Building a new flying machine... could use any advice

[Speed]

Hey guys

I don't keep up to date with PC hardware. I really haven't educated myself too well on it either.

 

I was curious if any of you guys would be kind enough to solicit me some advice? I'm trying to build a pretty darn nice machine. This will be an all-new system, using nothing from my old computer, which I intend to keep around and operational for quite some time yet. Here is what I want out of the new machine:

 

Good processor (I feel like the i7-2700k is what I want);

 

Good mobo that supports overclocking to at least 4GHz without putting much strain on the processor, and has lots of USB ports (do they need to be USB 3.0 ports, or is 2.0 good enough?);

 

Good video card (no more than $400) (currently, I have selected the GTX 570);

 

16-32 GB of RAM;

 

GOOD RAM;

 

>= 750GB hard disk drive;

>= 60GB Solid state drive;

 

A cheap, utilitarian case. No smoke. No lights. No retarded alien faces. Just a nondescript looking case that has lots of places for fans to go :)

 

Good cooling- I would like something better than just the default CPU fan. I may also look at cooling my graphics card with 3rd party coolers too. The twin turbo pro I got for my current HD5850 is awesomely quiet and effective.

 

Anyway, the biggest thing holding me up right now is selecting a motherboard and RAM. I really know next to nothing about mobos and RAM, and there seem to be a lot of choices. Anyone got any suggestions?

 

Thanks for any advice that can be given!

Edited November 21, 2011 by Speed

[EtherealN]

On processor, I don't really feel the 2700K adds much compared to 2600K - not if you are overclocking anyway. 2500K is better value if money is an object - you won't notice much practical difference in DCS between the three.

 

For mobos, I'd probably suggest an ASUS Z68, I'm slightly out of the loop on their new boards though, would have to dig through a couple to get a feel for it - will try to get some spare time for that. You get USB3 on pretty much anything that's quality anyhow, so that's a moot question, tbh.

 

GTX570 is a good card, nice value. I still feel the 560Ti is better value, but the 570 gives better margins - especially on vRAM - for those who want to put down the money.

 

RAM... I dunno. Do you have a specific need for such a high amount? (F.ex running RAMdisk?) Otherwise I'd probably say something like a kit of two 4GB Corsair Vengeance 1.5v units or something similar.

[Speed]

Eth, since I'm tired of never seeing more than 20 frames per second, I REALLY don't want to go easy on the processor. An i7-2700k is only $370 or so. I'll gladly pay the extra money because I'm so damn sick of having shitty performance in DCS.

 

As far as RAM goes- I didn't have any specific high RAM usage application in mind. All I know is that when I buy a computer with the "recommended" amount of RAM, it has NEVER proven to be enough. I have always had to upgrade it. This happened at least twice to me. Now, I always buy computers with around twice as much RAM as recommended. For example, my current flying machine I bought in early 2009, and I got it with 8GB of RAM. I am very happy I did, as the "recommended" amount was only 4GB back then, and that is not enough, IMO. I would have had to upgrade it by now. Of course, it doesn't take much effort to upgrade a computer with more RAM, but I'd rather just buy a computer with twice the recommended amount of RAM and never have to upgrade it at all. I'll reap the rewards of having ample amounts of RAM the entire time I own the computer, as well.

 

I'll look up this Corsair vengeance stuff you speak of. Corsair makes good RAM?

[Speed]

Ok, here's an example of the kind of stuff that concerns me, as it shows to me I am too ignorant to make informed decisions on this stuff, and it makes me worried I am going to #@$$ this up. Now I am reading mention of things like "dual channel" and "quad channel" memory. I know nothing about that kind of stuff, and I'm worried that I could do something like buy quad channel memory but get a mobo that only supports dual channel, you know, something like that. Picking the right mobo and memory is very confusing.

[sobek]

Eth, since I'm tired of never seeing more than 20 frames per second, I REALLY don't want to go easy on the processor. An i7-2700k is only $370 or so. I'll gladly pay the extra money because I'm so damn sick of having shitty performance in DCS.

 

The point is that you are paying the premium without getting anything out of it, the single core performance is practically the same as for the 2600k. The only time where the lga2011 systems will really do something for you is in cases where you are pounding the memory bus like crazy.

 

The difference in memory is just the number of modules, for quad channel, you want the memory to be spread over 4 modules, for dual channel over 2.

[Speed]

The point is that you are paying the premium without getting anything out of it, the single core performance is practically the same as for the 2600k. The only time where the lga2011 systems will really do something for you is in cases where you are pounding the memory bus like crazy.

 

And what about multicore performance? This system isn't JUST for flying. It will be used for many other things as well. It does appear to me that the 2700k's only difference is 100MHz of clock speed, so I would think it's simply just a little bit faster than the 2600k. Also, I believe both the 2700k and the 2600k use the same socket, LGA 1155.

