63 replies to this topic

[Keira RAVEN McKenna]

my mistake... yes... Firefly

[Goose]

Keira_NZ, on 02 August 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

Can I have an i7 to play MWO? - " That's overkill, you don't need hyperthreading (still not clear on what this is), try an i5 and save some dollars"

We fight all the time about it's use in MW:O …

Keira_NZ, on 02 August 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

Can I have 16Gb RAM? - "Diminishing returns for the dollars spent for playing MWO, 8Gb is fine for now"

What about higher than 1600 speed RAM? - "Diminishing returns for the dollars spent. A 60% RAM speed increase equals a 6% performance improvement."

Read your Tom's: http://www.tomshardw...ity,3419-8.html

Also, there's a subtext about the value of memory in a build all through this article: http://www.tomshardw...-1600,3855.html

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Catamount, on 02 August 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Even if the system could, under an extraordinarily unlikely set of conditions, require 476*1.1=~520W, that is still no justification for a 750W PSU, because the system would never encounter such conditions regularly, so that 80% usage would be an extraordinarily rare event, not something the system would be subject to for long periods, unless we have user who likes to spend weeks on end running Prime95+Furmark while thrashing all of his drives, just for giggles.

Agreed on the 750 watt will probably to much (as for the purchase). Disagreed on "will not run above 80% usage. It can run at 80% it can also run at 100%. It's not upon me to decide what the owner will do with his/her PC, therefore, i will look into the given specifics and decide on a PSU which can handle the worst case, and not at 100% power usage. Again, i don't recommend it, and i do not sell or even give 3 years warrenty.

Catamount, on 02 August 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

550 is more than adequate, because this system will rarely, if ever, be drawing a worst case scenario load that will take such a unit out of its comfort zone, and should never, ever, under any circumstance, exceed the capability of the unit (not even accounting for the fact that any decent unit is capable of outputting beyond its rated capacity anyways, conservative engineering and all)

As above, The owner might just do so, playing arround with Furrmark all day, or worse he might get his hands on a copy of Gothic III and is even trying to play it. It's unlikely to exceed the maximum power supply of the PSU, it will probably end up in a blackout. Before that happens, the PSU will run at 100% usage, putting a lot of stress on itself, aging the capacitors, and wasting a lot of electricity into heat. If that's what you want.

Catamount, on 02 August 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

650W is overkill. 750 is just doing this:

You do know that a 650W doesn't always run at 650W or a 750W at 750W, do you? A normal PSU does only draw as much power as required. If you only need, for example, 300 Watt both the 650W PSU and the 750W PSU will only draw arround 300 Watt.
The difference is so less it can be negligence.

If you do run a 750 Watt it will handle a 100% workload of 325 Watt at 50% efficiency. that's not the best case. In idle, it will be a rather bad efficiency but a bad efficciency for only a smaller amount of Watt. It will also not hurt the PSU.
A PSU which can deliver 550W for a system which can require 550W has the potential run at a 100% power usage. that's not healthy.

Catamount, on 02 August 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

You have empirical data to back this statement? Just about every review site out there tests units at 100% load. Nothing they show, ever, backs up a single word of this. Edit: got my reviewers mixed up

Building custom PC (mainly for gaming) and Workstations for about 4 and a half years. Though, it's not the only thing i'm doing. I can't give you the exact numbers but i'd guess about 80% workstations, which most are designed to run at a pretty high workload for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 240 days a year. Some are designed to run 24/7. We do give warranty for 2 years (by law). We are also giving additional guarantees for 2 (default) and up to 3 years. As for Gaming PC, depends on demand. i can tell that right after school vacations and especially one month before Christmas, i have weeks where i'm building up to 10 systems or more a day. That ofc, are not 10 custom designed PCs, i do use a couple of basic variants, may tweak them a little (depends on what the customer is about to spend). But i also have specific custom orders, with "i want this GPU 'cuz my friend says it's so good, and also this and that, and that too" then it's up to me to expain to why it's a rather shity idea to put that crap together (in a nicely manner ofc). I'll build it anyway, given in a way i can assure a warranty of at least two years. Nuff'said? nuff'said!

[Egomane]

LOADED, on 02 August 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

Nuff'said? nuff'said!

