re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts

there's no point for the kraken. Might as well go custom loop since I imagine you're getting an AIO cooler for the processor too

Would you like my help? At all? Because I'd be glad to give you very thorough responses after I pick up my daughter from day care. But not if you're just going to ignore me.

quote:

---

H220 from Swiftech was available and from what I've heard that's supposed to be the best cooler, right?

---

Yes, but the h220x should be coming out sometime soon

Alright, I will respond when I get home. In the meantime, post a link to your current build again. That last link you posted was just the URL to PC part picker and not your specific build.

quote:

---

i must've missed something. you're making out like it's different than any other graphics card. isn't this the card he's selling? LINK

---

That is the Myst/reference version. This is the one I have: LINK
Same card, but a better cooler. I don't think they made very many of these.

Had to divide this into two posts because it's too long. I didn't address the water cooling stuff since it was already addressed by others.

quote:

---

How big of a difference is there between 1600, 1866, & 2400mHz RAM running at stock, or overclocked, speeds?

---

Depends on what you are doing. For the most part, higher-speed memory will give you better synthetic benchmark scores. In gaming, you'll not notice a single iota of performance difference.

Anandtech ran a test some years ago in gaming. They used an IGP (integrated graphics processor) that HAS to use system RAM in games. No VRAM with an IGP, obviously. They tested 1333, 1600, 1866, 2133, and 2400 MHz memory in the same configuration. What was found was a FPS difference of 1 to 10fps (depending on the game) between 1333MHz and 2400MHz RAM. This is in a case where the RAM is being used as the sole source of GPU commands. In a gaming environment with dedicated VRAM, the differences are virtually nothing. If you were a video editor, 3d modeling professional, etc., you'd see benefit in getting a lot of fast, low-latency RAM.

quote:

---

Isn't the latency more important?

---

Probably, or at least equally important. As the speeds increase, you will inevitably see an increase in latency, which will contribute to overall performance.

The main one is Column Address Strobe (CAS) latency, which represents how long it takes from the moment your CPU’s memory controller instructs the RAM to access a particular data set (or memory column) to the moment that data is made available. CAS latency is measured in nanoseconds, so the lower the better. If you’ve ever looked at RAM specifications and saw a set of four numbers (e.g., 9-9-9-24), the first number represents CAS latency. The other numbers represent other delays/timings (with the same rule that lower=better): RAS to CAS (tRCD); RAS Precharge (tRP); and Row Active Time (tRAS). There are even more that can be tweaked in the bios, but most people just leave them alone. It's the more advanced motherboards that allow for finite tweaking and optimizing to the point that even I don't even bother with it.

In fact, when Anandtech tested the RAM modules, they noticed that the small differences in performance actually became smaller as they used faster modules (MHz), because the latency/timings had to be increased more significantly.

quote:

---

What about voltage?

---

DDR3 has a standard voltage of 1.5v, as defined by the by the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC), which sets speed, latency, and voltage standards for RAM manufacturing. However, depending on the manufacturer and component quality, the RAM might require additional voltage to run at high speeds. For example, a manufacturer tests a batch of RAM modules and determines that they are fit to be sold as 2133MHz if the voltage is set to 1.65v, and the timings are adjusted to 9-11-11-31.

In recent years, Intel’s spec sheets have claimed to only support 1.5v RAM, and this has been misinterpreted heavily and has caused people to fear using any RAM modules that require more than 1.5v to run at their rated speeds. This is simply an unfounded fear, and it stems from the fact that the JEDEC standard voltage is 1.5v, with a margin of error of no more than 5% more voltage for utmost stability. Naturally, Intel designed their memory controller based on this standard—and naturally, like any piece of hardware, pumping too much voltage into the RAM can cause overheating and damage, putting not just the RAM at risk, but also the motherboard and CPU. But how much is “too much” voltage? The truth is, it depends on the quality of the RAM. A cheap module with no heat spreader probably won’t stand up well to extra voltage, but any RAM from a reliable manufacturer that’s rated for 1.65v, will be stable at 1.65v. It’s only because the voltage exceeds the JEDEC standard that Intel deems it the same as “overclocking” and is therefore not “supported.” Your CPU’s IMC can handle it.

