Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
1gnoirents
Jun 28, 2014

hello :)
I still feel like they should just roll the motherboard in half so it has two functional sides.

I use and promote AIO almost entirely due to case fitment though. I think it is really looked over for some reason. It's really nice. I would think it would be more popular with matx or even mitx builds but it really doesn't seem to be.

Plus if I bump the case on accident I dont have to worry if the 5lb heatsink ripped the PCB off the board. And taking the motherboard out is no longer an :ughh: event with an AIO, which frankly I thought it would be since the hoses and all, but its nothing like big air. Plus install on the CPU is the easiest compared to any air cooler period simply due to its size and weight. It's worth the +$20 and 3 db to me

1gnoirents fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Aug 27, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

The Lord Bude
May 23, 2007

ASK ME ABOUT MY SHITTY, BOUGIE INTERIOR DECORATING ADVICE

Rime posted:

It kills me that I can't find VLP ram faster than 1333. Like, what in the actual gently caress. :psyduck:

Are you in an unusual location? or do you have a different definition of low profile? RAM in which the heatsink doesn't extend more than a mm or two above the PCB is low profile - under 40mm or so, and will happily fit under any cooler. There's a bazillion of them. Gskill Ares or sniper series, Kingston HyperX, Corsair XMP or Vengeance LP, Avexoir Core, Adata XPG series, the list goes on.

Here:

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/avexir-memory-avd3u21331104g2ci

DDR3-2133 and it's cheaper than any 1600 Kit on the market.

Don Lapre
Mar 28, 2001

If you're having problems you're either holding the phone wrong or you have tiny girl hands.

Rime posted:

It kills me that I can't find VLP ram faster than 1333. Like, what in the actual gently caress. :psyduck:

You shouldn't need VLP ram at all. Just standard size ram should fit under any heatsink/fan assembly.

1gnoirents posted:

I would think it would be more popular with matx or even mitx builds but it really doesn't seem to be.


This is mostly because enthusiasts seem to skip Matx for some reason. They think you need a giant cause with drivebays you are never going to use.

I love my matx setup, able to fit a 120 and 240mm rad and my 2 2.5" drives.

1gnoirents
Jun 28, 2014

hello :)

Don Lapre posted:



This is mostly because enthusiasts seem to skip Matx for some reason. They think you need a giant cause with drivebays you are never going to use.

I love my matx setup, able to fit a 120 and 240mm rad and my 2 2.5" drives.

Haha yeah I guess. I am happy with mid tower atx sized builds but that's just because its cheaper for me. I don't mind a push for matx simply because the drive for smaller tech is good. but for me personally the difference between a matx case and a mid atx case is inconsequential since I don't carry it around or anything, but if matx combined with the efficiency priority we're seeing with cpu's (well... Intel) and now even gpu's could lead to really powerful xbox-sized mainstream gaming pc builds I'm all for that.

I mean I know we're already starting to touch that size, but only with some moderate compromises. Will be cool when I can get to that size easily

dont be mean to me
May 2, 2007

I'm interplanetary, bitch
Let's go to Mars


1gnoirents posted:

I still feel like they should just roll the motherboard in half so it has two functional sides.

I too have seen Halt and Catch Fire.

So does your proposal involve using pencil-long standoffs on both sides of the board or just making all PC RAM and not-video add-in cards laptop RAM and add-in cards?

And maybe making video cards themselves socket into the board sideways. (For SLi, socket one into the other.) Then you get the option of having either a computer you could fit in your media cabinet or one with multiple tower coolers.

EDIT: Also this would probably take us back to the "no motherboard is cheap" days, which wouldn't be fun.

Factory Factory
Mar 19, 2010

This is what
Arcane Velocity was like.

Rime posted:

It kills me that I can't find VLP ram faster than 1333. Like, what in the actual gently caress. :psyduck:

Haber you looked at Crucial Ballistix Sport?

Rime
Nov 2, 2011

by Games Forum

Factory Factory posted:

Haber you looked at Crucial Ballistix Sport?

I have, and it's what I was thinking of when I wrote that, but it was a couple weeks ago so I thought it was 1333. I amend my statement to "Faster than 1600, what in the actual gently caress :psyduck:"

1gnoirents
Jun 28, 2014

hello :)

Sir Unimaginative posted:

I too have seen Halt and Catch Fire.

So does your proposal involve using pencil-long standoffs on both sides of the board or just making all PC RAM and not-video add-in cards laptop RAM and add-in cards?

And maybe making video cards themselves socket into the board sideways. (For SLi, socket one into the other.) Then you get the option of having either a computer you could fit in your media cabinet or one with multiple tower coolers.

EDIT: Also this would probably take us back to the "no motherboard is cheap" days, which wouldn't be fun.

