1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New PC plans.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by psycho, Jan 22, 2017.

  1. psycho

    psycho Vindicator Member
    Chaplain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    So my desktop is almost 7 years old now and I'm planning to put together a new one this year. Because it's been so long since my last build I'm a bit out of touch with the current trends for gaming hardware. I'm looking for suggestions on where to start, particularly the CPU/chipset. I've always had good results with AMD products and would like to stay with them but I know Intel is the current favorite so I'm not opposed to that.

    The timeframe for this is 3-6 months from now and I'm looking to spend ~$1000. I may reuse my case to save money there but is it even possible/advisable to reuse the PSU? The current one is a 750w (or maybe 850?) Antec that I bought for the original build. I would be inclined to think not but I was wondering anyway.

    Thanks guys!
     
  2. TheBTron

    TheBTron Vindicator Member
    Priest

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I would wait for the new AMD cpu to come out next month, they might be taking the lead from Intel. Intel best CPU that is out is the i7-7700K.
     
  3. psycho

    psycho Vindicator Member
    Chaplain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    OK, I was wondering if any new stuff was coming out soon. Like I said I'm looking at about 3 months from now anyway. Brand new = $$ though so I may be looking at last-gen stuff to keep my budget under control. I've always had good success using older high end stuff than new mid or low end stuff.
     
  4. Sylak

    Sylak Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I'm waiting for AMD as well. I don't think they ill beat Intel as top performance go. I just want them to keep up. As long as AMD keep their philosophy of easy upgrade path ( same socket for multiple CPU generation) which is less expensive a a lot much fun for tweaker, I'll stick with them for my CPUs ( I used NVIDIA cards so I'm a hybrid lol). For gaming having the most powerful CPU is not useful, anyway, having engouh to keep up with video card. I also an a 1070gtx. So I'm planning of changing my whole PC as well by the end of the year-winter 2018.
     
  5. KissMyOrbs

    KissMyOrbs Vindicator Member
    Priest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Your 750 Watt PSU should be fine.

    I just upgraded to the MSI GTX 1070, and because of improvements in chip designs it uses substantially less power than my 660 ti did. I also run my 3770K at 5-6ghz (using liquid, obviously), have three harddrives, a blu-ray burner, a dvd burner, three monitors, and tons of peripherals hooked up (probably 12-14 USB devices connected at any given time), and it has never had an issue powering it. I used to also use a PCI-E xonar essence sound card, on top of all of that, with no issues.

    I can't see any reason to dump it, unless it won't fit in the case, or is on the fritz.

    Just for disclosure, I'm using a Corsair HX750 PSU, which granted is pretty beefy for a 750, and likely underrated for the output capability, but I've had it for six years, running 8-16 hours a day, and it's still going strong, so you might as well pocket the PSU cash for a rainy day, when yours decides to fail from old age.
     
    Sylak likes this.
  6. Sylak

    Sylak Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    43
    750 watt is fine for single vga card. I have 16gig ram, high end motherboard a gtx 670, which is like has a 30% bigger electron appetite than a newer 1070, a FX-8350 8 core which is also not the most efficient, and I probably use 500-550 max. I had a seasonic m12D 750w for 6 years, it started making some electrical whining so I change it for a less efficient, but good price point, Evga, and it also work fine. Power supply tend to work best at 50-60% usage. So, if you need a new one, go to this web site http://outervision.com/power-supply-calculator calculate you power need multiply by 1.5-2 and buy that size of PSU. In that way it will run a peak efficiency and last you a long time.

    But in your case your is a antec, what model line? They design their own but do not build them, most of the time is Sesonic or Delta electronic that build the antec. Both have a super good reputation of efficiency, build quality and reliability, so you should be fine for a while. And your new build will use less power probably overall.
     
  7. Zathrus

    Zathrus Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Personally I would always replace the power supply since this is something many people try to go cheap on and it bites them in the ass.

    Power supplies that begin to become unstable with age are the reason for many components being changed needlessly in an effort to solve stability issues.

    I would always provide a new high quality power supply with a new system. The system is never more stable than the foundation.... which is your power supply and motherboard together. The stability and quality of those two items I think usually dictate how trouble free a system is.

    Yes you can get a bad component now and then... but power supplies and motherboards have a tendency to produce problems that are very difficult to pin down. Therefore in the interest of my sanity.... I never try to be very frugal on those two components.

    the website http://outervision.com/power-supply-calculator actually under sized the power supply by my build standards that I have used successfully for several gaming rigs. I have an i7, 16 gigs of ram, 2 x SSD's, 4 x 7200rpm drives, AMD 7970 OC vid card in my current personal system.

