|
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 Kingdom20328 Posts
I did a few RAM benchmarks for WoW recently after my RAM OC got reset and i noticed significant performance losses in both high and low stress areas before fixing it
This is a flight path benchmark for consistency. The other high stress environments mean lots of players around, volatile and hard to get error margins down but i'm confident that significant differences exist there, i just didn't take 3 hours to get some good data on it yet
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Qg8nvKi.png)
^max settings
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/j3h1FNk.png)
^my optimized FPS settings
~+16% FPS gain on max settings test, +19% on my optimized settings, CPU limited the whole time on both configs and margin of error in the 1% range. That's a pretty huge difference for a 1.5x change in memory bandwidth+latency so it looks like it could get closer to +30% FPS when comparing like 2133c15 to 3866c17, low end vs real fast stuff. It explains some other anomalies when comparing CPU limited FPS as well, some people having used single channel or left their RAM at low clocks on stock CPU config.
blue = 3200c16
orange = 2400c16
|
Hey guys, do you know how exactly the clock rate vs turbo clock rate work?
I understand the basics, like yes, if the CPU doesn't need the power, it's not provided, but if it does, then turbo is engaged. Because technically, any operation could be sped up, like a video playback frame being computed in 2ms rather than say 3ms.
The reason I ask is because the cost difference between the 8700k vs 8700 is $80 where I live ($490 vs $410 CAD), and with a 4.3Ghz turbo when all cores are on, that's pretty marginal relative to the 4.7-4.8Ghz I'd be comfortable running mine with either a 212 Evo or single fan radiator that I have at home. Not to mention that its single core performance is 4.6Ghz anyway, so for most games that are using 1-2 cores at max and the rest for more auxiliary functions, the benefit seems quite small.
The actual concept of CPU clock rate seems so strange to me at this point, like why are we even limited to two levels... Why can't we have a 1 Ghz for very easy tasks (to use even less power), then do 2Ghz for more intensive tasks, etc. Actually when I look at my task manager, my CPU clock rate jumps around very much based on my task...
So does the CPU clock rate even mean anything anymore?
|
United Kingdom20328 Posts
The lower power limit (65w for 6c12t) may limit multi-core turbos a bit; the 8700k has a 46% higher power limit out of the box and uses around 130w when OC'd.
The actual concept of CPU clock rate seems so strange to me at this point, like why are we even limited to two levels... Why can't we have a 1 Ghz for very easy tasks (to use even less power), then do 2Ghz for more intensive tasks, etc. Actually when I look at my task manager, my CPU clock rate jumps around very much based on my task...
That kind of control exists but it tends to cause issues and performance loss that almost everyone would rather avoid because of issues w/ software and delays in switching between power states
|
Has it always been this way? I was under the impression that CPU's we're only thermally throttled, and not both power and temp throttled. The wattage I thought was a just a rough approximate figure when the processor runs at full load.
|
United Kingdom20328 Posts
It's been that way for a long time
power limits aren't often huge limits on the desktop CPU models but occasionally cause a bit of throttling
a good few motherboards violate intel stock out of the box to make stuff not throttle or screw with the turbos.
---
Siliconlottery.com just posted their OC stats, average 8700k looks to be ~5.1ghz @1.4v with fairly consistent clocks
As of 11/11/17, 100% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 4.9GHz or greater. ( 1.387V Vcore -2 AVX Offset)
As of 11/11/17, the top 81% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater. (1.40V Vcore , -2 AVX Offset)
As of 11/11/17, the top 58% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater. (1.412V Vcore , -2 AVX Offset)
As of 11/11/17, the top 30% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 5.2GHz or greater. (1.425V Vcore , -2 AVX Offset)
As of 11/11/17, the top 6% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 5.3GHz or greater.( 1.437V Vcore , -2 AVX Offset)
they do stricter testing than before
|
For sure the overclocks are good, but those are delidded CPU's with a very good thermal solution (on that topic, I really don't under stand why delidding is a thing, if intel spent 10 cents more per chip there'd be no reason to).
Also I've found that you'll need to keep raising voltage to keep stability over a few months if you just overclock until the 100% maximum. So dropping down 100-200Mhz is a good idea for long term use. Hence how I arrived at my figure.