 

Besides, again, I'll gladly pay premium for this kind of thing. I believe that the 2700k is only like $50 more than the 2600k. That amount of money is completely irrelevant to me on such a vital component as the CPU. I want to get the best "value" processor there is.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Speed

[Speed]

Here's some of the ASUS Z68 boards such as Ethereal recommended

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=ASUS+Z68&x=0&y=0

 

My god there's a lot of choices. Any particular that stand out there?

 

And why do these boards specify stuff like "DDR 2200 (O.C.)"? That means I have to overclock the motherboard in order to get that kind of speed out of my RAM?!

[EtherealN]

And what about multicore performance? This system isn't JUST for flying. It will be used for many other things as well. It does appear to me that the 2700k's only difference is 100MHz of clock speed, so I would think it's simply just a little bit faster than the 2600k. Also, I believe both the 2700k and the 2600k use the same socket, LGA 1155.

 

The issue is that since you would be overclocking (if I understood you right), I don't think you'll get anything better out of the 2700. Though of course, if you have the money. :)

 

And yeah, multithread operation (video encoding, f.ex) would be better on the i7's. But DCS wouldn't. Though the "value" consideration is exactly what I'm worrying about. 50 dollars for 100MHz is a case of "meh", especially since they (as far as I have seen) run into exactly the same voltage wall when overclocking. So after OCing, that 2700 will run at exactly the same speed, on exactly the same configuration, as the 2600. (Caveat there though is that the tests I've seen have been with pre-fab samples, so they might have become better by now, but I personally wouldn't bet 50 dollars on it since it's essentially exactly the same silicon, but they tweaked the defaults and then re-labeled it.)

 

The "OC" thing on the RAM speed specification is basically because the 1155 chipset officially only supports 1333. Anything above that is, according to Intel, an "overclock". The only real symptom is that the first time you boot the machine the RAM sticks will probably default to 1333, and you'll set them to your desired speed in the BIOS. So for example, my 1600MHz Corsair sticks are considered overclocked even though that's what they're made to do. Just an Intel quirkiness. (EDIT: I see they have removed the "OC" from 1600 sticks there. Will have to check if they changed the spec for the Z68 chipset.)

Edited November 21, 2011 by EtherealN

[EtherealN]

On the mobos:

 

For a standard ATX chassis, this is the "best you get": http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131760

The perks are not worth the money though, in my optinion. If you get this one, make sure the chassis supports E-ATX boards.

 

I'd recommend this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131753

 

Good x16 PCIe slots in case you ever decide to go SLI or get yourself an x16 expansion card of any type.

Edited November 21, 2011 by EtherealN

[Speed]

Eh, maybe I should just consider a 2600k then. I'll think about it. But I do A LOT more than just DCS, and I need a good computer for other things too, and furthermore, you never know when ED will buckle down and more adequately utilize multi core programming. This computer will likely be running ED programs for at least the next three years.

 

As far as those two motherboards, do you understand what the extra perks are in the better one?

Edited November 21, 2011 by Speed

[EtherealN]

Eh, maybe I should just consider a 2600k then. I'll think about it. But I do A LOT more than just DCS, and I need a good computer for other things too.

 

Dig around a bit for reviews - the 2700K is relatively new on the market so it's hard to find solid data though. A lot of the comparison-style tests (as opposed to proper reviews) use actual 2600K's to simulate the 2700K, which Intel reps didn't mind at all.

 

As far as those two motherboards, do you understand what the extra perks are in the better one?

 

Those perks are mainly geared at the "extreme overclocker" type crowd. Has features such as letting you govern it's OC from a laptop or smartphone, exporting it's monitoring data to those devices and such silliness. I also think they have a bit more on-the-board options where you can control things without having the board hooked to a computer chassis - again, the extreme overclocking thing.

 

You can find the details here: http://rog.asus.com/products/Motherboards/Maximus_IV_Extreme-Z.htm

 

You'll get a 2600K or 2700K to 4.8-5 GHz with lesser boards as long as you have the appropriate cooling. (And as long as you're not unlucky and the specific chip you get is flawed. That might be the one reason to go for a 2700K actually - should be slightly better odds of getting the best binning. Still not sure I consider it worth the extra cash, but I guess it's something to consider.) The features on this thing is just overkill. Component quality might be a bit better, but the other one has very fine components as well and really all the features for OCing that you are likely to use. It has more than my board. :P

 

(Though I don't overclock much anymore, my system mostly runs stock except for more liberal turbo-boost - it boosts all cores all the way to 3.8GHz instead of just one, and the 4.4GHz in my sig is what it does when I tell it to do it automatically. It can do more if I bother with it.)

Edited November 22, 2011 by EtherealN

[Wichid]

I use a corsair all in one water cooler and overclock my slightly older i7.Right now I've stepped back to 3.9Ghz since it was occasionally bluescreening. I don't think I worked out the power settings properly.