Yes! But I'm afraid my conclusion is not in your favor.

Please do yourself a favor and suggest at your workplace that you get a training course from a PSU manufacturer (whoever might have an office closest to you) about technologies and capabilities of modern PSUs. I don't mean it in a bad way. If you want to give your customers the best advise and service, you should be more knowledgeable about those things.

Edited by Egomane, 02 August 2014 - 06:53 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

The problem with these boards is everyone has different opinions and different myths.
But usually he right people get their advice out.

But the one thing that annoys me most about you guys if you forget about cost 9/10 times.

The machine I linked had the 750W because I was in a rush; and I was looking for a cheaper PSU option t help offset the cost of the upgrades in my build.

And I came out with a better gaming build at a cheaper price!!!

If the world was perfect we'd all run super builds.

Saying she needs more than 8GB oF RAM is a luxury she doesn't need for gaming her core use for the system also as a side note I've been building systems for 10 years+ I have never looked at a QVA list for RAM and I have never had any issues. ; she has no interest in over clocking so a k series is money wasted.

If people are worried about electricity costs then really should they be PC gaming if things are that tight?

OP go with the build I linked previously with the upgrades; if you can afford to keep the gold rated PSU do so; if you can't get the shop to recommend one; because his advice to you was solid (which is unusal!) So it looks like you stumbled onto one of those rare people that k ow what they are talking about to some degree.

Edited by DV McKenna, 03 August 2014 - 01:00 AM.

[Egomane]

DV McKenna, on 03 August 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:

But the one thing that annoys me most about you guys if you forget about cost 9/10 times.

You are right, I didn't look at the costs. But I didn't do that, because I believe that the PSU is the one part of the PC you shouldn't be cheap about.

It's the one part where all other components are connected to and if the PSU dies, there is a good chance it will take some of those components with it. The chance grows the more you refuse to look for quality because you want cheap components instead. I'd rather make compromises on the CPU or GPU instead of the PSU if I'm on a budget.

Edited by Egomane, 03 August 2014 - 10:01 AM.

[WmLowFlyer]

For the record, LOADED, your suggestion on PSU is far overkill.


Keira would be fine with a 550w or even 650w should she want to really upgrade or overclock, which doesn't seem to be the case.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Egomane, on 03 August 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

You are right, I didn't look at the costs. But I didn't do that, because I believe that the PSU is the one part of the PC you shouldn't be cheap about.

It's the one part where all other components are connected to and if the PSU dies, there is a good chance it will take some of those components with it. The chance grows the more you refuse to look for quality because you want cheap components instead. I'd rather make compromises on the CPU or GPU instead of the PSU if I'm on a budget.

This would apply if I picked a cheap no name brand PSU. I didn't it's corsair; failure rates of any PSU are likely high cost or not.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

WmLowFlyer, on 03 August 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

For the record, LOADED, your suggestion on PSU is far overkill.


Keira would be fine with a 550w or even 650w should she want to really upgrade or overclock, which doesn't seem to be the case.

For the record, i never wrote or suggested a 750 Watt PSU, i suggested a 600 to 650 Watt PSU (also because the difference of the GTX 760 to the later advised GTX 770). Thanks for your concern, though.

DV McKenna, on 03 August 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:

The problem with these boards is everyone has different opinions and different myths.
But usually he right people get their advice out.

But the one thing that annoys me most about you guys if you forget about cost 9/10 times.

The machine I linked had the 750W because I was in a rush; and I was looking for a cheaper PSU option t help offset the cost of the upgrades in my build.

And I came out with a better gaming build at a cheaper price!!!

...

If people are worried about electricity costs then really should they be PC gaming if things are that tight?

Actually mentioned the cost (mainly about the difference of of your GPU choice (GTX 760 to GTX 770, 170 WATT max to 230 WATT max) which was about 100$ P.A. at maximum (at 8 hours a day, 5 day a week, 240 days a year) and before you ask, i looked up the price for KW/h for NZ.))

I'm actually don't disagree much with a 750 Watt PSU (though, i mentioned a 600 to 650 Watt would also be enough) my concern was about the efficience label.

And i actually do not know how tight people are on money, that's why i take such thing like energy consumption into account.

