|
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. |
On November 05 2013 14:04 skyR wrote:
I think the HD3 only has four phases so it'll be worse for overclocking than the Z87X-D3H that has eight phases.
Oh, thats true, heh, maybe I'll buy thz Z87X but the whole budget will be pretty tight. Thanks! I'll read on some more on VRM.
Also i didn't OC in a long while, i hope i will not make a fool of myself buying 650W OCZ power supply that would power the OC'd CPU on air cooling and one gtx650ti or 660? (I guess getting another GC in the future for SLI would require better power?)
|
On November 05 2013 14:27 Nao wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 14:04 skyR wrote:
I think the HD3 only has four phases so it'll be worse for overclocking than the Z87X-D3H that has eight phases. Oh, thats true, heh, maybe I'll buy thz Z87X but the whole budget will be pretty tight. Thanks! I'll read on some more on VRM. Also i didn't OC in a long while, i hope i will not make a fool of myself buying 650W OCZ power supply that would power the OC'd CPU on air cooling and one gtx650ti or 660? (I guess getting another GC in the future for SLI would require better power?)
Large VRM quality list: http://www.sinhardware.com/images/vrmlist.png
It judges everything from ASUS as good for even sub-zero experiments, so perhaps see what the price for a Z87-C is for you? I feel its colors are pretty ugly, so it might be cheap. 
That "hybrid/analog" for ASRock looks a little suspicious, but that always worked in the past, so I wouldn't care. That it does not mention sub-zero in the last column for the cheaper boards is not so good, and Extreme4 is probably pretty expensive.
About all that VRM quality stuff, it's likely not that important. If you play games or something for hours, the CPU isn't actually very stressed, so it won't use much power, so the VRM won't get that hot. If you encode videos every day for hours or something else along those lines, that's when you should be careful.
Also, this is all about overclocking as much as possible, so if you won't do that, you can just buy whatever. :D
|
On November 05 2013 14:30 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 14:27 Nao wrote:On November 05 2013 14:04 skyR wrote:
I think the HD3 only has four phases so it'll be worse for overclocking than the Z87X-D3H that has eight phases. Oh, thats true, heh, maybe I'll buy thz Z87X but the whole budget will be pretty tight. Thanks! I'll read on some more on VRM. Also i didn't OC in a long while, i hope i will not make a fool of myself buying 650W OCZ power supply that would power the OC'd CPU on air cooling and one gtx650ti or 660? (I guess getting another GC in the future for SLI would require better power?) Large VRM quality list: http://www.sinhardware.com/images/vrmlist.pngIt judges everything from ASUS as good for even sub-zero experiments, so perhaps see what the price for a Z87-C is for you? I feel its colors are pretty ugly, so it might be cheap. That "hybrid/analog" for ASRock looks a little suspicious, but that always worked in the past, so I wouldn't care. That it does not mention sub-zero in the last column for the cheaper boards is not so good, and Extreme4 is probably pretty expensive. About all that VRM quality stuff, it's likely not that important. If you play games or something for hours, the CPU isn't actually very stressed, so it won't use much power, so the VRM won't get that hot. If you encode videos every day for hours or something else along those lines, that's when you should be careful. Also, this is all about overclocking as much as possible, so if you won't do that, you can just buy whatever. :D The Z87-C is indeed best price for what looks as great OC mobo. But i think large amount of information available on the GA-Z87X over the net will be the selling point for me. Having no experience with Asus BIOSes doesn't help either. I will remember that nice recommendation for the future thou.  Thanks!
I'm buying the new PC mostly for processor power (single threaded performance mostly) (things like KSP, Dwarf Fortress, other simulation games that usually are CPU hungry, emulation software, some rendering and processing).
Also OCing is pretty fun "sport" that i don't have much money to spend on. I do plan to delid that 4670K at some point :D
edit: oh and the colors on that ASUS are indeed ugly
|
Well my friend is looking to build his own computer and I figured you guys knew a lot more then I did about this. So I figured you would be able to help him. He is looking for a SSD and external. Probably around 2TB. Hes not particular about anything else.
What is your budget?
$2500 with taxes
What is your monitor's native resolution?
1920x1080
What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings?
SC2, LoL, D3 and Infestation survivor stories. Max
What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming?
Movies/Music and internet browsing mainly
Do you intend to overclock?
No
Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire?
No
Do you need an operating system?
Yes, Windows 7
Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget?
monitor and a good mech keyboard and mouse. He has a claw grip
If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify.
