EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iegfo2W.png)
HERE IT COMES BABY
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 595
| 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. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
HERE IT COMES BABY | ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
8GB G5X VRAM (10ghz stock, ~11ghz OC) $600/699 (regular, founders edition) May 27'th ----------- 1070: 8GB VRAM (g5x or gddr5?) $379/449 (regular/founders) June 10'th The founders edition seemed to have a better cooler and board, maybe a higher power limit. It looks like base clocks are around 1700 boost with 10ghz VRAM, but there was an overclock shown on the founders edition of 2.1ghz / 11ghz at ~67c. They specifically stated vapor chamber cooling (which is important because some of the titan coolers have this but the 970/980 lookalikes did not afaik) Stream just went off and he didn't give other specs for the 1070. I didn't actually catch if it's using G5X or regular GDDR5 It's pretty clear so far that this is similar to the Maxwell launch (these are not the big pascal GPU's) so we can probably expect a significantly faster (~30-50%) Titan card in q3-q4 followed by 1080ti and AMD equivelant in early 2017? We will see. Also announced Ansel (camera thing) and simultaneous multi-projection, both worth the watch. SMP looks to be a dramatic improvement for all multi-screen and VR setups. | ||
TheEmulator
28102 Posts
| ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
GPU boost 3.0 is also coming, hopefully it will make it so that you can actually overclock at all without huge headaches or having to use a custom bios. I've had about 50 crashes too many while at extremely minor overclocks (like +30mhz core) because of one issue. You have control of two variables: * Core Voltage while at maximum clock and power state * Core clock offset over every power state You have to raise the clock speed of all of the idle and low load power states in order to increase the core clock of the maximum power state, but you cannot raise the voltage for these power states, only for the maximum state. Result is stability at 300mhz and 1500mhz, but wild instability at 800-1300mhz for example. You can't just enable overclock while gaming and disable it again while not gaming because it doesn't solve the issue. You'll crash while alt tabbing, and you'll crash whenever the GPU dips below a certain amount of load and defaults to a lower-load power state (including if you're ever CPU limited in a game, if you ever apply or hit an FPS limit). This can be fixed by either exempting everything but the maximum power state from clock speed changes or by raising the voltage for all power states instead of just the maximum power states and people have demonstrated both of these fixes working perfectly.. but you don't have those controls unless you modify the bios, which has some level of risk and officially voids warranty. So yeah, GPU Boost 2.0 was a bit of a mess. Great for the guys running at stock settings, terrible for overclockers. | ||
|
Enox
Germany1667 Posts
| ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
Also if you build a new comp now you are building for 3 years anyway. | ||
|
Enox
Germany1667 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
hmm, I don't really see that point of so much power (yet). I mean, I have a 970 and can run every game totally maxed out, without any issues I will agree that most games aside from a fraction of brand new ones are not very demanding; they're fine running at 1080p60 on roughly midrange GPU's like the 970, which really shouldn't be the case for almost all of the industry IMO - what happened to graphical settings that required strong graphics to max @1080p60? We should see much more demanding games, especially with the new gen. With doubled performance, instead of running 1080p60 you can run the same game @1080p120 or 1440p~80fps. 1080p60 is quickly becoming a substandard resolution for PC enthusiasts with affordable monitors of 2.2x the refresh rate of 1.78 - 4x the pixel count available quite cheaply. Part of that is due to game devs sitting back and focusing on consoles where it's a waste of time to develop demanding games as their GPU performance is a fraction of PC midrange, so as a result a larger and larger % of games will just run at 100-200fps on 1080p so you can drive high refresh rates and resolutions instead of having complex graphics to render. I was just wondering about ppl who have a 970/980/titan This GPU is the replacement for the 970/980 and looks to be nearly twice as fast. The 980ti/titanX are much, much faster than a 970 (~1.7x) and have their own replacement on the way, even though the 1070/1080 look to beat them already. Bit of a nitpick but you can't run every game maxed out anyway on a 970 even if you're happy with low framerates. I bought a 970 on release and the very day that i plugged it in, one of the few games in my library was exceeding the 3.5GB of VRAM and stuttering. I've seen a short list of a dozen or so mainstream titles released in the last few years that you have to turn down settings like texture resolution on because you'll run out of VRAM if you max settings even @1080p. | ||
|
bluegarfield
Singapore1128 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
gen before that was 40nm Fermi to 28nm Kepler (both architecture and process change) and the increase was similar - see here: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1444?vs=1441 On the GPU side of development there is a lot of competition and power efficiency gains are being translated directly into performance because die size and power amounts are being kept similar. For CPU's, we can now fit 20-28 cores into the same die area and power window as a 6-core from 2009 but AMD is not producing anything like that (yet) and Intel is only offering them to the server market for thousands of dollars because of their monopoly. We're getting small dies that have over half of their die area taken up by integrated graphics. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On May 07 2016 23:03 Enox wrote: sure, ppl who build a new comp or don't have at least a 970 totally go for the new gpus. I was just wondering about ppl who have a 970/980/titan. i guess if you are interested in VR an upgrade is necessary but besides that? i think ill stick with my 970 until i find a game that doesnt run on max settings. If you have a 970/980/titan obviously you don't need to upgrade. Similar to if you bought a new car last year you are not going to upgrade to this year's model. | ||
