|
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 March 20 2016 01:47 TheStryfe wrote:Hey guys here's the dilema I'm having. I have my build all setup and I've had it for a while, the only thing I'm missing is my GPU. The question is should I aim for the gtx 950 or 970. I wanna start focusing on just playing competitive games so CSGo, StarCraft 2, UT4, Overwatch when that comes out. And RPGs as well when they come out (the division, dark souls 3, etc) I plan to get the flagship 980ti equivalent card when Pascal comes out its just for the time being idk if I should get the 950 or the 970. Note: I don't have a ton of money to throw around since I have a lot of debt to pay off currently for school. Here's what my build is right now (I can't make changes because like I said I've had this for a while) http://pcpartpicker.com/p/FwZXCJ
assuming you are playing at 1080p, and if you are willing to lower the setting for newer games (dark soul 3, or whatever AAA coming out later), you can get the 970, then skip the first gen pascal, and upgrade the gen after that. First card for pascal will probably be 980 equivalent around mid year (really no idea, all are just rumour, but likely be), and that is going to be expensive, then 970-equivalent afterwards. I had to consider the same before, but I went with 960, then plan to skip pascal 1st gen, because I don't mind playing at medium/low setting. but that's just me can't see much difference at 1080p quality
As for 950, look like it barely dragging along in The Division (~30fps), so not sure if it can last you 6months till pascal come out for newer titles, but if you think you can sell the 950 for decent amount then go this route. imo the 970 will still be good value for 1080p gaming for at least another 1.5years or 2. or you can consider R9 390.
|
Would it be worth it to just shell out for a 980ti now?
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
I wanna start focusing on just playing competitive games so CSGo, StarCraft 2, UT4, Overwatch when that comes out. And RPGs as well when they come out (the division, dark souls 3, etc)
Those comp games are easy to handle graphically. CSGO & sc2 are very graphically light, UT4 is one of those things that looks like it's 5x harder to run than it is because you can run like 150fps with a GPU nowhere near flagship performace. Not sure about Overwatch.
1080p60 is easy in todays games, we rarely get stuff that's graphically challenging. We have not really got much harder than Crysis 3 which is over 3 years old. For either 1440p or 120hz+ you need the big hardware :D
|
|
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
Recommended wattage is 650, so I'd go with the 700 one
The "recommended wattage" is for people who don't know what power usage numbers are and/or people who use trash PSU's that can't continuously deliver the wattage that they say on the side
a 390 is a ~300w GPU (with a mild OC) and fine with most CPU's on a decent 550w PSU
|
On March 20 2016 08:51 Cyro wrote:The "recommended wattage" is for people who don't know what power usage numbers are and/or people who use trash PSU's that can't continuously deliver the wattage that they say on the side a 390 is a ~300w GPU (with a mild OC) and fine with most CPU's on a decent 550w PSU
I'm just citing this site: http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm.
I know the supernova 550w is often recommended, but thats $80 while this evga one is $60 with possibly more headroom for the future.
|
On March 20 2016 04:12 TheStryfe wrote:
Would it be worth it to just shell out for a 980ti now?
I dont think 980ti ever worth it, unless you either have money to spend or want the best right now, or you are playing 1440p / 4k
As Cyro said, those games are not super demanding in GPU at 1080p. What is your monitor resolution and refresh rate? If you are worry, I suggest just get 970 or r9 390 and keep it for 1.5-2 years at least, or longer if your gaming needs are still met, then upgrade to whatever latest gen available in the future
|
I'm making these changes to my pc, if there is something you'd do differently let me know please.
rosewill challenger -> nzxt s340 $75
i5 3570k
asrock z77 pro 4m
gtx 460 -> sapphire r9 390 $345
8gb ram
wd blue 1tb
corsair cx430w -> evga supernova b2 750w $70
xigmatek gaia -> hyper 212 $35
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
>xigmatek gaia -> hyper 212 $35
Why do this? The Gaia and the Hyper 212 are very similar coolers (both low-ish end air)
|
On March 20 2016 13:33 Cyro wrote:
>xigmatek gaia -> hyper 212 $35
Why do this? The Gaia and the Hyper 212 are very similar coolers (both low-ish end air)
I tried overclocking my cpu and was getting abnormal temperatures, and someone on overclockers suggested it, "Your cooler is the problem, it can't handle an Ivy Bridge properly. If you check the spacing at the bottom of the heatsink the pipes are too spread out and it seems that the central pipe is the only pipe that contacts the CPU completely. The remaining 2 seem to only cover about half the CPU which doesn't help with the heat dissipation."
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
Maybe a different mount would help (turned around 90 degrees if possible) - both of those coolers are only suitable for low overclocks on Ivy. What vcore are you using and what temps are you getting at that vcore?
|
On March 20 2016 13:59 Cyro wrote:
Maybe a different mount would help (turned around 90 degrees if possible) - both of those coolers are only suitable for low overclocks on Ivy. What vcore are you using and what temps are you getting at that vcore?
