EPThttps://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113428&ignorebbr=1
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 654
| 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. | ||
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
https://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113428&ignorebbr=1 | ||
|
Ethelis
United States2400 Posts
$1200 USD What is your monitor's native resolution? 1920x1080 What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings? Overwatch, League of Legends, World of Warcraft, FIFA, Cities: Skylines (w/ tons of mods). Settings as high as possible. What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming? Nothing intensive. Do you intend to overclock? No Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire? No Do you need an operating system? Yes Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget? No If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify. I would like no less than 1.5TB on my hard drive. What country will you be buying your parts in? USA If you have any retailer preferences, please specify. None. I have Amazon Prime as an option. I made https://pcpartpicker.com/list/WncjxY so far. Anyone have better ideas on how to spend the budget? | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
Currently the fastest network card on the market is a 1024QAM 4 MIMO-OFDM, which therefore is capable of producing a theoretical speed of 1000Mbps on the 2.4Ghz band, and and 2167Mbps on the 5Ghz band. So to actually take advantage of this network card, I have to have a router that supports 1024QAM and 4 spatial streams, right? So when I go look at routers on memory express, there's only 10 routers out of the 100~ that have a speed of 3100Mhz+. Then, I am assuming that this all needs to be on a single band, so the triband ones that do N600 + AC1300 + AC1300 wont be compatible, yes? If that's the case, the cheapest 2 are eliminated, and then there's on talking about "tri-stream 160", so like... at 5Ghz using 3 160Mhz channels, which is confusing to me, because based on the graphs I saw on the internet: In NA without DFS, you can only get 2 80Mhz channels and zero 160Mhz channels, and with DFS, you can get at most 5 80Mhz channels, and 1 160Mhz channels (and hence a big reason why we don't see them)... Which leads me to another question?... How are those AC5300 that use AC2166 + AC2166 + N1000 even possible? I understand one device can only be connected to one of these at a time, so a theoretical max speed of 2166Mbps, but that requires 4 spatial streams, so how can you have 2 separate 5Ghz bands if the maximum available 80Mhz channels are 5. Do these just throttle each other? Because if so (I mean they must, physics wouldn't make sense otherwise), then why would you want two separate ones rather than just one which doesn't get throttled. And then this product says it has 4 active antennas and 4 internal antennas (as the picture shows as well), but then in the description it says it has 5x IEEE 802.11ac channels at 433Mbps each, which is also confusing, where is the last antenna. If that's the case then, does this mean that this Netgear router costing $500CAD only uses 256QAM modulation, and hence wont let me get full potential out of my network card? Since I've only found 4 routers that do a 2167Mhz signal with 4 spatial streams on memory express. I would also be interested in getting a router that supports 802.11ad, just to future proof a little bit... And, I cannot find a single 802.11ad router that supports 4 MIMO 1024QAM? Am I looking for a product that doesn't exist? Also, I'm just wondering about the range of routers. I'm unable to find any kind of signal strength quantifiers or anything like that. I understand that a 5Ghz signal wont travel as far as 2.4Ghz, but what about two 5Ghz signals between routers? Surely just by raising the voltage inside the circuit you can create a larger oscillation and thus a signal that will take longer to dissipate. I can't find any of this information in the specifications though. Lastly, if I have a router with 4 antennas, and I'm using my computer which also has 4 antennas, I would technically be using all 4 of the routers spatial streams. So I'm just wondering, if someone else in the house wants to access the network, how does it work? What exactly is the advantage of MU-MIMO opposed to SU-MIMO... Because let's just assume that two users are using a 5Ghz band capable of 2167Mbps with an internet connection of 100Mbps, and they both go download files simultaneously. Assuming the server they are being downloaded from is no bottleneck, What use does MU-MIMO play? Couldn't the router spend 10ms using the 100mbps connection to download the file on the first computer, then switch after 10ms more and continue the download on another computer? By quickly flickering which device receives the signal, doesn't that act like MU-MIMO? I actually have no idea how it works, but would be nice to understand how many devices can be receiving a signal at once, how efficiently is it split, etc, etc. When looking at probably the highest end consumer router: http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX60368 It says it has MU-MIMO, but it doesn't say anything about this. Most videos I found on youtube cover routers in a very rudimentary way, and it's tough to learn about them. Any help is appreciated ^^ On July 12 2017 07:58 Ethelis wrote: What is your budget? $1200 USD What is your monitor's native resolution? 