DV McKenna, on 03 August 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:

Saying she needs more than 8GB oF RAM is a luxury she doesn't need for gaming her core use for the system also as a side note I've been building systems for 10 years+ I have never looked at a QVA list for RAM and I have never had any issues. ; she has no interest in over clocking so a k series is money wasted.

Who actually said that she needs more than 8GB of RAM? If you're trying to point at me, i wrote that, if (IF! and i said reasons to where a possible IF might comes into play) she can only upgrade to a maximum of 16GB out of the 32GB possible, IF she would like to keep the 2x 4GB modules. I pointed out that 8GB are more or less a standard for modern Gaming PCs, the step to 16GB is not totally unreasonable.

About the QVA, i'm aware that most people who build their own rigs do not bother to look into a QVA and do not run into issues. But i do would like to give the advice to stick to the QVA. As Egomane wrote "Though the memory should run fine, even without on the QVA list.", which is often the case, i can tell you from experience that you can have 2 of the exact same setups of a Board and non listed memory, one runs fine, one produces bluescreen and freezes. The nasty thing about this issue is that both setups are perfectely fine. The reason for that are manufacturing tolerances. If this kind of issue happens it is purely random, and there are no logs (because it's the memory which fails).

Let me explain with this:

...|--------------------|... that's the tolerance the board can handle.
.........|-------|............. that's a QVA listed memory module, tolerances are lying within the board specs
.....................|-------|. that's a not QVA listed, as you maybe see, it's tolerance are lying mostely within the specs (that's your "I have never had any issues" but there's also a chance that you got a module which has tolerances out of the specs of the board, that would be the bluescreen setup)

You might not experience this if you decide to use non listed RAM, but you will definitely not encounter this issue if you do stick to QVA valid memory modules, the difference between " should run fine" and WILL run fine.

Egomane, on 02 August 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

Yes! But I'm afraid my conclusion is not in your favor.

My, my. I was almost about to thank you for your concern, then i remembered your previously (rather poorly based) advices and i might have a feeling that you would like to turn this discussion into a debate. As for the training you meantioned, i would like to assure you that i have received several workshops (including certified sales consulting for Listan). I also highly doubt that you have undergone such workshops, if you had, you would know that they are at average 6 hours. (before this comes up, nope it's not only how to advertise more expensive PSUs ) That's pretty bad considering that the fujitsu authorized service privider is a 2 weeks, 8 hours a day workshop which i have to refresh every year (not including basic workshops).

But enough of this, i'd like to lead this into a more productive direction.

About the PSU, I might explain to why i would advise to use a higher than 550W PSU in this particular case and also explain what my advise is based on and the reasons for my choice of PSU. I think that's something we may can discuss afterwards (if there is still a need, ofc).

If i am choosing a PSU for a Sytem i usually proceed as following.
The PSU is the last part i'm planning into a system. Therefore, i know all parts which the system is coming with.
I can estimate the usual / average workload the system will need.
I can also calulate the maximum workload a system is ever to require.
I usually think (or know) what the owner of the system will do with it, also possible additions to the system which will require more powerusage (for example if the case has 1 out of 3 HDD-bays i can asume it can require about 20 Watt more if this is upgrades to 3 out of 3)
Once i do estimate and gathered all this informations, i chose on a PSU which fulfills or is coming close to the following requirements.
- Idle workload should not deceed 20% powerusage (unless 80+ titanium lable, might go into detail, if someone is interested)
- Average workload (that's ofc is an assumption from my side) should be close to 50% powerusage
- Maximum workload should not exceed 80% powerusage.
- several others (connection, etc) but mostly not about the workload/powerusage)

Especially the third point is vital, while the two above are for economic and efficience, the third is actually capable to hurt the system (and mainly the PSU) if ignored. (Again, capable, that doesn't mean it is always the case)

And here is also the point here I disagree with, for example, Ergomane.

I value the "do not have a 100% workload over 80% powerusage" by far higher then "keep an average workload at about 50% powerusage".
As for why, because the 100% workload over 80% have a potential to hurt the psu, they also put more heat and stress on the PSU forcing the capacitors to age more rapidly (capacitors are the main weak point of a PSU), while the average workload at 50% are mainly for efficience (yes, that's money saving).
Of course, it is far less the case that a system will run at workload of 90% or even higher then having an average workload. But since i can not predict, and therefor have to assume, at which workload the system will actually work, i have to take the 80% and up powerconsumption into account. This my point of view, coming from someone who has to give a warrenty for systems.

