Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, JustAnEngineer
Diplomacy42 wrote:are you looking for a cube, an xbone or a vcr type profile?
Diplomacy42 wrote:are you looking for a cube, an xbone or a vcr type profile?
honestly, I wouldn't get the k chip, btw. not worth it for the extra 200 mhz. there are good deals on non-k chips.
Airmantharp wrote:Diplomacy42 wrote:are you looking for a cube, an xbone or a vcr type profile?
honestly, I wouldn't get the k chip, btw. not worth it for the extra 200 mhz. there are good deals on non-k chips.
This is lunacy; probably why no one else has mentioned it. Do you know what forum you are posting on?
Pax-UX wrote:@Chrispy_ That Fractal Arc Mini looks nice, but am pretty sure the internal drives will be in the way of the GFX card. Had the same problem with a Gigabyte case.
Chrispy_ wrote:Pax-UX wrote:@Chrispy_ That Fractal Arc Mini looks nice, but am pretty sure the internal drives will be in the way of the GFX card. Had the same problem with a Gigabyte case.
If you are are seriously interested in the Arc Mini, the drive cage is split in two, the top three drive bays can be taken out to give longer cards more space.
Pax-UX wrote:CPU: Intel Core i7-4770K
Pax-UX wrote:1x 150GB Raptor (TEMP/Pagefile/Dump)
Pax-UX wrote:PSU: >650w What to get? needs to be compatible with Haswell power stuff
Chrispy_ wrote:Airmantharp wrote:Diplomacy42 wrote:are you looking for a cube, an xbone or a vcr type profile?
honestly, I wouldn't get the k chip, btw. not worth it for the extra 200 mhz. there are good deals on non-k chips.
This is lunacy; probably why no one else has mentioned it. Do you know what forum you are posting on?
Uh, exactly.
Even in a small gaming case with a mediocre air cooler, Haswell still overclocks above 4GHz, pretty much guaranteed. Unlike Ivy and definitely unlike Sandy, Haswell starts to need extra voltage and cooling at anything north of 4.4 based on various early reports from forums here, at Anand, THG (shudder), [H] and Bit-Tech.
So, if 4.3 BASE clock is a reasonable expectation whilst maintaining sensible voltages, temperatures and noise levels, why would you settle for 3.4GHz? The only advantage to non-K is vPro and VT-d which are no use for gaming whatsoever.
The useful thing for gaming is definitely clockspeed - because that is your limiting factor on the (typically) single thread bottlenecking the game engine, and also the reason that higher-clocked Bulldozer/Piledriver dual-module/quad-core processors like the FX4350 massively outperform their lower-clocked quad-module/eight-core siblings in games.
Pax-UX wrote:I normally buy high end stuff, that way I do a refresh about every 2 years, sometimes skipping a Gen.
Pax-UX wrote:Here's how someone solved that problem:That SG04-FH is small, it's a pity the PSU goes over CPU, otherwise that would be an awesome case.
Airmantharp wrote:Show me some metric that shows that games are CPU bound these days and I'll beleive what you say. See TR's ground-breaking latency test as an example.This is the BS spewed by someone that only reads reviews, and then doesn't really understand what benchmarks actually mean.
*Bold is my emphasisAlthough it might not seem so since four of the five CPUs tested average 60 FPS or higher, Crysis 3 is actually a fairly CPU-intensive game, at least in spots. The biggest frame time spikes in the plots above happen at the two places where I unleash an exploding arrow at the bad guys. Those spikes tend to be larger on the slower processors. The Core i7-4770K isn't much faster than the 2600K or 3770K, but it does reduce the duration of the slowdowns encountered with every one of the CPUs. Trouble is, the differences are really small.
Pax-UX wrote:Mobo: Asus GRYPHON Z87 S1150 or Gigabyte Z87MX-D3H or Need some advice
Sound: Not sure what to do; Good on board will do me, or if it's small and fits into the case; then a good cheap card.
The somewhat finicky nature of ASRock's software and firmware make me hesitant to recommend the Z87E-ITX to newbies—the overall experience isn't what I'd call user-friendly. However, the mix of hardware and features is spot-on for an enthusiast-grade Mini-ITX board. And, if you know what you're doing, the firmware is powerful enough for serious system tuning. For discerning PC fans, this looks like the Mini-ITX Haswell board to beat
Losergamer04 wrote:Airmantharp wrote:Show me some metric that shows that games are CPU bound these days and I'll beleive what you say. See TR's ground-breaking latency test as an example.This is the BS spewed by someone that only reads reviews, and then doesn't really understand what benchmarks actually mean.
http://techreport.com/review/24879/inte ... reviewed/9*Bold is my emphasisAlthough it might not seem so since four of the five CPUs tested average 60 FPS or higher, Crysis 3 is actually a fairly CPU-intensive game, at least in spots. The biggest frame time spikes in the plots above happen at the two places where I unleash an exploding arrow at the bad guys. Those spikes tend to be larger on the slower processors. The Core i7-4770K isn't much faster than the 2600K or 3770K, but it does reduce the duration of the slowdowns encountered with every one of the CPUs. Trouble is, the differences are really small.
Yeah, I don't play the latest games, but I find TR to be a reputible source of information.
I bring up VM's as an issue because many of us are IT focused and may want to train on a VM at home (I have) and the lack of VT-d is an often over-looked feature. Judging by the fact the individual buys new hardware every ~2 years, OC, I would think, is not a high priority. It turns out the individual has a plan for VM's but using old hardware that has VT-d. I still think, however, since it's mini-ITX there won't be a lot of OC unless more exotic cooling is used. But that's my opinion, which they asked for, and what ever makes them happy is fine by me.
+1 for modular PSU and Gold Rating. I've also seen PSUs fail and kill motherboards and other parts, so a high-quality unit is a high priority IMO.
Airmantharp wrote:Also, please don't ask for 'numbers' to justify a subjective 'experience' metric. You don't benchmark 'playability', you experience it (or you don't). If you want to discuss it, bring your own examples; mine will be BF3 Multiplayer, and the reality is, from experience, that you need clockspeed. Period.
flip-mode wrote:Airmantharp wrote:Also, please don't ask for 'numbers' to justify a subjective 'experience' metric. You don't benchmark 'playability', you experience it (or you don't). If you want to discuss it, bring your own examples; mine will be BF3 Multiplayer, and the reality is, from experience, that you need clockspeed. Period.
Heh, that's problematic. All I need to counter your experience is to claim an experience of my own. I rather lean on hard numbers whenever possible. TR's latency-based testing does an excellent job of benchmarking "the experience". Having said that, the shortcoming of any benchmark exercise is that it absolutely must limit the testing in order to complete the task, so not all games, levels, and scenarios can be benched.
Pax-UX wrote:Looking to build a new system, needs to be very small
Pax-UX wrote:This is purely a gaming rig
JustAnEngineer wrote:Pax-UX wrote:Here's how someone solved that problem:That SG04-FH is small, it's a pity the PSU goes over CPU, otherwise that would be an awesome case.
http://www.slideshare.net/MLROlson/silv ... -matx-case
Silverstone recommends the NT06-E.
End User wrote:I'm a fan of SFF (my primary setup is a 2012 Mac mini) but for gaming I focus on good airflow and that means a good mid-tower case.