PC Building Guide and Discussion #11 (everything is expensive...)

[expatriatedtexan]

Intresting discussion today y'all. I appreciate it. I continue to learn so much here even though I mostly lurk.

 

[Kestrel]

One of the funnier things was people buying higher speed RAM but not configuring it to run at those speeds.
With XMP now it's a little less common but still happens all the time.

The thing with that Anandtech test was they did it at equal latency. Where as if you're buying normal level RAM sticks you won't be running equal latency as you increase clock. Unless you manually set it and hope it's stable anyway.

For example an 8GB Stick of g.skill 2400mhz CL 15 is 91.99 USD
The same stick but in 3000mhz is CL16 and only a dollar more. But it has to run at 1.35v (Spec is 1.2) and the timings are more loose. Which one actually ends up faster? Most likely 3000mhz but it won't be as clear as the Anandtech test where it was all CL16.

And quite a lot of other tests I've seen floating around the internet like this one:
DDR4 Memory Scaling on AMD AM4 Platform - The Best Memory Kit For AMD Ryzen CPUs - Page 4 of 6 - Legit Reviews

On DX:MD they found a pretty huge increase on Ryzen @ 1080p. But I think this is a flawed test for a variety of reasons. First of all they are running a test in a game which is horribly optimized on a GTX 1080. In the vast majority of instances you will not be anything other than GPU bound. So sure, if you're running a card at resolutions too low for it and on a weaker IPC CPU like Ryzen you MIGHT run into a situation depending on the game where your memory speed is holding you back. But for everyone else running a mid-high card (Or using their GTX 1080 at 2k/4k like they should be) the RAM speed isn't going to do much.

Yeah, I remember buying RAM for my C2Q back in the day, and being frustrated that the motherboard didn't support the RAM speed without a LOT of overclocking. The processor did OC quite quite well on air, but the RAM multiplier wasn't as high as I wanted - it was probably normal, but I still wasn't impressed.

When I was buying RAM for the Ryzen, I had a handy little formula (don't remember it anymore) to get a good idea of if one stick's speed+ latency was likely better than another, but I do remember that getting RAM in general was not a fun affair for that computer. Most of the approved kits on AMD's list were either out of stock everywhere, or stupidly expensive, so I had to go at it another angle, and grab sticks that the manufacturers themselves certified, and hope they weren't lying.

Also - I just had a power nap - this probably wasn't the best topic to open up first when I'm still waking up

 

[Bocephus86]

Well I am tepidly returning after a very drunken card install far too late into a Saturday night... it arrived before a "friends"giving and I just couldn't wait... sorry for the thread pollution earlier.

My CPU is now running quite hot. In the Witcher 3, now untra'd at 2k, i hit 82c at one point in a "populated" area at the beginning of Skellige (about 1 hr play time prior to max; rested around 72). I feel I've done one of three things:

1. Throttled my CPU with my new 1080ti... (likely?)
2. Knocked loose something as I drunkenly installed the GPU Saturday (probably likely but nothing is obvious)
3. F'd up some sort of driver/game setting.

I tried FO4 & Assassin's Creed Black Flag too. Both are ultra settings now but were in the mid 60s on the new GPU - I'd say that's not far off of prior but I also never notice temps over 60, and, if I'm being honest, nothing over 70 is rememberable.

Any thoughts? I run an i5-6500 skylake quad @ 3.2 ghz; exact CPU here:

Intel Core i5-6500 Skylake Quad-Core 3.2 GHz LGA 1151 65W BX80662I56500 Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 530 - Newegg.com

I am running stock cooler so I think I need to upgrade that but wanted to see if that kind of craziness sounds like a more serious issue.

 

[Kestrel]

Well I am tepidly returning after a very drunken card install far too late into a Saturday night... it arrived before a "friends"giving and I just couldn't wait... sorry for the thread pollution earlier.

