|
Navaash posted:I would just be happy with more SATA6.0 ports if it weren't for the fact that add-in SATA cards are either absolute garbage, overpriced to hell, or both. (2500K/P67 here) I don't know what your cutoff for "overpriced to hell" is, but you can get an IBM/Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc rebranded LSI controller for ~$80 if you keep an eye on ebay (I got an IBM M1115 for $65 a little while back), and those can be used as either a RAID controller or reflashed to be a HBA. You'd need to get 2 SAS -> SATA forward breakout cables, but even then it's still only about $100, which I think is pretty reasonable for another 8 SATA ports if you need them.
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
I'm kinda wanting to use Devil's Canyon as an excuse to get replace my 2500K system that's used as a gaming/HTPC, as there's a lot of minor issues that make me less than happy with it. Whether it's my particular CPU or the MB (which I cheaped out a bit on, to my dismay), I could never get it above 4.4GHz with any sort of reliability, and last time I updated the BIOS even that ran into problems so I just dropped it down to 4.2 rather than muck with it more. And while the SilverStone FT-01 remains one of my favorite cases from an aesthetic design standpoint, it's really outdated in a lot of ways - no cable routing features, no CPU cutout, no USB 3.0, no support for larger CLCs, etc. On the other hand, I had a 4770K laying around for 6 months before finally decided to use it to upgrade my Hackintosh (the i3 3225 really became a bottleneck after I moved my photo library to it and started using Lightroom), and the old parts are probably getting turned into a dedicated HTPC, so I'm already at the point of having more computers than I really have any semblance of need for. I guess I'll see if I can sell off the whole thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Ever since the Maximus IV GENE-Z, I've felt that the mATX ROG boards have offered some of the best combination of high-end quality components, features, and price. At ~$200 they're still on the high end of cost, but it's really not that much more than good mid-range ATX boards, and for the people who really don't need all the expansion slots of an ATX board (which is most of them), the high-end features make it worthwhile. I did a build for someone with that GENE-Z, and at the time it was one of the cheapest boards with Intel NIC which is something I always prefer to use (I previously just tended to throw in a PCI/PCIe NIC). I'm actually going to be getting the Maximus VII GENE myself, as soon as Micro Center get the 4790K in stock. When bought as a CPU/MB combo, the board will cost "only" $180, which I find to be very reasonable for what you get.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The Asus ROG Maximus VII HERO is only $10 more than the GENE, and unless you really need the smaller form factor I think you get a better value. It would be interesting to see benchmarks comparing the audio performance of the GENE and the HERO, I'm thinking the GENE would have noticeably worse EMI because of the limited board space to route the audio traces away from noises sources. It doesn't appear to have a physically isolated board area like on the HERO, but they may have been able to come close via efficient routing. I actually don't care about the on-board audio at all, as my audio setup is using a Blue Yeti USB mic that has a built-in DAC/headphone output to connect to my headphones. The built-in headphone amp doesn't do an amazing job of driving my Sennheiser HD600s, but then I really don't them it to for gaming (which is the only thing this machine will be used for). Beyond that, I just don't have any need for what the HERO offers over the GENE - the only possible situation I can think of would be if I wanted to do SLI and also absolutely must use a PCIe SSD for some reason, but I really doubt that's going to happen. And to go along with the (slight) savings, I also get more flexibility in terms of cases, which is actually looking like it'll be more important since the case I've been wanting (Lian Li PC-A51WRX, the red/black windowed version) doesn't seem to be available anywhere in the US (yet?), and I might end up running the system case-less for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So what are some real world latency sensitive applications? It depends on how much latency you're talking about, but almost anything to do with real-time audio, for starters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:You mean like scientific audio? Or prototyping for audio hardware? I can't imagine studio audio requiring an FPGA and the associated programming costs. Oh, your question was referring to Intel FPGA thing. That's really designed more for data center applications, and in those scenarios, it's really more of an overall performance situation than one specific application being