Camacha Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 1 minute ago, Alphasus said: 600 watts was an example. It also nicely scales to 300 watts with a 500 watt PSU. It does not matter, the arguments against it remain the same. Or the lack of arguments for it, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphasus Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Camacha said: It does not matter, the arguments against it remain the same. Or the lack of arguments for it, actually. Well okay then. I think there is an argument for it, in that a PSU upgrade is unnescessary whenever I want the... GTX 1280 that uses 300W instead of my 970 that uses 140W. I'm covered then, because those 160W are in my budget. Especially when I want an i7-9770K, which means I'm pushing my limits, but am inside of them. With a 430W PSU, that isn't an option. I'd transplant my parts into a Fractal Design Define R5 windowed, or whatever fractal has. Then, I'd swap the GPU, mobo, and CPU for something a bit more modern. Spring for Noctua's new fans if they make new ones, with the CPU cooler. Edited February 22, 2016 by Alphasus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, Alphasus said: Well okay then. I think there is an argument for it, in that a PSU upgrade is unnescessary whenever I want the... GTX 1280 that uses 300W instead of my 970 that uses 140W. I'm covered then, because those 160W are in my budget. Especially when I want an i7-9770K, which means I'm pushing my limits, but am inside of them. With a 430W PSU, that isn't an option. Having a little room to play with is sensible. However, since CPUs, GPUs and PSUs all are becoming more energy efficient quickly, buying something for the future almost never pans out. When the time comes, you will likely have an expensive and outdated part, with more efficient, cheaper and more up to date parts being around. Also, even with a 9770K and GTX 1280 (whatever those may be) you should be fine. 125 watt for the system including your CPU at full load (since that is what a system with the 6700K uses if you take the least conservative numbers), 300 watt for the GTX1280 according to your own words (which is quite a bit more than a GTX980Ti uses). You will not even make that 430 watt, and that is assuming everything is simultaneously loaded all the time. It is not even close to the maximum, since properly built PSUs will have quite some room to spare, and it is likely such a system will never actually use more than 350 watts. Most of its life, the system will actually consume a lot less. To be honest, it sounds like you are trying to find an excuse to buy a part. You have gotten some pretty solid advice here, but you are free to ignore it at any time. Just do not ask for good reasons to ignore it Edited February 22, 2016 by Camacha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphasus Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 6 hours ago, Camacha said: Having a little room to play with is sensible. However, since CPUs, GPUs and PSUs all are becoming more energy efficient quickly, buying something for the future almost never pans out. When the time comes, you will likely have an expensive and outdated part, with more efficient, cheaper and more up to date parts being around. Also, even with a 9770K and GTX 1280 (whatever those may be) you should be fine. 125 watt for the system including your CPU at full load (since that is what a system with the 6700K uses if you take the least conservative numbers), 300 watt for the GTX1280 according to your own words (which is more than a GTX980Ti uses). You will not even make that 430 watt, and that is assuming everything is simultaneously loaded all the time. It is not even close to the maximum, since properly built PSUs will have quite some room to spare, and it is likely such a system will never actually use more than 350 watts in rare, full load scenarios. To be honest, it sounds like you are trying to find an excuse to buy a part. You have gotten some pretty solid advice here, but you are free to ignore it at any time. Just do not ask for good reasons to ignore it Fair enough. You make a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansun1 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) On 2/20/2016 at 9:13 AM, Camacha said: Windows 10 is quickly becoming infamous for this kind of behaviour. OS wise, it is pretty good - arguably the best OS Microsoft ever made. Unfortunately, Microsoft is really moving forwards with the software as a service philisophy, which means they will update the OS at will, without really informing the user and certainly without giving the user any influence. Without some tricks that are beyond most users, you are left to suffer the consequences, though even people in IT get caught out. Windows is excellent because of the granular control it provides. This route can only lead to pain and an advantage for the competition, since Apple has perfected the polished but without detailed control over things strategy a long time ago. Guess I'll be sticking to windows 8.1 then. 22 hours ago, Norcalplanner said: So I'm getting close to pulling the trigger on a new system, and have the broad parameters set. Primarily for KSP, but also for things like Fallout 4 and some 4x strstegy games. Parts include: i5 6600k 16 gb ddr4 ram Z170 mobo Gtx 960 gpu (4 gb) 24" 1080x1920 monitor 500 gb ssd Reuse existing 3tb data drive What I'm still looking for guidance on is power supply, case, cpu cooler, and what type of ssd to get (likely m.2, but could go either sata or pci 3.0). I'm also looking to make this system as quiet as reasonably possible. Any advice would be appreciated. For SSD I would say stick with sata unless you can find m.2 for about the same price. In real world applications you won't see very much gain. Also make sure the MOBO has an m.2 slot. I would just grab something like the hyper 212 evo for the cpu cooler. It's cheap and does a better job than the stock. PSU I would get a 500ish watt and at least 80+ bronze. Just make sure it's from a reputable company. For cases it honestly down to personal taste and how large you want it. Bit fenix, Cooler Master, and Corsair are some of the names that I can think of off the top of my head. (There are many more.) Edited February 22, 2016 by briansun1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) On 22-2-2016 at 6:35 