99 and if you bought it you got the msi z97 gaming 5 mobo for free....a deal i couldnt pass up. I dont have extra cash for a cooler at the moment (didnt expect to get a rig that could overclock) but ill get one soon. Are there any games ill struggle to get over 60 fps on my monitor? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20321 Posts
| ||
|
HewTheTitan
Canada331 Posts
It seems like the processors produce 8-25% more fps fully overclocked, and most seem to yield 8-10% only. Literally, 5-10 fps increase at most in almost every benchmark I could find. To get the components I need for a good overclock though will cost an extra $150 or so, which seems like it would decrease the performance/$. Am I wrong? Also, if I don't go for an overclock, you said you recommend the i5 4790 non-k? I definitely want a quad core. I'm torn between getting a cheaper 4460 and upgrading in a year since it's $100 difference. Lastly, after seeing that tech demo above, is it again worth considering an i7 or 8 core cpu? :D On paper, I like those AMD processors, but I take it no games are hyperthreaded enough for them to be worth it. That mantle business seems pretty wicked, but I assume you need to write your game to take advantage of it- hence, sc2 players are still screwed if they want to use more than 2 cores. http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/MW3J23 PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/MW3J23 Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/MW3J23/by_merchant/ CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ DirectCanada) Motherboard: Asus H81M-A Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($74.99 @ Memory Express) Memory: Kingston Fury Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($85.14 @ DirectCanada) Storage: Crucial MX100 512GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($239.99 @ Memory Express) Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 960 2GB Video Card ($249.99 @ NCIX) Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($69.95 @ Vuugo) Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($64.98 @ Newegg Canada) Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($23.05 @ Vuugo) Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($23.05 @ Vuugo) Total: $1051.13 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-11 16:59 EDT-0400 | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20321 Posts
It seems like the processors produce 8-25% more fps fully overclocked, and most seem to yield 8-10% only. Literally, 5-10 fps increase at most in almost every benchmark I could find. To get the components I need for a good overclock though will cost an extra $150 or so, which seems like it would decrease the performance/$. It won't be 8-10% unless you're bound by something other than the CPU. Almost all CPU bound tasks and games scale almost exactly linearly with CPU clock speed and performance. For example, an i5 4460 does 3.2ghz on all cores, max. With a 4690k, you can just run ~4.7ghz 24/7. That's literally a ~47% performance improvement. IDK where you did your research if you were seeing 6-10% gains from >40% clock speed bumps, but probably some game benchmarks that were GPU bound with the settings, resolution and GPU that they used. All of my games that are CPU bound show drastic performance changes running at 3.2ghz vs 4.5ghz+, again pretty much linear with the clock speed unless the GPU is limiting performance and not the CPU~ Performance per dollar is worse if you get a good quality mobo for intel and a cooler to get a strong overclock with good temperatures. You can cut corners with those 2 things if you want, it's just less fun and effective: many people looking to OC want pretty much max CPU performance. At lower pricepoints, OC generally improves perf/$. g3258 or fx6300 for example. OCable enough with a cheap enough board and cooler to not cost way more than it offers. You need 2x4GB of RAM. If you care about the upgradability of 4 RAM slots, then my advice would be to get one of those ~b85 boards that's like $15 more expensive. ----------------- It's not worth considering an fx 8 threaded CPU for a gaming system or a system past low-mid range IMO, unless you're going for cheap multithreaded performance and don't care about singlethreaded. They're not worth ever buying a good cooler and motherboard really, just too expensive for what is overall a CPU that has a lot of upgrade options to go to. In a game like this, FX could be on par with i5; it's very unlikely it'd be any better, though. Any benchmarks that show that would probably have FX at a much higher clock speed than i5 (like 4.7-5.0ghz fx, 3.4ghz i5), even though they clock quite similarly (haswell a few hundred mhz lower ceiling on average, but it gets there easier than pushing an fx chip to its limits which relies heavily on mobo and cooling ability) One FX module (8-threaded CPU's have 4 of them) isn't any faster than one Haswell core for most tasks. If it scales that well onto 6+ native cores and many threads, then maybe even a 5820k -- While the cost of going to a 4690k is not that appealing, having 47% more performance and support for faster RAM which'd give you another ~5% performance on sc2 is pretty nice. Even if you're going stock i5, i'd recommend the 4570+ - they have more aggressive turbo boost and do 3.4ghz on all cores. That reduces that ~47% gain to ~38%, or 32% if you can't really hit that overclock and have to step down a few hundred mhz. You also have to remember that a big chunk of that cost is having an actually good motherboard instead of just the cheapest little matx motherboard that probably lets you plug everything in | ||
|
HewTheTitan
Canada331 Posts
pretty much linear with the clock speed unless the GPU is limiting performance and not the CPU~ I looked at some of the benchmarks, I suspect the GPU was in fact a limiter in some. The only quality comparison I could find where it was definitely the cpu being limited was here, below, for sc2 specifically. It was the only game to show really wide fps differences when varying the cpu: benchmark sourcehttp://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/ In one case, it showed better than linear fps increases and in another it showed less. Still, larger than the other comparisons where the GPU did seem to be limiting things. I don't understand though, why the benchmarkers would not just put in a monster gpu for every cpu benchmark comparison. I'm going to save the money today, and just accept the lower framerates. I will upgrade to that 4590 from the 4460 however, it does seem better for the price. Thanks for that. I'll put the leftover cash in an envelope for a year or two from now, the next upgrade. Only decision now is whether to get the ipr and spend extra on the motherboard. I hear mobos break a lot. A friend went through 4 in the last year :s I'm going to go for a walk, then come home and place the order. I appreciate your help. ps, I bought the RAM last month before I knew any better, or else I'd swap to dual channel. http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/dgpsBm PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/dgpsBm Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/dgpsBm/by_merchant/ CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($239.99 @ NCIX) Motherboard: Asus H81M-A Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($74.99 @ Memory Express) Memory: Kingston Fury Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($85.14 @ DirectCanada) Storage: Crucial MX100 512GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($239.99 @ Memory Express) Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 960 2GB Video Card ($249.99 @ NCIX) Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($69.95 @ Vuugo) Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($64.98 @ Newegg Canada) Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($23.05 @ Vuugo) Total: $1048.08 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-11 19:08 EDT-0400 | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20321 Posts
CPU and RAM doesn't really break ever. CPU's slowly degrade, but like you can use one heavily at stock settings for 20 years if you want, or OC 24/7 load for 5 or even 10 years just fine as long as you set a voltage that's fine for that. SSD's don't really die, but there are some dodgy models that randomly die. Mostly, they're quite reliable. GPU's break occasionally. "I used my GPU for 4 years and then it died" isn't uncommon, though many live past the time until they're pretty much completely obsolete (people still use hd5770's for example). It can be good to get one with a good warranty. HDD's die all the time, if it breaks after a year then it breaks. Some last 3 years. If your HDD goes past 5 years of usage, buy it a cookie - this is the most unreliable part in the whole system (aside from maybe fans? IDK) if you're buying quality parts. PSU: Some of the best have 5-10 year warranties on them for a reason, however a bad one is capable of not only dieing, but destroying motherboards, GPU's, even CPU's, sata drives and maybe other parts. The cx430 is alright, but not the best. There are soooooooo many awful PSU's out there though, mostly with prebuilt oem systems from companies like Dell or HP, affectionately nicknamed "fire hazards" :D | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
| ||