|
bluegarfield
Singapore1128 Posts
On May 08 2016 00:30 Cyro wrote: Last gen was 28nm Kepler to 28nm Maxwell (both on same process, only architecture change) and it was smaller gains. gen before that was 40nm Fermi to 28nm Kepler (both architecture and process change) and the increase was similar - see here: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1444?vs=1441 On the GPU side of development there is a lot of competition and power efficiency gains are being translated directly into performance because die size and power amounts are being kept similar. For CPU's, we can now fit 20-28 cores into the same die area and power window as a 6-core from 2009 but AMD is not producing anything like that (yet) and Intel is only offering them to the server market for thousands of dollars because of their monopoly. We're getting small dies that have over half of their die area taken up by integrated graphics. Thanks Cyro. I guess for the CPU, it's probably something to do with programs not being able to utilize the extra cores, whereas in GPU, they can just squeeze in more and get the performance boost out of it. Anyway, I'm looking forward to something post 1070/1080 for my next upgrade. Seem like that one will be a massive performance jump too | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
CPU market will probably get shaken up by Zen in a quarter or 2 anyway. 8c16t with haswell performance at $400 could legitimately happen. | ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
| ||
|
IAmTheKingOfSpain
2 Posts
~$1000CAD, but I'm willing to spend less or more to get better value. What is your monitor's native resolution? Need a monitor, but want 1080p. What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings? LoL, Hearthstone, CS:GO, maybe others, would like to play high settings. Probably won't game a TON, but I would like the flexibility to do so. What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming? Software development, heavy web use Do you intend to overclock? I'm tempted, but so far I've been thinking not to. Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire? No Do you need an operating system? No Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget? Monitor, not part of my budget. This is separate. Looking for ~23" good IPS panel with adjustable stand If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify. What country will you be buying your parts in? Canada I currently have the following build: PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($249.15 @ Vuugo) Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($59.99 @ NCIX) Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($76.99 @ NCIX) Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($108.70 @ Amazon Canada) Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($60.15 @ Vuugo) Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 380 4GB Video Card ($239.99 @ NCIX) Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($54.09 @ Amazon Canada) Power Supply: EVGA 650W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($79.99 @ NCIX) Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($12.37 @ Amazon Canada) Total: $941.42 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-05-07 21:13 EDT-0400 Looking for monitor suggestions and some general feedback concerning the GPU, PSU, CPU, Mobo. I'm willing to change things, but I'd like to hear some opinions on why/why not what I have might work well. | ||
|
bluegarfield
Singapore1128 Posts
On May 08 2016 01:41 Cyro wrote: More cores give near-100% scaling for a lot of workloads that are highly parallel (like video encoding, rendering etc) CPU market will probably get shaken up by Zen in a quarter or 2 anyway. 8c16t with haswell performance at $400 could legitimately happen. but beside rendering and gaming, most casual people don't even need more than i3 2c/4t. What I mean is that casual people don't need the extra cores, hence both software and hardware makers didn't really push for that extra cores. or may be the cost of extra core is too high to justify. Hope the software will change when Zen come out | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On May 08 2016 15:39 bluegarfield wrote: but beside rendering and gaming, most casual people don't even need more than i3 2c/4t. What I mean is that casual people don't need the extra cores, hence both software and hardware makers didn't really push for that extra cores. or may be the cost of extra core is too high to justify. Hope the software will change when Zen come out "most casual people" don't "need" more than a small fraction of the performance of a 1070 either. It's very hard to scale efficiently onto many threads (some workloads can naturally do it, others have varying degrees of scalability), see here: + Show Spoiler + ---- @IAmTheKingOfSpain you could use a cheaper PSU, 450w capacity should be fine for those parts. An extra 120mm fan to have 2x120mm front intake on the case would be nice too. Build looks mostly alright at least | ||
|
SkrollK
France580 Posts
I currently have no PC (only an old laptop borrowed which sucks). Finally found a job paying well, so I will be able to buy a PC soon. I already settled most part I wanna take thanks to you guys, but I still doesn't know about my GPU. I settled more or less for a R9 380, or smthg around that level/price. Thing is, while searching for info on different websites, I came across the rumours about the new generation of graphic card... Or, I don't want to make my purchase for my PC now and two months later find my R9 380 half the price I paid it cause the new generation will be there and I will be able to get better for cheaper. Also, after I buy my desktop, I will also need to get a new laptop, but not for high end gaming nor heavy applications. For now, my only gaming standards are kinda low comsuming games like LoL or PoE. Soooooo, finally, my question : is it better to go now for a mid range laptop (around 500-600€, smthg with an i5 and a low end GPU), able to run LoL, ... for smthg like 2-3-4 months, and then wait for the new GPU to come and after that get my desktop (like, by the end of summer more or less). Or is it better just to get my desktop now since the upg and new GPU generation will only be out in like 1+ year and/or won't lower the prices of the current GPUs, and it's not at all worth waiting for it ? | ||
| ||
