EPTComputer Build Resource Thread - Page 720
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's 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. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
| ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On November 11 2011 08:07 Invictus212 wrote: Okay, I can definitely wait for the new graphic cards. I am wondering why you wouldn't wait for ivybridge. Is the difference between sandy-bridge and ivy-bridge minimal? With respect to motherboards, can a cheap motherboard bottleneck a GPU/CPU? Or does it not function in that way? Because the performance of a 2500K is already excellent and nowhere nearly fully used by most games. The graphics card will bottleneck a 2500K at your typical 1920x1080 in 99% of games. (oops, used the dirty bottleneck word, sorry ^___^) | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
You can just say "will be the weakest link causing x to underperform" but why not just use bottleneck? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
You're going to want a mobo with integrated sound, lol. But don't worry, they all have them. If you want Wifi, an adapter is only $20 and better than any that's built into the motherboard I presume, I haven't seen any with that option yet but since there are cards that do it I wouldn't be surprised. If you're getting a SSD you want SATA III. USB 3.0 will be useful if you want to backup shit to an external hard drive, if not, and you don't have any other reasons, you don't want it. Ask yourself if you want SLI/Crossfire. SkyR or Myrmidon will probably have hte best mobo picks, I usually just find one on newegg around $100 that has the features I want and think it's a decent choice, but they know far more than me. There will be a noticeable difference between Ivybridge and Sandbybridge, but it's just... do you really want to wait? No, a motherboard won't bottleneck a GPU/CPU. Motherboard is more concerned with compatibility than performance. Find a mobo that works with your CPU, that has the proper amount of PCI-E 2.0 x16 slots for the amount of GPUs you want, that supports the RAM frequency you're buying, how well it overclocks, if it can even overclock, etc. | ||
|
beefhamburger
United States3962 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On November 11 2011 09:53 beefhamburger wrote: Random question: Does the HDMI port on a mobo do the same thing as on a video card? Will it transfer video that way or is it for something else? If you are referring to a H61 or H67 motherboard. You will not be able to use the video outputs on the motherboard if you have a discrete video card installed since the IGP will automatically be disabled. If you are referring to a Z68 motherboard than yes you can use it. It does the same thing as the video card. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On November 11 2011 06:43 Shikyo wrote:+ Show Spoiler + My view on bottleneck: a weak part of your computer holding back stronger parts. For example, if you have GTX 580 and a celeron G530, you'll be CPU-bottlenecked a great deal of the time. Same with having 2500k and a 6450 - you'll be GPU-bottlenecked. (CPU good enough for 20 fps, GPU good enough for 100 fps = bottleneck, CPU good enough for 120 fps, GPU good enough for 50 fps = bottleneck, CPU good enough for 60 fps, GPU good enough for 60 FPS = no bottleneck) Not being able to perform a task in 0 seconds isn't bottlenecking it's a totally different thing. What would you call not being able to perform a task in zero seconds as opposed to one second than? This is an extreme example but still.. you can use a less extreme example if that's what's needed to make your point, say fifty minutes versus thirty minutes. We aren't apart of a perfect world so there isn't a situation where x GPU is good enough for x value while x CPU is good enough for the same value. Again I'm talking about the newer games. On November 11 2011 07:13 FabledIntegral wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On November 11 2011 06:43 Shikyo wrote: My view on bottleneck: a weak part of your computer holding back stronger parts. For example, if you have GTX 580 and a celeron G530, you'll be CPU-bottlenecked a great deal of the time. Same with having 2500k and a 6450 - you'll be GPU-bottlenecked. (CPU good enough for 20 fps, GPU good enough for 100 fps = bottleneck, CPU good enough for 120 fps, GPU good enough for 50 fps = bottleneck, CPU good enough for 60 fps, GPU good enough for 60 FPS = no bottleneck) Not being able to perform a task in 0 seconds isn't bottlenecking it's a totally different thing. I have a similar view. The bottleneck as I see it is the part that, if replaced with a better part, would speed up your system. As Shikyo says, the GTX 580 isn't the bottleneck in that situation since even if you upgraded to SLI 580s, it wouldn't improve performance. It's the part that's limiting the performance increase. Of course, I'm not trying to lecture SkyR by any means, just saying how I've viewed the definition of the word. I'd say that's how most people use it, at least. So wouldn't you say that both your definitions fall under my point of view? You're saying a GTX 580 isn't the bottleneck but the G530 is. So if you upgraded to an overclocked 2500k, you will no longer be CPU bottlenecked in an GPU intensive game but now you'll be GPU bottlenecked. And you will continue to have a bottleneck of some sort in upcoming games until developers hit a brick wall in development or there is some amazing improvement in technology? So wouldn't you say that individuals who always want to play the latest games will always be bottlenecked and the only individuals who aren't bottlenecked (by hardware) are those who only