Also I wouldn't bother with a k series unless you plan on overclocking. If you don't plan on overclocking, get one of the non-k haswell i7s for $80 more like others have said.

will keep that in mind. that one was a good value and had good reviews. I'm not buying anything yet, just trying to get an idea of what I might need/spend. Going to sit on slickdeals and wait for black friday sale leaks and go from there.

thanks! i kept seeing those recommended, but wasn't sure exactly why. I have no need to overclock. I have overclocked my GPU and that requires me to run it at full speed fan almost costantly :)

Slightly more than a tripling of performance overall, though some of that presupposes multithreaded processing and the ability of the OS to efficiently load-share over four cores as opposed to two.


The theoretical performance difference between these two processors is about 30%. Fairly small as compared to the leap from your current Core2 to the i5.

After more thinking, I think I might go with this GPU: Newegg.com - XFX R9-290X ENFC Radeon R9 290X 4GB 512-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 CrossFireX Support Video Card

and this monitor:

I think you should buy the 50 inch.

:)

ive actually wondered what it would be liek to use such a large screen, i feel like it would make my gaming worse.

I feel like it would make for an awesome TV replacement. Perfect to use when the steam box comes out.

I'd want a least a 60" 4K TV.

Yes because of all the TV content available at 4K.

well, because I'd want at least a 60" TV to at least match what I have now that I think is too small.

In case anyone cares, I'm writing this from my laptop. y8s was able to hook me up with a 320GB 7200RPM HDD and I'm running on win7 Ultimate.

We all care, Scott.

Why aren't you posting about your pending desktop build, and not your stoopid laptop?

i dunno. cause im waiting for sale parts.

here's an update:

I went to buy this today: SeaSonic SS-660XP2 660W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS PLATINUM Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply - Newegg.com

but the coupon code ended today apparently. I would have been able to get it for $80.00 shipped.

This is the current-gen version of the PSU that I have in my "big" computer: Newegg.com - Cooler Master i600 - 600W Power Supply with 80 PLUS Bronze Certification

It was more than powerful enough to drive my old GTX280 video card (one of the power-hungriest single-chip GPUs ever created, for serious) with ease. It is almost totally silent, and has been running continuously for about three years at this point with nary a tick or glitch. $67 shipped.

I could do this one for $49.99 shipped:

Newegg.com - Thermaltake SMART Series SP-650PCBUS 650W ATX 12V 2.3 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC Power Supply

Maybe i got a little lost in the last page or two.

Are you starting your build with a power supply?

No. But I just missed out on that one with a really good sale is all.


One thing I was thinking about, will I end up running into issues if I use my current HDD on the new setup? Or will windows die from aids with all the new hardware it's seeing? Or should I just die from aids?

You won't be able to use your current OS with all the new hardware. You'll either have to install windows on a new drive, or format that drive for a new version of windows. I usually install windows on the newer bigger faster drive. Then use the old one for storage.


The reason i ask if you were building around the PSU, is because that's not normally a good idea. There are 2 things you want to buy that you don't want to have to upgrade in a year. Motherboard, and PSU. Build around a motherboard and don't go for the budget low end one. Get the most recent socket type (AMD or Intel, whatever) and get a good one. Fast, modern chipset, Plenty of PCI slots, nothing less than 6 sATA slots. If your old HD is IDE (ribbon wire) you'll need that. blah blah.

That's the backbone of the computer, and you can always upgrade around it. But once the motherboard is outdated, then you're looking at updating more than you would otherwise.

Same with the PSU. They build them so good these days that you should get a decent 600w - 800w with good reviews and be done with it for your lifetime.
But you can't buy a PSU until you know what parts you have in your computer.
What if you buy a graphics card that has an 8 pin plug, but the PSU has no 8 pin?
Or if you end up with 4 hard drives, and a modern CD drive, but the PSU only has 3 sATA power connectors?

Indeed.

And seriously, buy an Intel motherboard. I cannot stress enough how much better that are than literally everything else out there, both in terms of build quality and also the quality and stability of the drivers, bios, etc.

I just upgraded my media server PC over the weekend. It's now running win 7 and has a 4tb drive installed, still with the same old Intel motherboard from 2004. Turns out that while Intel themselves no longer official support boards this old, every single component on it was natively supported by win 7 with no fuss.