My idea is not well thought out, dont worry. Although I haven't seen that show




With the usb headers/etc on the far right, and if its too hot in that gap maybe a heat sink block or something. As far as standoffs I imagine there will just be holes in the top part to put a screwdriver through to the actual screw holes on the bottom part

Don Lapre
Mar 28, 2001

If you're having problems you're either holding the phone wrong or you have tiny girl hands.

Rime posted:

I have, and it's what I was thinking of when I wrote that, but it was a couple weeks ago so I thought it was 1333. I amend my statement to "Faster than 1600, what in the actual gently caress :psyduck:"

Lucky for you there is little to no performance increase over 1600. You could probably run it at 1866. My 1600 kingston runs at 2000 just fine.

Knifegrab
Jul 30, 2014

Gadzooks! I'm terrified of this little child who is going to stab me with a knife. I must wrest the knife away from his control and therefore gain the upperhand.
I realize this thread seems to be for knowledgable CPU discussion, so I apologize for my complete lack of detailed understanding. So around the time I will be doing a new system build will be when the broadwells will be coming out. What is the real difference between the new broadwells and say a hawell i5-4690?

Factory Factory
Mar 19, 2010

This is what
Arcane Velocity was like.

Knifegrab posted:

I realize this thread seems to be for knowledgable CPU discussion, so I apologize for my complete lack of detailed understanding. So around the time I will be doing a new system build will be when the broadwells will be coming out. What is the real difference between the new broadwells and say a hawell i5-4690?

The only hard Broadwell info we've seen has been about the ultramobile variant, Core M. But if it works like the Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge difference did (and it's looking like it will), the new Broadwell equivalent to the i5-4590 will be about the same speed at CPU stuff but using a bit less electricity, and with a moderately more powerful integrated GPU.

Gucci Loafers
May 20, 2006

Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?


I'm still on Sandy Bridge and I don't see a reason to upgrade until Skylake.

Lowen SoDium
Jun 5, 2003

Highen Fiber
Clapping Larry
Haswell-E supposed to be for sale today


Core i7-5960X - 8 core, 16 thread, 3.0Ghz base / 3.5Ghz Turbo, 40 PCI-E lanes, 20 MB lvl 4 Cache - $999
Core i7-5930K - 6 core, 12 thread, 3.5Ghz base / 3.7Ghz Turbo, 40 PCI-E lanes, 15 MB lvl 4 Cache - $583
Core i7-5820K - 6 core, 12 thread, 3.3Ghz base / 3.6Ghz Turbo, 28 PCI-E lanes, 15 MB lvl 4 Cache - $389

Gigabyte has their new X99 chipset boards on their site. I know that they are not a favored brand on this forum, but the features are pretty nice and are probably pretty comparable to the features other manufactures will have.

Asrock also has theirs up

Asus and MSI also have boards coming out shortly, but neither of them have updated their sites yet.

Lowen SoDium fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Aug 29, 2014

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

Tab8715 posted:

I'm still on Sandy Bridge and I don't see a reason to upgrade until Skylake.
Same here. I've had an itch to go Haswell for some optimizations in regard to virtualization, but I'm sitting it out. While I haven't seen anything specific, I'd figure they'll be announcing more VT-x features at some point.

GokieKS
Dec 15, 2012

Mostly Harmless.
Pleasantly surprised by the price on the 5820K and differences between it and the 5930K - I will never use more than 2 GPUs, so the lower PCIe lane count doesn't matter. So I'll probably do a 5820K build once some more X99 boards are available - I'd really like an ASUS ROG GENE (mATX) version, but that might be a while since mATX for -E processors seem like a pretty niche market (though ASRock already has one).

E: Micro Center already has the 5820K for $299.

GokieKS fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Aug 29, 2014

Chuu
Sep 11, 2004

Grimey Drawer
According to the anandtech article, quoting an ASUS rep regarding Overclockability:

quote:

i7-5960X at 4.4 GHz with 1.300 volts is below average
i7-5960X at 4.5 GHz with 1.300 volts is average
i7-5960X at 4.6 GHz with 1.300 volts is above average

If I'm reading the charts on this page correctly, at 1.3V under load the power draw is somewhere around 350W.

Am I misreading something? 350W seems like an insane amount of heat to deal with. Can you do it under 25db?

GokieKS
Dec 15, 2012

Mostly Harmless.

Chuu posted:

Am I misreading something? 350W seems like an insane amount of heat to deal with. Can you do it under 25db?

25 dB from how far away? 350W is not completely unusual for overclocked CPUs, and with enough radiators and good quiet fans, you can certainly cool it with very little noise.

td4guy
Jun 13, 2005

I always hated that guy.

Chuu posted:

If I'm reading the charts on this page correctly, at 1.3V under load the power draw is somewhere around 350W.