latency sensitive. For example, there's studies that show that users are only willing to wait X seconds for a website to load before moving on to a different one, and because not all the factors associated with how fast that page loads are under the control of the website host/owner, they have to optimize the ones that they do control as much as possible. So in the case of Bing, this means being able to complete the process of taking the user input, running it through their search algorithm, run database queries, and return the results in the best order, as fast as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Well, that's disappointing. I'm still planning on getting one when Micro Center gets them in stock to replace my 2500K (mostly because I want to upgrade the MB and case than the CPU), but I guess if it turns out to be a really terrible overclocker I might just try the delidded 4770K that I also have instead (which I never actually OCed - I delidded it because it's going in a FT03 Mini with a H60, so not amazing cooling).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Some of them are doing great. There just seems to be some batches like mine which are really bad. People have had better luck it seems with L4 chips so just ask for one of those at MC. All the ones at my local Micro Center are L3 batch ones. Now to decide if I buy one of them anyway or wait a bit more and hope they get more in stock which are L4...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:I thought DDR4 was mostly the same price as DDR3 since DDR3 went up in price? Did DDR4 go up as well? DDR4 is is nowhere near wide availability yet for desktop parts, so I have no idea where you got the impression of price parity between it and DDR3 from, but it's definitely more expensive for the modules that you can get right now, which are mostly ECC modules for server use. An 8GB ECC DDR4 stick from Crucial right now costs $140, compared to <$100 for DDR3, so you're looking at at least a 30-40% premium.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Heh, I've actually been pondering that deal too. I've been holding off on buying the 4790K + Maximus VII GENE because all the CPUs my local MC has were L3 batch units (that and my co-worker who I'm selling my 2500K system to hasn't taken it yet), and I'm tempted to just getting one of these and see how far I can take it. The main reason that I haven't is that I don't know what I would do with it once I actually do get the 4790K - I already have an i3 3225 + H77N mITX board that I have have to invent a use for (turn into a dedicated HTPC instead of just using my gaming PC that's already hooked up to the TV).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
I decided to use this cheap Pentium combo as an opportunity to hold off on buying a 4790K (since they don't seem to be universally great OCers and playing batch lottery is annoying) and just get one of them and see how far I can OC it to tide me until Haswell-E, at which point I'll revisit and either get the entry-level unlocked model of that, or continue waiting for Broadwell (or even Skylake). Since I upgraded my workstation to an i7 4770K, the lower multi-threaded CPU performance for my gaming PC won't matter too much (though Civ: Beyond Earth might change that). Will pick it up tomorrow and see where I get with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
PIcked up the G3258 combo. I don't have a decent HSF for it (still trying to decide if I want to just build the custom loop that I can use with my next proper build, or just get a basic one like an 212 EVO) so decided to see what I could get with just the stock HSF. Easily reached 4.4 @ 1.2V, but would get above 85 C almost as soon as I started Prime95. Dropped it down to 4.2 @ 1.175V, and it maxes out at about 85, so it's usable enough for the time being. I can't seem to get Speedstep to work though. Checked all the relevant settings I could find in the BIOS (EIST enabled, CPU ratio dynamic, C1E and C states enabled), but it never budges from the max frequency.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:I just read over this again and while I despise the Intel cooler it shouldn't be doing that badly at that voltage. Is it tight? I've run my 4670k pre-delid at 1.20 vcore and 4.2 with the stock cooler and was probably able to touch the 80's if I remember. But this CPU is seriously amazingly cooler running than that situation. It's on there tight. But I didn't even replace the TIM on the stock HSF. I'm going to go pick up a Cooler Master Glacer 240L (upgraded Swiftech H220) tomorrow and see where that gets me. And I still can't get SpeedStep to work, which is starting to bother me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Picked up the CM Glacer 240L, fiddled with it a bit to reverse the direction of the fans to allow me to maintain positive air pressure. Played around with the OC, and this is what I settled on: Cranking it up to 4.8 required a whole lot more voltage, which was something I wasn't willing to accept for daily use (especially since SpeedStep just does not work on this board apparently, even after I updated the BIOS and completely reset it to default settings). Even at this, under full load it gets a bit louder than I'd like (the fan control options on this board leaves something to be desired as well, and PWM control on pump speed does nothing and it stays at the max 3500RPM all the time). Whatever, it's good enough to tide me over to Haswell-E at the very least.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Also, I have to imagine anyone who follows the GPU market has to be chuckling at the idea of TSMC of all people leapfrogging Intel's process size lead, even with Apple investment.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Judging by past trends, what're the odds of a new crop of z97-compatible motherboards in the mid-to-long-term future that'd support a 4970k? I'm looking at buying a Maximus VII Gene to fit the case I've got (since it seems to be the best mATX motherboard that doesn't have a ASUS really only makes one generation of ROG boards per chipset, so unless Intel does yet another refresh of Haswell (unlikely) AND introduces a new chipset to go along with it (almost certainly will not), there will not be another Socket 1150 Maximus GENE.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 07:36
|
|
KILLER NIC
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:This, though what was their reasoning for making all those [insert badass name here]-Z boards for Z68 again? Was it just to have new stuff for the initial launch of Ivy Bridge? I remember Z77 came out really quickly afterwards. Z68 instead of P67, back when "can OC but can't use iGPU" was somehow seen as a meaningful segment differentiator. (Yes, I'm aware there are other differences, but that was the primary one, and pretty much everyone who didn't already buy a P67 board just went with a Z68 for OCing).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:How is the 5820K in single-thread performance compared to a 4790K? Basically the same at equivalent clock speeds, since it's the same architecture. The 4790K will probably reach higher clock speeds, though that's a generalization.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
The E5 1630 V3 is Haswell(-EP), the i7 4930K is Ivy Bridge(-E). The proper comparison is the i7 5930K, which is $594 compared to $586 for the same number of cores, same amount of L3, same base clockspeed, and a 100MHz faster turbo that makes good as no difference since the i7 can be OCed. Anyway, the mark-up for Xeons is actually when you get into multi-CPU models. There's no direct 2P analog to the 1630 V3, but going from E5 1680 V3 (8C, 20MB, 3.2/3.8GHz) to E5 2667 V3 (8C, 20MB, 3.2/3.6GHz) is a jump of near a grand ($1080 vs $2057). The 1P models are fairly reasonably priced for the models that have consumer version analogs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Ugh, seems like Dragon Age: Inquisition just flat out refuses to work on a dual-core machine regardless of how fast those cores may be. So my plan of just using this G3258 to tide me over until ASUS releases a mATX X99 board (which doesn't seem like it's going to happen until next year at the earliest) is coming back to bite me. Debating if I want to just pick up a 4690K for $170 and plop it into this (kinda crappy) MSI Z97 board (that came with the G3258 in the $100 bundle) and continue waiting, forget Haswell-E/X99 and just get a 4790K + ASUS Maximus Gene VII, or just get the 5820K now and settle for a "cheap" X99 board. I guess I could also get the Rampage V Extreme, but I really don't want to a full ATX motherboard... or to spend $500 on one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
While I don't necessarily *need* it, I do, in fact, want Haswell-E. This machine will be doing a decent amount of video editing and encoding in addition to gaming. And the reason why I was waiting for ASUS's ROG mATX X99 is that in my recent experience, the ROG mATX boards have pretty much been the best combination of quality components, high-end features, great overclocking capability, and also a better BIOS/UEFI than Gigabyte/ASRock/MSI. Now, that's not say that I literally would not consider any other option, but their track record meant that I definitely wanted to see what they had on offer first. And really, there's very limited options for mATX X99 right now, with the first two on market (ASRock and eVGA) both apparently having some quirks and issues. Gigabyte just announced a new one, and it may end up being my best option, but it's not widely available yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:I'm curious as to what parallel universe you imagine yourself living in where it makes even the slightest bit of sense to buy Haswell-E for your home gaming computer? Haswell-E is for workstations. Games will not run any better - a 5820K may well run them worse than a 4690K because each core is clocked lower. Even a 4790K is a complete waste of money. Just buy a 4690K, and sell the combo if you want to fund a Maximus Gene. It's not a gaming-only PC. I am well aware of what Haswell-E/X99 is and isn't, and I do have a legitimate reason to choose that. It's the same reason that I would definitively go for the 4790K over the 4690K if I just settle for Haswell/Z97. And yes, I can confirm that I bought DA:I, installed it on my current (temporary) build (G3258 + MSI Z97 + GTX 780), and that it will not load past the EA/BioWare logo video and "don't close while game is saving" message. A lot of other users are experiencing the same thing, and many (though not all) of them have less than the 4 cores the minimum system requirements lists. Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:It's also important to keep in mind that Haswell-E requires another large investment in DDR4 memory just to get started. It's not a good buy right now at all for anything. I am well aware. That was another reason why I was OK with waiting on the Rampage Gene V - I figured DDR4 prices will probably drop a bit too. BurritoJustice posted:Killer NIC on that one, forget it. poo poo, you're right, I missed that. And yes, that completely removes it from consideration - I don't have many hard and fast rules when it comes to PCs that I build, but using an Intel NIC is one of them. The Lord Bude posted:On the dragonage issue: It would be nice if that was the case, though since they explicitly listed quad-core CPU as a system requirement, it's hard to say. As for W7 compatibility mode, that didn't make any difference for me. GokieKS fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm on 8.1 And yep, tried W7 compatibility mode. Didn't make any difference.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
It's obviously not an upgrade to the 3570K (really, nothing is a meaningful upgrade over that at this point), but it's a great option for anything that doesn't require more than 2 cores, especially if you're comfortable with overclocking. HTPC, normal desktop use, even gaming, though recent games that don't work properly on systems that doesn't support 4 threads (e.g. Dragon Age) has put a bit of a damper on that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Maybe Intel Custom Foundry? I'm not sure if that would fall under any of the other groups.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
LGA 775 started with Prescott and Smithfield, which had quite possibly the worst power-efficiency of any Intel CPU in history. I think people are kidding themselves if they think the primary reason was anything but to shift the issue of damaged pin damage to MBs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
japtor posted:What are y'all thoughts on the rumor that Broadwell EP/EX is getting skipped? With how much Broadwell on desktop was delayed, it was always going to be interesting how Intel dealt with the server versions. Canceling Broadwell-EX is probably the right choice - it's better to make people wait a little longer for the major Skylake update than pissing them off by making them buy Broadwell and then release the follow-up much earlier than they expect (if they even buy it at all - people who follow their releases may well just choose to skip Broadwell anyway).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:So Broadwell is not really dead according to Intel: Yeah, the original IT World article was updated to correct the mistake - they were actually talking about Skylake not getting a -C version, at least based on Intel roadmaps so far.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
lDDQD posted:Why do people want these [5775c] for desktop, again? The integrated graphics (which you aren't going to use) takes up like half the die. Surely, you'd be better off with with that die area used to give it... I dunno, like 20 megs more cache or 4 extra cores or something? Most of the increased die is the 128MB eDRAM, which acts as a L4 cache when iGPU is disabled and leads to performance comparable or even surpassing Skylake, w/o the need for a new socket or memory type.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
IBM TrackPoints are awesome. Other company's versions were somewhat less awesome, but still better than their (until recently) extremely lovely trackpads.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Huh? All my boards the last few years had the slots themselves color-coded to indicate what channel. There's still some that don't? Most will do this. But what isn't consistent is whether you need to put the DIMMs in slots of the same or different color to get dual channel.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
Kaby Lake-X might be the most pointless CPU model I've ever seen.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2017 20:46
|
|