And yeah, always do a fresh OS install when changing the motherboard. You can make it work without this, but it's sub optimal.

This is beginning to be more trouble than it's worth.

It's not any more difficult than building a turbo setup.
I've said that before.


Newegg's black November deals are going on now, this is when you will find the best deals.

I know it's not difficult, I just really don't wanna bother with dealing with all my files and installs right now.

For example, I have an older verison of divx to work with some stupid streaming I used to use.

I don't want to have to install the latest version of itunes (the cloud) and hope all my library copies over.

Then the only things I actually do on my computer: Adobe and Starcraft2 won't be fun reinstalling.

I have the SC2 CD, but then there's the expansion pack CD, and then the huge patch I'll have to d/l and install; I'll lose an entire day just dealing with Starcraft.

I have tons of Adobe software, with custom presets/actions that I'd have to figure out and save and then retorrent them all again and hope they work.

Buying the hardware and putting it together is easy, I've done it before, but the last computer I built was in 2000. So my biggest issue was just not knowing what's the must have or must avoids. My computer is really starting to lag but it works, so I'd like to just take my current image and just run it on new hardware up to the task. Then I can figure out a new drive/OS down the road.

How old is the hard drive you're using now?

I think it's from 2009-2010. It's a 320GB 7200, has about 100GB left on it.

Then i have a second drive, 500GB, and that's using about 300GB and that only has music and pictures on it.

You can try to take an image of your machine and load it up in Virtualbox or VMWare or something on the new machine. That might be more trouble than just re-installing everything though.

what's the worst that can happen if I start the new computer with my current HD?

It just won't work^

Keep it.

Some, not all. But some software may work if you don't boot from that drive.

This is really a moral choice on your part. Having a fresh OS, and fresh install of the programs i need on a bran new computer is great. Like a new car. But if you can't be bothered with installing things, then i can't help.

Oh, and there was a site somewhere that you could get old software. I forget what it is, but a simple google search should be able to bring it up easily. I used to do this all the time when i didn't want to download the latest AOL, or whatever stupid program there was. Maybe this was it http://www.oldversion.com

well, maybe I can start copying more over to the second drive in preperation.

I already have win7 ultimate on a DVD-R, so that's a start :)

The will attempt to reconfigure itself for the new hardware and fail so badly that it will no longer boot in either machine.

By all means, give it a try. But before you do, while the drive is still installed in the original machine, CREATE A BACKUP IMAGE OF IT. Don't just back up the files, you need an IMAGE of the drive (like an .iso, but for hard disks) that can be restored.

Norton Ghost is the commonest application for this purpose. You create a bootable CD-ROM with Ghost on it, boot from that device, then clone the first (primary) hard drive out to an image file on a second (eg: USB) hard drive.

Once that's done, if you fuck everything up then you can boot from the CD again and restore the image back to the primary hard drive.

If you prefer something Free (and legal), there's Acronis True Image Free.

Sort-of-on-topic post:
I took some pics of my (old, weak ass) setup last night. Just for shits and giggles.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1383603595

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1383603595

Pusher and puller fans on the rad? That's interesting.

Overclocked much?

Phenom II x4 955 overclocked to 4.0GHz. At the moment its still at 200 MHz FSB, with an "all multiplier" overclock, but previously Ive had it up at 220 MHz FSB and less multiplier. Its at stock voltage.

Ive become convinced that this motherboard is reporting my cpu temps incorrectly. This CPU on another mobo always ran cool even at 4.0Ghz. On this mobo it says Im idling at like 50C, and hitting 60C under load, which is close to where it should auto-shutdown to protect the cpu.

Meanwhile, my buddy just did a build with an AMD piledriver 8 core, overclocked to 4.5 Ghz and his mobo is reporting idle temps below ambient temperature.

Im starting to think these temperature measurements are worthless.

Yes. Put your own thermal couple on the base of the heat sink. The should more or less be the same temp as the chip.

I wouldn't over think it.... I'm on the exact same processor and i'm regging 95F right now, with just a simple puller fan and an OC to 3.8ghz. 200mhz FSB and stock voltage. I also applied my own arctic silver 5 or whatever that stuff is.

I try to up the voltage and my motherboard just isn't having it.

My end tanks are usually ambient temperature. I'll have to put my digital thermostat on once i've been gaming for an hour or so.

