EPTComputer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 521
| 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. | ||
|
RegenaRocket
15 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
On August 09 2015 19:07 Cyro wrote: It's actually not, because the 2133 ddr4 is usually at completely awful timings like cas15. You can get ~3000 c15 for barely higher price and it performs much better. The ddr3 equivelant would be like buying 1333mhz c9 instead of 1866 c9 there. What about 1333mhz cl7? I dont think my mainboard can take anything above 1333mhz (I use 2x2GB 1333mhz cl9). What about other Blizzard games, do they gain from ram timings as much as sc2? | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On August 10 2015 05:03 Dingodile wrote: What about 1333mhz cl7? I dont think my mainboard can take anything above 1333mhz (I use 2x2GB 1333mhz cl9). What about other Blizzard games, do they gain from ram timings as much as sc2? RAM frequency seems like a massive lie to me. For example, watch this video: | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20335 Posts
Far Cry 3 - ultra 8x MSAA, SSAO on a GPU that couldn't handle it. Only got 26.5FPS when all of the CPU+RAM combo's could probably handle 60+. Matro Last Light, very high settings with SSAA 4x (so.. 4k resolution, probably) again, 32-33fps. All of the CPU+RAM combo's could do far far more. Cinebench you need to be very careful when benching. 11.5 used in that review was quite volatile and would give random different results, r15 is better than that. Still, you need to do a fresh PC restart and then run with high-realtime priority 3-5 times to demonstrate RAM performance differences. It doesn't benefit a lot from RAM, just a little. If you think that shows that RAM performance doesn't help for any non-GPU-limited load, then you don't have a good understanding of the subject ----- What about 1333mhz cl7? I dont think my mainboard can take anything above 1333mhz (I use 2x2GB 1333mhz cl9). What about other Blizzard games, do they gain from ram timings as much as sc2? sc2 and heroes yes because they share an engine. WoW is very difficult to benchmark effectively, but wouldn't surprise me. Havn't tested diablo. Timings don't seem to be a big deal for sc2, frequency matters - though saying that, you shouldn't take really awful timing ratios like 1600 c11 or 2133 c15 when there is much better available for a very similar price | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
but starcraft 2 does have a quirky engine. it's not as mainstream a game as the AAA titles so there are less "official" reviews about that game would be interesting to see | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20335 Posts
On August 10 2015 05:42 Incognoto wrote: good video, but starcraft 2 does have a quirky engine. it's not as mainstream a game as the AAA titles so there are less "official" reviews about that game would be interesting to see Then why don't they review Total War? That's a popular RTS series that has a recent game and another one coming out too. Planetary annihilation? WoW, Wildstar, Guild Wars 2, Final Fantasy 15(?)? Grey Goo? Kerbal Space Program? Civ5/BE? There are a bunch of games that can show to be CPU bound when paired with either strong GPU's or turned down settings to show if a CPU setup will hit a ceiling at 90fps or 110fps for example, while your GPU might only manage 70 on ultra with MSAA. You don't just need the clasically CPU bound games - though it puzzles me why the vast majority of review sites don't hit those. I can't think of a good reason other than lack of competence. The testing shown is regularly pointless and the conclusions drawn are often downright misleading with way too much confidence behind them | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
I'm guessing it makes sense that CPU bound games are actually linked in terms of performance to RAM frequency. It could be lack of competence or maybe their target audience simply aren't interested in CPU bound games. Which sucks for sure. Definitely think that not all review sites and youtubers know their stuff completely spot on. I usually take stuff the Linus guy says with a pinch of salt but he will oversimplify things a bit too much. that's how he works though, | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20335 Posts
Ah, I was under the impression that Starcraft 2 went beyond the traditional realm of CPU bound games and was somehow also RAM frequency bound "CPU bound" is just pretty complex. For some stuff, it's easier to sort it into "GPU bound" and "Not GPU bound" you could have a load for example where 90% of the frametime is spent waiting on CPU and the remaining 10% spent waiting on RAM. Doubling RAM performance could cut that 10% in half, so the frame takes 95% as long as before. That's a ~1.05x performance boost, overall some stuff depends on the RAM latency/bandwidth more, some less | ||
|
d_runk
124 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20335 Posts
delidding matters more when you have a better cooler | ||
|
Craton
United States17289 Posts
http://koolance.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=829 Thinking about it more, the Swiftech H220 (not sure if it has a newer counterpart) is probably your only option. It's somewhere between a CLC and a starter kit for a custom loop. You'd just need to replace the tubing with something longer (and do the things necessary for a water loop like refilling it and doing a leak test). Upside is you could run the tubing through the rear grommets instead of going through a PCI slot. It's not really the most affordable solution, though. Probably set you back $250. At that price you could just replace the case with a top of the line one  . | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On August 10 2015 06:38 Cyro wrote: "CPU bound" is just pretty complex. For some stuff, it's easier to sort it into "GPU bound" and "Not GPU bound" you could have a load for example where 90% of the frametime is spent waiting on CPU and the remaining 10% spent waiting on RAM. Doubling RAM performance could cut that 10% in half, so the frame takes 95% as long as before. That's a ~1.05x performance boost, overall some stuff depends on the RAM latency/bandwidth more, some less yeah, that makes sense, thanks for clearing things up | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20335 Posts