[Username455]

Just some input if you'd like an awesome machine without needing to spend top dollar for parts..

 

I built two i5 2500k machines (quad core btw, just no hyperthreading but I have no use for that) and overclocked them to 4.5ghz EASY. I mean 1 click and never look back easy. I could probably go to 5ghz if I felt like messing around with voltages and such. Put in GTX 570, 8gb 1333 ram (gskill brand I think), 750gb hdd, win7 64bit. What do you want it to run? It will run it.

 

Battlefield 3 runs at 60fps and up on high/ultra settings

 

DCS runs at 70fps and up at absolute max settings

 

So while the i7 might sound cool, definitely not necessary (for gaming). Just some of my advice. And as far as motherboards go, as long as it has enough slots for your cards and the correct socket for your CPU, all the other stuff is just gravy.

[Speed]

Hmm.. I like the mobo you linked Ethereal, but I noticed this board was just a bit more, and has PCI express 3.0:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131791

 

it looks like pretty much the same thing as the one you suggested (linking again for comparison):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131753

 

Is there any use to that, getting PCI express 3.0? Are any cards out there already for it? Future-proofing, right?

 

Also, is this good memory to go with it?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231473

 

I also notice that all of these boards are only dual channel memory. What the hell happened to triple channel and quad channel?!

[sobek]

Also, I believe both the 2700k and the 2600k use the same socket, LGA 1155.

 

Yes, you are correct, that was a brainfart on my part

 

Hmm.. I like the mobo you linked Ethereal, but I noticed this board was just a bit more, and has PCI express 3.0:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131791

 

it looks like pretty much the same thing as the one you suggested (linking again for comparison):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131753

 

Is there any use to that, getting PCI express 3.0? Are any cards out there already for it? Future-proofing, right?

 

The GEN3 tagged boards are exactly the same, but they support pcie 3.0. The thing is though, that the PCIe controller sits on the CPU, so unless you have an Ivy Bridge CPU, you will have PCIe2. The price difference here in Austria is about 10€, so i'd say get the GEN3 if you ever upgrade to an Ivy Bridge once they come out. There are no GCards that support PCIe 3 yet.

 

I'd say the memory is a bit overkill. If you get 1600 memory, you'll be in the sweet spot, as the CPU performance scales rather bad with memory speed in most applications (there are exceptions, of course).

Edited November 22, 2011 by sobek

[EtherealN]

Agreed with Sobek on the RAM - those modules are plain overkill. I've never seen any difference in performance with RAM clock speeds in my own tests, and in the tests I've seen there have been very very few applications that cared - limited to certain extremely specialized scientific applications. Those sticks are pretty much extra money to the manufacturer for no gain to you.

 

Regarding dual/triple/quad channel memory, the 1155 socket technically replaces the 1156, so dual channel is where it goes. The 2011 socket and Sandy-Bride E's that are entering the market are the quad channel ones, replacing the triple-channel 1366. Generally though, you won't see that much of an impact in desktop-type workloads. It really is a workstation/server type feature. Indeed, with a 2600K I haven't been able to find any statistically certain difference between single- and dual-channel operation for anything that I do with my computer, including some rendering tests.

 

On PCIe3, there might be coming graphics cards that support it with the next generation, but information on that is scarce, and as Sobek notes you'll be running those as if they are PCIe2 anyway until you put an Ivy Bridge in there. Right now it's only a future-proofing thing. (Possible exception though if the board itself houses an additional PCIe controller, but in that case you lose the latency benefits of having the controller inside the CPU.) Good future-proofing option though.

[sobek]

Indeed, with a 2600K I haven't been able to find any statistically certain difference between single- and dual-channel operation for anything that I do with my computer, including some rendering tests.

 

You'd probably have to run instructions that are too big for the CPU cache, i can't think of other ways to beat the memory bus hard enough to max it out.

[Speed]

Ah, so unless I buy a new processor in the future as well as making an upgrade to a PCIe 3.0 card, then I won't be able to make any use of the PCIe 3.0 slot? I only upgrade my system every 2-3 years, so the state of the art for even value processors will probably be well past LGA 1155 by that time as I understand things. Doesn't sound like I should worry about the PCIe 3.0 slot then. Unless you guys think otherwise....

 

Sounds like the original board you suggested really is the one I wanna go with.

 

I didn't know that about the memory though. I guess I might have to get the 1600.

 

OK, next selection phase:

 

Which SSD do you guys think is better:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820249012

 

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227706

 

The first one is slightly cheaper and larger in capacity, but the MTBF is significantly shorter than the second one- 1.5 Mhours vs 2.0 Mhours. The second one has all this promotional crap talking about how it is fast too... but we know that we can't put much stock in that stuff, and I don't trust the MTBF numbers much either. Have you heard anything good or bad about these manufacturers or brands?

