77 replies to this topic

[Odins Fist]

Your budget will dictate your possible new rig, but I wouldn't go any lower then a haswell i7 with 1866mhz or 2133 RAM. _{http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116901 ........................ http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813157373 ........................... http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231468 ....................... http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130948 ..........................}

Edited by Odins Fist, 16 May 2014 - 09:09 AM.

[FlipOver]

Odins Fist, on 16 May 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

Your budget will dictate your possible new rig, but I wouldn't go any lower then a haswell i7 with 1866mhz or 2133 RAM. _{http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116901 ........................ http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813157373 ........................... http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231468 ....................... http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130948 ..........................}

Well, you are right, my budget will dictate that and 600Eur is a bit short for what you presented.
I thought about the i7 CPUs but for what I've managed to understand, the i7 is just the same as an i5 with 4 more virtual cores, which you will not take full use in the next few years.
In light of that, i chose the i5, 4rth gen.
About the others things, that GPU is a beast but also too expensive.

Thanks anyway for the info, mate.

[Maggiman]

In Addition to the Hyperthrading the i7 has a broader frontend, if i am not mistaken, which leads to a slightly higher troughput (some % more performance at the same clocks) but on a budget build mainly for gaming its really not worth it.I recommend staying with the i5.
If you are not using the integrated graphics of the cpu (Trust me, you wont) there is no reason to go beyond 1600MHz 9-9-9-24. The performance gain is negligible (Its barely existent when going from 1333 to 1600 on modern intel cpus, due to efficient caching, but 1600 costs about the same as 1333).

Before i forget: What about cooling? Have you thougt about a cpu cooler?

Edited by Maggiman, 16 May 2014 - 11:26 AM.

[Goose]

System guides are far and few between: http://www.tomshardw...ng-pc,3780.html

http://www.maximumpc...builds_may_2014

http://arstechnica.c...uide-july-2013/

Plus: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/type/1

Read a lot, read between the lines, follow links back to older articles, if only to puzzle out cause(s)'n effects of whats going on.

You will see stuff like "there are cheaper cases, but they where all traps," and "we can't go cheaper on the PSU, 'cause this one is already a bad risk if you believe the label," and all kinds of other crazieness.

Take your time, and try to get a review on every part you spend money on …

[FlipOver]

Maggiman, on 16 May 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

In Addition to the Hyperthrading the i7 has a broader frontend, if i am not mistaken, which leads to a slightly higher troughput (some % more performance at the same clocks) but on a budget build mainly for gaming its really not worth it.I recommend staying with the i5.
If you are not using the integrated graphics of the cpu (Trust me, you wont) there is no reason to go beyond 1600MHz 9-9-9-24. The performance gain is negligible (Its barely existent when going from 1333 to 1600 on modern intel cpus, due to efficient caching, but 1600 costs about the same as 1333).

Before i forget: What about cooling? Have you thougt about a cpu cooler?

Wow I'm so glad I started this topic. Ca't believe the things i'm learning. Thank you!
About the cooling, didn't think about it since the tower I'm getting has a greater cooling effect than most towers on the market. Also I'm not thinking about overclocking anything for the first few months at least.
Why? Should I?

[Goose]

FlipOver, on 16 May 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

I don't undertand your last questions, since I haven't bought any of the hardware listed above. The most I've done was a bit of research ,compare specifics, price and gather the info for a purchase in the near future (this month or so).

With my current computer I had to tweak it, got a .bat file to delete all the temp files before loading the game, user.cfg highly modified to get to have a refular 10+ fps...

FRAPS plus HWiNFOxx plus GenericLogViewer equals


You being a dual-core should mean you'll get mileage out'a this: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3314344

Note that about half of all that would be changed for your proposed new system. ;-)

[Odins Fist]

FlipOver, on 16 May 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

I thought about the i7 CPUs but for what I've managed to understand, the i7 is just the same as an i5 with 4 more virtual cores, which you will not take full use in the next few years.


Thanks anyway for the info, mate.

