|
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 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 |
# ? Aug 27, 2014 15:40 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 13:49 |
|
Rime posted:It kills me that I can't find VLP ram faster than 1333. Like, what in the actual gently caress. 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.
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 15:41 |
|
Rime posted:It kills me that I can't find VLP ram faster than 1333. Like, what in the actual gently caress. 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.
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 15:44 |
|
Don Lapre posted:
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
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 15:53 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 16:20 |
|
Rime posted:It kills me that I can't find VLP ram faster than 1333. Like, what in the actual gently caress. Haber you looked at Crucial Ballistix Sport?
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 17:19 |
|
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 "
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 17:29 |
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:I too have seen Halt and Catch Fire. 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
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 17:30 |
|
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 " 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.
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 17:36 |
|
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?
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 18:42 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 18:49 |
|
I'm still on Sandy Bridge and I don't see a reason to upgrade until Skylake.
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 19:13 |
|
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 |
# ? Aug 29, 2014 16:42 |
|
Tab8715 posted:I'm still on Sandy Bridge and I don't see a reason to upgrade until Skylake.
|
# ? Aug 29, 2014 18:01 |
|
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 |
# ? Aug 29, 2014 18:08 |
|
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 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?
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 00:20 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 00:55 |
|
Chuu posted:If I'm reading the charts on this page correctly, at 1.3V under load the power draw is somewhere around 350W.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 00:55 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 01:05 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 01:06 |
|
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 |
# ? Aug 30, 2014 01:19 |
|
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?
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 02:11 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 02:29 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 02:29 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 02:42 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 02:57 |
|
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).
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 03:00 |
|
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).
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 03:22 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 07:18 |
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. My overclocked 2500K is going to be the first CPU that I've kept for four years (and possibly five).
|
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 10:24 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 10:46 |
|
Battlefield 4 64 player MP is the most taxing game a computer can run, CPU-wise, but it is understandably hard to benchmark multiplayer.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 12:56 |
|
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
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 16:04 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 18:04 |
|
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. --edit: And here I am making configurations in a Google Sheet and trying to allocate funds for the stuff in my budget. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Aug 30, 2014 |
# ? Aug 30, 2014 21:49 |
|
Man, what is up with microcenter. edit: Oh I thought it was a real $500 list price, but still
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 22:19 |
|
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?
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 22:20 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 22:23 |
|
Alereon posted:Are you looking at the clockspeeds versus core count of the models you're comparing?
|
# ? Aug 30, 2014 22:28 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 13:49 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 31, 2014 01:59 |