As for the System from the opening post. i came up with a possible maximum workload of about 400 to 450 Watt (including upgrades and peripheral, this might seems to high for some to believe, but keep in mind, this is the absolut peakload (and will, hopefully not happen to often). I also came up with an average workload of about 275 to 300 Watt (also including upgrades and peripheral). Since it was 550 Watt PSU, the absolute worst case was a full workload at about 80% powerconsumption, the bare minimum what i would choose.
As soon as the idea of changing the GPU from a GTX 760 to a GTX 770 came up, i figured that the peakworkload could be at around 90% powerusage. That is why i recommended a 600 Watt or a 650 Watt.
With a 600 Watt PSU the average workload would be at 50 to 55% and the absolute worst possible 100% workload would be at 80% powerusage (with a GTX 770 ofc).

So if anybody still has a question about to why i would not recommend a 550 Watt, i would happily reply and disuss. Also, feel free to correct me about the estimate average or peak workload.

Almost forgot:

DV McKenna, on 03 August 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

This would apply if I picked a cheap no name brand PSU. I didn't it's corsair; failure rates of any PSU are likely high cost or not.

Sadly, from my experience this isn't always true, ofc, i'd choose corsair over a dirtcheap no name chinease PSU. But i'd also like to mention that corsair is known for it's famous goldsamples and the later swooping out for cheaper parts.

About expensive brand ware, the most common RAM we're selling, Kingston Hyper X (almost always in every QVA) is actually pretty expensive despite the fact that about 8% are defect right out of the box. (actual statistic from my workplace)
I could go on about it for seagate HDDs and SSDs, Gigabyte Mainboards, and what not, the price or the brand are not a garant for quality.

Also,

Egomane, on 03 August 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

But I didn't do that, because I believe that the PSU is the one part of the PC you shouldn't be cheap about.

Fixed and fully agreed.

Edited by LOADED, 04 August 2014 - 08:11 AM.

[Catamount]

Quote

As for the System from the opening post. i came up with a possible maximum workload of about 400 to 450 Watt (including upgrades and peripheral, this might seems to high for some to believe, but keep in mind, this is the absolut peakload (and will, hopefully not happen to often). I also came up with an average workload of about 275 to 300 Watt (also including upgrades and peripheral). Since it was 550 Watt PSU, the absolute worst case was a full workload at about 80% powerconsumption, the bare minimum what i would choose.

As soon as the idea of changing the GPU from a GTX 760 to a GTX 770 came up, i figured that the peakworkload could be at around 90% powerusage. That is why i recommended a 600 Watt or a 650 Watt.

And that would be fine, except that the premises here are faulty.

First, you're assuming a load that's entirely unrealistic to ever encounter under any real world use. Smacking into the actual TDP on a CPU or a GPU is just not something real programs do. The reason programs like Prime95 and Furmark can do this is because they not only put these components at "full load", but do so with instructions hand-picked to suck down and pump out as much energy as is physically possible, and even then, you have to specifically run them to, and even then, it's very difficult to max out every component at once (which is precisely why different tests are offered).

Games and other real world programs don't even begin to approach this kind of usage. In fact, real-world programs are so far off of doing this, that nearly every review site has stopped using tests like Furmark to test GPU power draw. I remember when Guru3D stopped; they put up a notice explaining that Furmark generated wholly unrealistic loads as compared to essentially any game ever.

Even in the rare case of a bug or bad coding by a game, which still isn't going to be hand-tailored to generate absolute maximum power draw and heat output, those instances only stress single components, not everything at once.

So even under the worst conditions, real world programs don't generate the kind of component workload that purpose-designed programs do, purpose-designed programs that still rarely generate what you're talking about, even on a single component, let alone all of them. You're talking about unlikeliness piled on top of unlikeliness.


So your first premise is that the user actually has some probability of encountering loads that basically don't exist in the real world.


Your second is that the end user might actually encounter them frequently and for long periods of time. There is basically no usage scenario that exists for this.