    That website says my maximum continuous wattage needed is 563 watts, which is about correct. But then it suggested I use a 600 watt power supply. This is undersized in my book.

    The formula I use, is you calculate the wattage needed to run everything in the system simultaneously, then I make that number 80% of the size power supply I buy. Why? one word = Stability

    I have built about 6 gaming rigs for other people, and one for myself over the last 6 years. This "system foundation" formula I use has served me well... none of the systems I have built have had any failures or transient issues. I built my personal system in 2012. It is still very stable and still very fast.

    The nature of how power supplies are built means that while they may be rated at a given power, regardless of how much money you spend on the power supply, the signal will be much cleaner, stable, etc. at 80% power than it will be at 90% or 100% rated power. This is because the system is designed for that maximum power. Therefore the coils, filters, etc. are hitting their limits at that designed 100% power. At 80% of that power all the components are well within their optimum design range.

    I never allow the maximum wattage needed by the system exceed 80% of the maximum continuous output capacity of the power supply.
    This provides the best guarantee I know of at always providing a very stable power signal to all components, even as the power supply ages.
    That enhances stability.

    using the correct 563 watts needed by my system, my calculation would require a minimum 700 watt power supply. So I think that website is a little skimpy on power for me personally.

    In my book, skimping on power is like skipping oil changes in your car... yes it works for awhile... eventually the cumulative problems associated with skipping those oil changes catches up with you and bites you in the ass.
     
    Sylak likes this.
  8. KissMyOrbs

    KissMyOrbs Vindicator Member
    Priest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I change my oil every 40k miles. I like to be treat my Honda like a lab rat, and see how long I can go between changes. 140k, and still purring like the day it came off the lot. Did the same with my Nissan. Hit 200k, and dumped it because it was 15 years old and rusting from the NE salted roads, but the engine was still perfectly smooth. I felt bad getting rid of her. I bet that engine would have gone at least another 200k.

    /Expensive synthetic oil helps, plus I swear those cars would run on anything more slippery than rocks for lubrication.
     
    Monikurz likes this.
  9. Zathrus

    Zathrus Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    43
    honestly those engines may have sounded smooth, but the clog up with sludge.
    It was no longer lubricating properly internally I can assure you....
    The fact they did not fail... is lucky on your part.

    Back in the 1980's, Cummin's Diesel suddenly had this rash of engine failure warranty claims. Upon investigation, they found that all of the failed engines had come from a single fleet.
    This fleet of several 1000 trucks, had switched to mobile one synthetic oil made for diesels. At that time, testing had proven this oil could withstand the pounding a combustion engine gives it for more than 100,000 miles. This is true for many synthetics if they are pure synthetic.

    So, this fleet, due to the oil guarantee, had gone to a schedule of changing engine oil every 100,000 miles. They began experiencing engine failures because yes the oil was still good... but it was full of sludge, since the filter had plugged up at about 10,000 miles and started bypassing all the contaminants back into the engine. This caused things to clog up... causing improper internal oiling and eventually failure.

    I have advised several who have asked about changes with synthetic oils that if they want to push the time between oil changes that is probably ok, but keep replacing the filter at the car manuf. suggested interval... because they know at that interval that filter is starting to bypass.
     
  10. Sylak

    Sylak Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    43
    This is a Computer thread, but, as a car guy who like to do maintenance on the clock on my car I'll slide off sbject too
    look at this

    that's why you change oil when you should, no car companie conspiracy, ust plain law of physic and chemistry.

    I do agree that you should change PSU, but, you can use it for now if it save you money and let you have a better GPU card or cpu for now. But you should after that think of piling some cash down to change the PSU in 6month-a year.
     
  11. KissMyOrbs

    KissMyOrbs Vindicator Member
    Priest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    That was a Kia engine, using regular cheap ass oil. That's like saying it's bad to overclock an i3 that is on the stock air cooler, when I'm talking about overclocking an i7 that's on liquid cooling.

    Garbage in, garbage out. I stand behind my allegories that well designed engines, using synthetic, go for far longer than that piece of crap Kia engine will on ghetto oil.

    In the same sense, my PSU from corsair, that weighs about twice what most 750 watts weigh, and has lasted 6 years (and still going strong) with everything I've tossed at it, is far better for a long term investment than swapping out cheap ones every few years. Heck, my 550 Watt Antec, which is now my backup, went for just as long, and still ran the i7 liquid cooled system I helped a buddy build, just fine, because his new one crapped itself on day 1. Don't fix what isn't broken, unless you don't have a back-up.

