New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I have been doing this for a living for a very long time, way before I got involved in web hosting. I would recommend to go for a 2600K if you can get it for less, a ASUS P8Z68-V PRO Gen 3 motherboard, skip the Corsair SSD and get either Intel, Samsung, Crucial or Plextor. You will get the best performance out of DDR3 1333, and most of it is as cheap as DDR3 1066, and you haven't mentioned anything about your PSU. What kind is it?
The Corsair SSD is something he already owns. Why would he get better performance out of 1333MHz RAM over 1600MHz?
This totally depends on the ram. Increasing the clock speed of memory means you have to lower the timings. So you should be able to find 1333mhz ram with lower timings than 1600mhz. The jump from 1333mhz -> 1600mhz isn't a big performance jump, but in some cases, the latency drop could be a good performance increase, that's why a few posts up I recommended some CAS latency 7 1600mhz ram.
@Mopsy the ram you linked has some pretty bad timings. As I linked above op, if you want 16gb of ram, get these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231442
There are a lot of false statements within this post. Why shouldn't you overclock? There's nothing wrong with it, a LOT of people, incl. myself have been doing it for yearssssssssss. You get a HUGE performance jump, my 2500k is at 4.6ghz, and it's a LOT faster. Overheating issues are a non problem with an aftermarket heatsink, I'm @ 4.6ghz and I idle at 34C load around 53C w/ prime95, and 58C under linpack. The shortening lifespan fact is true. Instead of lasting say...1 5 years, your processor will only last 14.99 years
.
The unlocked processors don't include: Intel TXT, Intel VT-d and vPro. imo not a big deal for what the op wants to do with it.
I guess most important part is mainbord , saving money with cheap mobo
will degrade system, power supply is second importan part .
Strongest chipset and Power supply like Chieftec is my choice, for CPU AMD.
All other components are easy to upgrade or change. Asus and Gigabyte are
better choice for long run and thermally better then Msi and Asrock.
If we both recommended 1600MHz, then, aren't we saying the same thing?
I wouldn't say it has bad timings at all as far as DDR3 goes. Were it DDR 2 they'd be terrible. Besides that, yours are only marginally better. They are better, but, also more expensive. That's just a call for the OP to make, but, it's why I said something like it- I expect him to do his own research following up on what we've suggested.
Like what? And I'm not necessarily saying you shouldn't overclock at all, I'm saying you shouldn't overclock past what Intel recommends. The non-K CPUs can be overclocked in the BIOS, they just have a cap- one that is not unlocked, as with the Ks. The performance increase you gain between using Intel's Turbo Boost and, say, your 4.6GHz isn't very much, and it's at the expense of increased temperature and decreased lifespan, as well as a greater potential to overheat during intensive use. And oh, really, you can stop overclocking from making you overheat with an aftermarket heatsink? Funny, I don't recall seeing that in the OP's list of stuff he wanted to buy. Why not overclock even harder and just get some liquid cooling? I'm simply suggesting best practices for having a great gaming rig that he won't murder by mistreating it.
And as for your 14.99 comment, that's nonsense- it's not that negligible by any means. When you kill your CPU, don't come crying to me. :P Anyhow, you may disagree with me, but, please don't try to trivialize my points in the defense of overclocking. It's a valid point.
Maybe it is in his opinion? It's worth mentioning. Personally, the virtualization thing for me was a big deal.
@Mopsy He said DDR3 1066, not DDR3 1600. So DDR3 1333 is better than DDR3 1066.
I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about you. He replied. You said:
Considering you'd said best, I thought there was something I didn't know where 1333 could somehow turn out better than 1600.
Nope, since I'm recommending ram with much lower CAS latency.
It's still bad for DDR3, and the reason it's more expensive is I'm suggesting 16GB ram, like the OP has in his post (and the 7CAS lat ram is only like 10-15USD more than the ones he posted).
There are thousands and thousands of people that are overclocking the current generation of Intel's processor, and probably hundred's of thousands of people who overclock their processors. The performance increase is pretty big compared to turbo boost, we're talking a big different in clock speed here.
