Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : Advice on my build? |
|
Answer» First off, this is the first forum post I've ever made, so I apologize if I make any mistakes/break a rule that I do not know of. I will be staying with the MSI hardware, and replacing the power supply to something with 700 Watt. Best of luck if you stick with MSI, I avoid them like the plague. Patios statement Quote I would also re-consider the PSU... is in regard to the brand I believe ( patio please correct me if I am wrong with that ) with reconsidering on the PSU to go with a trusted brand vs this one. I myself have never heard of fortron brand until now. There are many many power supply brands out there, the ones that I am unaware of I avoid, or get for free from other people etc and use for systems that arent worth much money if the power supply fails and burns up the electronics. Your system is an investment and costs a pretty penny, the power supply quality is one of the most important parts of a new build, its like the #1 part that all other parts rely upon greatly and so I dont take any chances with unknown or known low quality supplies in systems that I care about.I don't know anything about the power supply, what do you suggest? And I kept seeing the MSI videocard and have seen performances of it, looks pretty good expecially for the price... What would you reccommend instead?FSP are an okay brand but nothing special. I'd look at something like this: http://www.komplett.be/product/zkb-01com/80014806/seasonic-m12ii-bronze-evo-edition-520-watt/details.aspxDaveLembke SAID i needed about 600 Watt to be safe? The one you suggested is 520 Watt, would that really be enough? I'm also already quite a bit over my original budget so I'm hoping I wont have to spend like a 50 extra Euro's. I found a FSP with 700 Watt (I can't send the link atm, my phone won't let me but I'm sure you can find it within seconds) Why is this one "less good" than the one you linked me?Is there an online calculator that allows you to guestimate the hardware power demands cameron? I have concerns that under stress his system might run over 100% at the 520watt PSU given what I have seen with my build and the AMD FX 8350 4Ghz that I am running. What I have that adds additional load that he might not have are: 2 Hard Drives + 1 SSD 2 extra 80mm fans and a single 120mm fan for extra airflow in mATX case * my cell phone might have been charging off of USB at the time too.Here Ya Go Dave...For that system 500w is way more than enoughCool... well with just the hardware they have which is different than my own it does appear to be ok for 500. Thanks for sharing that calculator.Would speeding money on a 8 core CPU be a wise investment? What games wound use an 8 core CPU? Of possible interest: Why You Don’t Need More Than Four CPU Cores Just saying... The linked ARTICLE seems to ignore a few factors with regards to CPU and particularly the software that is run on them. the first consideration is that the article states "we’re well behind what the industry was predicting for core counts in desktop PCs.". ignoring for the moment that no concrete "prediction" was ever really considered beyond more vague concepts of systems relying more on massive parallelization- it's not accurate. Even while CPUs may only have 4 Cores in general, that is still more Cores than we had 10 years ago in a typical PC; additionally, most modern CPUs also feature hyperthreading or other virtualization and parallelization technologies, which increase performance of software that is able to make use of it by effectively pretending to be more cores; furthermore, more software than ever before is being optimized to run across several CPUs, virtual or otherwise, and take advantage of CPU parallelization. Part of this is the result of adopting high-level languages that abandon the typical approach of "threads" and instead abstract parallelisation to the compiler, or otherwise allow the programmer to no longer need to consider multithreading nightmares such as deadlocks. It also disregards the performance benefits that results from using processors with more cores simply by virtue of the fact that your foreground software application doesn't run in a vacuum, but instead shares the system with other software components, many of which themselves may be optimized to run across several execution cores. BC_programmer, You did read the whole thing? The context here is single user gaming, not industrial applications. What is the objective of paying more money for anything?. To tell your friends you paid more money or to get the best performance for your money? If that later, 8 cores is a waste of resources. They don't to anything that four cores can not do. They just cost more. There is no game that runs noticeably better on 8 cores. And there will not be for some time. But nobody will admit it. The 8 core gaming thing a fantasy. EDIT: OK. Some few tell the truth. Look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/125887-13-people-buying-quad-cores-gaming He says even 4 cores are two too many. Quote But when I saw the real world benchmarks, an i3 with the same clock as a quad core i5 or i7 always performed exactly the same. I was disturbed with these results, so I tested it out myselfHe is saying the CPU power is not used the way you might think. |
|