My CPU is now running quite hot. In the Witcher 3, now untra'd at 2k, i hit 82c at one point in a "populated" area at the beginning of Skellige (about 1 hr play time prior to max; rested around 72). I feel I've done one of three things:

1. Throttled my CPU with my new 1080ti... (likely?)
2. Knocked loose something as I drunkenly installed the GPU Saturday (probably likely but nothing is obvious)
3. F'd up some sort of driver/game setting.

I tried FO4 & Assassin's Creed Black Flag too. Both are ultra settings now but were in the mid 60s on the new GPU - I'd say that's not far off of prior but I also never notice temps over 60, and, if I'm being honest, nothing over 70 is rememberable.

Any thoughts? I run an i5-6500 skylake quad @ 3.2 ghz; exact CPU here:

Intel Core i5-6500 Skylake Quad-Core 3.2 GHz LGA 1151 65W BX80662I56500 Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 530 - Newegg.com

I am running stock cooler so I think I need to upgrade that but wanted to see if that kind of craziness sounds like a more serious issue.

A quick look around the net suggests that max temps for that processor are around 95 to 100 degrees, so you're not in a danger zone, although your temperatures do look high compared to others. However, the temperature comparisons I was looking at were probably for 1080p game play, so I can't really compare your temperatures.

If you're concerned, you should be able to get a decent cooler in the 20 to 30 dollar range - just make sure it will fit in your case before you get it. It's possible that you bumped your cooler, and cracked the dried up paste on the cooler, meaning you're not getting as good surface to surface contact anymore - putting new thermal paste on could fix that (after cleaning the old paste off).

 

[SniperHF]

The quickest thing to check if is those garbage intel stock cooler pegs popped out.

How they still use that same garbage design since the core 2 days is mind boggling. The peg has to be in the unlocked position and then pushed down into the board, then turned for locking. Usually you need to keep pressure in the center on the fan with your free hand and use a flathead to turn the pegs.

The worst part is if they were put in wrong they'll sit there just fine until one day they might just pop out. And just one of the pegs being in wrong is enough to lift it off the CPU and cause heat issues.

 

[Bocephus86]

Appreciate the info, both of you. My vague recollection of the GPU install process is that it was not smooth and that I was not as gentle as I should have been... very good chance I did one, or both, of the above (cracked paste & knocked a peg loose).

Knock on wood but I'm surprised I didn't do worse. Was not my finest hour.

I think I'm going to pick up an after market cooler anyway and I have extra paste so i'll try/confirm both of the above while I wait for it to arrive to put my mind at ease.

Kestral: Appreciate you letting me know 82 isn't going to fry it but I'll probably stay away from TWC3 until I address the general heat issues. I should get my cables under control as well; it's ugly in there, and it can't be helping airflow.

 

[Kestrel]

Oh man - I haven't had to do an Intel install in a couple of years - I forgot all about those damned pegs!!!!

 

[Bocephus86]

So know that I have some time to actually use my card (while still aware of my surroundings), I've noticed something that seems odd to me. Using an older version of Speccy (downloaded last December, not updated since), I see my GPU physical memory as 3071 MB and Virtual @ 3072 MB. I saw some posts googling around that that might be a bug with Speccy so I downloaded GPU-Z. It shows my memory size at 11264 MB, which is what I expected with the 1080ti. I then ran a benchmark with 3d mark and watched the sensors tab: the "memory used" never went above 3248 - it got and stayed there for a while. But I can't seem to figure out if that is VRam, although I am guessing it is, and if its a display bug in GPU-z or if I'm having power issues with my setup and my card has "capped" itself around 3 gigs of Vram...

Any ideas on what I can do to put this to bed for myself? I mean, I'm able to run Witcher 3 on Ultra (in 2k) and the card creeps up and barely touches 70 c on occasion (CPU is another story, working on that separately). It would get near 80 with my old 1060 6 gig on less than ultra so I think I'm getting a fairly significant performance boost but am a little worried the card is being throttled by the power supply or something? Is that even a thing?