1920x1080 What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings? Overwatch, League of Legends, World of Warcraft, FIFA, Cities: Skylines (w/ tons of mods). Settings as high as possible. What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming? Nothing intensive. Do you intend to overclock? No Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire? No Do you need an operating system? Yes Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget? No If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify. I would like no less than 1.5TB on my hard drive. What country will you be buying your parts in? USA If you have any retailer preferences, please specify. None. I have Amazon Prime as an option. I made https://pcpartpicker.com/list/WncjxY so far. Anyone have better ideas on how to spend the budget? I have a 350W PSU running a i7 6700k OC'ed to 4.6Ghz and a GTX1070 OC'ed to 2050Mhz boost clocks. 650W PSU is wasteful for that build, you can easily save yourself $40 there. Other than that, every Intel system looks more or less the same nowadays, for every part there's like 2 options, not much to mess up hah. Without being more specific with your needs, it's difficult to optimize your build any further. Right now is a really bad time to buy though due to ethereum mining, waiting around 1 month will see a significant drop in price of graphics cards (as the difficulty is going up, and price going down). A GTX 1080 + i5 7400/7500, without the cooler, and with a B150 motherboard will cost you the same price as your system. The graphics card costing $200 more (at MSRP), the i5 7500 costing around $130-140 less, cooler $30 less, motherboard $60 less. That will give you much better gaming performance, but depends how much of other stuff you want to be doing, how much io you need, etc. | ||
|
Ethelis
United States2400 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:26 Ethelis wrote: Would it be a good idea to buy just the cpu or w/e else looks good then get the graphics card in 1 month? If I go that route which parts have a good price atm? The processor is a good price, everything else will be +/- 5% max in a month or two. I mean a specific stick of RAM might go up a bit, but there will be an equivalently priced alternative. The 7700k is definitely a bit cheaper, but I think it's just due to the competition between Intel and AMD, and hence it's more of a price drop than a sale. A couple months back you could have easily purchased a GTX1060 6GB for $250. Since June 12th when Ethereum peaked at $400, now it's at $186, so mining is getting less and less profitable. Right now an RX480 earns $48~ per month when running 24/7. At the end of May it was closer to $130~ per month, and during the peak in the middle of June it was $167... Trendline suggests it will go down and down, few miners are starting up now. I think in 2 months max they will be back to their normal prices, and around $60 cheaper than on price picker, but that's only my educated estimate. | ||
|
Ethelis
United States2400 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:59 Ethelis wrote: Thanks, I'll likely get the CPU and the rest later. Just remember that coffee lake is supposed to come out sometime in the 2nd half of 2017, and it's supposed to be the largest jump in CPU performance from Intel since Sandy Bridge. Intel is saying 30%... There's a decent chance we will see a hyperthreaded i5 or a mainstream 6 core i7 for similar prices to the current i7's. Waiting always saves you money, but you need a PC eventually, I just don't think it makes much sense to buy now, and then be waiting for a month or two, because something market disrupting could have happened by then, all in the name of potentially saving $20. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
| ||
|
Ethelis
United States2400 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11926 Posts
| ||
|
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
I expect similar because $800 12 core is a bit weirdly positioned. Maybe $649 12core introduction and $879 for the basic 16 core? | ||
|
Craton
United States17295 Posts
