|
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 Kingdom20318 Posts
that makes a lot of sense especially considering most of the reviews of the 970 complain about how hard it is to fit
It shouldn't be hard for one (most graphics cards are a similar size..) as long as the case is designed with the room to fit. micro-atx SLI is awkward and i'm not sure of some of the details there.
overkill depends on what you're doing - FPS scales pretty linearly with GPU demand, so 90 and 120fps will be approx 1.5x and 2x as hard as 60fps on any given game. I'd say a 980ti is generally overkill for 1080p60 (especially if you're willing to turn down a few settings on demanding games) but not for higher FPS or resolution, as you have more performance which can be used to increase those two if your GPU is otherwise more than fast enough for the game.
For some games, another part of the system (like CPU) will stop you from reaching those high framerates but with an OC'd 6600k and fast RAM, you have a very solid setup for those.
--
There are games out there where a 970 can run at max settings (or close) while sustaining a high resolution and/or FPS - there are also games that are limited by the CPU and other parts of the system so much that a 970 can cover them and getting a 980ti instead would just give you the same FPS at a lower GPU load.
For those games, a faster GPU doesn't help much. For other games (majority of newer or more demanding games), there's a big difference when making a significant GPU upgrade, so much so that a lot of people go straight to "upgrade graphics card!" without putting much thought into the rest of the system.
|
8751 Posts
On February 22 2016 03:51 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2016 02:30 NonY wrote:
Man I wish it was so simple to say "let's OC the 2500k to 4.6" Mine has never been stable above stock and it can't run big army battles in sc2 without lagging at stock. Wasted money on getting better cooling, planning to OC it, but giving it more voltage hasn't even helped. Is there some way to know if upgrading ram actually would help for sc2? Mine is on the low end (1333) and it looks like I can get 2x4 2133 for $50. Ram performance does help for sc2, but less than CPU performance (CPU core OC would probably make 2-3x as much difference). What motherboard do you have? 2500k's/6600k's on the CPU side are generally very easy to OC to at least 4.2ghz or so, sometimes higher, needing little if anything other than vcore changed - many people get ~4.6ghz doing that. With issues like you describe, i would suspect motherboard/bios everything slows down with large unit counts, but not nearly as much if you have faster stuff.
GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3
I'm not knowledgeable about OC'ing -- just read some guides and tried a bit, so bare with me. I don't get blue screens and windows doesn't fail to start. My PC will just lock up, even when it's not doing much. Like I'll leave it on overnight and in the morning it'll be frozen. Or it'll lock up when just browsing the web. Or when I'm playing games. Or during stability tests. Temps are good (from what I remember, around 60 would be the max reached for a session) and my power supply should be sufficient, so IDK. I messed with a lot of things, like turning off turbo, turning off power saving options, making the voltage stay high even at idle, and incrementally increasing the voltage (while keeping temps safe) for a 3.8 OC when other people were getting 4.6+ off similar voltages. With some of that, I was getting blue screen errors or windows wouldn't start and those things I could troubleshoot according to the guides, but eventually when those went away and things seemed stable, the same problem would be back. If I go back to stock, it stops happening. OC again, it starts happening again, so I'm pretty sure it's not something else. I see accounts of people saying how easily they OC'd their 2500k and how there's a lot of variation in what a chip is capable of so I figured I just got unlucky or that it was some obscure issue that only a very knowledgeable person could diagnose.
|
Hey guys, my replacement motherboard from MSI is dead again (less than a year in), and this time I am out of warranty. I am trying to talk to their CS department, but I think my best course of action is to just buy another motherboard. Anyways, can anyone help me choose a cheap motherboard so that I can get my computer up and running again? I need a LGA 1155 motherboard, but here are some specifics:
CPU: Intel i5 3570k
GPU: Radeon r9 290
RAM: 8 GB G.Skill RipJaws
PSU: Corsair 650 TX
SSD/ HDD: HDD Western Digital Green 1TB
BTW, I find myself not really overclocking so I don't mind getting a motherboard without the chipset to overclock, that is, if there is a significant price difference. Thanks guys.
Edit- Also, not really digging MSI ATM, either I am really unlucky or their quality is lacking.