From what I've read, these temps are actually pretty average for Phenom processors of that era. They do in fact run hot, and AMD is not known for being overly generous when it comes to design-basis thermal margin. (eg: they're known for pushing the boundaries.)



Ok, do you understand WHY it is impossible for any non-evaporative / non-peltier cooling system to bring the temperature of the CPU down to below ambient?


In a badly-designed or poorly-implemented system, certainly.

I'd have to disagree. My Phenom runs at a perfectly normal temperature.
In fact, my old dual core AMD almost 2ghz overclocked on an air cooler didn't run much warmer than normal at idle...

I've seen plenty of Intel processors run plenty hot...

Based on what?

And define "normal."

Honestly, 60* isn't blindingly hot for a modern semiconductor. Back when I worked at Harris, we had one guy, an actual grey-bearded engineer named Larry, who was our power and heat guru. Larry did most of the heavy-lifting when it came to keeping our shit cool (no fans- everything had to be passive) and when it came to things like FPGA cores, he didn't even start to flinch until the die was approaching the boiling point of water.

IMO, consumer-grade CPUs are a tad conservative in terms of where they place the overload-shutdown setpoint.



As to the latter point, if you compare apples to apples (same generation, same number of cores, same behchmark ratings) AMD CPUs generally consume more power and generate more heat than Intel CPUs. This is a broad generalization, but based on the data, it's mostly true. This is because AMD tends to lag about one generation behind Intel in terms of process size, and usually runs the clock a bit higher to compensate for less optimal design on the instruction decoder, prefetch processor, pipeline queues, etc. This is how they keep costs down relative to Intel, in order to sell the product more cheaply while achieving similar performance. It's not a criticism, it's just the way things are.

In automotive terms, Intel spends Honda-like quantities of time and money optimizing the combustion-chamber design and implementing variable-geometry manifolds and four camshafts per cylinder, while AMD says "fuck it" and just turns up the boost a few pounds. Both engines make the same 200 HP, but the AMD engine runs hotter and is a lot closer to the detonation threshold, while the Intel engine costs twice as much, runs on 87 octane, and has about 10% more area under the curve.

The same CPU in a different motherboard gave much lower temp readings.
Additionally, this CPU is reported to be easily overclocked to nearly 4.0GHz on stock core voltage with the stock cooler. This little water cooler isnt the best, but unless its starting to fail, it shouldnt have any trouble.

Do I know why? because of conservation of energy? because entropy? All I know is that its not magic, and is not using an evaporative or TEC cooling setup. So the sensor must be inaccurate.

I have read some posts on the interwebs by people claiming that the thermistors are only accurate in a certain range and that at idle temps (like below 40C) they will read low. I would think this would be a problem regardless of what CPU is used, regardless of being Intel, AMD, Motorolla G4 7448, etc.

When DDR4 rolls around Ill probably be jumping on the Intel bandwagon with my next build. :jerkit:

This makes sense. While it's possible that this may have changed in the latest generation of processors (I haven't looked), historically the temp sensor has actually been on the motherboard, rather than integrated into the CPU itself. So there's a huge amount of variability and margin for error there. That's what I was talking about earlier in "badly-designed or poorly-implemented." A crap motherboard can be expected to give crap readings. So can a good one, if the sensor is slightly bent, or there's some shit on it, or (other things.)




Yup.

(And it's for the same reason that an intercooler can't be more than 100% efficient. Unless you force it by performing a phase-change (or with exotic devices like a peltier junction), heat will only travel from an area of high temperature to an area of lower temperature. To get anything below ambient, you need heat to go the "wrong way", from an area of cool temp to an area of warmer temp.)



I'm sure this is probably true.

That said, it's easy to compare the amount of heat put out by a processor without ever using a thermometer. You just look at the manufacturer's published specs on the part, at the data labeled Thermal Design Power, or TDP. This tells you the amount of electrical power, in watts, that the CPU will consume when operating on a continuous basis at 100% load. Since all CPUs are essentially 0% efficient by definition, the TDP in watts of electricity directly translates to the thermal output in watts of heat.

So if you have two CPUs that both have the same throughput rating (in MIPS, or Passmark, or whatever your benchmark of choice is), and CPU 1 has a TDP of 80 watts while CPU A has a TDP of 120 watts, CPU A will put out about 50% more heat than CPU 1 for a given task.

