Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Choosing GPU, CPU and help with RAID


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#1 adi022000

adi022000

  • Members
  • 59 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:50 AM

Posted 03 February 2017 - 09:07 AM

Hi!

I want to create a PC:
Case: Be Quiet! Silent Base 600
RAM: Corsair Vegenace 2x 8GB 3000MHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z170-GAMING K3
PSU: Be Quiet! Pure Power 9 | 600W
Cooler: Be Quiet! Daje Rock PRO 3

Is it ok to put Toshiba P300 1TB x2 in RAID 0 to make them faster?

I want to pick R9 Fury - Is it ok? It's a little bit more expensive than GTX 1060 - And much faster as I see. Is it a good idea? Which brand made best R9?

What CPU will be enought to make R9 work with it's full Power? I thought about i5-7600K. Any ideas?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Kilroy

Kilroy

  • BC Advisor
  • 3,442 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Launderdale, MN
  • Local time:11:50 PM

Posted 03 February 2017 - 11:09 AM

I'll answer your question about RAID.  It is okay to put the Toshiba P300s in RAID 0, but it won't be as fast as a SSD and if one drive fails all of your data is lost.  I'd recommend going with a SSD instead.

 

600W should be fine for the power supply, I wasn't able to quickly find a recommended size, but this page has 600W.  Depending on what you're going to be installing in the case you might want to go to 750.



#3 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:50 AM

Posted 03 February 2017 - 11:47 AM

R9 Fury is quite old stuff. Also because Ryzen is coming exactly in a month, I recommend waiting for it. AMD x370 motherboards are much better than any Intel LGA11xx ones.

 

550W PSU is enough for any single GPU system.



#4 Planemaster2

Planemaster2

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:50 AM

Posted 03 February 2017 - 12:41 PM

AMD Ryzen will come soon so wait for that before buying anything (Ryzen is AMD's upcoming CPU range). The R9 Fury is only about 10 - 15% faster so I'd only go for it if the price difference is negligible between it and the 1060 6GB. I'd also second Kilroy's suggestion of having an SSD as that will be faster than a RAID 0. 



#5 adi022000

adi022000
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 59 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:50 AM

Posted 03 February 2017 - 07:13 PM

It's about 20-30$ more for R9 than for 1060, and I am probably going to buy one of these, because they are just in my price range :)

#6 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:50 PM

Posted 04 February 2017 - 05:21 AM

R9 Fury is quite old stuff. Also because Ryzen is coming exactly in a month, I recommend waiting for it. AMD x370 motherboards are much better than any Intel LGA11xx ones.

 

550W PSU is enough for any single GPU system.

 

Explain that in somewhat of a general sense if you will. These AMD motherboards are not out yet and you act like you have personally reviewed several already. What makes them better?


Edited by Zone_86, 04 February 2017 - 05:21 AM.


#7 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:50 AM

Posted 04 February 2017 - 02:16 PM

For same reason LGA20xx motherboards are better than LGA11xx moterboards: less bottlenecks. Because LGA20xx motherboards have much more PCI Express lanes integrated to CPU, bus between CPU and chipset is less likely bottleneck.

 

So assuming video card gets 16 PCI Express lanes, situation i

 

Z270: Everything else from chipset (NVME, LAN, SATA etc) must go through PCI Express 3.0 x4 lanes. One NVME SSD is enough to fully fill that bandwidth.

 

X370: Ryzen CPU has integrated USB 3.0 controller (4 ports) AND depending on choice, x4 NVME / 2*SATA + PCI Express x2 / 2*SATA + x2 NVME. Everything else from chipset (NVME, LAN, SATA etc) must go through PCI Express 3.0 x4 lanes.

 

What this means, with LGA1151 even x4 NVME SSD + x2 NVME SSD is more than enough to overload bus between CPU and chipset, with Ryzen this combination is not eating bandwidth from bus between CPU and chipset at all.

 

So for same reason LGA20xx motherboards are better than LGA11xx motherboards (less bottlenecks), Ryzen motherboards are better than LGA11xx motherboards.

 

This picture illustrates it well http://i.imgur.com/Luc2HEW.png


Edited by Drillingmachine, 04 February 2017 - 02:16 PM.