My complete setup, all hooked into a Corsair 550W 80 Plus Gold Power Supply (exact one here: CORSAIR CS-M Series CS550M 550W 80 PLUS GOLD Active PFC Haswell Ready ATX12V & EPS12V Semi-Modular Power Supply - Newegg.com)

CPU: i5-6500 Skylake Quad-core @ 3.2 Ghz (65W)
GPU: GeForce 1080ti SC2
MB: MSI Z170-A Pro
SSD: 2 (1 500 gig, 1 1000 gig if it matters)
HDD: 1 (1000 gig)
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX; 2x8 gig DDR4 @ 2133
Fan: 4 case fans, Corsair Air Series SP120 w/ LED

I have a crappy DVD drive too.

I ran through the EVGA power meter and entered in what they asked above (GPU, CPU, MB Chipset, SSD/HDD#) and it came back suggesting somewhere between a 500 and 550 watt power supply so I think I'm OK but it's worrying me...

 

[SniperHF]

I've never used Speccy. GPU-Z has generally been reliable for me.

Do you have a link to your 3dmark score? When you run it you can get the link from where it says "compare this result online" or something like that.

Also Witcher 3 really isn't a memory hog. Neither is 3dmark.

Something like Titanfall or the recently released Middle of Earch Shadow of War uses a ton of VRAM:

You can see it even gobbles up all the VRAM on 1600x900. It's just caching. Where as Witcher 3 loads as it goes.


EDIT: Oh on the PSU, assuming it's in good shape your 80plus gold unit should be okay. I wouldn't use a cheaper 550w but a gold unit should be okay. Anandtech says total system consumption of a 1080 ti is about 400 watts at load. To be super duper sure you could look up the 12v rail amperage but it's probably fine.

I wouldn't sit there running furmark all day or something though

 

[Bocephus86]

Hahah - I ran it twice in a row and probably should have got to the bottom of that CPU heat issue first - watching 11 FPS and the CPU creeping near 84c during the CPU test was not fun; scores:

Overall: 7476
Graphics: 9901
CPI: 3131
GFX 1: 64.25 FPS
GFX 2: 56.99 FPS
CPU: 10.52 FPS

I have the free version so I can't see where that GPU scores (that I can tell) and my CPU might have been dragging down my placement among their results.

 

[SniperHF]

Try running fire strike. I've run fire stirke so many times I can ballpark a score just by looking at it

 

[Bocephus86]

Firestrike scores:

Overall: 16428 (91%ile)
Graphics: 29060
Physics: 7216
Combined: 7006
Gfx 1: 140.08 FPS
Gfx 2: 115.07 FPS
Physics: 22.91 fps
Combined: 32.59 FPS

 

[Bocephus86]

Well I all of a sudden feel a hell of a lot better; fired up Xcom2 for a break and GPU-Z is showing the "ram" utilized firing nearly all the way to the allocated 11 gigs; even before the mission I'm near 10 gigs.

I also just noticed this links have my full name since I used my gmail as my user/screen name so I am going to edit them out and replace with the scores. Would be much appreciated if you noticed anything weird in them though...

Edit: Not sure if weird or not but Xcom2 was using near 10 gigs of VRAM in the pre-mission/base overview and caps around 6 gigs in mission. Computer confuse me...

Edit 2: I lied a bit; I've hit close to 10 again in mission but rarely, seems when their showing me the initial map, which makes sense (and I have no idea why it makes sense, I just convinced myself its rendering the map/enemy).

 

[SniperHF]

Firestrike scores:

Overall: 16428 (91%ile)
Graphics: 29060
Physics: 7216
Combined: 7006
Gfx 1: 140.08 FPS
Gfx 2: 115.07 FPS
Physics: 22.91 fps
Combined: 32.59 FPS

All looks within parameters to me. Your physics score is obviously the on the low end comparatively but that's because you've got a quad core.

My overclocked 2500k comes in right around there.

