For only gaming?
It's a good enough PSU. You won't be hitting near its max wattage. If you were running dual GPUs overclocked, then I'd get something better.
If it was EVGA's cheapest PSUs like the N1 and K1, then I'd get something better.
It's one CPU fan header and one system fan header. Get a 3-pin fan splitter to connect the 2 case fans to the system header. If the case includes a fan controller, then you connect the case fans to that and the fan controller to either the system fan header or directly to the PSU via molex.
Usually, retail Windows includes a DVD. Sometimes, it's a USB. All you need is the product key. Download the Windows 10 ISO from Microsoft with their media creation tool/installer, which can download the ISO itself or download it, automatically create a bootable USB, and then delete the ISO. I'd download it because you get the most up-to-date version. use the key from the dvd.
Overall, your PC will be good enough. Maybe get a good 550W PSU for later upgrades, but it's not entirely necessary.
That's just the bus interface. The bigger the number, the higher the bandwidth. How that affects performance v a RX 470 (256-bit), I'm not sure. I'd check out RX 460, GTX 1050, RX 470 benchmarks to get a better idea.
BlueGene's recommended SSDs are usually great for the price. If you want an SSD that's much faster than an 850 EVO and only costs $10 more, then this it:
There's 22" 1080p monitors with IPS for $100-150. She might want to check those out. LCD screens widely vary in quality
You should be able to hit at least 3.2, but your note suggests otherwise. Maybe a BIOS update would provide more stability?
Oh wow, didn't know that. To clarify, you mentioned that dual GPUs have a problem with H.265 encoding (given software limitations), but a recent single GPU doesn't have this problem?
You'd be good with an RX 460 or GTX 1050 for $100 (USD). I'd get the 4GB model if it's $20 more, but 2GB should be enough.
They're usually all good. XFX, MSI, EVGA, Gigabyte, Sapphire, Asus, etc. For mid-level and higher models like the RX 470 and up, stick to dual fans with the highest clock speed at the lowest price. 3-4GB of vRAM is enough, but if you're spending $150+ go with 6 or more GB.
Have you considered running dual GPUs instead? You could pick two RX 480 8GB's for $300-375.
With an i7-6900k or the much cheaper Ryzen 1800x, you'll reduce that 25-min workload by about 2-5 minutes. It really depends on the software, but I recall there being small gains from additional cores. Most video editing software seems to hit that wall when they're working with 8 cores / 8 threads.
Check your GPU usage when you're working. See if your software has some 'GPU acceleration' addons or what not.
Also, with dual GPUs, what matters is how many GPU paths your CPU can handle. Your socket, the LGA1151, constrains the two GPUs to a usable 16 lanes with Skylake and KB Intels. It's called an 8x/8x speed or configuration. The recent LGA2011 tops at 32 or 40 PCIe lanes (for the GPUs); Ryzen handles around 32. The extra lanes would give a small boost to the GPUs.
The PSU, CPU cooler, and SSD are overpriced. You could get cheaper stuff with little impact in performance and free up enough for an i7 or an R5 build. It depends on your plans with your PC.
The R7 370 is pretty weak. It's basically a good minimum to have for a workstation. You could spend more for something higher end like an RX 470 or 480, but it depends on how well photoshop can use GPUs. Regardless, a good substitute would be an RX 460 or GTX 1050 (4GB). If you want cheaper, I'd recommend the used market.
Seems like a great price. The Duo looks like two Fury X's on one board, so you'll get the usual constraints of gaming from running dual GPUs. If your editing software has 'GPU acceleration' addon's, then it should be worth the price.
If your motherboard supports RAID, then yeah. You might be limited in your selection of RAID configurations.
PCPP updates prices every 24 hours or so.
If you want faster updates, there's camelcamelcamel.com for Amazon. Slickdeals' computer parts section is much quicker and only includes reputable sellers.
Yeah, you're good to go. :)
Power consumption for GPUs has been decreasing, so I wouldn't worry about it (assuming the Antec Edge is a good PSU). AMD's R9 300 series were released about 2 years ago. Estimated TDP is 200W for the 380. The 400 series is close to 150W. There's also that article about an overclocked i7-6700k running dual 1080's and hitting 500W.
I'd spend $20-30 on the keyboard and mouse. Maybe spend $200 on a good 1440p monitor, and push for an i7-7700k and Z270 mobo.