You being so anti-overclocking is because you're uninformed on the matter. I suggest you do some research before blinding saying it will kill your chip. Thankfully because of the lower TDP of the latest gen of intel chips (and because they're 32nm) you don't need liquid cooling. If we were talking about a Prescott P4, I'd suggest some liquid cooling!
It IS negligible. PLEASE RESEARCH THIS BEFORE SPEWING THIS KIND OF MISINFORMATION. I suggest you go into some of the popular overclocking forums and learn a bit. I've got an i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz for about a year now. An i7 975 @ 4.2ghz for about 2 years, and an x9000 @ 3.4ghz for for like 3.5 years. None have died (not even to mention the phones I've overclocked for years - HTC Hero, HTC G2, Samsung GSII). I suggest you look into the manufacturing process and WHY chips are clocked at where they are, and WHY the current gen i5/i7's can O/C so well.
@Mopsy As of now Kepler is a single video card (GTX 680 2GB) and Nvidia won't bring out any new cards until the current stock of 5 series (GTX 500) cards sells out, otherwise their partners get stuck with them. He didn't mention a video card, but the best bang for the buck is still the AMD HD6950 2GB, if you can find one for around $200. Also, while Iviy Bridge might be out next month, it will be expensive at first, and it's only 20% faster. He has a fixed budget, so everything won't fit in there. Anyway, I'm only trying to help.
7-7-7-21 is not "much" lower than 9-9-9-24. I do think the RAM you recommended is better, but the difference is most definitely negligible.
How is it bad? And yours is $10 more than mine, which is $10 more than his. Keep pumping more money into something, and it should get better, but, you have to put the cutoff somewhere. RAM is pretty high in its game nowadays; I don't think you'd really notice any difference in performance between the RAM you suggested and the RAM I suggested unless you were running benchmarks.
Lots of people are doing something- that must make them right!
I'm not blindly saying it. I love that your ego is so large that you assume that because I disagree with you I am uninformed. If you've got some reading material, by all means. It might change my mind- I'm open to it. Still, needing an aftermarket cooler is likely a talking point for the OP, and I doubt he'd want to go out of his way to get one not even knowing if he'll want/need to overclock.
Wouldn't it make more sense to get my information from a neutral, sourced tech article, rather than a forum for doing the thing that I think will lower your CPU's lifespan? And you were talking about the difference being .01 years out of 15. If you haven't run anything for even 4 years yet, how can you claim to know that the lifespan of these chips isn't being reduced? I would be interested in knowing "WHY" chips are clocked at the speed they are, as well as "WHY" the current gen i5s/i7s can overclock so well if that's indeed true. Again, by all means, link me to something sourced. If you're just regurgitating information you've read on an overclocking forum, then I'm not interested.
EDIT:
Ah, apologies, I thought it was a series. And yeah, I agree on best bang for his buck, but, I believe someone was talking about getting cream of the crop- the absolute current newest. I was saying that if he wanted to do that, he should just wait a month.
Yeah, I think we're all just trying to help. =]
It's a big difference, but it's okay, let's disagree on everything. Why don't we just pick him crappy ram?
Lots of people doing it without problems - means it's bad right?
Yes, it's my ego! Your argument is horrible, so why don't you start calling me an idiot, that'll probably help your argument! I'm not saying you're uninformed because you disagree with me, but because you're throwing all these claims around when you have no personal experience with overclocking. Like I said, a LOT of people overclock and have no problems. I haven't come across one person who has killed a chip because they overclocked it. If he's not interested in overclocking why is he buying an unlocked chip? Post in OP has a 2700k listed, later on he says he's decided on a 2500k. Obviously he wants to overclock, and an aftermarket cooler is important for getting the most out of the chip, he can O/C on stock, but obviously he wants to O/C regardless of cooler.
There are many informed people in the overclocking communities who have been overclocking for years (PIII days for some), they're informed. Even if you want to make that argument, show me a neutral sourced tech article saying it's bad?
How about we turn this around. YOU prove that it's bad to overclock. I've got a lot of experience overclocking, you have NONE, so why don't you prove YOUR claims, since you have zero experience in this area?