#8 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:50 PM

Posted 04 February 2017 - 04:59 PM

Theoritically you make some nice points and they are true - however only under the most extreme loads, or rather with any user actually saturatiing these specific junctures fully by fully utilizing all ports on the board, or those that would affect the bandwidth you argue, and at that point when any user does that does the rest of his/her hardware compare to any other platform and how does it then relate to gaming strength overall?. See what I said there? Most of the users here come here for advice for gaming situations and gaming builds and or gaming type upgrades. If you steer someone towards a current AMD build - lets take a recent thread where you advise a user to build a whole new system without specifying what system you're talking about (usually you offer an AMD downgrade) when the user already has an H81 motherboard currently with an I3, and he could upgrade to an I5 4670-4690, or I7 4470-4790.

 

Also take into account that when you say "these motherboards are better than their intel counterparts" (paraphrasing you there) you cannot take it quite that literally and compare one "company" to the other "company" as in 'tech vs tech" so easily. Most users don't run NVME just yet, although i'm sure they will eventually but consider that prices of standard SATA SSD's have just now, or rather are just now reach prices of what I call MPA (mass point adoption) per gigabyte. Meaning it's just about at the pricing where you can replace your 500GB or 1TB (or 960GB) with a traditional SATA SSD and go from there no everyone is ready, willing, or can afford NVME just yet.

 

Then we have the motherboard companies themselves to compare, and within those specific models themselves to compare where a BIOS might be a tad buggy as of yet. Your traditional gamer isn't going to be able to afford an Intel I7 6850 type platform  and the X99 with a 6850-6950 type processor nor do they need it for frame rates but you have consistently tried to advise users to get that and then in the same thread said more cores are needed in modern computers and then went on to compare AMD with the value on it's 8 core models which you own, but you forgot to mention that your FX 8320 bottlenecks rather severely next to the I5 2500k is ALL games even the ones that are coded for more cores. Why? because if you go into battle with a smaller but extremely agile, and much sharper sword you usually win against the long clunky, and harder to handle longsword regardless if you think you are going to win that battle with that impressive looking longsword. You will not. The comparison from  Z170-Z270 and the i7 6700-7700k to X99 and 6800--6850-6900 series it's a lot like the comparison of the I5 6600-7600 series to their i7 counterparts regarding gaming there is very little difference in frame rates unless one is for some strange reason watching DVD's, editing videos, and have 3 browsers and 15 tabs open at the same time. At that point the I7 wins over I5, and X99 wins over Z170-Z270 and can maintain top framerates while doing so. For 99% of gamers, the Intel I7 and I5 is plenty, and for users like you and a lot of others the AMD FX 8350 with PCie 2.0 and much slower per-core strength is plenty as well. You have recommended, AMD systems to those wanting to upgrade from older Intel systems with 2500k, 2700k, 3570k, 3770k and recently someone with an Intel H81 with that I3.

 

Moreover, none of the AMD boards have been released yet, so you are categorically stating that all of the new AMD motherboards are better than any Intel chipsets and boards one could possibly attain from Intel. You have somehow reviewed them all.  You are acting out as a representative of AMD and for quite some time you can consistently and categorically downplayed anything Intel and raised to roof on AMD. Put your R9 380 on an old $50.00 H61 with a non K 3570 and you will get yourself a 20% framerate improvement in 98% of games.  I mean it's not like the FX 8350 is new, both the 2500k and 3570k are older just like the FX 8320-8350 but you seemed to think that the AMD was a better choice anyway because of more cores, needed for modern computing. Apparently you like Skyrim @ 65 FPS instead of 85 FPS on the R9 380. I get that because with that FX 8320 you have you can then open up 15 tabs with Firefox, and watch your DVD at the same time! and your venerable FX 8320 stays at a solid 65 FPS, while the 3570 while doing all the same would drop to maybe 79 FPS! Hey I understand. I feel ya Drilling.

 

You would never know it but I am a huge AMD fan. Have been for years but they have not kept up with Intel since Sandy Bridge. I think they will impress with this new release and I look forward to building and running a new AMD system myself. I will compare it directly to my own I7 and I use a 4770k I also have an FX 8320 system BTW @ 4.6 GHZ. When the new AMD processors are released, I feel I would then have both the proper parts to compare and then suggest to end users as I don't know yet just how good the AMD processors and motherboards will really be. Not to mention the better hardware sites will already have those comparisons 2 days after release. I believe you will as well, and I would like to see you benchmark a "main part" new 4 core "Ryzen" AMD processor against an older Z77 3570k/3770k system. I believe that specific metric is where the competition is actually going to be.



#9 shadow_647

shadow_647

  • Banned
  • 1,430 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:50 PM

Posted 04 February 2017 - 06:18 PM

lol all i know is most games only use 4 cores at most and many not even that and last i looked at the AMD FX CPU 4 cores maxed at 4500mgz they just hold their own vs a Intel 775 core quad Q9400 overclocked at 3500mgz,a cpu i can get used for like $20.