    But computers aren't really analogous to cars. Electronics tend to fail in the first month, or else they last a good while, which is why I always "burn in" electronics hard, in order to make sure a future fail is likely to happen when it's less of a PITA to have it swapped out. I learned that way back when I sold stereo equipment, some of which was very high end. I always told the customer to abuse the snot out of it (not physically) for the first month. Don't turn it off. Let it get warm. It's sounds counter-intuitive, but due to a lack of quality assurance, it's a DIY way to give it a good run through. Kind of like running prime95 when you get a new cpu installed, and let it run for hours at a time. It either takes what you can throw at it, or it needs to be replaced. Why replace a 750 watt psu that has been working well, and will actually have less load due to efficiency improvements over the years?
     
  12. KissMyOrbs

    KissMyOrbs Vindicator Member
    Priest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I agree with the filter part. They're inexpensive, usually (depending on the car) easy to swap out by hand or with a metal arm that has a cinching circle on the end, and useful. I typically do that every 20k. I generally change my own oil (about every 40k or a bit more, only use 100% synthetic), and do my own brakes, and other basic maintenance, and have never had any issues with cars that had well designed engines. On the other hand, I blew two head gaskets, and cracked the head both times, on my Ares K wagon, that was gifted to me in the early 90's, and I had religiously changed the oil and filters on it. The car was a piece of crap, and the engine ran like something made out of legos, especially if you turned on the AC. I would compare changing not changing the filter to not cleaning the filter in your house air conditioner, or letting your heatsink get clogged with cat hair. You don't have to change the liquid in the cooling system each year, but if your dog or cat likes to rub up against the case, you're asking for trouble by not doing basic cleaning.
     
  13. Zathrus

    Zathrus Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Yes well I use Corsair power supplies also.
    I usually install something between 700 watts and 850 watts depending on the system. (whatever guarantees that max 80% load).
    With a 750 watt power supply, it is going to be very hard to exceed that 80% load factor.

    My current system is over powered a lot, because the week I purchased parts for this rig, the corsair TX850 watt was on sale for the same price
    as the TX750 watt... lucky me. they had too many 850 watt ones sitting there.

    My current system which has a power hungry i7-2600K @ 4.2ghz, water cooling, an overclocked 7970 (also high power user), 16gigs DDR3, two SSD's, four 750gig 7200rpm hard drives and numerous other little gadgets attached... only needs about 700watts to remain within that window.

    So yes, 750watts is usually pretty safe. You can build a very stable high end gaming rig with a 550 watt power supply, but you would want to be careful how much you added to the system that could increase peak loads. I tend to add things over time.... so I always provide a little pad for that also in my personal computer. On this build I ended up with a huge power load capacity surplus.

    On a $1000 computer budget... for a gaming rig that is tight but very do-able.
    At this point in time for a new build... if I had a budget of about $1000. I would re-use my case. I would set aside roughly$350 to $400 for the Video card. (your going to want a good quality GTX1070 or equivalent) I think your GPU gives you the most bang for the buck in most games today. Typically most high end i5K series have no issues keeping up with these new powerful GPU's. But I think games today tend to demand a lot of Vram. The bandwidth some of these high end gaming vidcards have is impressive. So the CPU cannot be a slouch or it will fall behind in a sudden
    blast from the video card, but as I said before a high end i5 have I have never heard anyone complain about them not keeping up.... as long as you ensure core parking is off ;) So personally I tend to focus on the GPU in a budget situation and build around that. I do not know anything about current AMD processors.

    Most GTX 1070's come with 8 gigs of Vram and some might think that is excessive. Not really. I think the demand for Vram from games will continue to climb as we see increasingly better defined immersive environments. In addition, when you decide to upgrade that 1080p monitor to a 2k or 4k monitor later, the increase in load on the video card is an exponential increase with those higher resolutions.
    If you wanted to run more than one 4k monitor... you would have to go to a GTX 1080 class card... and those are very salty price wise.

    I also prefer the i7 but.... budgets... go for most bang for the buck. I would advise you to focus on building around a solid gaming video card.
    Since it is a gaming rig, I think it makes sense to make the video card what you build the system around. Then make sure your motherboard, cpu, etc. compliment that card and never create bottlenecks for it.

    Also, you could watch sales... as I see some very good prices periodically at places like Newegg on good quality gaming vid cards.
    Also those Corsair power supplies go on sale often, however I avoid their "builder series".
    I also prefer simple basic PSU, modular power supplies are very nice for keeping things tidy, but from an engineering standpoint that is just adding another connection that could have a problem... that does not need to be there... as long as I have room in a full case to stash unneeded wires.
     