Nevertheless, this applies mostly to higher speeds, where it becomes absolutely necessary at a certain point to up the voltage—as speeds approach 2133MHz and beyond, the 1.5v modules become rarer and more expensive. As a rule of thumb, if shopping for RAM modules at 1866 and below, you want 1.5v modules, as a 1.65v module at these speeds either have lower timings than usual or is of poor quality and requires more voltage than normal to be stable.

Rule of thumb for buying RAM. You want these specs or better:
- For DDR3 1600MHz: 1.5v, timings 9-9-9-24
- For DDR3 1866MHz: 1.5v, timings 9-10-9-27 (You’ll find some CL10 modules too, especially in kits of 8GB modules, where timings and voltage sometimes need a slight bump at higher speeds. Nothing wrong with that at all).
- For DDR3 2133MHz and beyond: The voltages and timings vary a lot. Some are 1.6+v with lower timings (9-11-11-31) or 1.5v with higher timings. In the 4GB modules, there are some low-voltage low-latency modules as well. They can be expensive (bad bang for buck, but premium grade none-the-less for those who have the money and aren’t cutting corners anywhere else).

I would personally avoid 2400MHz kits. You wouldn’t notice a damn bit of difference in a 1600MHz kit, but since you probably won’t listen to that, I’ll concede you could get 1866 or 2133MHz for the sake of performance. The problem with higher speeds is whether the Haswell IMC will be able to handle it. It should, but you will run into issues overclocking. It’s not like Ivy Bridge. You will have to tweak mem voltage, analog and digital voltage, input voltage, and ring voltage in order to achieve the full potential of the RAM. Even still, your overclock will suffer. Whether it will matter in the long-run (if your cooling can even bring the 4770k to a point where your RAM speed becomes an issue) completely depends on the luck of the draw with your chip.

quote:

---

I would personally avoid 2400MHz kits. You wouldn’t notice a damn bit of difference in a 1600MHz kit, but since you probably won’t listen to that, I’ll concede you could get 1866 or 2133MHz for the sake of performance.

---

Look, don't be a smartass. I am listening to you, and it seems to me like I may as well stick with the 1600MHz RAM I already got and not worry about going for 2133MHz or 2400MHz.

quote:

---

If you aren’t doing overclocking or advanced tweaks to the RAM, the Dominator brand from Corsair is a waste of money. It’s bling factor and nothing more. But an even bigger waste of money is buying 32GB of RAM.

---

Are you specifically referring to overclocking RAM here? Because I do plan on overclocking the CPU and GPU. So, in your mind 16GB is more than enough? I'd still like to know why an extra 16GB is such a HUGE waste of money. What if I do end up using it as a RAMDisk? Or hell, just having it? If 4GB used to be fine for gaming, then that went to 8GB, and now that's starting to go to 16GB, then what's the harm in having the extra 16GB for the future if you can afford it?

And if I were to get a 16GB kit, what would you recommend then? And running dual channel vs quad channel makes no difference? I thought things supposedly ran better if you maxed out your RAM slots, is that not the case?

quote:

---

Guess I was too subtle last time. Increase your PSU wattage. If you don’t want to spend extra, don’t get platinum, get gold. The power savings would you take many, many, many years to recoup the cost difference.

---

Ok, well then I'll return the AX860i and pick up the Seasonic 1000W PSU. That should cover dual SLI 780 ti's, right?

quote:

---

No you don’t. For your intended use, you’re paying $150 for a mediocre wireless AC. It’s not a bad motherboard, but the price you’re paying for it is for bling, and features under the hood that you will never even understand, let alone use. But as long as money is not an object, go for it. I’d rather you say you want the bling factor rather than think this board is offering any usable features for you other than wireless AC (and you should be gaming on a wired connection anyway). If you find yourself wanting something else for your PC, and budget is becoming an issue, this motherboard is the SECOND thing I'd look at scrapping to save money. (the RAM being the incredibly obvious first thing).