Your third is that, based on the other two, it's then necessary, even for basic reliability, to have a PSU that can effectively double the power output required for what's an entirely, wholly, completely unrealistic usage scenario in the first place.


The GIF I posted was complete appropriate, even though I'm not sure you understood it, given your more or less non sequitur response that had nothing to do with it.


Trying to overcompensate for load scenarios that are entirely unrealistic under any circumstance, let alone over the course of the hour-after-hour, day-to-day use that the PSU will actually have to contend with, is bad enough, but despite your claims about workshops, to be frank, you seem to know little about modern PSU capabilities.

This claim that PSUs that are subject to near maximum load, which again would never happen here anyways, somehow quickly degrade and go into some endlessly bad efficiency/temperature spiral, has never been observed in any real world test, ever. To be frank, Loaded, it's something you imagined up out of your head, from your armchair.


PSU reviewers subject PSUs to those loads, often at wholly unrealistically high ambient temperatures, and such spirals never occur. HardOCP torture tests far beyond any kind of real-world scenario, and still never shows what you claim. Sure, they "only" load to 80%, but they use a 45C ambient temp, for 8 straight hours. That's already massively worse than an end user could do with the rig in question, probably even intentionally.

Most review sites go to 100% load, at similarly high temperatures (temperatures that would cook most computers running at full load if their components didn't throttle ANYWAYS; ie it would never happen), albiet for shorter timespans, and PSUs still take it, and maintain consistent efficiency, ripple and voltage regulation, and by extension of the first, operating temperature, throughout such tests, completely contrary to what you claim is the behavior of a power supply. Even relatively entry level 80PLUS bronze units pass so thoroughly.


So a PSU could even handle this entirely unrealistic load scenario for the entirely unrealistic time periods you suggest. Would it be good to do for hours, day in and day out? No. Most PSUs would fail before too long. But that's like saying if you throw your computer into a bathtub, it might be bad for it. It'll never amount to a discussion of actual real-world use. What you propose would be hard to intentionally do to a computer, and would be nearly impossible to do to the extent required to cause significant PSU degradation.


A 600W PSU is fine for basic use of that machine, as an upper end, not a bare minimum, and a 550W unit will handle the job just fine, for years, with room to spare, barring any manufacturing faults in the unit. I would have no problem if someone proposed a build with a 600W PSU. It's not your recommendations I question, even if you take them too far; it's the logic by which you arrive at them.

But fine, you only have a few short years of building experience, but given that, it might behoove you to listen to those who have been at this longer than you, because frankly, everyone here has been at this a hell of a lot longer than you. I've been doing this two and half times longer than you, and that barely scratches how long many of these guys have been at it, and no, your daily trudge through the monotony of physical construction, over and over, with the same kind of machines and planned usage, doesn't amount to meaningful gains in experience, the kind that comes from long years of encountering diverse issues, across diverse types of jobs and projects (not just one job), accumulated over numerous generations of diverse hardware (as opposed to "I had just barely started when Sandy Bridge was a thing").

Edited by Catamount, 04 August 2014 - 11:50 AM.

[Alreech]

Catamount, on 02 August 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Lots of usefull .gifs here, kthxbai !

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Well, well, Catamount. That is indeed some input worth discussing. I'll reply in detail later, since i have many points i agree with you and (who would have known) some i disagree.
Before that, am i safe to assume that we do agree upon the QVA memory and the average workload of the system in quetion?
Also, i missinterpreted you Gif as two sailors constantly burn money (literally burn) that's they reason i replied with the question about a 750W "buring" more money (as in electricty bills) then a 650W PSU, i can't actually tell to where i stated something "non sequitur" with what i wrote in that replay.

I'll write some more about the esimated workload, and disuss further.
I'd also like to defend myself to your "i had barely started when Sandy Bridge was a thing" which isn't quit the case.
But before that, thanks for replying something worth discussing.

----------------
Since no one replied so far, i'll keep this edited from here on.

I'd like to break this into parts, and start with the 100% workload part.

I fully agree with you that, under normal circumstances, a "normal" rig and a "normal" user will not run, or at the very least, will very very, veeery unlikely run into a scenario where this should ever happen.

But, i have encountered numerous times where people had thier systems running by far more then the average workload.

Just to give little example out of my own recent experience.

Couple of months ago, i had a (self-build) rig on my desk with a ticket note about the line "can not play wow, system lags, bluescreens/blackscreens" i'd estimate the rig at about 2000 to 2500 Euro, SLI, overclocked i7, Watercooling (fishtank), fancy LED fans, and all that stuff, powers by a massive dark power pro with 1200W. The system was, thanks to misconfiguration and poor driver choices running WoW (and WoW only) with a constant powerusage of about 90%. WoW is a fairly old and not very hard to run game, yet, he managed to run it on his system, which should be more than capable to run this game (twice, thrice, even fourfold) with little to no worry, with about 1100 Watt powerconsumption.
Again, about 1100 Watt consumption for a 10 year old game on a freaking expensive system.
This actually was a rather typical case for "should not happen, but against all odds, happened".
Turns out he played WoW (probably rather often) like this from the very beginning to the very last.
Part of his rig was bought at our store, that's why he choosed to have it turned in back to us again.
The system was less then 3/4 year old, yet the capacitors inside the PSU looked like they where 5 year or older, one failed entirely. One GPU was beyond help, and the mainboard wasn't looking much better in shape then the PSU.

This is acutally a good point to talk about the "spiral". Sorry if i could not get my point across. so let me explain it very simple.
running a PSU at a higher powerconsumption (ofc, i mean highly above average powerconsumption) will simply lead to a more heat, heat supports capacitor aging, capacitor again is negative for efficience, negative efficience will lead to more energie into heat. Call it a spiral or a circle. That is what i meant. Sadly, that's not something i made up, it's the mere fact that: less efficieny->more head->more capacitor aging->less efficieny. If you disagree on such a basic logic, no, i can't image you'd do.

But back to the workload topic:
As i wrote earlier, i can not predict what the actual owner of a PC will do with it. And here's the thing you are upset about.
I can, however, estimate the absolute possible workload, though not because i assume that it will occure, and i can further choose upon a 100% workload, what the system is, under insanely stupid requirements, potentially able to require.
I simply choose a PSU which will not, under any circumstances, will come into a range where it is about to run under a unhealthy powerconsumption. Regardless how long the system is running under said conditions.
As said earlier, the border, from what i've learned and my own experience is no more then 80%, that works fine in theory and practically.
So don't get me wrong on this, i don't do it because i think a system will run at 100% workload, If i'd actually assume then a certain system will run at such a workload, i'd tell the one who's running it, or intend to buy it, that what he's going to do will probably fail hard, as his system will probably fail hard.
Yet i can not assume that the owner, for whatever reason, will, intentionally or unintentionally, force his system to operate at a unlikely high workload. Like i can not assume, if he do so, for how long he will do so.

What i CAN DO, is estimate a PSU which will not, even if under a stupidly 100% workload, fail to deliver the powerusage, or even support capacitor aging by doing so. I simply make sure of it while choosing a PSU which can handle a 100% workload at no more than 80% powerusage.
Simple as that.
Though, i havn't seen a 100% workload live, intentionally or not, but i do have seen 90% and above for various reasons. So simply telling me, "does not apply 'cuz does not happen" is not quit the case.

If you can give me a more failsafe, more longlivity friendly way of how to set up a system, without knowing at what workload the owner is running his system at, i'm happy to listen.

As for "Sure, they "only" load to 80%, but they use a 45C ambient temp, for 8 straight hours. That's already massively worse than an end user could do with the rig in question, probably even intentionally."

Seen it before, will see it again, be it for stupidity (actual case of a rig owner who'd replaced fans with stupidly high powered industrial fans and on top of that isolated the case to get rid of the very high noise said fans here producing, never fails to amaze me) or for unknowing (completely blocked air flow thanks to not cleaning the case, this actually happens so often i don't even bother) and you know what? They don't do it for 8 hours, they do it for as long as the system can take it, like literally until the last capacitor is going to pop. so "What you propose would be hard to intentionally do to a computer, and would be nearly impossible to do to the extent required to cause significant PSU degradation." actually happens probably more often then you think it would.

