Desktop Computers

Khane

Khane

Got something right about marriage
20,887
14,712
joeboo_sl said:
Just depends on what you are going to do with the machine. If it's purely a gaming and rerolled.org browsing machine, go i5. If you're doing anything else in the background while gaming, go i7.
Click to expand...
Ok but why. WHY I SAY?!
 
Joeboo

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
i7 has more cache than the i5, so it can not only repeat repetitive commands faster(think spreadsheets and databases), but that extra cache allows for more background programs & processes to be stored and brought to the forefront more quickly when you switch between multiple programs that are running.

An i7 also has hyperthreading, so while both an i5 and an i7 have 4 or 6 physical cores, an i7 has an equal amount of "virtual" cores as well, so Windows will handle a 4-core i7 like it has 8 cores, and it will multitask a lot better if you are using a program that benefits from multiple cores (video processing/encoding, rendering, etc)

So, if all you're doing is gaming, and i5 is fine because very few games take advantage of multiple cores, but theres definitely a lot you can do with a PC that would use those extra cores/hyperthreading.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
31,800
24,478
Khane_sl said:
Hmmpph, I thought the i3 supported virtualization?

Actually after reading about VT-d do I really need that? Won't VT-x suffice? This is for a personal development machine, not a server. I'll be running a "test server" with little to no load just to test code deployments and that's it. I MIGHT run a domain controller on one too but again, that's just so I can install some of the software to run on the test server.

I really don't know much about hardware enabled virtualization
Click to expand...
VT-d allows the virtual machines to have direct access to the NIC and GPU, or something.
 
Alkorin

Chancellor Alkorin

Part-Time Sith
<Granularity Engineer>
6,052
10,317
VT-d allows direct access to hardware other than the CPU, period. For example, you can present your GPU to a VM. Want 3D acceleration/Quartz in OS X in a VM? You need VT-d.

Or, another example, you want to present a fibre channel card directly to a VM because you don't want your FC fabric presented through ESXi. VT-d lets you present the card directly to a guest (or several guests).

As a follow-up to the question I posted the other day, I found this neat SSD torture test today:The SSD Endurance Experiment: They're all dead - The Tech Report - Page 1
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
31,800
24,478
Finding Z97 boards with VT-d support is hard.

The ASRock Z97 Extreme6 definitely does have it, I had to research it for a build I did for someone.
 
Khane

Khane

Got something right about marriage
20,887
14,712
joeboo_sl said:
i7 has more cache than the i5, so it can not only repeat repetitive commands faster(think spreadsheets and databases), but that extra cache allows for more background programs & processes to be stored and brought to the forefront more quickly when you switch between multiple programs that are running.

An i7 also has hyperthreading, so while both an i5 and an i7 have 4 or 6 physical cores, an i7 has an equal amount of "virtual" cores as well, so Windows will handle a 4-core i7 like it has 8 cores, and it will multitask a lot better if you are using a program that benefits from multiple cores (video processing/encoding, rendering, etc)

So, if all you're doing is gaming, and i5 is fine because very few games take advantage of multiple cores, but theres definitely a lot you can do with a PC that would use those extra cores/hyperthreading.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks for the explanation. I don't actually think I need the extra cores. I'm only going to have one VM running when I'm doing this stuff and memory seems to be the bigger issue for that, not CPU and this is all .NET stuff and really just more of a playground for side projects/ideas.

So I think I'll go with the i5 4690k because it's about $100 cheaper than the i7 4770k.

Next question, the i5 is LGA 1150 but all the memory I'm seeing says "compatible with LGA 1155/1156".Like this. It should still run fine with an LGA 1150 CPU right?
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
31,800
24,478
Any 1.5 volt pairs of DDR3 sticks and 1600mhz+ will do basically the same as any others. XMP support is good so you don't have to futz with the timings yourself.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
31,800
24,478
I feel like if you can snag a 4790k for 299, it's worth it, but it's not worth it at 339.

EDIT: It's on sale for 279 if you live near a Microcenter.
 