Edit2 - Well it appears MSI just sent me a RMA label, so that's good news. I'll let you guys know how everything goes.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
On February 23 2016 01:04 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2016 03:51 Cyro wrote:On February 22 2016 02:30 NonY wrote:
Man I wish it was so simple to say "let's OC the 2500k to 4.6" Mine has never been stable above stock and it can't run big army battles in sc2 without lagging at stock. Wasted money on getting better cooling, planning to OC it, but giving it more voltage hasn't even helped. Is there some way to know if upgrading ram actually would help for sc2? Mine is on the low end (1333) and it looks like I can get 2x4 2133 for $50. Ram performance does help for sc2, but less than CPU performance (CPU core OC would probably make 2-3x as much difference). What motherboard do you have? 2500k's/6600k's on the CPU side are generally very easy to OC to at least 4.2ghz or so, sometimes higher, needing little if anything other than vcore changed - many people get ~4.6ghz doing that. With issues like you describe, i would suspect motherboard/bios everything slows down with large unit counts, but not nearly as much if you have faster stuff. GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3 I'm not knowledgeable about OC'ing -- just read some guides and tried a bit, so bare with me. I don't get blue screens and windows doesn't fail to start. My PC will just lock up, even when it's not doing much. Like I'll leave it on overnight and in the morning it'll be frozen. Or it'll lock up when just browsing the web. Or when I'm playing games. Or during stability tests. Temps are good (from what I remember, around 60 would be the max reached for a session) and my power supply should be sufficient, so IDK. I messed with a lot of things, like turning off turbo, turning off power saving options, making the voltage stay high even at idle, and incrementally increasing the voltage (while keeping temps safe) for a 3.8 OC when other people were getting 4.6+ off similar voltages. With some of that, I was getting blue screen errors or windows wouldn't start and those things I could troubleshoot according to the guides, but eventually when those went away and things seemed stable, the same problem would be back. If I go back to stock, it stops happening. OC again, it starts happening again, so I'm pretty sure it's not something else. I see accounts of people saying how easily they OC'd their 2500k and how there's a lot of variation in what a chip is capable of so I figured I just got unlucky or that it was some obscure issue that only a very knowledgeable person could diagnose.
That's pretty damn hard to diagnose. If it was the CPU core itself not taking higher clocks, you'd see it in the usual bluescreens that go away when you drop clock speeds a bit or increase vcore like you said. There's a lot more variation in 2500k's than in current gen CPU's but even the bad ones are like 4.4ghz and requiring a high voltage
|
Cascadia1753 Posts
Anyone have any suggestions/tips for a new monitor?
I'm hoping to get IPS, 27"+, and I'm in Canada.
People say that over 60hz makes a huge difference, but with the above specs, it seems to like at least double the price.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
IPS 27" 1440p 60hz already costs, going to 120hz native with all of that is super expensive
|
Cascadia1753 Posts
Do you have any suggestion's then? Should I drop IPS? go to 1080p?
edit: looking at higher end... do I really have to pair the monitor to the gpu brand for this gsync vs freesync? is there a noticeable performance hit without those technologies?
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
That depends a lot on your goals. I know for a lot of the stuff I do (reading, writing, etc) my 1440p screen is nice at 60hz and 144hz does not add much. However, I also have a 1080p 144hz screen that I use for gaming and I find it quite enjoyable.
In terms of price, an IPS 1440p screen will cost you less than $300, and a TN 1080p 144hz screen would be in the same range. A screen that has IPS, 1440p, and 144hz all together would likely cost ~$700+ USD.
Compared to TN panels, IPS panels have better color and viewing angel, and newer ones don't have as much trouble with black colors and and lag.
Compared to 1080p, a 1440p screen has about twice as much screen real estate, and will put a significantly higher strain on your GPU if you run games in that size. That being said, 1440p screens are really great for stuff like having two windows side-by-side, each taking up half the screen, when you need to read one document and write in another. I've found them to be great for working on things.
Compared to 60hz, 144hz is noticeably faster, especially in nicely-rendered games where you need to spin or move quickly, or where there's lot of motion happening on the screen. Going up to 144 fps will strain your graphics card significantly, though.
My current strategy is a 1440p@60hz IPS screen and ALSO a 1080p@144hz screen. They serve me well for gaming and productivity. If I had a truly monstrous amount of cash, I'd upgrade my GPU and have 2x 1440p@144hz screens, but this would be really expensive and wouldn't actually improve my life that much.
about gsync/freesync: this is something that is usable if your brand of gpu lines up. Basically, when you use normal vertical sync (vsync), your computer software displays the last fully-rendered frame to avoid tearing. gsync and freesync do something at a hardware level, maybe fiddling with the refresh rate and waiting for a frame to complete, for example? They're both considered pretty good, and one is associated with each GPU manfacturer.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
Compared to 1080p, a 1440p screen has about twice as much screen real estate
~77.7% more (1.33x width and height)
|
Hello TL Tech!