No
What country will you be buying your parts in?
Canada
If you have any retailer preferences, please specify.
NCIX unless there's a better one.
|
Is the the 660 TI worth getting over the 660 with the TI being $70-$100 more?
EDIT: i can never find a benchmark that includes both the 660 and the Ti, it always only includes 1 of them so i cant see the performance difference
EDIT2: also, on a ram, what does this mean?
timing 9-9-9-24
Cas Latency 9
and is higher better or lower better?
basically difference in these 2 rams
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On November 05 2013 14:12 mav451 wrote:
The price is amazing yes. 290X seems rather pointless now.
The price difference alone means you could spend as much as you need on aftermarket cooler and still come in cheaper lol.
290 CF - stepping in right where the 7950's left off haha.
reference cooler 290 is about 20% cheaper than good 780's here which will win at 1080p, i don't think anyone sane will be buying 290/290x with reference cooler because they are held back so much by them though it's great to have a high performance card replacing the 770 price bracket
When you can cut ~20-40c from core temp with a custom cooler that costs 1/10'th of what the graphics card does and drops the noise level to less than half as loud.. there is a problem. I'd hold off on buying one til this manufacturing defect is fixed  (unless you plan on fixing it yourself)
IMKR, the blue ones are probably both better and cheaper. I'd probably pay 3.5 dollars more for http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231666 though even if you can't clock past 1600 because of motherboard
Is the the 660 TI worth getting over the 660 with the TI being $70-$100 more?
EDIT: i can never find a benchmark that includes both the 660 and the Ti, it always only includes 1 of them so i cant see the performance difference
The 660ti is a hair under the 760, so look at 660 vs 760 if you want.
660 and 660ti have the same VRAM setup, the 660ti just has 40% more cores, they'll be at a similar voltage so clock quite close to each other too if you manually set them (which you should with the 600 series)
|
On November 05 2013 17:35 Cyro wrote:IMKR, the blue ones are probably both better and cheaper. I'd probably pay 3.5 dollars more for http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231666 though even if you can't clock past 1600 because of motherboard Show nested quote +Is the the 660 TI worth getting over the 660 with the TI being $70-$100 more?
EDIT: i can never find a benchmark that includes both the 660 and the Ti, it always only includes 1 of them so i cant see the performance difference The 660ti is a hair under the 760, so look at 660 vs 760 if you want. 660 and 660ti have the same VRAM setup, the 660ti just has 40% more cores, they'll be at a similar voltage so clock quite close to each other too if you manually set them (which you should with the 600 series)
For the ram, that one is a 1.65 v though.
I heard that if u go over the recommended volts thats on the mobo that it can cause issue.
like when i choose a mobo that says 1.5v and i choose a ram with 1.65v, the pcpartpick gives a warning
also for the benchmark, according to this video,
+ Show Spoiler +
theres like 20%-30% FPS increase from the 660 to 660 ti, i definilty think the 660 ti is worth the extra over the 660 then lol
EDIT: why are there only like 4 gtx 660 TI cards? not much to choose from
I might also go gtx 760 over the 660 ti. benchmarks show about a %10 performance increase for similar price
|
On November 05 2013 20:49 IMKR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 17:35 Cyro wrote:IMKR, the blue ones are probably both better and cheaper. I'd probably pay 3.5 dollars more for http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231666 though even if you can't clock past 1600 because of motherboard Is the the 660 TI worth getting over the 660 with the TI being $70-$100 more?
EDIT: i can never find a benchmark that includes both the 660 and the Ti, it always only includes 1 of them so i cant see the performance difference The 660ti is a hair under the 760, so look at 660 vs 760 if you want. 660 and 660ti have the same VRAM setup, the 660ti just has 40% more cores, they'll be at a similar voltage so clock quite close to each other too if you manually set them (which you should with the 600 series) For the ram, that one is a 1.65 v though. I heard that if u go over the recommended volts thats on the mobo that it can cause issue. like when i choose a mobo that says 1.5v and i choose a ram with 1.65v, the pcpartpick gives a warning also for the benchmark, according to this video, + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmGWyAyO9mc theres like 20%-30% FPS increase from the 660 to 660 ti, i definilty think the 660 ti is worth the extra over the 660 then lol EDIT: why are there only like 4 gtx 660 TI cards? not much to choose from I might also go gtx 760 over the 660 ti. benchmarks show about a %10 performance increase for similar price
1.65v ram is most probably worse than 1.5v ram but 1.65 shouldn't be an issue for normal use.