---

No, I DO like the extra stuff. Now, whether or not you want to say they're worth the price increase is another matter. I mentioned the AC wi-fi just because it could be useful, but I do use a wired connection. I also liked the onboard audio and the fact that it comes with a headphone amp. But let's say I scrap that, what MOBO would you recommend and would you also recommend a dedicated sound card, DAC/Amp?

Alright, so basically give me your recommendations for: a motherboard, RAM, sound card, DAC/amp.

And one final question. Let's say I pick up another 780ti and so I'm running dual SLI. Has SLI improved enough to the point where it's preferable to just having the single most powerful GPU you can afford? I've read before that it's generally better to run a single GPU; can you run dual cards these days with pretty much every game and not have any issues?

Oh just frick it then.

quote:

---

Look, don't be a smartass. I am listening to you, and it seems to me like I may as well stick with the 1600MHz RAM I already got and not worry about going for 2133MHz or 2400MHz.

---

Not being a smartass. You aren't listening. You are reading my text and still trying to argue about things you barely understand. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but between you, my sleep-deprived wife, and bossy toddler, I've been repeating myself fairly often lately.

quote:

---

Are you specifically referring to overclocking RAM here?

---

Yes

quote:

---

So, in your mind 16GB is more than enough? I'd still like to know why an extra 16GB is such a HUGE waste of money. What if I do end up using it as a RAMDisk? Or hell, just having it? If 4GB used to be fine for gaming, then that went to 8GB, and now that's starting to go to 16GB, then what's the harm in having the extra 16GB for the future if you can afford it?

---

A RAMdisk is the only use you'd get out of it. There's no "harm" unless there is literally anything else you forego in this build because of price. If you don't use it for a RAMdisk, there is literally nothing else you'll use it for unless you become a professional video editor full-time.

By the time 32GB is even a consideration for gaming, we'll long be out of DDR3 and into DDR4 standards, with new architecture, faster CPUs, fancier motherboards, and GPUs that destroy anything on the market currently.

quote:

---

And if I were to get a 16GB kit, what would you recommend then? And running dual channel vs quad channel makes no difference? I thought things supposedly ran better if you maxed out your RAM slots, is that not the case?

---

Things are actually worse in the realm of power use and overclocking (CPU) if you max out your RAM slots. Not by a lot but some.

Quad channel is not simply the act of occupying 4 RAM slots. It will still be dual channel. Socket 2011 motherboards are the only ones supporting quad channel, and most of those boards have 8 DIMM slots instead of 4.

If you choose 16GB:
1600MHz: The cheapest of these: LINK
1866MHz: The cheapest of these: LINK
2133MHz: The cheapest of these: LINK

quote:

---

No, I DO like the extra stuff.

---

Already went over this in another long post several pages back, after I asked you to name the features of that motherboard that you like. Every single one you named is covered in cheaper motherboards. Even that MSI has AC wireless. Sick of repeating myself. I'm thinking you must've totally missed my long reply from several days ago.

quote:

---

Alright, so basically give me your recommendations for: a motherboard,

---

LINK

Or many many even cheaper options which wouldn't have wireless AC or headphone amp (which wouldn't matter if getting amp/DAC because it would completely bypassed).

quote:

---

RAM

---

See above.

quote:

---

sound card

---

No

quote:

---

DAC/amp

---

Depends on your headphones.

quote:

---

I feel like I'm being more patient than I should be.

---

Yes, someone should give you a fricking cookie for dealing with someone who doesn't know as much as you do about computers.

I've got my build. My thanks to the PC wizards...