 

[Bocephus86]

All looks within parameters to me. Your physics score is obviously the on the low end comparatively but that's because you've got a quad core.

My overclocked 2500k comes in right around there.

So you're saying I should upgrade my CPU? If I win my FF championship...Also I'm getting a real CPU fan for my heat issues; I think it's just crowded in there. New gel on the way first, I'll see how that goes.

Also, I'm joking about you insinuating the CPU fyi... I'm just always looking for a reason to switch out a part haha. Give me another year and I'll be able to help here, not just steal you (and Kestrals) advice/tips/knowledge

 

[SniperHF]

So you're saying I should upgrade my CPU? If I win my FF championship...Also I'm getting a real CPU fan for my heat issues; I think it's just crowded in there. New gel on the way first, I'll see how that goes.

I mean you could

It's probably good enough though.

There are a few situations where you might be held back by a mere 4 cores but not many @ 1440p.

The 1080 ti is more than double the graphics score of my (overclocked) card which seems crazy

I scored 10 271 in Fire Strike

 

[Bocephus86]

I mean you could

It's probably good enough though.

There are a few situations where you might be held back by a mere 4 cores but not many @ 1440p.

The 1080 ti is more than double the graphics score of my (overclocked) card which seems crazy

I scored 10 271 in Fire Strike

It better be, I spent enough for it

I wish I understood benchmarking... it get bigger number is better, but is it linear? Is there any "for dummys" resources out there you'd recommend? I got the curiosity, I just end up in endless "high level" articles that dont explain anything or stuff way to detailed for me. Like a Udemy, on making a sweet ass PC and understanding how you did it?

 

[SniperHF]

Well the best benchmarks are just straight performance numbers like frame rate or latency. I use 3dmark (and passmark) a lot as a proxy cause I'm lazy, it's easy to test, and it's good enough. I mostly ignore the numbers themselves and think of them relatively, which is the only way to understand them anyway since looking at the number with no context doesn't tell you much unless you already know about where you should perform.

Seems pretty linear to me though I've never really thought about it in those terms.

It's almost all based on frames per second or total frames. Video is just a series of still images and the more images generated the smoother it is. Higher frames = better.
But that's not the whole story, there are a crap ton of complicating factors like frame delivery time which your average benchmark like 3dmark doesn't really show and your monitor's limitations. In most situations they aren't relevant though. The only time I really drill down and look at individual stuff is comparing cards that are VERY similar. Like say the RX 480 and the GTX 1060.

There are large swaths of pc enthusiasts who think synthetic benchmarks are useless. They are wrong but different opinions make it interesting I guess

As long as the cards that perform faster in games match the rankings in benchmarks (more or less) it's much easier to look at which one scores higher than digging into specific frame rates on 5+ different games.

And more importantly for my purposes it's a good way to cross compare performance between generations when older cards aren't included in tests and to verify that your overclock is having desired effects.

For example I ran the Dirt Rally benchmark on my overclocked card to find out what was increasing my performance, my VRAM OC or my core clock OC?
OCing both core and VRAM resulted in a 9% increase in frame rates
OCing JUST the VRAM resulted in a 7.5% increase.

So it turned out that the VRAM OC was doing most of the work, so I just simply stopped overclocking the core clock since it created a ton of heat.

As far as learning in general? I dunno. I just read a lot of reviews and tinkered with stuff for almost a couple decades.

 

[Sarcastic]

Just copied everything from my HDD to my SSD and got it to work. Gonna game a bit to see difference in loading speeds and stuff.

The Crucial didn't come with components to mount and I don't think I have the right screws to do so. What can I do to have it stay in place aside from buying a mount or screws?

 

[SniperHF]

Just copied everything from my HDD to my SSD and got it to work. Gonna game a bit to see difference in loading speeds and stuff.

The Crucial didn't come with components to mount and I don't think I have the right screws to do so. What can I do to have it stay in place aside from buying a mount or screws?

