|
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. |
Intel's really confusing X299 lineup is expected to be available "in the coming weeks" (I think the "June" release is limited to the i9-7900X and downward). All we know about Threadripper is that it will be released Summer 2017.
Also, Intel should be releasing Coffee Lake (8th Gen Core) some time between now and the end of 2017. But, as mentioned a couple posts above, details are intentionally kept scarce and we won't know much until Intel decides it's time for us to know.
If you do anything that would substantially benefit from a huge amount of threads and you have the money to spend, waiting is a no-brainer. If you don't work with highly-threaded workloads, it *might* be worth waiting potentially 2-3 months for Coffee Lake just for the improved IPC. But that's up to you.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
nothing specific, gaming/etc. not big on stepwise upgrades, just wanna get something good and not have to worry about it for the next 4 -5 years.
basically if im looking at logicalincrements, has anything changed in the enthusiast/extremist tiers since may 15th when it was last updated, or can i just safely go across the line with some adjustments and be fine?
also how much quieter is liquid cooling than air cooling these days?
|
On June 10 2017 21:18 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 16:02 Craton wrote:
They tend to be rather circumspect with dates, since once they set dates customers will stop buying their current stuff while they wait. I think Linus (from Linus Tech Tips) had an interview with an Intel guy awhile back that covers on some of this but I can't find it. So these things literally fall from the heavens? Geez
Yeah, more or less. You might get general targets at some point (e.g. "Q3 2017") and then a month or two out a more solid release date, but that's about it. They also don't release everything at the same time, so you'll get one set of offerings at one date, but then they'll add more chips to fill the gaps, though I've found those to be more budget-oriented than performance-oriented.
Generally the rule of thumb is if you're wanting to do a build now, unless there are specific dates coming up, it's usually just best to go ahead and build it. Nature of the beast is there will always be something better around the corner, so at some point you just have to decide to get what's available. If it's more of a "kind of want to do a build, but can wait 6 months or so" then you might want to wait and see what comes out.
Also how much quieter is liquid cooling than air cooling these days?
The same, IMO. The noise comes from the fans and the water pump and both water cooling and air cooling rely on fans to dissipate the heat. There are a lot of high quality quiet fans available these days that you can use on a radiator or a heatsink. In some cases water cooling is actually louder thanks to a loud water pump.
If you do anything that would substantially benefit from a huge amount of threads and you have the money to spend, waiting is a no-brainer. If you don't work with highly-threaded workloads, it *might* be worth waiting potentially 2-3 months for Coffee Lake just for the improved IPC. But that's up to you.
Just pointing out for others' sake that highly-threaded workloads does not include gaming. Games are rarely able to effectively make use of many cores.
|
|
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Yeah, 8 core ryzen generally performs barely better or literally the same as 6 core in most games; going to 16 won't help more for workloads that are not very well threaded. Faster cores do help.
For water cooling, full custom setups can be very quiet but are expensive and complicated to get right. Prepackaged stuff like CLC's are usually worse than air coolers for performance vs noise on a CPU
|
Does anyone have any experience with gaming on a dual monitor set up? Or multiple monitor set up in general? This ties back to my earlier post. 1 ultrawide 34" vs 2 (maybe 3 eventually but definitely not initially) 27" monitors. Do you actually render the game on both monitors or only a single one? If both the bezel in the middle must be infurating.
If only on one I fail to see how it can be better than 1 ultrawide.
3 x 27" I can understand since the bezels wont be right through the middle but I fail to see the need for that much screen realestate or even needing such a battlestation in the first place.
I guess Im just trying to say that Im leaning towards 1 ultrawide 34" with my current 24" as a secondary unit for watching streams or browsing the web.
|
As someone who is using a 30"+24" since... soon ten years, best decision I made back then. The issue you will run into with ultra wide +1 most likely is that the 2nd monitor can be far enough away that it's not crazy comfortable using it, especially the far side of it.
But yeah, you only render on your main screen for obvious reasons. I've always been in the same boat as you that a bezel in the middle would annoy me and some kind of "cockpit" with three similar sized monitors seems way overkill and less useful in comparison to a setup with one big central monitor.
Something I can recommend thinking about is a setup like this with two monitors in portrait mode to each side. That variant both gives you more screen estate but also gets around you having to turn your head really far to actually use all of it. It's obviously a bit worse for watching streams but way better for browsing or social stuff in general.
If my monitor eventually dies and I'd plan to swap to ultrawide I'd definitely go for that option since my 24" is already a bit awkward to use fully just because the angle becomes so large compared to looking at the centre of the main screen. At the very least I would measure out where which monitor would end up exactly and then work out from there if you really want to look at stuff that far to the side.
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Do you actually render the game on both monitors or only a single one? If both the bezel in the middle must be infurating.
If only on one I fail to see how it can be better than 1 ultrawide.
You can do so much stuff on dual monitor that you can't do on 1. Basic things like being able to alt-tab to something without it covering every other window on the screen are surprisingly important for workflow and multitasking
|
And you can use your secondary monitor to watch streams while gaming, look up shit you need in the game, and other things. I used to have a dual monitor setup, but then one of them broke, and now i am back to one again 
It was pretty useful, but obviously not useful enough for me to shell out another 200€ or so for a second monitor. (I am pretty poor, though)
|
On June 12 2017 22:48 Latham wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with gaming on a dual monitor set up? Or multiple monitor set up in general? This ties back to my earlier post. 1 ultrawide 34" vs 2 (maybe 3 eventually but definitely not initially) 27" monitors. Do you actually render the game on both monitors or only a single one? If both the bezel in the middle must be infurating.