Your information was helpful though, so thank you for that.
|
United Kingdom20328 Posts
On the temps, a lot of people are reporting usable temps without delid like Skylake. Temps are a lot better with delid yeah, much bigger difference than there ever should be but it's not the end of the world for OCing without that
GamersNexus reported a 23c drop with delid but they still got 76c with a 1.4v 6c12t overclock on Blender without it, that's workable. The CPU doesn't need to stay below 53c at max OC~
Meanwhile on a 6700k and similar volts with an air cooler making a small fraction of the noise i have 70-75c maxes with no delid on the hottest stuff that i run (full core video encodes). Previous CPU's with delid issue were hotter, my 4770k would go into the 90's before reaching the voltages that i may have liked to use.
Also I've found that you'll need to keep raising voltage to keep stability over a few months if you just overclock until the 100% maximum. So dropping down 100-200Mhz is a good idea for long term use.
Depending on the voltage, temps and load hours that can happen in a matter of hours, weeks, months or not happen noticeably for the whole life of the CPU. A lot of people have been using ~1.4v on similar processes for years without reporting significant degradation and i would consider 100mhz down (~1.35v) at low temps to be very safe for a gaming system atm
Running CPU @ high volts, high temps and 100% load on all cores 24 hours a day for a year straight is definitely not a good thing. Lower volts, temps and load has a lot more longevity but it's up to the individual user how much they want to push there.
|
|
|
Yo! It's been a while (again), and this time I wanted to check in about a laptop to replace my current one that is 5 years old, has heating issues that are finally becoming totally unmanageable, a failing hard drive, etc. I had been considering getting a Chromebook + doing a desktop build, but I do enough mobile gaming that I think a low-end gaming laptop is looking like the better option.
My two intensive expected hopes are:
-Gaming to whatever level I can manage
-Rare streaming, about once every two months
This is the current price-leading option I've found, with the base model.
I was wondering if the CPU being only an i5-7300HQ (the next level up would be an i7-7700HQ) will actually end up being an issue for me, or if RAM requirements have changed enough that 8GB of RAM is no longer enough. Or if I'm missing some other detail that I should be paying attention to!
Possible competition, getting the i7-7700HQ but dropping to a 1050TI instead of the 1060.
|
On November 25 2017 02:58 Melancholia wrote:Yo! It's been a while (again), and this time I wanted to check in about a laptop to replace my current one that is 5 years old, has heating issues that are finally becoming totally unmanageable, a failing hard drive, etc. I had been considering getting a Chromebook + doing a desktop build, but I do enough mobile gaming that I think a low-end gaming laptop is looking like the better option. My two intensive expected hopes are: -Gaming to whatever level I can manage -Rare streaming, about once every two months This is the current price-leading option I've found, with the base model.I was wondering if the CPU being only an i5-7300HQ (the next level up would be an i7-7700HQ) will actually end up being an issue for me, or if RAM requirements have changed enough that 8GB of RAM is no longer enough. Or if I'm missing some other detail that I should be paying attention to! Possible competition, getting the i7-7700HQ but dropping to a 1050TI instead of the 1060.
Dell laptops over the last 3 years have been absolutely amazing. I purchased a Dell Inspiron 13" 5368 2-in-1 for my mom, and the build quality on it is A+ on it.
For the value those are solid choices. For gaming the 7300HQ and the 7700HQ will be similar, for streaming the 7700HQ will be 30% faster. Might be the difference between 720p30fps and 720p60fps / 1080p30fps streaming, but that choice is up to you. One thing to keep in mind is that the Kaby Lake refresh came out 1-2 months ago for medium power processors (10-30W), and these offered absurd gains (like double the performance vs their last gen counterparts). Due to that, we should expect the high power mobile processors to be coming out reasonably soon too, and these will likely be 6 core variants, likely giving you 50% more CPU power for the same cost, but if you need the laptop now, you need it now.
The $950 and $1200 variant are not good value relative to the others, really comes down to between the $900 model and the $1250 model.
$350 extra for 30% CPU power ($120 MSRP), 8GB of RAM ($80~), 128GB of extra SSD storage and being pcie... The only issue is that they don't tell you what SSD they put in there, because the pcie one can be a lot faster, but they could just put a SATA SSD speed one, but connected it a different way.
Unless they put a 960 Evo for the SSD, I think you'll be better off getting the $900 variant. Having 16GB of RAM would be nice, but 8GB is enough for just about everything, and usually on laptop you wont be doing heavy multitasking, like having 20 chrome tabs, a game, streaming, and editing photos at the same time. Due to the shortage, right now DDR4 is very expensive, and so I wouldn't recommend it if you're pretty cost sensitive. SSD speeds are a big thing (especially since it's only a 5400rpm HDD that you're using if it fills up).