That Cryorig H7 performs better too.
You've pretty much hit the best if the CPUs with the LGA1150 socket (Z97, H97 motherboards).
If you stick with that build, then get this mobo:
Or save $15 by getting the ASRock Z97 Extreme4.
My main PC has an i7-4770k at 4.7 GHz. If I was to spend $400-500 for a newer i7 or Ryzen build, I'd get a small gain in average FPS. If you're making money from video editing, then that might be worth it. Maybe..
You're not buying new, are you? Cuz there's new Intel i7's and the Ryzen too.
Kinda, but not by enough to worry about. In general, it's a good GPU but not powerful enough to show a large difference in FPS among CPUs.
The one with the i5-7600 and RX 480. Get the 550W PSU and spend that extra $20 on a better wifi adapter. You don't need 650W for this kind of build.
A broken CPU with 4 cores
Then one or more other USB devices are delaying the boot up.
Google: slickdeals computer parts
Does the problem repeat when you only have the keyboard plugged in?
Its got more stuff:
But it's only worth it if you'll actually it.
You want advice on 3TB ad larger HDDs? I know the prices on deals that pcpartpicker doesn't catch and that most posters on here aren't aware of. Just PM me and I'll send some links on the best drives for the dollar.
Since they're the same price for you, definitely get a Z270. Those used i7's will be very affordable in 2-3 years (perhaps sooner). I like Asus's UEFI, can't say much of Gigabyte's. Both have two 16x PCIe slots for GPUs, but the 2nd tops out at 4x speed. Not a deal breaker since dual GPUs are usually not worth it. Both have M.2 as well. But the Asus has a mid grade audio chipset, so I'd settle for the Gigabyte Z270.
Nice! Thanks, Ada
True about F4, but it's weird that their results were hitting lower FPS and a lower range, which suggests that the CPU or GPU (when the game settings are near max) is the limiting factor. Did F4's graphics change dramatically over the past year, or did Techpowerup simply crank the settings too high?
Yeah about minimum FPS results. That tends to like faster ram compared to average FPS.
I haven't had problems with HWiNFO for reading temps on Intel CPUs. Regardless, at some point the CPU will need much higher additional vcore per each 0.1 GHz. For your CPU, hitting 5.0 GHz at >1.32v is such a point after 4.9 GHz at 1.275v, and there's not much you can do about it. You can try underclocking the RAM, but having 4.9 GHz with the DDR4-3000, for example, tends to yield higher benefits than 5.0 GHz with DDR4-2133. Underclocking the 'ring ratio' (which goes by different names) might help, but I'm doubtful. That should be set to +1 above your 'stock' clockspeed (e.g. 36, if the CPU's advertised clockspeed is 3.5 GHz and 4.4 GHz in turbo mode).
Personally, I'm fine with CPU temps right below 80C on average, but I also stop overclocking past 1.35v for recent Intel CPUs. Also, your stress test program might be too demanding (e.g Prime95). Asus Realbench is good enough.
What are the temps?
Just wondering if thermal throttling or poor airflow are limiting your overclock.
They really put a lot of time into that test, so kudos for techpowerup.
The results weren't too surprising. DDR4-2666 still seems to be the sweet spot; however, previous tests (pre-Ryzen) tended to use DDR4-2666 CL15, and techpowerup used CL14. So, if 2666 CL15 is equivalent to 2400 CL14, then Ryzen would be yielding better results from slightly faster RAM.*
*<insert the usual caveats about statistics and methodology>
My major concern is the relative flatness of the results from the gaming tests. How much does CPU and the GPU explain this? I was kinda hoping they'd mention which settings were on these games. If the results were being primarily constrained by the GPU, then the variance across RAM would be biased downward. Lower settings would yield more accurate results. If the problem is mainly caused by the CPU, then there's not much that can be done about it. :)
For RAM & gaming benchmarks (which used an i7-6700k or equivalent Intel), I recall Fallout 4 having a 10-20 difference in FPS across different RAM speeds/latency. In this Ryzen test, the difference was roughly 5? It's odd.
I can only edit after an hour from the post, and from what I recall, an hour passed after we started getting into this, so you seem to be imagining things. At times, I'll recommend an 850 EVO--given the relative prices and performance at that time as well as the OP's goals. For most people, the 850 EVO is overpriced because their workload will hardly benefit from the extra money spent.
