|
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. |
On September 12 2015 04:22 mantequilla wrote:
How do you understand which ones are refresh? From release date only?
I got a 4160 but was able to tell the seller to install newest bios before shipping it, it's a big inconvenience if it does not work. Better get a h97 board then. 4340 is 25 ish more expensive. 80ish in Canada :O
So stick with this list if I'm going to do it then?
Also, if I were to go up to say, $1000 how much better could I do. Since it seems like I'm building a lower-budget PC I don't want to end up with something that'll be totally out of date in a year or 2.
|
|
|
On September 12 2015 06:25 mantequilla wrote:Which list? Mine or yours? yours: http://choosemypc.net/ca/?budget=750&oc=false&options=osmine: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/JWNRP6I'm only unsure about the mobo quality of mine. Other parts are ok but not sure if a few bucks can be cut here and there. If you are going stick to 1600x900 than $1000 could make a difference. +100 dollars can go to gpu. On a second look +100 dollars only takes us to 960. Does it worth %40 price increase? Not sure.
I'm sorry, I just double checked and my monitor is in fact 1920 x 1080. I suck, I know.
I'm thinking I'll just going up to about $1000, I'm sure I'll be happier with what I get. The same site I used before + your suggestions gives us this list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VGXCXL
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
could save about $60 getting a 380 instead and there is still the CPU/mobo compatibility thing on the last page
Canada prices suck.
There's also a cx430 for $40 AR which is $50 cheaper than your PSU
|
On September 12 2015 07:03 Cyro wrote:
could save about $60 getting a 380 instead and there is still the CPU/mobo compatibility thing on the last page
Canada prices suck.
There's also a cx430 for $40 AR which is $50 cheaper than your PSU
So I fixed the mobo, added a smaller SSD, and chose a different PSU (which says might have issues). I'm at ~$900 now. http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZQqK99
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
There are some GPU's that will only use one pci-e power connector. The $250 r9 380 was with a rebate and i don't see it any more on the list~
There's the strix 380 which seems to have only one pci-e power connector but it's more expensive (over ~$300). Overall a 380 would probably be a bit better than a 280x - similarish performance (maybe a little worse, i'm not sure exactly), less power consumption, 33% more VRAM
USD to CAD exchange rate is actually at like 1.33 at the moment so it's not as bad as i thought, not used to seeing so high dollar price numbers on everything
|
On September 12 2015 07:33 Cyro wrote:
There are some GPU's that will only use one pci-e power connector. The $250 r9 380 was with a rebate and i don't see it any more on the list~
There's the strix 380 which seems to have only one pci-e power connector but it's more expensive (over ~$300). Overall a 380 would probably be a bit better than a 280x - similarish performance (maybe a little worse, i'm not sure exactly), less power consumption, 33% more VRAM
USD to CAD exchange rate is actually at like 1.33 at the moment so it's not as bad as i thought, not used to seeing so high dollar price numbers on everything
Ya... the CAD sucks major dick right now. It's very annoying
http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/yNPtf7
So this would be a good build then? My goal here is to get something that can handle FPS games at a decently high frame rate, this should be able to do that hopefully.
|
I'm not very familiar with amd cards, if cryo says it's better price/performance than 960 and psu is compatible, go for it. But price difference between 950 and 960 made me wonder, it's about %40-50. Is 960 that much stronger than 950? If not 950 may be weaker but it has clear p/p, plus you are not asking for high settings AAA games anyway.
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
950 has 3/4 of the SMM of 960 but everything else is the same AFAIK. Price difference is small over here.
i'm not sure on exact prices and performance
|
The pricing of GTX 950 is typically more like 80-85% of GTX 960 with typical performance around 85% of GTX 960. Depends on the game and the settings. Anything completely shader constrained may be closer to 75% as it has 75% of the shaders of GTX 960.
If the R9 285 is at a similar price it may be worth a look, at similar performance as the GTX 960 or maybe a little better (but higher power consumption).
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
debating getting a 6600k and hoping for a good bin. Maybe i should wait til next year? Damn this is hard
|
On September 13 2015 07:34 Cyro wrote:
debating getting a 6600k and hoping for a good bin. Maybe i should wait til next year? Damn this is hard
It's the best i5, no doubt. As I said in the past, you shouldn't go for it as it is not worth the money to upgrade your CPU to that one. Instead, wait for Cannonlake + Pascal. 