On July 14 2017 00:47 Dingodile wrote: I asked few years ago but I didn't buy at all. Now I ask this again. I have 2x2GB Ram 1333mhz DDR3. My Mainboard offers A1, B1, A2, A2. A1 and B1 are taken. Can I buy one another 1x2GB or 1x4GB? Does it make sense? I'm pretty sure that it's fine in both cases. I'm almost positive I did exactly that a decade ago on my laptop that had something like 2x1gb or 2x2gb embedded (non-removal) and 1 upgrade slot which I either did 2gb or 4gb in. Depending on the motherboard support it'll either run all three sticks in single-channel mode or 2 in dual channel and 1 in single channel. It'll also reduce the timings of all sticks to the lowest common denominator. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On July 14 2017 11:10 Cyro wrote: Those look like a few of the top end X models specifically. If you look over at the Ryzen 7 line, the 1700 is like $319 while the 1800x is $500 and they're basically the same thing, you'd never buy the 1800x for value. I expect similar because $800 12 core is a bit weirdly positioned. Maybe $649 12core introduction and $879 for the basic 16 core? I think $700 for the 12 core and $1000 for the 16 core would have been better... Pretty much every PCB has diseconomies of scale. a G4560 Pentium is $70 for 2 cores that are exactly the same as the 18 core, but that one charges more than $200 per 2 cores, and the 7700k is $150 per 2 cores. Nvidia does the same thing, where the cheaper cards give you more FPS per dollar. I'm not sure if it actually has things to do with yield of the process, or if they just do it because they can, and people pay for it. I can't really think of any other industry where if you get double the product, you pay more than twice the amount, but anyway. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
For these CPU's AMD is mass producing ~194mm 2x4 core dies and sticking them together and/or partially disabling them with an on-package and on-die interconnect for everything from their 4 core ryzen 3's to 32 core Epyc. There's no need to design 5 different chips for different core counts, different types of core communication on different chip sizes etc, no bad yields from larger dies otherwise neccesary to get to high core counts. The scaling across core counts is very strong and affordable with a design like this, one of its main strengths. It's not technically as good as a perfectly managed huge die with all of the cores on the same die but you can just throw more cores at the problem because of the ease of design + affordability and be fine. It doesn't actually translate to a $1000 16-core with bad interconnects competing with a $1000 16-core with good interconnects: At the lower end of the market they have a 4c4t against Intel's 2c4t or a 6c12t against their 4c4t. Midrange they have an 8c16t cheaper than Intel's 4c8t. At $849(?)-999 they have a 16c against Intel's $999 10c $3400 has Ryzen 32c against Intel's 18c. The entry level Intel 28c costs $8719 which is ~2.93x more expensive per core. Majority of Intel's core speed advantage is also gone when they're clocked the same on these CPU's instead of being clockable 25% higher (like the 7700k over the r7 1700) Overall there are some difficulties around lower threaded programs & games but the CPU design as a whole is unquestionably efficient and high end desktop / server has already seen large scale performance&price corrections in response to first gen products that have not even launched yet. Nvidia is looking into some similar stuff for GPU scaling http://research.nvidia.com/publication/2017-06_MCM-GPU:-Multi-Chip-Module-GPUs | ||
|
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CK9GvKI.jpg) intels slide deck is hilarious, so salty lmao | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
Plus Intel has done way worse, their current and future desktop products are "repurposed" from laptop as well which has been a serious setback for a long time. Back in the Core 2 days they stuck 2 dual core dies on one PCB for a "quad core" using a way more hacky and lower performance solution. | ||
|
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
On July 14 2017 11:10 Cyro wrote: Those look like a few of the top end X models specifically. If you look over at the Ryzen 7 line, the 1700 is like $319 while the 1800x is $500 and they're basically the same thing, you'd never buy the 1800x for value. you're basically paying extra for the x at the end of the product name On July 15 2017 14:37 Cyro wrote: They're very quick to criticize and talk about how their way is the only/best way while getting wrecked on the most important metrics by a company that has a small fraction of their budget Plus Intel has done way worse, their current and future desktop products are "repurposed" from laptop as well which has been a serious setback for a long time. Back in the Core 2 days they stuck 2 dual core dies on one PCB for a "quad core" using a way more hacky and lower performance solution. 100% on point with what you're saying. I'm not sure why intels doing what they've been doing recently because it's really stupid. | ||
|
Craton
United States17295 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M4PhrcH.png) | ||
| ||