If only on one I fail to see how it can be better than 1 ultrawide.
3 x 27" I can understand since the bezels wont be right through the middle but I fail to see the need for that much screen realestate or even needing such a battlestation in the first place.
I guess Im just trying to say that Im leaning towards 1 ultrawide 34" with my current 24" as a secondary unit for watching streams or browsing the web.
You generally won't do gaming on two monitors or on monitors of different resolution (last time used it the PC forced all monitors to be the same resolution before it'll span)*. If you do go that route it's usually done with 3 monitors and the side two function more in your periphery than anything. Trying to do two monitor gaming would have the bezels in the center of the screen which is entirely impractical.
As to the bezels with three monitors, yes they are in the way. You can do what's called bezel correction to address this. Basically you have two choices: have the edge of one monitor jump directly to the other (disregarding the bezel, so it looks a little disjointed) or offset the image so that the bezel hides a piece of the picture, but it flows from one monitor to the next seamlessly. You can think of the latter like a car, where you've got pieces of the car that separate the edge of your windshield from the door window.
*This applies to the monitors being spanned across. You can also have a non-spanned monitor (i.e. a 4th monitor) that's a different resolution.
For what it's worth, Nvidia cards do not support more than 4 monitors being attached. You can go above by running more monitors off the motherboard (IGPU) or off USB (CPU, e.g. DisplayLink adapters).
|
I currently have 2x8gb of 8-8-8-24 1.5V 1600Mhz DDR3 RAM. Lately I've finding myself using up all of my RAM, so I'm exploring adding another 2x8gb, but I'm finding matching sticks today cost about 50% more than 4 years ago. They do have comparable CAS 9 sticks for a similar price (~$90). How much of a difference (if any) would I notice by adding a pair of CAS 9 sticks.
My understanding is that four sticks would be reduced to that same speed of CAS 9 (as opposed to me manually doing it in the UEFI). Is that correct?
|
Baa?21244 Posts
Given the Skylake X processors are dropping in like 2 weeks I'll probably just go for one of those.
As I understand there's a bit of a clusterfuck with the x299 architecture and mobos targeted towards Kaby vs. Sky, so I guess I'll start doing some research here. Anyone have any general insights here in the meantime?
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Given the Skylake X processors are dropping in like 2 weeks I'll probably just go for one of those.
Only the lower core count ones. If you're interested in those then 16c Threadripper (release june-july(?)) and Intel's next mainstream CPU release (hopeful for 6c12t finally  ) are both extremely interesting
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On June 14 2017 04:58 Cyro wrote:
The uncertainty around release timings is making me not want to wait too much longer since I kinda wanna get a build up sooner rather than later. I might just content myself with the 8c/$600 i7 7820x intel offering, assuming it performs better than the ryzen 1800x.
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Sure it will but the Ryzen 8 core costs $319 and $600 will probably buy a lot more in 4-6 weeks time
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On June 14 2017 05:28 Cyro wrote:
Sure it will but the Ryzen 8 core costs $319 and $600 will probably buy a lot more in 4-6 weeks time
Yeah this is a good point. I guess I could in theory wait out another month. I'll be waiting another couple of weeks anyway so maybe more definite news and timelines could materialize. Thanks.
I'll just look around for other components for the time being. Pretty cut and dry I think, 1080 Ti since Vega won't be out until late 2018.
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Pretty cut and dry I think, 1080 Ti since Vega won't be out until late 2018.
gamer Vega is releasing in a month or two, not late 2018. It'll probably have terrible stock for a while, though, 1080ti's took months for good cards to be really available and were probably less supply limited. Being pushed into q3 is already extremely late, about 5 quarters of uncontested Nvidia control for the top half of the market.
|
On June 13 2017 10:12 Craton wrote:
I currently have 2x8gb of 8-8-8-24 1.5V 1600Mhz DDR3 RAM. Lately I've finding myself using up all of my RAM, so I'm exploring adding another 2x8gb, but I'm finding matching sticks today cost about 50% more than 4 years ago. They do have comparable CAS 9 sticks for a similar price (~$90). How much of a difference (if any) would I notice by adding a pair of CAS 9 sticks.
My understanding is that four sticks would be reduced to that same speed of CAS 9 (as opposed to me manually doing it in the UEFI). Is that correct?
Sorry for the late answer. I had to do the same two years ago (see here and here). In short, yes, it will set the speed for all RAM to the lower settings.
|
hello,so i finally decided to buy a new PC mine is from 2008 so im very out of touch.i wanna buy this one and i did ask some friends for sugestions but everyone has a different opinion.that i shouldnt buy i5-7400 but i5-7600 and that i dont need a really expensive mother board etc.so i need help and plz talk to me clear if this configuration is not a good deal
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y0UsMhQ.png)
thanks <.<
oh i want this PC for streaming,i think this is important to mention.
|
oh i want this PC for streaming,i think this is important to mention.
Well then go with Ryzen 1600x (which costs about the same or less and is better).Both processors you mentioned are bad for streaming. You get 6 cores with 12 threads vs 4 cores and 4 threads. There is no doubt that you will be better off with the AMD build in your case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