I wanted to say that a couple years ago I followed your guys' guidelines in order to put together an i3 2100 build for my personal gaming, and 4 years later here it is, taking on the newest titles at 1600x900 without a problem. I wanted to extend my thanks for the advice and for getting me hooked on the topics of desktop computing.
I've been working on an absolute entry build for a friend aimed at a resolution about 1366x768 that could be able to still play high demand games with lower graphics settings if possible, and I decided to go with an Athlon x4 860K for CPU for one because it's very cheap and fares relatively well in gaming tests at lower specs, and also because I want to get my hands wet with CPU overclocking.
I've mostly been confident with the part list first draft, but I'm weary of buying a motherboard that won't overclock correctly. I would like to hear out your recommendation for a FM2+ motherboard that will give me a decent overclocking experience while also keeping my low budget in mind.
I've also been looking for a low-profile heatsink for the CPU but i've been unable to find one suitable (stuff like the Raijintek Pallas at 40$ is a bit over my budget) for the build. If need be, I don't mind just buying a case that'll fit a bigger one (is the Cooler Master hyper 212 EVO still a recommended choice?), but i'm willing to give low profile a shot.
I'm glad the TeamLiquid tech forum is still around. Cheers!
Edit 1: I'm hoping to be able to fit an SSD even if it's just a cheap 120GB module, I assume i want the mobo to have some number of SATAIII ports but i wouldn't pay too big of a premium for that.
|
can someone recommend me a good bang for your buck 21.5 inch/144 hz monitor? thanks
|
On February 28 2016 23:08 TT1 wrote:
can someone recommend me a good bang for your buck 21.5 inch/144 hz monitor? thanks
Pretty sure they don't make 144hz at that size 24" is pretty standard now 21.5 is an economy size so not really 144hz any reason for size restriction(desk space?). Monitors are getting bigger and bigger 24" 27" pretty common, 4k monitors going to the 30-34" professional sizes
|
On February 29 2016 01:05 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 23:08 TT1 wrote:
can someone recommend me a good bang for your buck 21.5 inch/144 hz monitor? thanks Pretty sure they don't make 144hz at that size 24" is pretty standard now 21.5 is an economy size so not really 144hz any reason for size restriction(desk space?). Monitors are getting bigger and bigger 24" 27" pretty common, 4k monitors going to the 30-34" professional sizes
much easier to game with, less space to focus on (i also have a 24 inch monitor with 120 hz but i dont use it for gaming)
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:53 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:05 semantics wrote:On February 28 2016 23:08 TT1 wrote:
can someone recommend me a good bang for your buck 21.5 inch/144 hz monitor? thanks Pretty sure they don't make 144hz at that size 24" is pretty standard now 21.5 is an economy size so not really 144hz any reason for size restriction(desk space?). Monitors are getting bigger and bigger 24" 27" pretty common, 4k monitors going to the 30-34" professional sizes much easier to game with, less space to focus on (i also have a 24 inch monitor with 120 hz but i dont use it for gaming)
If you move the monitor a few inches away its effective size becomes smaller (since it takes up less of your vision). As far as I can tell, there are no monitors with a size smaller than 24" and a 144hz refresh rate. If you looked hard enough, you might be able to find one. Using a 24" monitor and having it slightly farther away will provide a similar effet.
|
Cascadia1753 Posts
|
Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that the new PC you helped choose parts for has arrived and been built, and now purrs like a kitten on the table. Thank you for all your help, you're awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I wondered if anyone could critique the following build? pcpartpicker.com
No intention of overclocking or streaming afaik, just gonna be used for gaming
Also gonna need a wi-fi adapter, is there any difference if i were to just go pick up one of the cheapest usb things i see?
The computer would be bought from komplett.no and would cost about 2200USD
Budget isnt super important, but obviously if you can suggest something that's gonna run modern AAA titles very well and still save some money compared to this that's great
(The build was put together by customizing one of the pre-built computers,, and is thus limited to the parts offered here: www.komplett.no)
EDIT: Fixed, thanks for pointing out
|
Cascadia1753 Posts
You didnt give us a build link, you linked us to the page to build a pc. You need to give us the 'Permalink' it gives you near the top of the page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