I usually take stuff the Linus guy says with a pinch of salt but he will oversimplify things a bit too much. that's how he works though That's the target audience, whoever decided to test CPU/RAM performance by running stuff at max settings 4-8x MSAA or 4k resolution with a midrange GPU on classically GPU bound games had no idea what they were doing at the time | ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
If I had enough for an X99 system the choice would have been pretty hard now I think, 6 cores is pretty juicy as well. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20335 Posts
On August 10 2015 23:55 Firkraag8 wrote: During my digging for information on Sc2 performance I read that it really benefits a lot by higher L3 cache, something to keep in mind for those looking to upgrade mainly for this game perhaps another notch in the belt for i7 here. X99 obviously could be a much more desireable option than an i7 for this where the 5820k has 15mb. Tradeoff is not as fast performance per clock when pitted against Skylake, dunno exactly what wins in that regard.. If I had enough for an X99 system the choice would have been pretty hard now I think, 6 cores is pretty juicy as well. performance seems the same between quad core i5 + i7 (across multiple gens) do you have any bench showing that? | ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
On August 11 2015 00:37 Cyro wrote: Performance seems the same between quad core i5 + i7 (across multiple gens) do you have any bench showing that? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-6.html http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,766589/Starcraft-2-CPU-benchmarks-Intel-on-top-quads-without-performance-benefit/Reviews/ Also some random reports on the same thing in various forums when googling for L3 cache StarCraft 2. Perhaps this isn't the case for modern CPU's though, I'm not sure if the cache bandwidth has gotten to a point where it's bottlenecked by other things where as before it could have done more. Those benchmarks on the page before this surely doesn't seem to indicate that the i7 outperforms the i5 so.. | ||
|
RainWhisper
United Arab Emirates333 Posts
new processor+motherboard 2 years later New Graphic Card 2 years later new processor + motherboard etc.. I'd like to point out that even when i buy these things i never go for the top of the line. For no real reason other than i don't specifically see the need to but maybe that's because i never got the best so i never got to see the point of it? I generally spend an hour before playing any game trying to tweak and it get it to run on my system and from the forums i see people with the highest end machines facing the same stuttering and low fps issues. So maybe it isnt worth it to get the best when these games arent optimized? Anyway - i digress PS: My knowledge is very weak so please bare with me What is your current build? 16 GB RAM i7 3770l CPU @ 3.50 GHZ ATI 5850 4GB What is your monitor's native resolution? 1920 x 1080 - on my TV for some games 1650 x 1050 on my monitor. I intend on getting another monitor that's 1650x1050. Why do you want to upgrade? What do you want to achieve with the upgrade? I make it a point to play almost all AAA games that come out on the PC. I keep playing till i hit a game that my system can't run and eventually upgrade. Latest games that i was able to play smooth-ish-ly were GTA 5 - Dying Light - Wolfenstein - Far Cry 4 I tried playing the Witcher 3 and the performance was terrible. Some games crash halfway because of overheating i think(when i open up the case and clear out the dust, the games run smoother and faster and stop crashing) My two questions or thoughts are. 1. I'm not sure how obsolete or bad my processor? 2. I feel like due to the fact that i have a terrible graphics card, anything at this point would give me an insane perfomance boost(is this correct) I like to play my games at 1920 x 1080 - Medium to High settings with AA at 2x. I don't strive for the best graphics in the world although that would be nice. What is your budget? Id'd like to not pay more than 350$ but i will if i was convinced. I feel like getting the best bang for your back is usually in the middle range. What country will you be buying your parts in? Dubai, UAE (We have 95%, if not a 100% of what the states offers) If you have any brand or retailer preferences, please specify. I've been on ATI for the past 6-8 years. I would like to switch to NVidia because of my 3d tv and just because i want a change of pace Wow that was a mouthful - thank you so much | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
If you have a 5850 you're well below the level of performance of most modern video cards in the range you specified. 5850 is very old and can be replaced for a big performance gain. If your budget is $300, you can get something like an R9 290 which will probably be able to almost max out Crysis 3 in 1080p60. If you want to go with an Nvidia option, you can probably get a GTX 970 for under $350 (at least in the USA-- prices may be different in Dubai). I think AMD recently released a new line of video cards in this range (R9 390) but I'm not sure how much better they actually are. Either way, given your screen size, you can definitely get a big improvement and play modern titles within your budget for quite some time. GTX 970, given your price and brand choice, will be what you want. If your budget is more like $200, a GTX 960 probably is what you want. 16gb of ram is easily appropriate for any gaming needs. Do not upgrade that. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
| ||
| ||