play the games released several years ago where the cap is software rather than hardware beacuse there isn't enough stuff to calculate or render? The word bottleneck is a stupid word. On November 11 2011 07:45 Invictus212 wrote:+ Show Spoiler + SkyR, you are awesome! No wonder you come so highly recommend on the forums. Your posts have been very helpful, and based on the feedback that I've been getting I am considering to push the computer build date to next month. I thought by prolonging the build day, I could capture some of the new edition stuff. Do you think it's worth the wait for the new processors that are based the IvyBridge architecture? I like your analogy with textbook editions. When it comes down to it, a 10th edition book is just as a good as an 11th edition as well... and the 10th edition is cheaper to boot. Did you read MisterFred's post? Can you weigh in on his point about overspending for a computer? I was inspired by his post to look into cutting more costs. He suggested that my intentions of dumping money into a PC would not be worth it. Please read it. I am doing his post injustice by paraphrasing it. I'm not sure if I can weigh in on this without paraphrasing what he said =\ but anyways... At the current moment, mankind hasn't invented a time machine to go into the future yet, a self-evolving piece technology, or an piece of technology / architecture capable of infinity speed. So unfortunately we can't throw money into prolonging the performance lifespan, we're stuck with what we have at the time we make our purchase. Both the core i5 2500k and core i7 2600k are based on the same architecture. The core i7 just has hyperthreading, 2MB more cache, and 100MHz faster. So both are going to perform similar in tasks that use one core, two cores, three cores, and four cores. Now when you get to tasks that uses more than four cores, the i5 will be limited to four cores while the i7 will shine thanks to its hyperthreading. Now you may think to yourself that games might take advantage of hyperthreading in the future so purchasing a core i7 may be worthwhile. But this is bad thinking. Most (all?) games these days are mostly console ports so in turn we are limited to the console hardware. The next-generation consoles from Sony and Microsoft hasn't even been announced and the initial launch games usually never take full advantage of the hardware because developers aren't given enough time. So we're talking about at the earliest, maybe 2015, before most games take advantage of more than four cores. By that time, Intel will be on Skymont or Skylake and both of these will be far faster than a core i7 2600k. Graphic cards are a bit more complicated. You have to remember that most gaming benchmarks have anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled which has a huge impact on the FPS. So if you wanted absolute max settings, yes you would need to throw thousands of dollars into a configuration that would be capable of achieving whatever FPS you deem to be playable. A ~$200 card such as the Radeon HD6870, GTX 560 Ti, or Radeon HD6950 are all capable of playing most games on reasonably high settings smoothly and most if not all individuals would be happy with this if you told them that this was max settings. Because honestly, let's face it - you probably can't tell the difference between when AA is enabled or AA is disabled unless you paused the game and examined the screen minutely. And you can't even tell the difference between ultra and high on some games because there is hardly a difference. Are you able to tell the difference between these two static images? Would you be able to tell the difference when you're actually playing the game, moving around and shooting stuff? + Show Spoiler [which one is better?] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IJI4F.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VasIY.jpg) Okay... not that great of an example since it's sort of obvious between these two images. Higher frequency and tighter timings on memory provides negligible benefits. This money is often better spent elsewhere that will give bigger gains or just keep it in the bank. I'll just let articles do the talking in this: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/sandy-bridge-ddr3.html http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3 http://techreport.com/articles.x/20377 For the other components that don't actually have an impact such as the case and power supply. These components can be carried over from build to build and can actually last a very long time. You can keep the case for your entire life if you wanted to as long as we're still using an ATX form factor in fifty years. Once you reach the point of what you need for these components, you're basically paying for convience or to satisfy your wants (eg. your want for playing on max settings even though you can't tell the difference). There's nothing wrong with the earlier recommended Corsair AX since it's a fully modular unit with a seven year warranty and if you want the convience of not hiding un-used cables than you're welcome to pay for it. I have a Seasonic X unit myself (which is what the Corsair AX is based off of) because it's fully modular as I mentioned and it's SATA cable arrangement is what I wanted. We're all human so we all have our own biases. You may think that buying x component for convience or not wanting to use adapters is stupid but I don't. I may think that it's stupid to play on max settings but you don't. There's also brand bias. Some people swear by EVGA because of their amazing support. You even said yourself that you prefer Nvidia. Some people don't care. I don't think there's anything wrong with this when the