Manufacturers like gigabyte, msi etc all build different heat sinks and slightly different designs on other parts. You can look up reviews on each one if you want but the range of difference will not be very great.
|
GTX 660 Ti is EOL and you'd also be stupid to pay $100 more over a GTX 660 for a GTX 660 Ti as 7870, 7950, and 7970 all offer superior value.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
For the ram, that one is a 1.65 v though.
RAM that'll do 2400 @1.65v is pretty normal. 1.65v is excessive for 1600 cas9 because many kits can do it at 1.5v or even less, but it's normal for 2400 and there's no real adverse effects on haswell IMC. That thing can take 1.8v 3000+mhz even though the official spec is like 1.5v 1600mhz, and i dont know of a single case of degradation from RAM voltage on Haswell or Ivy Bridge, nothing at sane values (1.7, 1.8v) at least
Most benchmarks for RAM and gaming performance are bad btw if you were looking at them, even linus vid. RAM won't help you if you're GPU bound - it's just a gain in some cpu bound games, arma, bf4, maybe sc2 etc, especially if you're looking at frametimes. It doesn't really matter anyway - at less than a $4 premium, it's just a case of having better quality components, even if you're only running them at a fraction of their spec (mobo doesn't support >1600 etc)
RAM that is rated for 2400mhz c11 @1.65v is absolutely almost certainly better in every way than RAM rated for 1600c9@1.5v (and especially 1.6-1.65v), i'd be surprised if the 2400 kit couldn't do 1600 @1.5v too. It doesn't need 1.65v to operate - it's just rated to be able to run 2400mhz at those timings and 1.65v
|
On November 05 2013 05:45 Cyro wrote:Same way 4770k @5ghz +650ti in sc2 = cpu bottleneck at max settings once you enter midgame 1v1 in sc2, it's just a CPU heavy game that doesn't utilize CPU properly on windows 7
I've heard this said about SC2 before, that it doesn't use the cores efficiently.
I am researching a i5 4670 build and, considering SC2 will be a big part of my gaming, I wonder whether there is a way round this. I take it that getting a bigger processor isn't necessarily the right way to go then?
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
Sc2 on a powerful CPU will load one core to max and a second to about 1/3 load, if there's performance gain going from 2 to 4 cores, it's quite minimal. I don't think there is on a powerful CPU, but maybe on a weaker one like a phenom II you'd see gains from a third core
For a serious performance sc2 build, you'd probably want OC'd i5, as sc2 scales well and you can see good performance gains from clocking to 4.5ghz+, though it's not very demanding on GPU in performance intensive times, especially if you're not on max settings
|
On November 05 2013 22:51 Cyro wrote:
Sc2 on a powerful CPU will load one core to max and a second to about 1/3 load, if there's performance gain going from 2 to 4 cores, it's quite minimal. I don't think there is on a powerful CPU, but maybe on a weaker one like a phenom II you'd see gains from a third core
For a serious performance sc2 build, you'd probably want OC'd i5, as sc2 scales well and you can see good performance gains from clocking to 4.5ghz+, though it's not very demanding on GPU in performance intensive times, especially if you're not on max settings
Thanks Cryo that's really helpful, overclocking is probably a bit beyond me as this will be my first build and my budget isn't huge, also I'm not overly interested in all out max settings either and I can't see myself ever being a AAA junkie. atm I'm toying with either going for an i3 or i5.
I'll continue reading around - cheers.
|
Anyone knows how long until the R9 GPUs get the new NeverSettle Bundle? The new Bundle has some interesting Games and I'm thinking about upgrading from a HD6870 to a R9 280x.
![[image loading]](http://images.gamestar.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2414879/600x.jpg)
@CPU
Upgraded from a Core2Duo E8400 to a i5-4570 a while ago and the performance gain in SC2 was quite huge for me. Had hard slowdowns if I played 4v4s before even on Medium. Now no Problem on High with Extreme Physics.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On November 05 2013 23:12 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 22:51 Cyro wrote:
Sc2 on a powerful CPU will load one core to max and a second to about 1/3 load, if there's performance gain going from 2 to 4 cores, it's quite minimal. I don't think there is on a powerful CPU, but maybe on a weaker one like a phenom II you'd see gains from a third core
For a serious performance sc2 build, you'd probably want OC'd i5, as sc2 scales well and you can see good performance gains from clocking to 4.5ghz+, though it's not very demanding on GPU in performance intensive times, especially if you're not on max settings Thanks Cryo that's really helpful, overclocking is probably a bit beyond me as this will be my first build and my budget isn't huge, also I'm not overly interested in all out max settings either and I can't see myself ever being a AAA junkie. atm I'm toying with either going for an i3 or i5. I'll continue reading around - cheers.