Edit: I just read Cannonlake got delayed. Tough luck then but your CPU is still good enough to skip Skylake.
Edit 2: You may wait for Skylake-E or Kaby Lake.
|
I hear upcoming Skylake chips are getting a ton of L4 cache, like the one in Broadwell so if anything those would be nice and can't be too far away.
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
|
On September 13 2015 07:34 Cyro wrote:
debating getting a 6600k and hoping for a good bin. Maybe i should wait til next year? Damn this is hard
i'm liking mine a lot but
for the love of all things holy i cannot get it stable
For example I've been simply setting Vcore to up to 1.390V (that is my limit until I am completely certain that voltage over 1.4V won't degrade the CPU) and then trying to see what kind of clocks work out.
4.5 GHz won't even run on that.
I'm starting to think it's not the voltage which is causing problems, but something else. I tried to run 4.5 GHz with adaptive voltage on (just wanted to see how far I could go without touching Vcore in BIOS) at Vcore maxed out at like 1.335V in that setting and was just as unstable as the 1.390V setting. As in it would pass x264 without any problems and then eventually just straight up freeze after a long session of screen recording a replay (age of empires 3) or playing a long session of the witcher 3. In such situations the CPU doesn't get much hotter than 50-55 °C
I tried testing with prime but my cooler just isn't good enough to handle long benching of that.
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
Just drop to 1.25vcore and go up 100mhz at a time. What board and LLC are you using also? RAM settings?
I've been simply setting Vcore to up to 1.390V (that is my limit until I am completely certain that voltage over 1.4V won't degrade the CPU)
running with any voltage degrades it, is just a matter of how fast
|
I had been using LLC set to high (it's "auto", "normal", "high"), using a GA Z170M-D3H. I've flashed my BIOS to the latest version.
I'll try to do what you're describing but I guess, after resetting to optimal defaults.
Btw, tried upping Uncore clock and that made it impossible for me to boot to BIOS. Oops! Had to reset cmos by taking out the battery in the motherboard. >_<
|
I see more and more people choose i7-5820K over i5-6600K/i7-6700K. I guess I made a good choice back then. No matter how Skylake is overclocked, 6 cores beat overclocked 4 cores.  Well, probably not in gaming.
|
On September 14 2015 03:59 darkness wrote:I see more and more people choose i7-5820K over i5-6600K/i7-6700K. I guess I made a good choice back then. No matter how Skylake is overclocked, 6 cores beat overclocked 4 cores. Well, probably not in gaming.
Probably because people have their eyes set on an i7 and are tired of waiting
I've been looking into this recently, though. 5820K was as good, or slightly worse, than a 4790K in gaming, so I can't imagine it being too terribly far behind a 6700K.
The framerate differences would likely be negligible in most, if not all, gaming situations, but you would see a significant difference in any other workload that could make use of the extra cores (streaming, encoding, compressing, rendering, etc). Not to mention that never-ending belief that games may be using more cores/threads in the near future.
If you aren't shooting for benchmark results, the 5820K should feel better overall, right? (This is excluding the differences between the platforms, which I admittedly know very little about aside from PCI-e lane differences).
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
On September 14 2015 07:19 z0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 03:59 darkness wrote:I see more and more people choose i7-5820K over i5-6600K/i7-6700K. I guess I made a good choice back then. No matter how Skylake is overclocked, 6 cores beat overclocked 4 cores. Well, probably not in gaming. Probably because people have their eyes set on an i7 and are tired of waiting I've been looking into this recently, though. 5820K was as good, or slightly worse, than a 4790K in gaming, so I can't imagine it being too terribly far behind a 6700K. The framerate differences would likely be negligible in most, if not all, gaming situations, but you would see a significant difference in any other workload that could make use of the extra cores (streaming, encoding, compressing, rendering, etc). Not to mention that never-ending belief that games may be using more cores/threads in the near future. If you aren't shooting for benchmark results, the 5820K should feel better overall, right? (This is excluding the differences between the platforms, which I admittedly know very little about aside from PCI-e lane differences).
My assumption is that the 5820K should be fairly similar for most things? The 6700K should have better single-thread performance since it's newer and not really lower quality. I don't do multithreaded work often, other than sometimes streaming + playing a game at the same time so it wouldn't be better for me. I imagine few games use fewer than 4cores/8threads so I guess it depends what you're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