Well an i7 4770k will have a bit better memory controller, you don't want 1333 or 1600mhz RAM, trust me. http://ark.intel.com...-up-to-3_80-GHz And whoever says that 2133 MHZ RAM or higher has no gains over 1600mhz RAM is blowing smoke up your Kilt.

[Goose]

http://www.anandtech...g-on-haswell/10

Ian Cutress of AnandTech said:

For discrete GPU users, recommending any kit over another is a tough call. In light of daily workloads, a good DDR3-1866 C9 MHz kit will hit the curve on the right spot to remain cost effective. Users with a few extra dollars in their back pocket might look towards 2133 C9/2400 C10, which moves a little up the curve and has the potential should a game come out that is heavily memory dependent. Ultimately the same advice also applies to multi-GPU users as well as IGP: avoid 1600 MHz and below.

[Maggiman]

Funny thing: The posted review agrees with 1600 being enough if you look at the gaming numbers with one discrete gpu.
The reviewer took more workloads than gaming into consideration. (Which is, as far as i understood it, the main use case here), which explains his different conclusion.
And even then he talks about 5% increases(Which again is doubtful in this case considering his own tests) which sounds like a lot more than it is.
I once did a test my old amd quadcore (And they looove bandwith) on how my video encoding performs. I got like 6% or 7% on switching from 1333 to 1600 which is a nice increase but it still took some hours for a full video. So as long as the ram isn't more expensive i would go as high as it gets. But after that it's a money sink in my opinion.
Kudos on posting anandtech though, i like the reviews (If not always the conclusions).

Cooling: Depends a lot on the cpu you buy. The stock coolers on the lower wattage cpus are mostly okay if you dont push your cpu to full power all the time. But if you get a k model for overclocking (Which i would recommend if you dont have to pay an arm and a leg for it) you really need something better. (Because those stock coolers blow that air straight at your mainboard wich is nice, as long as its cold, but bad in the long run, if you push the cooler too much).
Bottom line: If you really dont plan on overclocking its okay.

As for airflow in the case itself: You need it anyway, it gives you some wriggleroom (The mainboard is under enough stress at it is and psus are usually certified for realtively low ambient temperatures)

Edit: I removed a sentence that sounded more provocative than it should have been.

Edited by Maggiman, 17 May 2014 - 05:01 AM.

[FlipOver]

Goose, on 16 May 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

[img]
You being a dual-core should mean you'll get mileage out'a this: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3314344

Note that about half of all that would be changed for your proposed new system. ;-)

Thanks for this, mate
And for your work on the cfg files for those who have low end computers

Odins Fist, on 16 May 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Well an i7 4770k will have a bit better memory controller, you don't want 1333 or 1600mhz RAM, trust me. http://ark.intel.com...-up-to-3_80-GHz And whoever says that 2133 MHZ RAM or higher has no gains over 1600mhz RAM is blowing smoke up your Kilt.

My intention on this purchase is to get a reliably good gaming platform without spending too much.
If i go for anything over 1600mhz, the price can go real high (at least at eastern european prices).
I know there are perfect choices on RAM, but I'm looking at the best option without spending too much.
Do you think 2x8GB of DDR3 HyperX 8GB 1600MHz Non-ECC CL9 isn't a good choice?

Maggiman, on 17 May 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

[...]
Cooling: Depends a lot on the cpu you buy. The stock coolers on the lower wattage cpus are mostly okay if you dont push your cpu to full power all the time. But if you get a k model for overclocking (Which i would recommend if you dont have to pay an arm and a leg for it) you really need something better. (Because those stock coolers blow that air straight at your mainboard wich is nice, as long as its cold, but bad in the long run, if you push the cooler too much).
Bottom line: If you really dont plan on overclocking its okay.

As for airflow in the case itself: You need it anyway, it gives you some wriggleroom (The mainboard is under enough stress at it is and psus are usually certified for realtively low ambient temperatures)

I don't plan on overclocking, there is another CPU, i believe its the Intel Core i5-4570k that comes factory ready for overclocking and I decided to go with the regular one.
So, as it stands now, seems I don't need to worry too much about some special coolers, the stock ones might be good enough.