SSDs can't get damaged like HDDs from being shook around a bit so honestly it's not that huge an issue to just have it sitting in there.

Does your system not have a 2.5" bay in the case? Most do since 2013 or so. Sometimes the 2.5" bays aren't in the most obvious of places. Mine are horizontal above the intake fans.

You can just screw it into a traditional 3.5" bay on one side only if that's all you've got.

I've used a few of these in the past:
Corsair CSSD-BRKT1 SSD Mounting Bracket Kit 2.5" to 3.5" drive bay - Newegg.com

 

[Sarcastic]

SSDs can't get damaged like HDDs from being shook around a bit so honestly it's not that huge an issue to just have it sitting in there.

Does your system not have a 2.5" bay in the case? Most do since 2013 or so. Sometimes the 2.5" bays aren't in the most obvious of places. Mine are horizontal above the intake fans.

You can just screw it into a traditional 3.5" bay on one side only if that's all you've got.

I've used a few of these in the past:
Corsair CSSD-BRKT1 SSD Mounting Bracket Kit 2.5" to 3.5" drive bay - Newegg.com

It's a Corsair 200R, it definitely does have places to put the drive in. I just don't recall where I put all the screws from when I was assembling the thing. Would it be bad to just tape it down?

 

[flyingkiwi]

With the ridiculous RAM prices I'm glad I mistakenly bought another 8gb DDR3 a year ago when I was troubleshooting.

i5 4690k (still stock)
16GB ram
1060 6GB

Should last a good little while longer. If I get time this year I think I'll start fiddling with a CPU overclock. Haven't decided on cooling though. I could easily chuck in a 212 evo but the AIO water kits are tempting.

As for the build in my PS2, I'm toying with the idea of a mini ITX with an onboard CPU that'll take my leftover laptop ram. For storage I'd go m.2, most likely in pcie cause I don't think those boards would have m.2 onboard.

 

[Kestrel]

It's a Corsair 200R, it definitely does have places to put the drive in. I just don't recall where I put all the screws from when I was assembling the thing. Would it be bad to just tape it down?

Nah, not bad at all. I've used double sided tape to mount and SSD before. Like Sniper said, SSD's don't get damaged from moving around like hard drives do, so do it whatever way works for you. I've even had them just hanging in air from their cables - that was more of a temporary measure so I wouldn't necessarily recommend it as a permanent measure, but really, as long as you're not kinking or damaging cables, you should be fine.

 

[SniperHF]

With the ridiculous RAM prices I'm glad I mistakenly bought another 8gb DDR3 a year ago when I was troubleshooting.

i5 4690k (still stock)
16GB ram
1060 6GB

Should last a good little while longer. If I get time this year I think I'll start fiddling with a CPU overclock. Haven't decided on cooling though. I could easily chuck in a 212 evo but the AIO water kits are tempting.
.

Because of the stupid RAM prices lately I went for used DDR3 on my last two buys. $45 for used 2x4GB g.skill 1600 and $50 for unused old stock 2x4GB Crucial Balistix.


4690k is a beast, OCed it's a monster and you don't even really need an OC yet. @ stock it's faster than my 2500k OCed and I'm not held back by it except in Civ VI which loves tons of threads. No worries IMO.

If you decide to OC I'd just get a slightly higher end air cooler instead of a closed loop or a 212. Been awhile since I've been in the market though so I couldn't tell you what's what.

 

[flyingkiwi]

4690k is a beast, OCed it's a monster and you don't even really need an OC yet. @ stock it's faster than my 2500k OCed and I'm not held back by it except in Civ VI which loves tons of threads. No worries IMO.

If you decide to OC I'd just get a slightly higher end air cooler instead of a closed loop or a 212. Been awhile since I've been in the market though so I couldn't tell you what's what.

Yeah, I haven't bothered yet cause I just haven't needed the extra performance. It'd be more for the sake of tinkering and learning how to do it.

My single fan 1060 will get pretty hot so I bought a third case fan today.