 

Sadly all the am3+ AMD cpus are a joke but are cheap so that still works out if your building a system on the cheap or you just want piles of cores just because you can for cheap but for gaming a $75 Intel cpu beats the 8 core amd cpu every time, its sad.

 

You know theirs a bad joke AMD 8 core out their too at 220TDP, i don't see what anyone can do with this thing and it still gets owned by a i3 cpu in gaming.

 

As well a I5 2500k water cooled and overclocked to the limit will kill any AMD cpu out their at the moment all the way around.

 

And back on topic.....

 

R9 Fury only seem to come in 4gig video card versions so i don't know whats going on their but yes op the cpu you have in mind should do well with it.


Edited by shadow_647, 04 February 2017 - 06:19 PM.


#10 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:50 PM

Posted 04 February 2017 - 06:22 PM

A few of AMD's (undoubtedly cherry- picked) benchmarks are a nice start, but, some intermediate res/non-GPU-limited gaming benchmarks will tell a lot. I can't wait, hope AMD does well! (Although I've been hearing rumors that many think AMD will price their 8 core flagship at $600-$700...; that would doom them to selling 100 of them per quarter.)

 

At any rate, we have but one month remaining to wait....!


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#11 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:50 PM

Posted 04 February 2017 - 06:34 PM

FX AMD CPU's do well in Dice, or Battlefield games, and some others. There is something to be said for simple having a good all-around "computer" regardless of the CPU. I mean even something like an older FX 6100 can be a "good computer" and play games just fine. Getting an FX 4300 used and cranking that thing up to 4.6 GHZ there is nothing wrong with that and there isn't a game it cannot handle right? The only thing there is an argument around would be diminishing returns with framerates as you use higher resolutions and go up scale in higher end GPU's with bottleneck issues. However, again, there is something to be said for a good overall PC that can do things just fine, and all the while you didn't pay and a leg for it. This is where AMD have fit in perfectly. Not to mention 95% of gamers are still on 1080p anyway. You may ask if someone like me would be ok with selling off my Intel system and exclusively using my FX 8320 system. Sure I would and it will do anything I ask it to, include play every game, edit my videos, website editing, everything, and I could be completely happy with the RX 470 that it now uses too that thing is an AMAZING value and the IQ I like better than nvidia's IQ too. Everything just looks better. However that does not mean I don't also know that since the I5 2500k AMD have not been comparing too well with Intel, although when I say that it does not mean I will ever call AMD "crap". They are not crap in fact they are a great company that offers very nice processors and great for the money you pay.


Edited by Zone_86, 04 February 2017 - 06:36 PM.


#12 shadow_647

shadow_647

  • Banned
  • 1,430 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:50 PM

Posted 04 February 2017 - 07:23 PM

Problem is i find of late is the min you stick anything in a am3+ mobo AMD cpu wise your topped out so no upgrade path cpu wise and the cheapest one worth talking about is the FX 4300 seeing as most games only use 4 cores anyways so theirs not much point getting more cores and the more cores versions run slower on each core in any case so for games the 8 core version runs games slower then the 4 core version and costs you more, of course theirs the 220TDP 8 core AMD FX cpu out their but that thing makes no sense and most mobos don't support 220tdp AMD cpus so i won't even talk about that thing, mean wile you can get a intel Pentium G4560 that's more or less a i3 with 3 megs cash ram vs 4 megs cash ram on a real i3 for $75 and it owns all the AMD cpus in gaming, sad .... and any time you want down the road you can plop in a i7 K something or other when the time comes, AMD at the moment your topped the min you get a am3+ cpu and the hole topic going to be dropped soon anyways once the am4 cpus come out so whats the point with AMD AM3+ till ryzen comes out.

 

Other thing too that lame with all the FX cpus is the heat topic, its grate their all unlocked but most are topped mgz wise in any case out of the box so your not going far on that topic anyways even with pro cooling and even with pro cooling then the watts kick in hardcore and a lot of mobo if you go nuts on that topic if the heat dousen't get you then the watts drain will and you'll kill your mobos VRM so you know.

 

Other thing too that bad for AMD when it comes to am3 anything is the world is full of socket 775 twin/quad core cpus from Intel at the moment used and for cheap and i can get a $20 cpu that will keep up with anything AMD makes new now in games so you know, why would i even bother to go FX 4300 when i can do the same with a $50 used 775 mobo and a $20 used cpu and challenge any AMD FX system in games and hole my own with 8 year old Intel technology.