[Odins Fist]

FlipOver, on 17 May 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Do you think 2x8GB of DDR3 HyperX 8GB 1600MHz Non-ECC CL9 isn't a good choice?

No I do not think it is "good enough", i7 haswell Intel CPUs have a great memory controller, and I would not recommend anything under 1866 mhz RAM to anybody, 1600 mhz RAM is old news, for literally a few dollars more you can do better then 1600 mhz, and we're talking between $75.00 and $93.00 for a good set of 2133 mhz 8gb, so if the CPU you decide to go with can handle 2133 mhz RAM, then skip the 1600 mhz RAM and get 2133 mhz RAM.. Like I said, and I stand by it, ANYONE that says 2133 mhz RAM has no performance increase over 1600 or 1333 mhz RAM is just full of Beans, especially when it comes to intel CPUs that can handle the higher mhz RAM... My friend went from Corsair Dominator 1600 mhz RAM (that he pulled off of his AMD system he upgraded from) on his 2011 socket intel system to 2133 and then higher using G-Skill memory, and he noticed a difference right away. Going from 1600 mhz Corsair Dominator to Corsair Dominator 2000 mhz with slightly higher timings on my AMD system I even saw a difference, and my RAM is clocked just under 2000 mhz at 1900 and a little change on an older Phenom II x6 1100t oc'd. If you can get a decent set of RAM that is better then 1600 mhz you will be better off with the right intel CPU.

Edited by Odins Fist, 17 May 2014 - 09:21 AM.

[cSand]

BladeXXL, on 16 May 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3378245

Your power is a little oversized:
The formula is:
idle consumption of your components idealy ~ 20% of Power Suply output (without self consumption)
full load consumption ~80% of Power Suply max. input consumption (400 W having 500 W PSU)

example:
i5-4570 10 - 84W (idle to full load)
GPU 10 - 210 W (GTX 750 = 70W / GTX 770 = 210 W)
MB 10 - 20 W (incl. RAM, (W)LAN, Sound, Mouse, Keyboard, ...)
HDD 3 - 7 W
SDD 1 - 4 W
Summs: 34 - 325 W

325 W * 1,25 = ~406 W (based on power suply self consumption of 20% having 80+)
34 W * 5 * 1,24 = ~212 W (based on idle = 20% of power suply output)

212 W is to low for the perfect world... so you'll need 400-450 W PSU (300 W if you have GTX 750)

having 750 W you will load your PSU with less the 50% in full load!

edited: mistake in formula...

That's all good, but you can never have "too much power supply"

[Maggiman]

You can have a too big power supply, as somebody already stated. The 80 Plus certification(Dont bother buying a psu without that stamp) does not specify how efficient a psu needs to be below 20% power usage. And most higher powered psus need more idle current than the lower counterparts, so you are wasting energy when your pc is idling or at low load (Albeit not much, and undersizing a psu is rather more critical ).

As for the Ram: I dont bother arguing any further against "I have done this and you are full of beans" (If you really want to discuss the point, feel free to pm me). I stand by my advice that more than 1600 is wasted if you have to pay more for it.
If you (The op) are unsure about whom to trust, you are best of reading it up (Which will give you additional information on why both sides arguing this point).
How to spot a good review/test/whatever? : Actual arguments underlining the conclusion =)

Edited by Maggiman, 17 May 2014 - 11:24 AM.

[Goose]

Don't buy a PSU you ain't read a review on!

http://www.hardocp.c...supply_review/9

[FlipOver]

Wow guys, don't want to start a debate around the RAM.
Just wanted to understand both pov's.

I do have to remind you all that I'm dealing with eastern europe pricing (seems more expensive than US pricing) and my goal is to get a solid computer which i'll be able to use for years to come and get some stable 25-30+ fps out of it in MWO.
The MB I chose, did it for a few extras like the amount of USB and SATA connections, the possibility of a future upgrade on the CPU (if I will ever need it) and for the competitive price.
What I didn't get from that was a compatibility with DDR3 <= 1600mhz.
I can get this one for around 70€, for something to handle DDR3 >= 2133mhz i'd have to pay double that or a bit more.