Although I believe Inspiron's are easily upgrade able, so if you double check the # RAM slots and SSD slots, then that's the best way to go. If you find out in 3 years that 8GB is not enough for you, you'll be able to buy 8GB for sub 100 (and probably less since prices will go down by then), and you'll be able to upgrade your SSD easily if need be.
|
|
|
Ah, if you were looking at Dell's, you'd want something a little bit more sleek and discrete.
Out of those, I'm liking the Dell the most, A GTX1050ti would be a massive hit to your gaming performance.
Anyway, seems like you have the specs you're looking at all figured out, so now it's just the tiny things where personal tastes will start to matter a lot.
My only other two cents is once you're talking about saving 10% on the specs (it's marginal), make sure you read enough about their build quality, track pad, keyboard, warranty. Those will make a larger quality of life improvement, my brothers Acer laptop had issues with the hinge, the track pad started registering clicks as double clicks, and the thin plastic for the air exhaust broke in a couple places. He was travelling with it quite a bit, but that's why we get laptops.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I'm getting a threadripper build put together and I'm trying to figure out what god damn memory to get.
Would prefer to get Corsair as it seems to be the best priced where I am at.
Need 128 gb, but what QVL list should I actually go by? According to the motherboard I will be using (Asrock x399 taichi), this is the only 128 gb Corsair kit on the QVL list:
Corsair CMK128GX4M8B3000C16 Vengeance LPX 128 GB (8 x 16 GB) DDR4 3000 Mhz C16 XMP 2.0
But then there's this post on the corsair forums listing threadripper compatibility:
http://forum.corsair.com/v3/showthread.php?t=170272
From which that model is absent.
Am I being overly worried here? I've read some annoying stories about people having difficulties getting 128 gb builds to work so am feeling a bit cautious.
EDIT: I guess this is the safe choice to get? CMK128GX4M8Z2933C16
|
I wouldn't worry too much about RAM compatibility. There are too many models for them to actually test compatibility for everything and put it on a list, but RAM pretty much always works as long as it's the right type for the board. Worst case is usually just that you have a higher mhz RAM than your board supports so it runs at a lower speed (the highest the board will support).
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 26 2017 11:23 Craton wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about RAM compatibility. There are too many models for them to actually test compatibility for everything and put it on a list, but RAM pretty much always works as long as it's the right type for the board. Worst case is usually just that you have a higher mhz RAM than your board supports so it runs at a lower speed (the highest the board will support).
Normally I wouldn't worry but there's a lot of posts all around the web about people buying 128 gb memory kits with threadripper builds and then being unable to use more than half 
|
Yeah, I see some of those posts you're talking about. It seems like BIOS updates resolved most/all of the issues people were having. The mobo manufacturers must be having some issues getting things working.
|
United Kingdom20328 Posts
Threadripper and ryzen are not that mature yet, still some issues with that stuff
some people hunt down specific types of RAM but it can be tricky because they're not labeled very well and even the exact same kit can actually be two different types of memory with the same sticker on the side
"samsung b die" type is popular and some stuff will pop up on google for those but i can't say how things work today or with large amounts of memory
|
Canada11355 Posts
What is your current build?
(from dxdiag)
Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
System Model: GA-770T-USB3
BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.4GHz
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Display Memory: 1736 MB
Dedicated Memory: 1993 MB
Shared Memory: 3838 MB
What is your monitor's native resolution?
1920x1080
Why do you want to upgrade? What do you want to achieve with the upgrade?
I have a small amount of disposable money and haven't upgraded in a long time.
I want higher framerates at higher graphics settings
What is your budget?
$400 CDN with a little wiggle room
What country will you be buying your parts in?
Canada
If you have any brand or retailer preferences, please specify.
I like NCIX.com because they have retail locations nearby but am not opposed to waiting for shipping
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I was gonna pick some up here in germany cuz a lot cheaper than in Korea, but I think I'll just eat the higher price and not risk having to ship shit back to germany to be replaced
|
Which are the best review sites these days for GPUs?
I used to really like techpowerup but they don't have a lot of custom AMD cards which I wanted to look at. I've been tempted to get a nice GPU for cyber monday but eh. Nothing strikes my fancy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
