EPTComputer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 85
| 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. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20324 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20324 Posts
Closest example would be say, an i7 2600k (sandy bridge quad core) against a 3930k with hyperthreading disabled (sandy bridge 6-core) In some multithreaded programs like Linpack where hyperthreading has no additional performance to offer, the 3930k with HT disabled would be expected to outperform the 2600k with HT on by 50% (because 50% more cores), rough numbers of course In x264 (video encoder) hyperthreading might boost performance by 20%. If the 2600k had a net performance of 100% and the 3930k 150%, enabling hyperthreading on the 2600k would put it at 120% performance ^150/120 = 1.25, so the native-6 core CPU of the same architecture and clock speed with hyperthreading off would be 25% faster than the quad core that had HT. If you enable HT on the 6-core again, it would be back to being 50% (1.5x) faster* *120% quad-core-without-ht performance vs 180% ^Likewise, you can take those numbers and place them against the i5 for example. They're very rough, but you could say in a video encoding load, you'd expect a 2600k at the same clocks as a 2500k to be 20% faster, and a 3930k at the same clocks as a 2500k to be 80% faster. Even though they're the same architecture, there's differences in platform (lga2011 for 6-core has quad channel memory and such) and there will probably be some other things affecting performance in a minor way, but there always is If you're comparing cross architecture, it gets a whole lot more complicated than that And also i want to make a note here about performance per clock, i see a lot of people commenting stuff like this on a few sites, but: If Ivy Bridge has 1.5x the performance per clock of Piledriver with 1 core loaded in a certain task, lets create a random number to describe that: Piledriver core - 100 ppc (performance per clock) Ivy Bridge core - 150 ppc ^When people say that Haswell for example improved performance per clock by 10%, they don't mean by 10ppc. They mean that it took Ivy Bridge's ppc and multiplied it by 1.1 The comment is often made that "ivy bridge was 50% faster than piledriver clock for clock, and then they improved it by 10% with haswell - now it's 60% faster" which is wrong, because it's multiplicative, not additive. If you say that Haswell is 10% faster performance per clock than Ivy Bridge, then it doesn't look like this: Piledriver - 100ppc Ivy Bridge - 150ppc - Haswell launch - 10% improvement in ppc - 160ppc It's not +10, it's +10% on top of the 150 already given by ivy bridge. 150*1.1 = 165, not 160. Small number, but important, because multiplicatives. Intel gaining 10% performance on top of Ivy Bridge means 1.5x as much gained FPS in an encoder than AMD gaining 10% performance on top of Piledriver, in such an example. My note is half of the post. Oops Edit: On the subject of piledriver etc i hope bulldozer rocks our socks off. Fifty or sixty percent lead for intel in singlethreaded performance removes FX as an even considered option for someone like me, but if they narrow that lead to 20 or 25% and also take a multithreaded lead that would justify them being behind in singlethreaded performance (trading blows instead of falling behind badly sometimes and only matching at others), i'm listening  | ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132052 | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
I feel stupid | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On November 01 2013 09:40 Cyro wrote: What do you mean? I wanted to know if a 6 core 3930k would be more powerful than a 4 core 3770k with hyperthreading. Now that I think about it for more than 2 consecutive seconds, I realize it's a stupid question because of the 3930k has hyperthreading anyway (for such a high end product, why wouldn't it?). Still, I was curious how a 6 core 3930k with hyperthreading disabled would compare to a 4 core 4770k with hyperthreading. Your comparaison was 4 core vs 6 core. Your big post was somewhat informative, it's interesting how multiplying by 1.1 is a bigger performance increase than +10%. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20324 Posts
The issue is that 10% of 150 is bigger than 10% of 100 Still, I was curious how a 6 core 3930k with hyperthreading disabled would compare to a 4 core 4770k with hyperthreading. I went into that a bit in above post, some quick numbers for HT disabled 6 core vs a quad core with HT on Depending on the task, hyperthreading can boost performance or do nothing at all Closest example would be say, an i7 2600k (sandy bridge quad core) against a 3930k with hyperthreading disabled (sandy bridge 6-core) In some multithreaded programs like Linpack where hyperthreading has no additional performance to offer, the 3930k with HT disabled would be expected to outperform the 2600k with HT on by 50% (because 50% more cores), rough numbers of course In x264 (video encoder) hyperthreading might boost performance by 20%. If the 2600k had a net performance of 100% and the 3930k 150%, enabling hyperthreading on the 2600k would put it at 120% performance ^150/120 = 1.25, so the native-6 core CPU of the same architecture and clock speed with hyperthreading off would be 25% faster than the quad core that had HT. If you enable HT on the 6-core again, it would be back to being 50% (1.5x) faster* *120% quad-core-without-ht performance vs 180% | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20324 Posts
 | ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/IMKR/saved/2I7v CPU: i5 4670 $210 GPU: Gigabyte GTX 660 $170 Mobo: MSI H81M-P33 $27.99 HDD: WD blue 1TB $55 RAM: G.skill 8GB $63.75 Case: NZXT source 210 $45 PSU: RW capstone 550w $70 Optical drive: any $15 Total $656.75 Ignore the prices thats on the PC builders site. i listed the prices as to what i will be paying when the deal comes. the MOBO is $27.99 right now and already have the WD blue 1tb for $55. and the ram is ram is $63.75 with a deal on new egg. So are these items okay? no bottlenecking and such? from the mobo, gpu, or cpu? (like the mobo doesnt have a PCIE 3.0 only PCIE 2.0, not sure if that will bottle neck gpu) thank you for help + Show Spoiler + What is your budget? ~~$800 but as low as possible. What is your monitor's native resolution? looking to buy a 1080p What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings? Will play games such as SC2, LoL, watch dogs, BF, and other games that catch my interest What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming? basic school stuff Do you intend to overclock? no 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? need monitor (1080p) but not part of budget. Separate monitor budget of $100-$150 If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify. atm i am going with GTX gpu due to game bundle What country will you be buying your parts in? USA If you have any retailer preferences, please specify. none Thank you for help | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
your build is very similar to the one i got. if you're looking to build a gaming rig though, i wouldn't advise skimping on the gpu. the 660 isn't a bad card however buying a 760 is probably more interesting (especially since it seems to fit in your budget). 760 is more recent and overall it's a better card than the 660. | ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
On November 02 2013 09:02 Incognoto wrote: pcie 2.0 won't bottleneck the gpu, don't worry. your build is very similar to the one i got. if you're looking to build a gaming rig though, i wouldn't advise skimping on the gpu. the 660 isn't a bad card however buying a 760 is probably more interesting (especially since it seems to fit in your budget). It actually doesnt fit my budget lol :D i know i listed my budget as $800, but thats my budget if the items i would be getting is at retail price. i am trying to get a build thats ganna be able to play most AAA games at high settings, but not maxed out. according to benchmarks i watched, 660 can play border line high settings, and medium/high just fine if i can find a better gpu for a good percentage off, i will definitely go for it. EDIT: But once i can get 100% confirmation that the mobo i chose is good, i will be ordering it ASAP since i wont find a better deal on a mobo than that even on black friday or christmas (i think) | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
As far as I know, PCI-E 3.0's added bandwidth isn't used yet (except maybe when running two graphics cards as the connection gets split in two), so you don't have to worry. Is that RAM a 2x4GB kit at 1600MHz? A memory kit with two sticks enables "dual channel". 1600MHz is the fastest RAM can run for a PC where you can't overclock. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
Shame the 760 doesn't fit your budget. However if you've done your research and decided that it's good for you then there you go I guess. 660 was pretty much my only "qualm" with the build. | ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
On November 02 2013 09:14 Incognoto wrote: well, the motherboard you're going for is the one I have and I can't say I'm not satisfied with it. It did everything I wanted to perfectly. I put a 7970 and an 4670 on it and everything runs great. Shame the 760 doesn't fit your budget. However if you've done your research and decided that it's good for you then there you go I guess. 660 was pretty much my only "qualm" with the build. Im not fine with the GTX 660 tbh :D its just im not sure if its worth spending $150 more just to play on 1 more setting higher on games than what the 660 offers. (and im not a really graphics freak. im perfectly fine with medium graphics as long as its not blurry). basically, it seems for my needs that performance wise and price wise, the 660 gives me what i want. i was contemplating on GTX 660 ti but im not 100% sure if the price is worth it compared to a 660. Im not jumping on the GPU since i have some more time to wait to see other deals on other GPU. like some gtx 700 series were price cut due to the 290x release right? but im waiting to see if theres more or other price cuts | ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
On November 02 2013 09:12 Ropid wrote: It's good, especially with that price. As far as I know, PCI-E 3.0's added bandwidth isn't used yet (except maybe when running two graphics cards as the connection gets split in two), so you don't have to worry. Is that RAM a 2x4GB kit at 1600MHz? A memory kit with two sticks enables "dual channel". 1600MHz is the fastest RAM can run for a PC where you can't overclock. The exact components i am looking at so far is in the pcbuilder. just the prices arent right, so i lsted them sepeartly. the ram im getting is ddr3 2133. and its cheaper than the 1600's on the market atm. i know my mobo wont run it at 2133 and that it'll downclock to 1600 but well its a better ram and cheaper than the 1600 counterparts. also what do you mean on this part? i dont know what this feature is (I bolded it) EDIT: On November 02 2013 09:12 Ropid wrote: It's good, especially with that price. TBH this is the reason though why i dont like posting prices. I understand that for example, a GTX 660 is kinda out dated, but if u get a new one, with 3GB vram for $100 or something, its a good item. another example, is my mobo i chose. i know that for $28 its a good mobo. but im mostly wondering about the component as it self. like is it sturdy? will it break down in 1 year? will it cause me future upgrade problems? do these parts fullfill my goal for the system? etc etc | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
I don't think you have to worry much about the future. You will be able to upgrade the graphics card. Memory can only be upgraded by replacing with two new sticks on that board as it does not have four slots, but I bet that won't be important. You can think about CPU, board and memory as one unit that will be replaced all at once. No idea how to guess quality and if it will break. That never actually happened to me with a board and CPU that got old. If it didn't break in the first few weeks when it was new, it just kept working for pretty much forever. | ||
| ||