price, quality, and performance difference isn't huge. + Show Spoiler + I will also make dual monitor set-up. Just curious though... It is not feasible to run three monitors on a single GPU, correct? I will also go with the 24'' monitors as you recommended. You can connect as many monitors to the motherboard and graphics card as it supports if all you plan on doing is using one monitor for gaming, one for instant messaging, one for browsing, and etc. You wouldn't get acceptable performance if you were to do Eyefinity (gaming across multiple monitors, making your resolution something like 5760x1200) with a single card. + Show Spoiler + How would you go about deciding which components to get? GPU, CPU, and motherboard in particular. If you aren't overclocking than you would want a non-K suffix processor and an H61 or H67 motherboard. If you are overclocking than you would want a K suffix proocessor, the only ones atm being core i5 2500k, core i7 2600k, core i7 2700k. Pairing this processor with a Z68 or P67 motherboard since these two boards allow you to overclock while the H61 and H67 does not. For motherboard, you pick based on what you want or need. Z68 allows you to use the integrated graphics processor found on all Sandybridge processors which in turn allows you to use Lucid (switch between your video card and the integrated graphics to save power - useless feature most won't care about) and Quick Sync (encoding, for programs that take advantage of Quick Sync - again, a feature most won't care about). It also allows for SSD caching - again, a feature useless for most individuals, especially those getting a 120gb SSD since all your regularly used programs will be installed on the SSD so there will be nothing to cache. P67 doesn't have any of what I mentioned above so if you don't care than just pick whatever board floats your boat. So if you want the convience of having a backup if your graphic card dies than you want a Z68. If you need a certain port (Firewire, eSATA, etc) or you need a certain amount of ports (you have eight USB devices so you would need eight USB ports on the back) then you should probably buy a motherboard that fits the criteria. Your other option is using add-on cards (the cards that go into PCI or PCI-E slots that give you more USB ports or whatever) for more connectivity. There's on-board buttons, if you want them than you buy a motherboard that has them. And than there's warranty and post-sale support. If you want the option of an advanced RMA than you would purchase a premium board from ASUS since they offer advanced RMA. If you want a board with three year warranty, you would purchase one of the big three (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI) instead of an Asrock (which is a sister company of ASUS that offers a two year warranty for their Z68 boards). This also applies to when picking your power supply (some have three year, five year, and seven year warranty), graphics card, and other components. If you need to ask, you probably don't need all the extra crap on the more expensive boards and you probably won't care or notice the difference between x and x chipset. So you would just pick an inexpensive motherboard with your desired amount of ports, warranty, and post-sale support. 1. Is it worth waiting for the new processors that tap into the IvyBridge architecture? In addition to the other "new stuff" coming out soon? It's up to the individual to wait or not. Can't predict the future unfortunately. Waiting is a double edged sword. Those who were waiting for AMD to release Bulldozer (the FX processors) thought this architecture would make them competitive again with Intel. And it turns out the new Bulldozer is equivalent / slightly better to AMD's existing line of processors for gaming and is mostly on par or wose than Intel's core i7 2600k which was released ten months before it. Now those who waited are purchasing a processor that could have been had ten months ago (and besides the initial price premium due to it being a new product - it was around $230-$240 for a 2500k, there was no change in the core i7 2600k or core i5 2500k MSRP which is ~$220 for the core i5 2500k) or waiting another six months for Ivybridge. And than there's Nvidia. Instead of purchasing a 8800GT or 8800GTS, some opted to wait for the 9000 series. Unfortunately for them, Nvidia just rebranded the 8800GT and 8800GTS. I'm not saying that these scenarios will play out again for the GPUs and CPUs coming in 2011. I'm just letting you know that there are some risks involved by running on the assumption that these components will be better than the previous and there won't be an availability issue. If you need a computer now, it's better to buy now. Waiting six months for new processors is a long time, at least in my view. If you don't need the computer right now than you're welcome to wait. | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On November 11 2011 11:24 xeo1 wrote: hey do you guys know why the hard drive prices skyrocketed? :x the samsung spinpoint is $160 instead of $60. anyway, are there any alternatives? Because of the flooding in Thailand. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