i3's at a bit of a weird place for cost
For pricing, just off ocuk (maybe slightly better other places) we have:
£48 pentium g2020. Haswell dual core @3ghz
£70 pentium g3430. Haswell dual core @3.3ghz
£96-120 - Haswell i3's, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6ghz. Hyperthreading (not relevant for sc2) and better integrated graphics (not relevant if you have a graphics card)
By the time you step up to £140, you're at quad core CPU - no hyperthreading and you drop back from 3.6ghz to 3ghz, but having four cores is useful for many games, tasks and for streaming etc. Just good to have in general. It's hard to pay £20-40 less for something that's a lot worse in many cases.
i5 also gets turbo boost, though the lowest few models don't boost very well - by £170 you're at the 4670 which will just sit at 3.7-3.8ghz all of the time on 4 cores under load
There's still motherboard cost, as well as RAM and other system stuff, so the pricing between the options is not actually that different, but i'd probably gravitate towards pentium or i5
|
On November 05 2013 23:32 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2013 23:12 Deleuze wrote:On November 05 2013 22:51 Cyro wrote:
Sc2 on a powerful CPU will load one core to max and a second to about 1/3 load, if there's performance gain going from 2 to 4 cores, it's quite minimal. I don't think there is on a powerful CPU, but maybe on a weaker one like a phenom II you'd see gains from a third core
For a serious performance sc2 build, you'd probably want OC'd i5, as sc2 scales well and you can see good performance gains from clocking to 4.5ghz+, though it's not very demanding on GPU in performance intensive times, especially if you're not on max settings Thanks Cryo that's really helpful, overclocking is probably a bit beyond me as this will be my first build and my budget isn't huge, also I'm not overly interested in all out max settings either and I can't see myself ever being a AAA junkie. atm I'm toying with either going for an i3 or i5. I'll continue reading around - cheers. i3's at a bit of a weird place for cost For pricing, just off ocuk (maybe slightly better other places) we have: £48 pentium g2020. Haswell dual core @3ghz £70 pentium g3430. Haswell dual core @3.3ghz £96-120 - Haswell i3's, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6ghz. Hyperthreading (not relevant for sc2) and better integrated graphics (not relevant if you have a graphics card) By the time you step up to £140, you're at quad core CPU - no hyperthreading and you drop back from 3.6ghz to 3ghz, but having four cores is useful for many games, tasks and for streaming etc. Just good to have in general. It's hard to pay £20-40 less for something that's a lot worse in many cases. i5 also gets turbo boost, though the lowest few models don't boost very well - by £170 you're at the 4670 which will just sit at 3.7-3.8ghz all of the time on 4 cores under load There's still motherboard cost, as well as RAM and other system stuff, so the pricing between the options is not actually that different, but i'd probably gravitate towards pentium or i5
Thanks Cryo, that's awesome! It's my birthday coming up so hopefully I'll get some £££ and be able to shell out for the 4670.
|
Assuming a total of 1000$ budget though (two separate 500$ purchase),
is the CPU 4670 the best choice? Should I opt for a weaker CPU? (a locked one, for example)
The most important, if he buys in two separate purchase, is to have a functional PC with the first purchase so using the integrated GPU is ncessary
|
4670k is the best if you wanna overclock. I got a 4570 because I don't wanna overclock and saved ~60€ (cheaper MB because I don't want to OC).
But for Gaming there is not much difference in these kind of CPUs, there are more than enough to feed the GPU.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
But for Gaming there is not much difference in these kind of CPUs, there are more than enough to feed the GPU.
Not really a question of CPU feeding GPU, just for a certain game to meet a certain FPS then CPU has to do a certain amount of work and GPU has to do a certain amount of work too (depending on settings, resolution etc)
Starcraft 2 itself is a good example of a game where 4670k@4.5ghz and a 650ti will significantly outperform a 4670 @3.8ghz that has three titans behind it - if you put stress on the game engine
|
Yeah "outperform" with this kind of CPU is 120fps vs 140fps. Obviously CPU is more important for SC2, but its not like you need a 4670k@4.5ghz to play the Game on Ultra o_0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