Am I misreading something? 350W seems like an insane amount of heat to deal with. Can you do it under 25db?
Those all say 130W or 140W. 350W would be beyond even AMD's hottest stuff.

GokieKS
Dec 15, 2012

Mostly Harmless.

td4guy posted:

Those all say 130W or 140W. 350W would be beyond even AMD's hottest stuff.

Scroll down to the spreadsheet screenshots showing OC results for the 2nd 5960X. It lists voltage and power draw, which reaches over 360W at 1.328V. 380W would be asinine for stock, but for an overvolted OC it's not that unusual.

Chuu
Sep 11, 2004

Grimey Drawer

GokieKS posted:

380W would be asinine for stock, but for an overvolted OC it's not that unusual.

I haven't overclocked in years, I didn't realize that those power draws were typical these days. Definitely puts the 220W AMD processors in a new light for me as well.

GokieKS
Dec 15, 2012

Mostly Harmless.

Chuu posted:

I haven't overclocked in years, I didn't realize that those power draws were typical these days. Definitely puts the 220W AMD processors in a new light for me as well.

First, I'm pretty sure that the wattage listed is total system power draw (though I don't know if it's their full test bed of components) - I'm pretty sure the CPU alone is not drawing 350W (I don't believe there's really a way they could measure actual power draw, rather than changes in power draw).

And I wouldn't say it's "typical", as it really only applies to OCing with voltages that border or exceed what many would consider for normal usage. And really, it's not that new either - Xbit Labs had this article on OC vs power consumption, and their Nehalem i7 950 reached 317W for 4.2GHz at 1.4V for a quad-core.

As for AMD, it'd be one thing if their processors with 220W TDP actually performed well, but the problem they have is that they both draw more power and offer lower performance, so they're behind on both aspects that contribute to the price/watt metric, which is the actual important part.

GokieKS fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Aug 30, 2014

Mulva
Sep 13, 2011
It's about time for my once per decade ban for being a consistently terrible poster.

GokieKS posted:

E: Micro Center already has the 5820K for $299.

That actually makes me wonder something I've thought about in the past. That price puts it roughly in the ballpark of the 4790K, so realistically what does a Haswell-E 5820k system with it's DDR4 and more PCI lanes give someone an advantage with over them going with the 'traditional' system? What is the job it's performing better? I'm a meat and potatoes computer user, I watch tv and play video games on the thing, it's clearly not designed toward me. I get that. But what is it designed towards?

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!
Multithreaded workloads. Image or video editing, rendering, various scientific simulations, and so on. More cores may give you a way bigger performance improvement than an average 5-10% IPC improvement in a newer but same priced CPU.

I suppose when DX12 becomes common, higher core counts may end up giving some advantage, since it's supposedly able to be parallelize/multithread a drat lot.

SlayVus
Jul 10, 2009
Grimey Drawer

Boogaleeboo posted:

That actually makes me wonder something I've thought about in the past. That price puts it roughly in the ballpark of the 4790K, so realistically what does a Haswell-E 5820k system with it's DDR4 and more PCI lanes give someone an advantage with over them going with the 'traditional' system? What is the job it's performing better? I'm a meat and potatoes computer user, I watch tv and play video games on the thing, it's clearly not designed toward me. I get that. But what is it designed towards?

Video effect editing. 3D Modeling. Anything that takes advantage of multiple CPUs. Most games though want higher core frequency, but only need like 2 cores.

GokieKS
Dec 15, 2012

Mostly Harmless.

Boogaleeboo posted:

That actually makes me wonder something I've thought about in the past. That price puts it roughly in the ballpark of the 4790K, so realistically what does a Haswell-E 5820k system with it's DDR4 and more PCI lanes give someone an advantage with over them going with the 'traditional' system? What is the job it's performing better? I'm a meat and potatoes computer user, I watch tv and play video games on the thing, it's clearly not designed toward me. I get that. But what is it designed towards?

The extra PCIe lanes were the primary advantage for enthusiasts, which also included gamers who wanted 3 or 4 GPUs. The rest of the advantages (quad-channel memory, more cores) were more for workstation type tasks, like the aforementioned content creation jobs.

Lowen SoDium
Jun 5, 2003

Highen Fiber
Clapping Larry
We are not too far away from having M.2 4x PCI 3.0 SSD. Haswell-E can give you enough PCI-E 3.0 lanes to make use of that and still have enough of them to do SLI or Crossfire. Granted, probably won't make a lot of difference but it is something that I am considering.

Also, the Xbox One and PS4 are both 8 core systems. I expect the next generation of console -> PC game ports to be more multithreaded than they have been in the past because of this. I know that desktop CPUs are much faster than the console CPUs, but I also don't expect most of these ports to be very optimized. Once again, probably won't make a huge difference, but it is my thinking.