At last i'd like to say something to your last passage.
First, thanks for your advice, i do have an open ear for every advice, be it from someone who's significantly longer in business or significantly shorter. As for the "few short years", it's somewhat hard to decide who should rather listening to who. As this "few short years" of mine don't include the time i worked as an information technology officer, or the apprenticeship, or even all the time back to where i was about to decide if i need one of those fancy new graphic acceleration cards. So i had my fair share of encountering various issues on various generations of hardware, though i havn't changed jobs very often, i do have a good amount of projects at the IT outfitter i'm currently work at.
Last but not least, to put that frankly, if you do think that my job is about meaningless, monotonic physical construction...
Heck! You must construct rigs on top of a dinosaur who's shooting lazers out of his arse while being chased by Godwin's Law-Zombies.
But since you're at it "twice and a half times" longer then me, but for some mysterious reasons, never, not even once, run into a customer who'd actually cooked almost every need part on his still running system, i kinda doubt that theory.
(I hope this much of humor is permitted)

Edited by LOADED, 04 August 2014 - 03:48 PM.

[Keira RAVEN McKenna]

come come come... we are getting just a little off topic.
At the end of the day what I have gathered from all this is:
The build is fine.
The sales guy was open and honest.
The store recommended air cooler is the way to go.
The extra price for the build is worth it with the service and warranty of a local store.
All in all, it will run MWO very well... finally... and also run TS for me, again.... finally!!

Thankyou all for your input, time and enlightenment. I actually learnt a few things from all this.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Keira_NZ, on 04 August 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

come come come... we are getting just a little off topic.
At the end of the day what I have gathered from all this is:
The build is fine.
The sales guy was open and honest.
The store recommended air cooler is the way to go.
The extra price for the build is worth it with the service and warranty of a local store.
All in all, it will run MWO very well... finally... and also run TS for me, again.... finally!!

Thankyou all for your input, time and enlightenment. I actually learnt a few things from all this.

All right, let's call it a day.
If i may make a late addition, If he came up with the board and memory, at least ask about his recomendation on QVA memory in similar price and performance range. I don't want you to be one of those few who run into issues with this.

And, yeah, might be a good idea to listen to the guy who's actually giving you a 2 years warranty instead of mostly random ppl on the interwebs who kinda point in all possible different directions.

Cheers, and have fun with your new system!

[Keira RAVEN McKenna]

Well... the memory apparently is fine (even better as I already own it,
Changing boards to another Gigabyte Z97 for $20 more which allows SLI incase I want to go crazy later with another GTX 760.
Air cooler is being fitted too.
See, I DO listen

I pick it up friday night

Edited by Keira_NZ, 05 August 2014 - 12:03 AM.

[Summon3r]

did u end up going with a "K" model I5 since you went with a Z97 chipset? i hope so cause to OC an I5 to 4ghz is basically as easy as typing in your login name for MWO lol and if your worried about get the guys building your pc to give a small OC to 4ghz!

if this was already addressed sorry i only read the first few posts on page 1

[auniqueid]

Best advice - GET AN SSD (Edit -- just read you already purchased.... but if it's not too late ...)

Dollar for dollar, they are the single best upgrade you can get. Don't even need a large one, just get a 128G Samsung, use it as your boot drive and you'll notice dramatically increased boot times and performance (Not a huge increase in MWO, but your system will be far more snappier).
This will outstrip any performance increase you see from additional memory and better processor combined ...for your purposes.

Other than that, your system is more than adequate for playing MWO at its highest settings if that's what you're looking to do.

Edited by Jimbobbob, 07 August 2014 - 04:16 PM.

[Keira RAVEN McKenna]

Got the PC and WOW!!!!
This game is soooooo sexy in hi def detail!
Looking forward to trying a super low level flight under a few bridges in Warthunder!

[Smokeyjedi]

Now make sure to download MSI afterburner so you can make an aggressive fan profile and keep that GTX 760 cool.....

MWO is mean to each and every piece of hardware in a system.......thrashing I7 cores..........even when they are overclocked......Keep your eyes on the temps..........and make adjustments/improvements as needed........(fan flow? # of fans?)

[Flapdrol]

Actually, mwo only really loads up 2 cores, that's why it runs like ass on FX cpu's, and why it is mostly cpu limited, so doesn't load the gpu that much.

may vary with settings of course, at 4K everything is gpu limited.

Edited by Flapdrol, 08 August 2014 - 05:33 AM.