Invictus212 wrote: In response to your #1 (27'' monitors): That's a very interesting point about the pixels. How does that come into play? If the pixel pitch is huge, how does that affect the experience of using the monitor? I googled pixel pitch, so I have an understanding of what it is. I just don't understand how a large pitch is a bad thing. Is there a larger risk for pixel problems to occur with larger monitors, or is the risk the same regardless of monitor size? All this talk about pixels made me remember about dead pixels. I've experienced it once on an old mobile phone that I had a long time ago. I do understand your point about the viewing angles. Are there 27'' monitors that solved the viewing angle problem? For the record, I am not trying to be difficult. I ask questions, just so I can make sure that I understand everything. I have no problem going down to a 24'' monitor (I do plan on getting at least two, so that should be plenty), but I just like to know why. I don't like to blindly do things. Skyr has explains why 1080P 27" monitors are kind of lame. Dead pixels isn't much of an issue if its a high end monitor. For instance, Dell has a zero pixel defect policy where you can return your monitor (and they may even cross-ship a monitor) if you are unhappy with the quality of your panel. 27" monitors with good viewing angles are generally all IPS/VA based. VA monitors are generally too slow for gaming so you're stuck with IPS. With such a high budget, I'd probably get a IPS monitor because they're pretty rad for photography (no more colour shift!). Here is a list that might help you: IPS panel monitors: 23" monitors: Dell U2312HM - stupidly low input lag that puts gaming monitors to shame Asus PA236Q - Good picture quality 24" monitors: Dell U2412M - 16:10 monitor that is all round strong. It can't display 1080P inputs properly and will stretch them. HP ZR2440W - basically the same as the Dell...may have a working 1:1 scaler mode if you care about that Apple 24" Cinema Display (EOL) - great picture quality but its a glossy monitor 27" monitors: Apple Cinema Display (Displayport not Thunderbolt) - glossy monitor with great picture quality HP ZR2740W - basically a matte version of the Apple Cinema Display Samsung S27A850D - uses PLS. Only get this if you really cannot stand the Apple Cinema Display or the HP ZR2740W because it has build quality problems*. 3D 120hz panel displays: Only pick the Samsung ones. They're easily the best. Some build quality issues however because of how thin the monitors are and how little bracing Samsung packs into them*. As far as I know, the 3D effect only works with AMD cards. If you want nVidia 3D vision, wait a few weeks for the new 3D vision kit to arrive. The glasses are larger and the contrast is advertised to be significantly better. TN panel monitors: Honestly doesn't matter what you pick in the 23-24" range. They all source their panels from the same guys (Samsung, AUO, etc) and there isn't a lot of budget spent on differentiating the hardware...you honestly can't expect a lot of difference between an Acer monitor or a Asus monitor. *Before someone says "But I don't punch my monitor what does build quality have to do with it!", having a monitor that you can snap with your bare hands is not good. The less bracing there is, the easier it is for the manufacturer and yourself to damage the panel and add additional backlight bleeding or something. | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
oh yeah my friend was telling me about that, but wouldn't have thought it would affect the price this much. is there any estimate for when it will go down? | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On November 11 2011 11:34 xeo1 wrote: oh yeah my friend was telling me about that, but wouldn't have thought it would affect the price this much. is there any estimate for when it will go down? Estimates are like half a year maybe. A possibility is to hunt down an external hard drive (not a portable one unless you want a 2.5" laptop hard drive) at a brick and mortar store, which may possibly still be priced somewhat normally, and crack it open and take out what's inside. | ||
|
LMPeaches
United States157 Posts
OCZ PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341017 or Corsair PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139028 | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
JJGamer
United States76 Posts
It seems to be basing off of my HDD instead of my SSD all of sudden. Anyone knows why? | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On November 11 2011 11:42 Myrmidon wrote: Estimates are like half a year maybe. A possibility is to hunt down an external hard drive (not a portable one unless you want a 2.5" laptop hard drive) at a brick and mortar store, which may possibly still be priced somewhat normally, and crack it open and take out what's inside. In Sweden we are screwed in any case. The anti-piracy lobby got the taxes increased on all external storage drives and now that the internal drives have increased in price as well... I was just about to buy a 2 TB internal drive before the prices started going up and now I'm a sad panda. Some stores started selling internal drives into custom made desktop cases to get around the tax increase. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On November 11 2011 15:29 JJGamer wrote: Why is it on my Windows Experience Index, under the Primary Disk Drive i have a 5.9 when previously it was a 7.8? It seems to be basing off of my HDD instead of my SSD all of sudden. Anyone knows why? Have you tried updating it? I think there's a button on the classification page to the bottom right. | ||
|
d00p
711 Posts
My E8500 is @ 3,8 GHz. Core temperature is 40-42 celsius when idle and 72-73 on 100 % load. I did a 2 h torture test with Prime95 and it was stable. Are these temperatures ok? I guess I can't go higher with this heat sink, which isn't the best one out there as it turns out. (I'm sorry if this is slightly off topic) | ||
|
JJGamer
United States76 Posts
On November 11 2011 16:29 nam nam wrote: Have you tried updating it? I think there's a button on the classification page to the bottom right. I tried updating it multiple times and I'm still getting 5.9 | ||
| ||