 

Personally, I'm leaning towards the second one just based off of the MTBF, but again, I don't trust those numbers much. I trust brand reputation among people who actually know stuff about computers much more.

 

Also, do you guys have any recommendations as to cooling? I'd like to run this CPU somewhere over 4 GHz continuously. What do you guys think about something like this?:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Extreme-Performance-Liquid-CWCH100/dp/B0051U7HMS/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1321981953&sr=8-8

 

Again, thank you very much for all this help!

[EtherealN]

I'd suggest the second one as well. Both have the same amount of physical storage space inside them, but the Plextor gets it's couple extra GB through ditching the overprovisioning. This means individual chip failures will get noticeable pretty quick, whereas the Vertex will be able to notice the issue and turn that cell off (after copying the data) and use one of the "spares" instead.

 

Regarding the cooler, that one should be fine for way more than 4GHz - you should have no real problems at least to the 4.6 to 4.8GHz territory. I use an H70 which has a similar dissipation capacity and when running 4.4GHz at 1.35 volts it does not go above 55 degrees C while under max load. (EDIT: though I don't have high ambient temperatures, so results may vary obviously.)

 

I'm unsure about the sound levels on that one though - the fans on the H70 are loud so you might want to check that out on an H100 review - perhaps purchase a different set of fans made specifically for quiet operation if sound is an issue for you. (I don't even notice the sound so for me it's not an issue.)

 

You could also check out the bigger Noctua air coolers - they'll also give you enough cooling for the mentioned kind of overclocking, and are usually quieter than Corsairs standard stuff. But of course, they will constitute a huge chunk of metal in the middle of your board and might thus be a hindrance to you whenever you might want to work inside the case.

[JaNk0]

If I may ask, EtherealN. How did you OC intel i7 to 4,4 GHz ?

[EtherealN]

If I may ask, EtherealN. How did you OC intel i7 to 4,4 GHz ?

 

I opened BIOS, clicked "AutoTune", sat still for 2 minutes. Done. :P

 

It's not very voltage efficient - it juices up the voltages way more than necessary - but gets the job done.

Edited November 22, 2011 by EtherealN
Don't write while listening to podcasts, makes you write words you hear...

[Speed]

One guy was telling me it was more critical to put windows on the SSD than the apps I wanna run. That's wrong, correct? It defies common sense.

 

However, with a 120 GB hard drive, I would think I would be able to put both windows AND the couple apps I wanna run at higher performance on the hard drive.

 

The question is, other than fast boot times, what other benefits would you get for putting Windows on the SSD? How big is Windows 7 64 bit anyway? Would the benefits of putting Windows on the SSD be enough to justify not being able to fit like, however many games that Windows is going to be taking the space of?

 

Anyway, as far as the cooler goes, I thought that 55 degrees was starting to get borderline too hot. No?

Edited November 22, 2011 by Speed

[EtherealN]

Nah, 55 degrees is no problem at all. 75 degrees is the cutoff I would absolutely never go above. (Intel specifies 72.6 degrees on the packaging (Tcase) as the design limit.) In pracitcal sense I'd say 65 is a good level that allows you to maintain your margins.

 

My Win7 folder is 18 gigs, though I don't know how much of that is drivers that have ended up in there, but I guess you could say 20-ish gigs reserved for Win7.

 

Installing Win7 on the SSD is not a bad idea though, since a lot of applications will rely on resources in windows - dll's and so on. If you have the space I'd say use it, though there might be considerations regarding swap files and such that you'd want to look at. There is some possible maintenance issues to it though if you end up having your program files on that system drive - that can end up making it a pain for you to maintain your disk space allocations.

[Speed]

I was actually thinking of just spending a bit more and getting a 240 GB SSD, such as this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227727

 

Donno if that's the best 240GB SSD though.

 

If I get the bigger one, then I don't have to immediately buy a new hard disk drive. I think it's that Bangkok flooding, but the prices on hard disk drives seem a little high. I think I'll just wait till they drop to a more reasonable level, then buy like a 1TB or something.

 

Before you say that 240 GB is not enough, consider that I will be keeping my current machine fully operational and I can keep many of my programs and games, and all my data, on the old machine and the external HDDs I have.

 

As far as cooling goes... I O.C.ed my processor just slightly, and 55 degrees is very high for me- and I have just a heat sink and CPU fan. You sure that this water cooler does that much of a better job?

Edited November 22, 2011 by Speed

[EtherealN]

I was actually going to say that 240 is probably plenty if you're just going to use that while waiting for HDD prices to get sane again. :P

 

Also, if I remember the performance specs right, going for the 240 instead of 120 will also give you a nice boost to your write performance, might be nice if working with large datasets from FRAPS and similar.