This is a 125W CPU, so its quite the heat monster.
AMD now has a CPU rated at 220W
Newegg.com - AMD FX-9590 Vishera 4.7GHz Socket AM3+ 220W Eight-Core Desktop Processor - Black Edition FD9590FHHKWOX with Liquid Cooling Kit
Forget about cooling, I would be concerned that the mosfets couldnt deal with this thing.

The last 2 generation of Intel i7 beat it by a wide margin in benchmarking, and only put out 130W.
This is part of why Ive decided my next setup will be Intel. I have a very nice 600 watt power supply that I dont feel like replacing just so I can run a power hungry CPU. Ill spend a few extra bucks for an Intel CPU that pulls half as much current and has better compatibility, and have extra headroom for 200+ watt graphics card.

A perfect example.

The AMD Piledriver architecture (which is what the Vishera is) is built on a 32nm process, exactly the same as the old Bulldozer.

By comparison, the current-gen (Haswell) Intel Core processors are all 22nm, as were the previous-gen Ivy Bridge Core processors. Intel hasn't used a 32nm process since Sandy Bridge, which was released nearly 3 years ago. And at that time, AMD was still shipping the K10, which was a 45nm architecture.

That's a large part of where the efficiency difference is between the Intel and AMD designs, as a broad generalization.

Okay, I'm back on this:

Newegg.com - Gateway Intel Core i5 6GB DDR3 1TB HDD Capacity Desktop PC Windows 8 DX4860-UR29

Is there any reason I shouldn't just get this, upgrade the RAM, and then get a PSU and GPU when I'm ready? I'd probably wipe the HDD and put win7 on it though.

or this and simply add a second stick of that RAM and a Heatsink/cooling fan.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboB...=Combo.1469816

This looks solid.

That processor will come with a stock little heatsink with fan.

8gb of ram is quite a bit. Though, that's some slower stuff they give you. Easily upgradable whenever.

I'm highly considering that right now. $475 for all that shipped is MUCH better than I could do if I pieced all that together.

Not bad, but that case is quite ugly IMO

Srsly? You care how beautiful the case is? That is a deciding factor for you on whether to buy a certain computer or not?

Ok, folks. Nominations are open for the ban on Full Tilt Boogie. Voting is open for 24 hours, and the majority wins.

Bring it on bro

I think OEM cases typically look pretty good but that second one he linked kinda looks like a civic with a body kit. My case is pretty ostentatious, but I wouldnt be embarrassed for people to see it.

Fraknly, I don't care if the case is covered with pink, jewel-encrusted dicks. It just needs to contain the components, provide FCC Part 15-compliant shielding, and serve as a conduit for cooling airflow.

(To be fair, I'd pick the Gateway over this kit, but either one looks perfectly acceptable.)

damn. You know what, I probably would have ordered that combo kit today, but it appears it's no longer available...

Reasons it was better than the Gateway:

550w PSU vs. 300,
GPU vs. none
8GB RAM vs. 6GB
No OS vs. Win8

Plus you'll get a case big enough that you know you can upgrade into. That gateway case and motherboard mehhh.

I thought the case was ugly as sin too, but it had an SD card slot and that was another bonus.

I'll wait to see if it comes up again; I can't put together parts for as good of a deal. I've seen it before, so I think it just comes on and off their daily deals.

That would have been $475 shipped (after rebates) compared to my current shopping list:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: MSI H77MA-G43 Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($74.97 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Tactical 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($55.25 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.65 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 650 1GB Video Card ($99.99 @ Microcenter)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 500W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($34.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $514.84 (after rebates)

and that doesn't include the case. The real savings is being able to get a CPU from microcenter however. The in-store pickup option for the CPUs are MUCH cheaper then anywhere else online.


Also when picking a MB, I want at least two 6 gb/s SATA slots for my HDDs right?

I prefer plain beige boxes. But not enough so that I would take a black case and paint it beige. Though I want my next computer integrated into the desk and to be in a lexan box submerged in fluid.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1383745460



https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1383745460



How very 80s of you. :)

Fuck you, it would be awesome and you know it.

can someone tell me why i shouldn't get this?

Acer Black Veritron M VM4620G-UI7377X Intel Core i7 Desktop - Walmart.com

Because then you'd have nothing to bitch and moan about?