"... got deleted, I wonder who that was." Please don't be disingenuous.
Regarding the rest, if that's how you feel, then whatever.
These are $10 more:
I'd spend an extra $10 for that Zalman. It's got enough stock fans. The Deepcool Tesseract likely has good enough fans.
For your platform, there's higher end FX's, but you'll get a very small gain at a high price. You seem to have a good enough motherboard, so maybe $35 for a CPU cooler, a 4.5 GHz overclock, and $170 for an RX 480 would be your best gain in performance per $.
But I'm guessing with limited info. To see which part is holding you back, run hwinfo (sensors-only), play a game for a bit, exit, and see what's hitting close to 100% utilization on hwinfo.
Sounds promising. Ryzen fares or was faring pretty poorly on the 1th percentile minimum FPS, but even then I'm surprised Intel hasn't been lowering their prices more.
The 1080 was going for $600+ and with barely a deal below. Recently, there's been 1080's for as low as $480. AMD's Fury X fell from $250-270 to $210-220 within 2-3 months (used to cost maybe $300+ a year ago). Plenty of 1070's hitting near $300 too. Prices on GPUs tend to drop quickly.
Excluding Ryzen, new CPU prices generally stay the same. DDR4 has almost doubled over the past year. SSDs up by 10-20% over the same time. Power supplies get better but don't shift too much in price (clearance deals do happen though); same goes for motherboards.
Use slickdeals.net to save about $200+.
If you keep shifting the goal posts, you'll keep 'winning.'
I didn't recommend an 850 Evo, so maybe your frustration is getting the better of you?
Still waiting to see why an 8-core Ryzen is definitely needed for PDF viewing, Internet tabs, and spreadsheets. 1800x v 1700 really doesn't change the '8-core Ryzen is unnecessary' argument. But, you seem pretty annoyed over a reasonable criticism, so why not chill a bit more while responding?
Oh, so no explanation? There's no need to get upset and -1 everyone. :)
PDFs, spreadsheets, and internet browsers aren't demanding enough to justify an 8-core Ryzen. An i3 or G4560 is plenty (even a G3528 @ 4.4 GHz would work, just not worth the price).
Over the course of a 2 minutes, I did the following: load 20 PDFs (500MB worth), took < 3 seconds. Loaded Firefox with 3 windows and 38 tabs. I preceded to click on each tab which loaded some data from its cache, and I ran about 5-7 youtube videos (firefox.exe took 3 seconds to open up and be immediately responsive. During 10-20 seconds, I ran through the clicking mania). While still loading and playing some YT videos, I opened a new window and google around, clicked on two links, which fully loaded (this took <5 seconds).
For the final minute, I perused the HWiNFO log (1 second sample) while looking at Process Explorer's basic version of Resource Monitor. Couldn't load any excel spreadsheets cuz I didn't have any handy, but from experience, I know Stata can take 15-30 seconds to run a regression with about 8 independent variables on a sample size of 10,000 (using an A4400-M processor), so I'm sure the A10-7850k @ 4.2 GHz (on only 2 / 4 'cores') would crunch the same numbers within 5 seconds (probably near instantly).
Firefox peaked at 100% CPU usage for 1 second then went back to 30-50% for a minute, and after settled around 8-12%. RAM usage is at 2.8GB (working set) and 3.4GB (system commit).
iGPU usage topped at 88% and D3D usage at 100% (when loading about 6 youtube videos). No surprise there.
And this was with an A10-7850k with 2 cores running at 4.2 GHz and the other 2 at 1.7 GHz. SSD is a PNY CS1311. RAM is 2x4GB DDR3-2133 CL9.
You seem to be overestimating the workload of PDFs, internet browsers, and spreadsheets.
Would you care to explain why a Ryzen 1800x with 16GB of RAM and a Samsung 960 Evo are a wise choice for such a light workload?
What else did you use, other Spybot Anti-Beacon?
And do you have the LTSB version?
Haha, maybe, but crazy can be fun! :)
Ahh! Thanks, Ada
Hahaha, I wouldn't recommend it, but you did say "craziest" so... :)
Ooo... I guess the 1-click overclocking is getting better.
Do you think 50C is safe for those components from the review?
I'm not understanding why it matters.
Agreed about a test with an enclosed case. I'd expect lower temps (assuming proper placement of fans. Nothing wild would seem necessary though).