SlayVus
Jul 10, 2009
Grimey Drawer
It's interesting to note that the 5820k is actually performing better in gaming benchmarks than the other two CPUs. I wonder why that is. (This is looking at Tom's testing).

Alereon
Feb 6, 2004

Dehumanize yourself and face to Trumpshed
College Slice

SlayVus posted:

It's interesting to note that the 5820k is actually performing better in gaming benchmarks than the other two CPUs. I wonder why that is. (This is looking at Tom's testing).
No other sites are seeing similar behavior (Anandtech, Guru3D so I think Tom's Hardware messed up. They have a pretty bad reputation for the quality of their reviews.

Longinus00
Dec 29, 2005
Ur-Quan

GokieKS posted:

First, I'm pretty sure that the wattage listed is total system power draw (though I don't know if it's their full test bed of components) - I'm pretty sure the CPU alone is not drawing 350W (I don't believe there's really a way they could measure actual power draw, rather than changes in power draw).

The cpu does actually know its current powerdraw. It needs to know this for all the advanced power management that it does these days (e.g. turbo states). If you want an example of a tool that can report on this information look up turbostat.

Sad Rhino
Aug 23, 2014

Alereon posted:

No other sites are seeing similar behavior (Anandtech, Guru3D so I think Tom's Hardware messed up. They have a pretty bad reputation for the quality of their reviews.
The Anandtech review really shows how unnecessary a CPU upgrade is for gamers. Looking at the results for each game using a single GFX card, the performance difference between the 10 CPUs tested is almost always minimal.

My overclocked 2500K is going to be the first CPU that I've kept for four years (and possibly five).

Sidesaddle Cavalry
Mar 15, 2013

Oh Boy Desert Map
I'm getting the most obvious impression as well, but I'd really like to see more benchmarks for things like MMOs before completely dismissing the platform.

Assepoester
Jul 18, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 11 years!
Melman v2
Battlefield 4 64 player MP is the most taxing game a computer can run, CPU-wise, but it is understandably hard to benchmark multiplayer.

Proud Christian Mom
Dec 20, 2006
READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD
Battlefield and Planetside 2 are the only games I can think of where you can regularly be CPU bound and not due to just absolute poo poo coding on the games' part

Sidesaddle Cavalry
Mar 15, 2013

Oh Boy Desert Map

go3 posted:

just absolute poo poo coding on the games' part

This is basically what I'm afraid of, and unless proven wrong, I usually prefer extremely hard benches like these spergy Russians benching on specific maps of specific games.

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

Alereon posted:

No other sites are seeing similar behavior (Anandtech, Guru3D so I think Tom's Hardware messed up. They have a pretty bad reputation for the quality of their reviews.
The Ivy Bridge-E CPUs ahead of the Haswell-E in the CPU benchmarks, at 10W less TDP? What am I missing?

--edit: And here I am making configurations in a Google Sheet and trying to allocate funds for the stuff in my budget. :ohdear:

Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Aug 30, 2014

1gnoirents
Jun 28, 2014

hello :)
Man, what is up with microcenter.

edit: Oh I thought it was a real $500 list price, but still

Alereon
Feb 6, 2004

Dehumanize yourself and face to Trumpshed
College Slice

Combat Pretzel posted:

The Ivy Bridge-E CPUs ahead of the Haswell-E in the CPU benchmarks, at 10W less TDP? What am I missing?
Are you looking at the clockspeeds versus core count of the models you're comparing?

Oblivion590
Nov 23, 2010

Combat Pretzel posted:

The Ivy Bridge-E CPUs ahead of the Haswell-E in the CPU benchmarks, at 10W less TDP? What am I missing?

I assume that you're looking at the 4960X and the 5960X. According to ARK, the 4960X has 6 cores at 3.6 GHz (turbo to 4.0 GHz), but the 5960X has 8 cores at 3.0 GHz (turbo to 3.5 GHz). The 5960X has more total throughput, but it can lose in single-thread performance due to the lower clock frequency. Most of Anandtech's multithreaded CPU benchmarks show a substantially better score for the 5960X.

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

Alereon posted:

Are you looking at the clockspeeds versus core count of the models you're comparing?
Not really. Just some first glance comparisons, say the x930Ks against each other, assuming they're equivalent versions, the 4xxx is either way too close or a nudge ahead of the 5xxx. That's really weird, I'd have expected the Haswell version to be always ahead, due to CPU arch improvements, as well as more cache and higher non-turbo clock. I'm probably doing something wrong.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!
Here's some more benchmarks. Page is in German, but should be easy enough to navigate.

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-08/intel-core-i7-5820k-5960x-haswell-e-test/5/

That 5820K looks pretty drat attractive.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply