Yay! This is a good change. It looks much more modern and slick, and I love the faster load times.
It will definitely take getting used to, and some of the placement seems strange, but I'll trust Phil on this one rather than my own habits.
I've never seen a website release a major change without many initial user complaints, but the complaints stop eventually as people realize that for the most part it is much better. So call me a hippie, but I support progress. Keep up the good work!
There's always somewhere up to go... Having the base hardware to load a better GPU doesn't create the need for more graphics processing. The processing and RAM is needed for his work, the graphics are not.
I think the step up program still requires you to pay the price difference between what you bought and the new product. If it's the same price, it would probably be worthwhile, but only if he was willing to put in the time to rework it.
See the "Other" section:
So I did check, and it's only a couple millimeters, but I do also have the cable space. I also checked Thermaltake's website for you, and they say they support coolers up to 185 mm tall, and the Phanteks is 171 mm tall according to their website. My case is rated to support up to 170 mm, so there's apparently just a hair of fudge in that number, but you should be fine with it.
That's right, dedicated electronics!
No doubt any i7 would beat this with a single thread, but with 8 cores it can match quite a number of them. Thanks!
Thanks! That's what it's there for!
Thanks. Yeah, the back was tough because I opted to use the fan controller and mount the SSD behind the motherboard tray, which took 2 extra cables. I did clean it up a bit after I took the photo though.
I'll have to look more closely at home, but I think it's just a few millimeters. Does PCPP Show an incompatibility with your case? If that or another big cooler like Noctua NH-D15 or be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 flags it, then it's a no go, but otherwise you're probably good, since that's in the compatibility filter with mainstream cases and coolers.
Is the extrusion you're talking about the space for cables behind the motherboard? Mine has that too. What case is it?
Thanks! That's exactly why I went with air - just the extra peace of mind. I really believe that most AIOs are well-built and safe, but the fact is that an air cooler just can't dump water on your electronics! With the dual-tower design, this should probably still be a decent cooler even if the fans were to give out.
Thank you very much!
The next step lower for CPU would have been to decrease the number of cores. When I load up with parallelized scripts, those extra cores come in handy, which is what I was going for. I get the stock cooling opinion though, I could have saved, but wanted the option to overclock safely.
It's not bothersome, not, but if I'm listening to something I do have to turn the volume up a bit. I don't use included hardware for speed control, I just use the motherboard PWM. Does that help?
It's hard to compare, since it's my first non-stock cooler. It's quiter than all of those at full speed, and really quiet at low speed, so I'm happy with it, but it definitely isn't silent. It's just the sound of rushing air, though, the bearings are noiseless. I would recommend it, but I can't actually say whether it would be quieter.
I did start with multipliers, then tried some FSB tweaking, but in the end, I needed to start using it for work so I went with the simple, stable multiplier OC. Thanks again for the advice.
Yeah I'll definitely watch for deals when the time comes. For now, this is a working resolution I'm pretty used to. More real estate is nice though.
I tried a few times... The time before I used way too little, and not enough left to try again, so I just had to go for it. I'll do better next time, but I'm happy with the temperature.
Thanks for reading!
Thank you, and thanks for reading the write-up! I didn't try underclocking the RAM, but that makes sense... I'll make sure to do that next time I am tuning.
Ha, yeah, I suppose it is!
Thanks! The first retry, I used way too little paste, so for my last try I had to get it right because I was running out. I'm happy with the temps, and couldn't find any oozing out, but next time I'll try and optimize a bit more.
I wanted to make sure I got to the corners. I think it worked really well!
I bought it surplus. I had been saving for the tower, and couldn't afford a 1080p monitor right away. It's just to get up and running, eventually I'll do better, but this is good enough for me to work on.
In the non-windowed version, it wouldn't matter. Since I have the tower to my right so I can look in, I should be able to swing the door away and see in from where I sit. It's the same hindrance you describe. It's not a big deal, especially considering that I only open it to put in a disc or change the fan speed, neither of which is common. They fixed it in the R5 update.
2x4 does have a slight advantage, as it runs dual channel. getting 2 1x8 sticks does not have the advantage, since the sticks aren't optimized to work together. My recommendation would be to get the RAM you need all at once, and get it in 2 sticks.
The upgrade from the 8320 to 8350 is not significant, you could save yourself the money and get all the same performance by overclocking the 8320, since they are quite literally the same piece of hardware. Just invest in a cooler.
If you have lots of processes/threads at once for scientific/server/rendering/high performance computing/professional work, then you want the Xeon. If you run VMs for non-professional activities, the i7 is the right choice.
A note on hyperthreading: an extra physical core beats a hyperthreaded core every time, always.
It looks like it is a quality piece, I think XFX has Seasonic build their power supplies. Still, even with OPP and a max power output high enough to meet the needs of your system (I note that the power estimate is lower than the rated output, but with a factory OC on the GPU and your OC of the i7, who knows), it's still quite dangerous to trust it to deliver more than the rated power. You should get a power meter and verify that you aren't exceeding the rating, because if you do, the electronics inside the PSU could wear out much faster and you might have a problem. At least since it's a quality unit, you're more likely to just have the PSU quietly die than components be damaged, but it certainly wouldn't do the rest of the rig any good either.
The "overclocked 8320" argument: a 9590 is the same chip as the 8320/8350/8370 with a factory overclock. So, I came up with a way to make a sensible comparison between the i7 line and the FX-8xxx line, but it's only sensible if you look at your specific application and how each might perform in that type of computing.
Rather than choosing two similarly-aged processors, I choose two unlocked CPUs with the same stock clock: The FX-8350 and i7-4790K @ 4.0 GHz, both capable of 8 threads. Now we go to passmark.com. In the general comparison, it's a score of about 9000 to a score of about 11200. Price-to-performance, we have 9000/$160 ~ 56 points per dollar for the 8350, vs. 11200/$320 ~ 35 points per dollar for the 4790K.
Now we look at a more specific usage: when would you consistently use all that power? Highly-threaded computing. It turns out that while AMD has a lower IPC, which is why it loses the single-threaded race against Intel, it puts more cache in the processor. Cache is the first memory available to access the CPU. It's right on the die, and doesn't need to be routed through the motherboard chipset for access, so more of this means more available instructions before the processor bottlenecks itself to the memory access rate. The FX-8xxx/9xxx chip has 4x64 + 8x16 kB L1 cache, vs 4x32 + 4x32 for the i7. L2 cache is much better for AMD: 4x2 MB vs 4x256 KB. L3 cache is the same at 1x8MB. Since the FX has more cache available per core, in applications using repeated operations on the same pieces of data (rendering, scientific computing, etc.) it will last longer before reaching its cache bottleneck. It's pretty neat to see the cutoff, I wrote a simple benchmark program a couple years ago and ran it on a few different machines - you can clearly see where the bottlenecks happen at each cache level. So, more individual and shared resources per processor core are advantageous in this specific type of application. You want to run benchmarks that evaluate the performance of your processor for your application, because in the general case, the i7 series will win.
Now let's see how each processor would perform in theory if loaded with 8 independent threads. First, let's talk about threading for a minute. AMD does not multi-thread their cores, so they have a simple case. The i3 and i7 line of processors have hyperthreading, so when the processor might otherwise be idle, say, waiting for some bits to be retrieved from storage, the controller contains logic to load the same core with a separate, independent thread. This secondary thread is limited to sharing the unused resources of the same core. If the primary thread hasn't used much cache, the secondary thread can take advantage of that. If the core resources are used up though, the secondary thread has to go elsewhere. If both threads end up waiting for things, the logic controller ends up switching threads more often and the overall performance can actually go down in some instances, rather than up. Tomshardware tested the i7 when it came out for the hyperthreading boost. The games and some other programs tested actually did suffer in overall performance, while others showed quite a significant benefit, let's call it 25%. I read somewhere else a more recent test that said benefits could be up to about "a third of a core," or a 30-33% boost due to hyperthreading let's keep this in mind.
So back to passmark, we look at the single-threaded performance of each processor, and we see scores of ~1500 vs ~2500, or a ratio of 5/3. Let's say each processor is running 8 independent threads. We'll compare the 4790k to the 8350 in terms of "effective 8350 cores." The 8350 running 8 threads of course scores 8 "effective cores." The i7 we calculate like this: 4 real threads * 5/3 performance ratio + 4 hyperthreads * 5/3 performance ratio * 1/3 core effect = 8.89 "effective 8350 cores", or an 11% advantage over the 8350, for twice the price.
Let's do the same thing for the 9590: 8 real cores * 17/15 performance ratio = 9.07 "effective 8350 cores." This means that in theory, if we fully load these processors to the effect that all of their resources are fully utilized, the 9590 can match and even slightly outdo the 4790k, for $100 less.
CAVEAT: This is a semi-theoretical comparison, and based on a specific loading case. It's clear to everyone, including me, that in general computing, the i7 wins every battle, but I'm providing a set of specific cases where the AMD chip can have an advantage. That said, we were being generous to the i7, since we gave the secondary threads the most optimistic performance possible, and ignored the fact that it has less cache resources than the FX chip, so it would hit its bottleneck sooner if loaded with the same threads (also, we acknowledge that even with the same cache, the i7 would hit its bottleneck sooner because of its higher IPC vs. FX, which is a good acknowledgement for the i7).
Now we look at TDP. The only way to max out heat is by using all of your core resources, which means the processor is fully loaded. In the case of the i7, it doesn't matter if it's hyperthreaded, it has the same limit. If you want to look at TDP per core, it's easy to see that AMD wins by a little bit here. If you want to look at energy costs over the long term, the i7 wins, in the case that both processors have all cores active and loaded often enough that that makes the difference.
AMD gives you dedicated cores and more core resources, with a higher energy efficiency per core. Intel gives you hyperthreading, and a much higher IPC, so for single-threaded (general use) applications, it wins every time. As for me? I do the multi-threaded stuff, so I went with an 8320 with the intent to overclock it and so match the stock 4790k performance, which would happen around 4.3-4.4 GHz.
If you want to spend as little as possible and avoid an APU, shop for a Pentium G2358 or AMD FX-4300. Whichever way you go, you have an unlocked processor that you would probably want to overclock for best gaming performance. You don't need an i3/i5, they are expensive and give little extra advantage, since games usually concern themselves with single-threaded performance more than multiple cores. So, don't listen to the people saying FX-8320/8350 either.
I disagree with the 8320. I just ordered one for a highly-threaded computing machine, but most games still don't take advantage of multiple core counts. For a low budget, a 4300 or 6300 would be a better choice. For that matter, the Intel Pentium G6358 is good for low-budget gaming.
Increase RAM frequency does have an advantage, but there is a huge price jump after DDR3-2400. You if you sacrifice 400 MHz (200 MHz clock) you could save $700. You can always overclock your memory. Heck, you could buy 3 or 4 2400 kits and do your own OC binning to find the best for $1000 (not that it would solve your problem of overpriced RAM).
And essentially, yes: XMP can optimize to your system, but the best results will be had with an overclocked processor. You're risking $700 hoping that XMP might get you there without an OC. I doubt it will.
As an extra note, it doesn't look like there are even any 2400 kits that run at your rated voltage. You need 2133, or an OC'd processor.
I'm not super experienced with graphics cards, but I think you'll be fine at 1080p. A good cooler to go with would be a Hyper 212 Evo, it's a great deal for basic aftermarket cooling.
Cable management is tough with a non-modular power supply, but you might put in a bit more effort in that area.
600 W should be fine, as far as size goes. I would recommend a unit manufactured by Seasonic or Super flower, under brands like EVGA, Antec, and XFX.
Can't go wrong with EVGA, they are a leading brand in power supplies. At 384 watts + OC + future upgrades, 750 watts is the right size. Do consider the 750 W G2, but the B model will serve yoiu well. Both models have been reviewed at jonnyguru.com
67% capacity at load is not complete overkill - it's in a good spot of the efficiency curve for power supplies, which typically peaks around 50%. Not fully loading the power supply helps it last.
Wow, with another 295X2 card, you'll be looking at a Corsair AX1500i PSU. No doubt you like the brand already. Also, for a full load on that card, that is a pretty good temperature to have.
Question - what do you not like about the H100i?
68 definitely beats 80.
Agreed, use the 990FX chipset for future options.
I'm planning a build with the 8320, and I've got the ASRock 990FX Killer, a good board that's very gamer-oriented. The ASRock 990FX Extreme series is also good, but more expensive than the killer, for possibly not much more advantage. Asus has several good options. The 990FX Killer also has the M.2 slot for faster-than-SATA SSD storage, if that's useful to you.
Get the 2133 CAS 9. It's cheaper, and you can change the timings in the BIOS if you want it to match the other.
It's true that you almost certainly won't notice a difference, but in case you're interested...
Memory clock rates are doubled, so the 1866 has a 933 MHz clock, and the 2133 has a 1066 clock. The 1866 will have a clock period of 1.07 ns, while the 2133 will have a clock period of 0.94 ns. Thus applying the CAS, you're looking at access times (under certain conditions) of 8.57 ns for the 1866 vs 8.44 ns for the 2133, so the 2133 is technically just a hair faster. If you fully loaded the ram for ~65 seconds (probably not an easy feat), the 2133 would shave off 1 second of that time.
For an inexpensive computer, you can try an AMD A8 or A10 series APU, or an Intel i3. Both will have integrated graphics to save the budget, and it is likely that the AMD option will save money while still doing great at office-style tasks.
For high-end gaming, you want an Intel processor like the i5-4690K, though AMD can probably keep up if overclocked well (thus saving money); look at the AMD FX-6300 for that. Look at some of the many high-end gaming builds on this site.
Cables look clean even in the nether parts of the case! I also like that the PSU provides good peak efficiency + insurance against aging.
Haha, glad it helped. If you're looking at the kind of loading in the LinusTechTips video, having various unrelated tasks, the 4790K is probably the way to go, like you're thinking. The 8350 would be more competitive in consistent loading, such as in a machine used mostly for rendering or scientific computing.
Just checked out your new build then found this - I was really surprised that you took of the processor shield to paste it up. Now I'm wondering, did you compare temperatures before and after that step, and did you see improvement? I love to see unique things like that, so +1.
Gotcha. Thanks for the response.
You'll find a few dual-socket motherboards on here with the LGA2011 socket. What's your application, and does it justify the extra cost over just one highly-threaded processor?