The RAM I posted isn't crappy, and that's certainly not my intention.
It's up to him which he buys, but one being better than another doesn't make the other crappy. Both are excellent, one is slightly better. You're the one that's trying to turn it into a one versus the other death-match.
That's not what I said, but, if you're resorting to that sort of logic twisting, then I don't know what to tell you.
I never called you an idiot; you seem quite knowledgable. Don't put words in my mouth. You're the one who is resorting to fallacious logic, and refusing to provide any sources for any of it. If he wants to overclock, then he does, but I at least got to advise him against it. I think a fair warning is in order. And I don't have no personal experience with it. You keep deciding things about me because I disagree with you. I've done quite a bit of research in the past, and decided that it wasn't worth the reduced lifespan for me.
Good for them. If one of them writes a sourced article involving overclocking and why it's safe, let me know. I'm not saying they're uninformed, I'm saying your source is made up of forums with posts full of users posting unverified data. Besides that, you can't say it won't reduce the lifespan of your chips, because you haven't reached those yet. There are no case studies on this because it hasn't been out that long. You simply can't be sure, and yet you are. And you try to disparage my character and my points because I disagree with you.
By the way, this last paragraph of yours right here is a common trait of fallacious logic. I ask you to provide sources for your claim, since the neutral position is to do nothing different than normal, which would be not overclocking. Instead of actually providing any, you refuse, and then challenge me to do so, as if the preponderance is somehow on me to prove it's bad. Now why would that be? Overclocking is not the neutral position. Did you go to search for such an article and come up dry? Or did you not even bother because of your fallacious logic? Besides that, though, I also have the neutral point in this argument, as you're the one who made claims challenging what I'd said.
Here's the crux of it, though. I did plenty of research on this topic when I was deciding whether or not to get an unlocked CPU myself. There are tons of interesting articles on the net if you care to look around, and plenty that extol the virtues of overclocking while admitting that it reduces the lifespan of system components. You're running it at a higher voltage; reducing the lifespan is the very nature of doing such a thing. If you want to use unverified sources like your overclocking forums, I'll be mentioning places such as Tom's hardware, where plenty of people are against the idea of overclocking, or are for it, but know they are exchanging lifespan for power. The Wikipedia article on it mentions that as well.
Besides any of this, you're getting rather animated over something innocuous, and this little debate we're having no longer seems to be in the pursuit of helping our OP here. He got his warning. If he's going to overclock, then so be it. I'm not going to be carrying this on anymore, especially not with someone who won't source any of his claims, doesn't follow the rules of logical discussion, and resorts to twisting my words and ad hominem to try to "win" this little bit.
@lele0108: Best of luck, I hope whatever you build rocks. And, I say this because of your avatar, I hope you get some good Minecrafting in with it.
Thanks. I was out for nearly the whole day, and didn't notice that this thread exploded. Here are some new updated stuff I plan on getting:
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231416&nm_mc=AFC-C8JUNCTION&cm_mmc=AFC-C8JUNCTION--EMC-032312-Leaderboard--DesktopMemory-_-20231416-L011A&PID=4176827&SID=11z6pdkd3zwuh&AID=10521304
(That's upgraded speed, thanks for those who suggested it)
CPU: i5 2500 (Most likely going to over clock it, put on some Arctic Paste :P)
MotherBoard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128512
I get this in a combo, with the CPU + MotherBoard + Another 60Gb SSD, for the same price of the CPU + Motherboard if I went with Asus. No brainer here.
Thanks for everybody who posted, rest assured, I will read every comment on this thread.
EDIT: Found out the bundled CPU is not a "k" model, so that goes down
@Kairus
RAM speed/clockspeed makes no difference and is only used to make your e-penis bigger in benchmarks. In real world applications, it barely makes a difference.
@The OP
Are you going to get a aftermarket cooler? Overclocking on the stock cooler is a big no-no.'
EDIT: And why did you switch motherboards? Sure the Gigabyte one may be good, but the ASROCK one is actually really good and is the sister company of ASUS, who make the best motherboards out there.