  14. Aakek

    Aakek Galactic Overlord
    Bishop Contributer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Actually as long as you a pretty recent video card, the bottle neck in most games is the CPU. This all falls back to the fact that basically CPU's for the most part have not really changed much in almost the last decade. While we have getting more cores, most games have not been designed from a multi threaded standpoint so they are unable to utilize CPU's as heavily.

    In many cases this is due to reliance upon older technologies (Older game engines/directx/etc) as software always lags behind hardware by years. Its also IMO part of the reason why AMD has lagged behind Intel for many years now is due to the fact that AMD invested in multicore more heavily than Intel.

    I personally do not feel strongly either way. I have used both products and gotten good/bad results all depending on the situation.

    That being said.. I am looking less at CPU this next time and more at the rest of the machine. I think that my big move is going to be going to an Nvme SSD. I have gotten good mileage out of my SSD's and over the last decade has been hands down the single largest performance boost for my computer. Now most likely this is going to end up showing the next weak point but I can work on it from there :)
     
  15. Zathrus

    Zathrus Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    43
    In my experience, as long as it is a decent i5 (mid 3ghz) and core parking is off, the cpu never bottlenecks.
    Most cpu bound machines I am aware of were fixed by turning core parking off. This has been true with a couple of people in this group and a few others I know in other groups.

    The hysteresis between the core parking system and the gpu are horrific... it will bring a very powerful machine to it's knees.
    In my tests, core parking lowered my average FPS in planetside2 by 40%.
     
  16. Aakek

    Aakek Galactic Overlord
    Bishop Contributer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    83
    None of my cores are parked :) and PS2 is still cpu limited. Its true of most games these days. With a modern card (No more than 2 gens old), you should be CPU limited. Now cpu/gpu can be limited also by your other hardware as well. My system is almost exclusively SSD's with 16G of memory.

    Drives are a major factor and many people are still using 'normal' drives which in many games causes a bottleneck due to texture/etc loading.

    PS2 is an odd duck in the overall market. This is due to the custom engine (forgelight) and when they dropped 32 bit all together.
     
  17. Zathrus

    Zathrus Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    43
    wow... what cpu are you running?

    seriously... I have fixed many cpu bound machines .... we need to look at your system setup... unless the cpu is dual core at about 3.2ghz or lower it should not be cpu bound.

    The only other situation I have run into with a CPU bound machine was the GPU was so under powered it put too high a load on the CPU.

    I also had one machine, where they inadvertently left the Intel chipset video capabilities active in the Bios, this caused the machine to keep switching between the cpu and gpu for graphics needs... again hysteresis between these independent systems caused him huge problems. Once we turned off the intel onboard video in his bios, his machine settled down and ran fine.

    Also if your looking at the OS system monitor... it has a tendency to lie about core parking. You need to watch the CPU with third party software like MSI Afterburner or equivalent.

    I agree SSD's are a wonderful thing. I run all my games on one of my two SSD's and OS on the other SSD.
     
    #17 Zathrus, Feb 21, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2017
  18. Aakek

    Aakek Galactic Overlord
    Bishop Contributer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    83
    CPU is fine a 3570k though it is getting long in the tooth now. PS2 handles things much better than other games.

    Using HWMonitor and forgot which program to delve into processes.
     
  19. Zathrus

    Zathrus Vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    43
    hmmm... I don't have much data from anything other than ps2 and mwll.
    Although I am beginning to look at performance data from star citizen.
    So far the 2600K is doing ok... it is my aging amd 7970 I am a bit worried about. we shall see how it does.

    On a processor... for psycho and this budget, he could easily go with a K series that is 1 or 2 gens old.
    Their speeds will be similar, it is mostly power consumption that becomes less with each new generation. My 2600K shows this generation gap as it is very power hungry compared to current generation i7's, but it is also an absolute overclocking beast as many current 2600K owners will tell you.
    Right now mine is running at a fixed 4.2 Ghz. The cores idle in the 40's and under max load no cores exceed 60 C. So I have quite a bit of room left in it.
     
    #19 Zathrus, Feb 21, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2017
  20. KissMyOrbs

    KissMyOrbs Vindicator Member
    Priest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Exactly. My 3770K rips the shit out of many benchmarks of much newer processors. It's liquid cooled, and on a mobo and PSU designed for overclocking, but aside from the electricity use, I can bang out 6ghz on it, and never have it shut down from heat. I've pushed higher, but stability becomes more of an issue than the performance gain when I push it beyond 6.5ghz. It will do it, but sometimes it randomly reboots even though the temperature is still low. The biggest changes are in laptops, where the battery life and heat are a larger factor than actual raw performance. Then again, I use a surface 3 (non-pro), as a laptop, because I'll be damned if I bother gaming on a laptop for anything more taxing than Panzer Corps.
     

Share This Page