So I do see that 2133 are just a fraction more expensive than the 1600 ones, but the MB will cost me much more and I really don't know if it will be a smart choice when I'm trying to do things on a budget. :S

[Bront]

Woopass, on 16 May 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

Going to let you know right now, even with DX11 now, i have played this game on different kinds of computers, one of them being REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY high end. I wouldnt spend to much money on a high end to try to get max fps. Because right now you wont. If you want to get around 70 fps then you will need to keep it in DX9 and no PSAA. I run the game on 780 TI and R9 290X and lucky if i get 30-40 frames, usually get about 25. just wanna let you know before you go spending some big bucks on a video card that isnt gonna be able to get max performance out of this game and vise versa. other than that good luck on your new build!

I have a friend that runs the game on max settings on a 660TI and gets 90 FPS (at 1080P). What's your CPU and resolution?

Edited by Bront, 18 May 2014 - 05:41 AM.

[Bront]

Check out Tomshardware. They have a video card and CPU guide for best bang for your buck in gaming, and are pretty reliable. I recall an article on memory speed, and it mentioned that speed was more important than good timings, but I don't think they factored cost value into the test.

I do know that for gaming, the i5 is the best bang for your buck. The i7 is better, but you won't see much of a performance increase in game. I have an i7 (though admittedly an older one) in my laptop, and while it's nice, the video card will be more important in gaming, and outside of gaming, the i5 should still be fine.

[Woopass]

Bront, on 18 May 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

I have a friend that runs the game on max settings on a 660TI and gets 90 FPS (at 1080P). What's your CPU and resolution?

I am using amd fx-8150 and have used gtx 670, gtx 780 and R9 290x and I get the samething

[Maggiman]

I heard rumors that the 8core amds behave strangely with mwo (or the other way around). Someone said that limiting mwo to one core per module helps a lot, but this sounds strange (No cost in trying though ).

Mainboard and cpu manufacturers are usually rather conservative when it comes to the memory speed they support. This means that while you have no guarantee that the ram works at higher speeds, its likely in my experience (Though i haven't done any serious testing regarding that).
Additionally, even if you cant hit the top speeds, you can profit from the lower latencys at slower clocks (Those additonal numbers are clock multipliers for certain operations. A CL9 1600 Stick runs CL8 on 1333 fine for example. So you dont get the bandwith but the latency at least)

[BladeXXL]

Odins Fist, on 16 May 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Well an i7 4770k will have a bit better memory controller, you don't want 1333 or 1600mhz RAM, trust me. ...[]... And whoever says that 2133 MHZ RAM or higher has no gains over 1600mhz RAM is blowing smoke up your Kilt.

For me you are blowing smoke here!
i7 4770k will support up to 1600MHz DDR3 ... same like previous 4670!
It's only a refresh - not a new architecture!

Also some other guys seems to have no idea what they are talking about!
850W PSU? Are you crazy?
Having two of GTX 780 Ti and paying over 1300 $ for it you will still be fine with a 750 W PSU!
So stop telling a guy who uses to buy a GTX 750 card he needs a 850 W PSU for further upgrades! OMG!!!
The only thing you have to care about are the Ampere requirements of your GPU.
Example: If your prefered GPU needs 2 x 20A (12V) so you should take a PSU with 2 x 30A on 12V because other components using 12V line need some power too. Some PSU have separated circuits for PCI-E 12V lines ... so here you don't need to add anything.

source of the consumption rates of nvidia 700 series:
http://de.wikipedia....gsaufnahmedaten
Even newer generations are going to use even less power.
And again (as some one already said): You don't need 2 GPUs aslong you are using 1 Monitor only (for 3D rendering! - you can still use one for a second desktop or TS3 or whatever).
In most cases the mid-range GPU of the "after next" generation will be more powerfull as the curren high end having less power requirements!
Example: 760 Ti (current mid-range) is more powerfull for modern games than 580 Ti (old hi-end), while the second one uses 50% more power and needs a more powerfull PSU!

Edited by BladeXXL, 19 May 2014 - 01:00 AM.