Joeboo

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
The 18-month SSD experiment is finally over, all of the drives are dead

The SSD Endurance Experiment: They're all dead - The Tech Report - Page 3

Basically:
The Samsung 840 PRO lasted for 2.4Petabytes(2400 TB) of writes, which was the longest by far. It started getting errors at 300TB and minor failures at 700TB and completely failed at 2400TB. The Samsung also maintained the highest average write AND read speeds, all while lasting the longest too. The Samsung Pro drives are pretty much head and shoulders above anyone else at this point(but I think we all kinda knew that)

seq-write.gif

ran-read.gif


Overall complete failures:
Samsung 840 Evo: 2.4 PB
Kingston HyperX compressed: 2.1 PB
Corsair Neutron: 1.2 PB
Samsung (non-Evo): 900 TB
Intel 335: 700TB
Kingston HyperX: TB

The compressed HyperX paid for its longevity by being the slowest of the bunch in random read/write speed, FYI, otherwise the rest of the drives were all pretty comparable, with the Samsung Pro standing way, way out in front of them all.

The plain Samsung drive was a little disappointing, but this was a non-Evo drive, but in theory, the EVO probably has similar longevity, the EVO drives just boosted read/write speed over the standard 840s.
 
dizzie

dizzie

Triggered Happy
2,509
3,940
I really don't see myself writing anywhere near those numbers on a system 256/512 SSD anytime soon - that is alot of data transfer though..Pretty decent time to fail. Will get much more interesting once we get into using SSD for storage and I could probably destroy a drive in a year or less going on those figures.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
31,800
24,478
Mist_sl said:
I feel like if you can snag a 4790k for 299, it's worth it, but it's not worth it at 339.

EDIT: It's on sale for 279 if you live near a Microcenter.
Click to expand...
Make that 279 and 40 dollars off whatever motherboard you buy with it.
 
Joeboo

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
Dizzie_sl said:
I really don't see myself writing anywhere near those numbers on a system 256/512 SSD anytime soon - that is alot of data transfer though..Pretty decent time to fail. Will get much more interesting once we get into using SSD for storage and I could probably destroy a drive in a year or less going on those figures.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no one is going to hit those numbers, unless they try. You could install a 50GB game every day for an entire year and you've still only done 20TB of writes. The minimum, worst drives on there start having errors at 10x that amount. So you could install(write) a 50GB game every day for a decade and your SSD wouldn't start to fail. It's pretty crazy.

99.99% of people will ditch a drive due to upgrading/size constraints LONG before they ever have to worry about write failures.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
47,555
102,462
joeboo_sl said:
i7 has more cache than the i5, so it can not only repeat repetitive commands faster(think spreadsheets and databases), but that extra cache allows for more background programs & processes to be stored and brought to the forefront more quickly when you switch between multiple programs that are running.

An i7 also has hyperthreading, so while both an i5 and an i7 have 4 or 6 physical cores, an i7 has an equal amount of "virtual" cores as well, so Windows will handle a 4-core i7 like it has 8 cores, and it will multitask a lot better if you are using a program that benefits from multiple cores (video processing/encoding, rendering, etc)

So, if all you're doing is gaming, and i5 is fine because very few games take advantage of multiple cores, but theres definitely a lot you can do with a PC that would use those extra cores/hyperthreading.
Click to expand...
Hyperthreading is 100% useless if you dont plan on doing tons of rendering/content creation. My i5 4690k has had zero problems running multiple games at the same time along with firefox with 20+ tabs and various other misc programs
 
Alkorin

Chancellor Alkorin

Part-Time Sith
<Granularity Engineer>
6,052
10,317
If you're doing rendering or virtualization, go i7. If not, go i5. Easy enough IMO.
 
Khane

Khane

Got something right about marriage
20,887
14,712
Ok, next question. Is the GTX 970 worth the extra $100 over the GTX 960? I have a feeling it won't matter much to me playing games like Marvel Heroes.

I like the fact that the 960 isn't a power hog so I should be able to get away with a lower wattage PSU. PSU's have always been the bane of my builds.

Seriously, what frigan PSU should I get? I've had trouble with pretty much every manufacturer at one point or another. And how much wattage do I need for a 960 or 970? Will 500W cut it? Min specs say 450W but I never trust that, I prefer to have a bulletproof PSU.

EDIT: Corollary to the GPU question. What will offer better video quality for gaming if I don't care about the audio, DisplayPort or Dual Link DVI?
 
Denamian

Denamian

Night Janitor
<Nazi Janitors>
7,624
21,104
I'm running a 970 with no issues on a 650W PSU. The thing actually uses less power than the 560 TI it replaced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.