PM, briansun1 said: For SSD I would say stick with sata unless you can find m.2 for about the same price. In real world applications you won't see very much gain. M.2 will literally gain you no performance. This is because M.2 is a form factor, which simply means the shape your SSD has. You have M.2 SSDs with a SATA bus/interface, or with an NVMe interface. The latter will likely gain you performance, since it changes a fundamental part of your SSDs technology. The former should perform no different than a 2,5" SSD over the same interface. Because both the M.2 and NVMe standards are new, they often get tangled up. They are two separate things, though. Edited February 23, 2016 by Camacha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansun1 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Camacha said: M.2 will literally gain you no performance. This is because M.2 is a form factor, which simply means the shape your SSD has. You have M.2 SSDs with a SATA bus/interface, or with an NVMe interface. The latter will likely gain you performance, since it changes a fundamental part of your SSDs technology. The former should perform no different than a 2,5" SSD over the same interface. Because both the M.2 and NVMe are new, they often get tangled up. They are two separate things, though. Well you learn something new every day. Though the statement still stands I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes Novakoff Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 On February 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Camacha said: 600 watts is well beyond what most systems actually use nowadays. Even ridiculous computers tend to use a lot less. While I agree with your first statement, "ridiculous computers" can use a whole lot of power. My computer, a (relatively) modest build with a GTX 960 and 6600K, pulls about 350 watts, with only the CPU overclocked. If you were to ramp up your OC or get a high-end GPU (or two) you could find yourself easily pushing 600W. LinusTechTips built an absolutely stupid system with 7 GPUs and a 28-core Xeon and power draw was in the region of 1530 watts. Obviously somewhat of an edge case, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 15 hours ago, Hobbes Novakoff said: While I agree with your first statement, "ridiculous computers" can use a whole lot of power. My computer, a (relatively) modest build with a GTX 960 and 6600K, pulls about 350 watts, with only the CPU overclocked. If you were to ramp up your OC or get a high-end GPU (or two) you could find yourself easily pushing 600W. LinusTechTips built an absolutely stupid system with 7 GPUs and a 28-core Xeon and power draw was in the region of 1530 watts. Obviously somewhat of an edge case, though. But that 350 watts, is it while the system is under load? An overclocked cpu only uses the full power when it needs it. So if you take an overclocked CPU, add one or two GTX960+, along with a couple of drives, you really have no idea what load you will have. Better to have a larger PSU and not need it, than to have a smaller one and need to replace it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, Hobbes Novakoff said: While I agree with your first statement, "ridiculous computers" can use a whole lot of power. My computer, a (relatively) modest build with a GTX 960 and 6600K, pulls about 350 watts Can you provide evidence that the system continuously or on average pulls 350 watts? The overwhelming majority of even enthusiast systems out there simply do not. Reviews, with actual measurements made, indicate that in gaming scenarios, a full system with a GTX 960 and an overclocked 4960X (6 cores) at 4,4 GHz uses ~210 watt at the socket. The same system running dual GTX 960 cards in SLI tops out at 270 watt. Of course, if you take PSU efficiency into account, the actual power consumed by the card is even less. People consistently think their systems use a lot more power than they actually do, and as a consequence, people buy totally ridiculous power supplies. Because we all know bigger numbers are better, right? 1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said: But that 350 watts, is it while the system is under load? An overclocked cpu only uses the full power when it needs it. So if you take an overclocked CPU, add one or two GTX960+, along with a couple of drives, you really have no idea what load you will have. Better to have a larger PSU and not need it, than to have a smaller one and need to replace it If by 'large PSU' you mean something in the 300-500 watt range, then yes. Anything beyond is absolutely ridiculous in almost any case. Edited February 24, 2016 by Camacha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes Novakoff Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 14 minutes ago, Camacha said: Can you provide evidence that the system continuously or on average pulls 350 watts? The overwhelming majority of even enthusiast systems out there simply do not. I meant at load. I haven't directly measured it at the wall mainly because watt meters are super expensive but I've used some PSU calculators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 $18-$20 is super expensive? I just did a 5 second search at NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=wattmeter&N=-1&isNodeId=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hobbes Novakoff said: I meant at load. I haven't directly measured it at the wall mainly because watt meters are super expensive but I've used some PSU calculators. Thank you for proving my point You do realize that PSU calculators are made up numbers too, right? They are designed to give you a very conservative worst case scenario ball park figure. They also take into account that a lot of people will not buy decent quality PSUs, inflating the needed power rating significantly. As a result you will get a number that is not going to hurt you or your equipment, but that does not reflect reality accurately at all. Conversely, the numbers I listed in my previous post, are actual measured numbers. That truly is what a similar system uses, within a fairly small margin of error. Your system has a much more frugal processor and consequently will use significantly less. Realistically, your system will not pull more that 200 watts sustained under any gaming load, and probably quite a bit less. 1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said: $18-$20 is super expensive? I just did a 5 second search at NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=wattmeter&N=-1&isNodeId=1 There are a lot of bad meters out there. However, if you are careful, inform yourself and proper reviews written by people or sites that actually know what they are talking about, a good one can be had for $10-$20. It will be more accurate than you can reasonably want or need and some even take the power factor into account. Edited February 24, 2016 by Camacha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbleheli Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 just buy 1000w and be done with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 5 minutes ago, scribbleheli said: just buy 1000w and be done with it Why not buy a workstation, while you are at it? Run 4 instances of KSP at once! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbleheli Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Camacha said: Why not buy a workstation, while you are at it? Run 4 instances of KSP at once! I do. sorta. Couple KSP games open, A career and sandbox for "simulation". Nextflix, any homework programs I "Should " be doing like autocad/soliworks. With Sony vegas rendering that weekends paintball game recap. HT FTW!!! Edit: I will say, that room does get toasty in the summer. And stays quite comfortable in the winter. Edited February 24, 2016 by scribbleheli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, scribbleheli said: HT FTW!!! HT is not going to save you, only rendering in Sony Vegas might see a modest performance boost. The other programs only benefit from actual cores, not virtual ones. What are your system's specifications? Somehow I have explained HT and what it does to various people over the past month, so I am not really up for another one Edited February 24, 2016 by Camacha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbleheli Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I know what hyper threading does. Yes it does help me i7-6700k @ 4.6 GTX 980WF3 16GBddr4 couple SSDs liquid cooling ect ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToukieToucan Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) If theres a game which requires for example 2.5 Ghz CPU but you have for example a 2 Ghz CPU with 4 cores, how do you know your Cpu is up for the task? And I saw 8 Gb RAM for $45, I heard this is an extremly good price but maybe this is an exaggeration... Edited February 29, 2016 by ToukieToucan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 30 minutes ago, ToukieToucan said: If theres a game which requires for example 2.5 Ghz CPU but you have for example a 2 Ghz CPU with 4 cores, how do you know your Cpu is up for the task? As has been explained before, you cannot compare one GHz to another. It is like comparing cubic inches in engines - you simply cannot predict the result by looking at the number. How do you find out the result? Yet again: benchmarks. The only way of reliably finding out the comparative performance of two pieces of hardware is finding someone that actually bothered to measure it. Be careful to select benchmarks that can be reasonably compared and that are relevant to your scenario. Different types of workload lead to different results on different processors. You can have a chip that performs wonderful while doing renders, but abysmally in games. Avoid synthetic benchmarks if possible, and avoid calculated or estimated performance at all cost. Some of the websites that pop up when you Google things do the latter and are worthless because of it. And I saw 8 Gb RAM for $45, I heard this is an extremly good price but maybe this is an exaggeration... Assuming you are talking about DDR3 RAM: yes, this is cheap at the moment. Prices are close to the all time low four years ago. Also, it is GB, not Gb. GB denotes gigabyte. Gb denotes gigabit. 1 byte = 8 bits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 19 hours ago, ToukieToucan said: If theres a game which requires for example 2.5 Ghz CPU but you have for example a 2 Ghz CPU with 4 cores, how do you know your Cpu is up for the task? And I saw 8 Gb RAM for $45, I heard this is an extremly good price but maybe this is an exaggeration... Comparing Ghz between CPUs of the same family is reasonable, but once you start comparing different families or different generations, it is not an accurate comparision. At best it is relative, and gives you a starting point. But as @Camacha said above, look at benchmarks for better information. Obviously, if you are looking at two computers with the same (or very similar) cpus, you can use the clock speed as a rough comparision. However, computer performance is influenced by a lot more than just the cpu speed. For example, hard disks have a wide range of speeds, and then you can move into SSDs which are much faster than hard disks. The video board (or GPU) also has a huge impact, depending on the game. So you really need to do some research and ask questions, such as you are doing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abhishek Adhikari Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I need help to plan which laptop to buy(medium budget) in which Kerbal Space Program can run in high settings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abhishek Adhikari Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I have checked one laptop in an Indian Online shop. Dell Pavilion Specs: Processor: Intel i5 6th generation; 2.3 GHz with turbo boost Upto 2.8 GHz RAM: DDR3 8Gb Graphics RAM: GDDR3 2Gb Graphics Processor: AMD Radeon R5 M330 HDD: 1 TB RPM 5400 OS: Windows 10 64 bit Is this laptop fine to run Kerbal Space Program to run in high settings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket In My Pocket Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 It beats the recommended specs for KSP but it's hard to say what's going to happen with 1.1 coming out soon, performance could go way up or way down. (Hopefully way up!) If I were you I'd hold off until the update happens and then ask this question again. Best of luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stone Blue Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I guess just a personal preference, but I'd stick with Nvidia graphics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.