It was actually 3 years ago, but the settings were
multiplier: 42
spread spectrum: disabled
additional turbo voltage: +.004
internal pll overvoltage: disabled
gt overclocking support: disabled
power saving mode: disabled
cpu core voltage: offset mode (+.005)
cpu load-line calibration: 50%
C1E: enabled
C3: disabled
C6: disabled
C state: disabled
and temps
http://i.imgur.com/RIqQDGe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CngcTMI.jpg
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
That's on the hot side of normal but maybe partially explainable by room temps, mount+paste etc (i've heard that you should apply paste differently for the direct touch heatpipe coolers)
i would not expect more than ~1.25v or so from those coolers under the heavy avx loads
|
On March 20 2016 14:08 Cyro wrote:
That's on the hot side of normal but not that unusual - especially if your room temp is like 25c, cooler mount isn't perfect etc. Those coolers are pretty low end and those CPU's hot under those loads
What would be a better alternative? Also, could the motherboard pose a problem? At the time asrock extreme 4 was recommended not pro 4 m, but it was a lot cheaper. Not sure how it would really affect the oc.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
4.2ghz @1.15v is normal, it's just a matter of increasing voltage and cooling it if you want higher clocks
The asrock extreme 4 was an awful motherboard. It was highly praised for its unusal ability to stabilize CPU's at lower vcores than all of the competition which turned out to actually be a problem with the board giving the CPU way more vcore than set in the bios and displayed to the user (vcore sitting at 1.6 during gameplay while 1.45 is selected and displayed..)
It killed CPU's (for the OCers who were anywhere near pushing limits), mislead everyone who bought the board into running higher voltages than they wanted to and was never even official acknowledged AFAIK.
----
for coolers, it depends how much money you'd want to spend. I think it's best if you try a remount of two of your current cooler (and check room temperature). A 300mhz gain from a strong cooler would be ~7% performance and this is old tech so that's not worth as much as it once was
|
On March 20 2016 14:17 Cyro wrote:
4.2ghz @1.15v is normal, it's just a matter of increasing voltage and cooling it if you want higher clocks
The asrock extreme 4 was an awful motherboard. It was highly praised for its unusal ability to stabilize CPU's at lower vcores than all of the competition which turned out to actually be a problem with the board giving the CPU way more vcore than set in the bios and displayed to the user (vcore sitting at 1.6 during gameplay while 1.45 is selected and displayed..)
It killed CPU's (for the OCers who were anywhere near pushing limits), mislead everyone who bought the board into running higher voltages than they wanted to and was never even official acknowledged AFAIK.
----
for coolers, it depends how much money you'd want to spend. I think it's best if you try a remount of two of your current cooler (and check room temperature). A 300mhz gain from a strong cooler would be ~7% performance and this is old tech so that's not worth as much as it once was
Interesting, was not aware of that. I want to spend as low as possible and get the most out :D I just want to oc enough to meet the vives needs, ideally like 4.4 ghz. Looks like i'll redo paste and remount then with the current one.
|
|
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
The 6400 doesn't meet oculus rift recommended spec @ stock (not a vive but similar stuff  ) - it's clocked ~1.5x lower than an OC'd 6600k when at full turbo. You can do the non-k overclock stuff but i don't recommend it given the side effects. It's less messy just to get a 6600k.
for RAM you should get 2x4GB ~3000c15. That will give 2.8x more bandwidth and a lot better latency which improves performance quite a lot in many games now when not GPU-limited
|
Thanks for your help. Researching to understand your calculations was good learning for me.
I see that overclocking will probably be needed for VR if I'm staying with the 6400. Multiple newegg reviewers have OC'd it to 4.4 / 4.2 ghz, so it looks like an attractive option. Is there a difference in performance between 6400, 6500, or 6600k when all at 4.0 ghz?
|
So I'm trying to run VIRL (Virtualization software for Networks) on VMWare, and some of the labs I want to run use a shitton of RAM. My current system is a i5 3400K overclocked to 4.5 GHz with 32 GByte RAM, and it's not enough Memory.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ws6Zxdi.jpg)
And that's only with two thirds of the routers running....
I need more RAM! But I'm on a budget! And my old board does not allow more than 32 GByte RAM!
So, this is what I plan to buy to upgrade my current system:
- Intel Core i5-6600K (3500) Quad Core
- Gigabyte GA-Z170M-D3H
- Corsair DDR4 Vengeance LPX Black 32GB Kit 2400MHz (2x, so I get a total of 64GB RAM).
As far as I can tell, that's the cheapest combination of items that will get me a) a decent overclocked system and b) enough RAM.
1.) Is the Mainboard good? I couldn't find recommendations for skylake overclocking boards, but perhaps I was looking in the wrong places...
2.) What kind of cpu fan is recommended for overclocking the 6600k? i just want to overclock moderately, something like 4.4 GHz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