Most likely. I'm purchasing a basic system first, then some other stuff, like graphics cards, coolers, and additional HDDs. I'm planning on putting in Arctic Paste, so that should keep things down for the time being.
@lele0108: I believe iCores come with thermal paste already on them. Arctic paste is just a name brand- it shouldn't be any better than what Intel's got on there. I'd avoid overclocking past whatever TurboBoost is until you get an aftermarket cooler. Better safe than sorry. I'd avoid overclocking at all, in fact, if you don't need it, until you get that cooler.
EDIT: Also, if you want to overclock, I really would go for the K model. And don't get anything bundled unless they're the exact parts you want.
Arctic is actually expensive aftermarket paste made out of silver, usually lowers temp. 5-10c once put it. The iCore paste is fine, but the Arctic is better.
After much debate, I think I'm going this motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128512
@Mopsy Arctic Silver and Arctic Ceramiq are about the best mainstream thermal compounds you can get. It's not even close to the crap that stock heat sinks are smeared with from the factory. If you want better high end stuff you can always get some Shin Etsu X23 or something like that.
Don't all thermal compounds have silver in them, since it's so highly conductive? Besides that, though: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/printpage/Intel-Stock-Thermal-Compound-Review/1273
According to that, it actually looks like Intel's is the best. I'd highly advise just leaving it on there. =]
@lele0108: That is a great motherboard. It's what I have on this rig, and it's wonderful. That RAM looks good, too. Make sure you turn on XMP in the BIOS, or your RAM timings will be off, and you'll get system instability. It's kind of silly that it's not default, but, whatever.
I'm debating wether to wait for the Ivy Bridge launch or not. My current setup is perfectly fine, and waiting a month isn't so bad, I've done way worse before (Think VolumeDrive).
I heard that the Ivy Bridge was just minor improvements, so I'm not sure if it's going to be worth the wait, and probably the "out of stock" and overpriced prices when it launches.
I might lower the timing a bit, I think anything above 1333 voids the i5's warranty.
@Mopsy
http://www.arcticsilver.com/as5.htm
They say it's not.
"Not Electrically Conductive:
Arctic Silver 5 was formulated to conduct heat, not electricity.
(While much safer than electrically conductive silver and copper greases, Arctic Silver 5 should be kept away from electrical traces, pins, and leads. While it is not electrically conductive, the compound is very slightly capacitive and could potentially cause problems if it bridges two close-proximity electrical paths.)"
Anyway, if you are slopping thermal paste all over, to the point that it is all over the traces, etc then I think you need to buy a pre-built PC.
You'll see a 1-2C drop, 5-10C is WAY exaggerated (so they could get more sales). There are better pastes out there.
Check out http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/268354-29-thermal-compound-roundup-2011
Like @toratekdotnet said, it's really hard to accurately bench this, it all depends on how well it was seated.
@Mopsy Tests like that are meaningless, because it depends on so many factors, including how they cleaned the original compound off the heat sink, how they applied the new compound and so on. How you do all that can have an impact of as much as a delta of 5C. But I agree, just leave the original stuff on there if you don't want to mess with it.
For what it's worth, that motherboard says it has support for 22nm CPUs. I can't personally vouch for that since I don't have an Ivy Bridge, but, I doubt they'd lie. Keep in mind though, as has been mentioned before: they will likely be quite expensive. You'd likely get more bang for your buck with the second gen sandy bridges. If you want the absolute best, though, and you have the budget, then sure, wait for the Ivy Bridge.
Stock, Pricing, and Driver Problems are my main worries, and I don't want to pull of a BuyVM again (Getting up super early, :O, DDOS, No stock when I come back)
What's your budget? You're probably best just buying the build now, or waiting until Ivy Bridge releases and hope the SB stuff drops in prices.
Everything I'm buying is pretty much on sale, until the the end of the month.
I've got around <$700 in cash right now, and be able to pull up another $300 to put in around $1,000 for the Graphics, HDD, and other stuffs.
Definitely pull the trigger now then and buy the stuff on sale. The Ivy Bridge stuff is going to be real expensive.
Loading my bullets. Just waiting for a few more LowEndBox suggestions, and finish reading the first page before I start purchasing stuff.