 

Min Op shows back up we have to get back on topic though guys but this chat just got to interesting its hard not to want to talk about it !



#13 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:50 AM

Posted 05 February 2017 - 05:01 AM

Theoritically you make some nice points and they are true - however only under the most extreme loads, or rather with any user actually saturatiing these specific junctures fully by fully utilizing all ports on the board, or those that would affect the bandwidth you argue, and at that point when any user does that does the rest of his/her hardware compare to any other platform and how does it then relate to gaming strength overall?. See what I said there? Most of the users here come here for advice for gaming situations and gaming builds and or gaming type upgrades. If you steer someone towards a current AMD build - lets take a recent thread where you advise a user to build a whole new system without specifying what system you're talking about (usually you offer an AMD downgrade) when the user already has an H81 motherboard currently with an I3, and he could upgrade to an I5 4670-4690, or I7 4470-4790.


Those extreme loads are things that make Real difference. For basic use, virtually any current motherboard is enough. For same reasons z270 motherboards are better than AM3+ motherboards and x99 motherboards are better than z270 motherboards (less bottlenecks), Ryzen x370 motherboards are better than z270 motherboards. Of course, nothing prevents from making x99 motherboard worse than AM3+ motherboard, but generally these rules apply.

I have proved many times that upgrading i3 to i5/i7 makes no sense. It's much cheaper option to buy i5/i7 outright rather than upgrading from i3. So in reality that "upgrade path" is not upgrade but waste of money. Even buying new motherboard is better option than upgrading frm i3 to i5/i7.
 

Also take into account that when you say "these motherboards are better than their intel counterparts" (paraphrasing you there) you cannot take it quite that literally and compare one "company" to the other "company" as in 'tech vs tech" so easily. Most users don't run NVME just yet, although i'm sure they will eventually but consider that prices of standard SATA SSD's have just now, or rather are just now reach prices of what I call MPA (mass point adoption) per gigabyte. Meaning it's just about at the pricing where you can replace your 500GB or 1TB (or 960GB) with a traditional SATA SSD and go from there no everyone is ready, willing, or can afford NVME just yet.


Those people don't have much to say about better motherboards.

Another VERY big advantage with Ryzen is that it's basically System On Chip. So it's very possible for basic use to have motherboard with no chipset(!). Something Intel users can only dream on.
 
As for rest of your post, Skyrim is buggy game that uses very old engine. Skyrim bug list is quite "long" http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1297205-unofficial-buglist/

Why bother to fix when Bethesda fanclub fix bugs for free :)

In reality (outside bencmarks), I haven't found so far single "good game" (ulra buggy Skyrim is not good game for example) where FX-8320 is bottleneck. Pretty strange, eh? Life is different outside benchmarks. I say this once again, benchmarks and real computer use are totally different things. For example SSD does not get more FPS on gaming benchmarks, so SSD makes no difference for gaming machine. Really??


For motherboards, it's very easy to predict how good motherboards will generally be just judging from CPU and chipset features. In last 15 years, I have never failed with these predictions. I'm very confident I'm right this time also.

Edited by Drillingmachine, 05 February 2017 - 05:02 AM.


#14 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:50 PM

Posted 05 February 2017 - 05:30 AM

If you think you're right then to you that is all that matters. No worries.



#15 shadow_647

shadow_647

  • Banned
  • 1,430 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:50 PM

Posted 05 February 2017 - 10:30 AM

I have proved many times that upgrading i3 to i5/i7 makes no sense. It's much cheaper option to buy i5/i7 outright rather than upgrading from i3. So in reality that "upgrade path" is not upgrade but waste of money. Even buying new motherboard is better option than upgrading frm i3 to i5/i7.

 

Smoke more weed bro, ok so you start with a $75 i3 cpu then wait 10 years or less for a i7 top of the line to become $100 or less = not a good idea , better idea as far as your considered is start off and buy a $500 cpu umm ok whatever.
 

 

Another VERY big advantage with Ryzen is that it's basically System On Chip. So it's very possible for basic use to have motherboard with no chipset(!). Something Intel users can only dream on.

 

why would i wont everything on one chip, just means everything TDP wise on one chip, ill take the old stile chipset setup my self as well putting everything in one chip locks out 3rd party's from doing what they want with the cpu with their chipsets, as well AMD was the first to go memory controller in the cpu "massive problems followed" with the k8 line and the 775 cpus setups didn't, guess what happened, the 775 cpus still spank anything AMD has to offer for gaming and their getting near the 10 year mark.

 

You right about the SSD though drill, why i don't care about the topic much.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users