Slam_Jones Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 That is a pretty decent SSD, it is one of the better SSDs at the moment. You could also consider a Crucial MX200, since that drive protects your data a little better against power loss and corruption. That is the one I would probably pick myself, since power loss errors are an issue with SSDs that has not really been properly addressed yet and the MX200 has technology to fix that.Mind you, it strongly depends on availability and price. If the Samsung or MX200 is much more expensive than the other one, go for the cheaper option. If they are close, pick based on whether you feel the added protection is useful.It actually looks like (on Newegg at least) the MX200 is about $10 cheaper than the Samsung. I think I know which one to pick now Thanks! ("You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canberra Gaming Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Alrighty. Quick Question? How well would this run KSP at a budget?http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nqNcK8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 How long is a piece of string? That's a nice build, and quality components too. It's actually pretty close to what I'd pick if I was building a new box, though I'd add an SSD for the OS, and maybe go for less fancy RAM. As for how well it'll run KSP... nothing will run KSP "well", but you should be ok with that CPU, it's all that really matters for this game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantab Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Alrighty. Quick Question? How well would this run KSP at a budget?http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nqNcK8Budget. 4790K. Anyway that will run KSP as well as it can be run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 An i5 4690K is enough, you can overclock it as good as this i7. Also you PSU is way, way to strong for this build, you will need something with 450W... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slam_Jones Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Budget. 4790K. -snip-I noticed that too.Wish I had a that nice a budget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canberra Gaming Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Meh McDonalds isn't a good job but I also know how to save money. This is my second PC build I will be starting soon. My current build is Little Red. Of course lagging at 150 parts on KSP no matter the overclock got to me so I went to Intel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Rhodan Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 The first two Skylake CPUs should already be available. The i5 6600K is only slightly faster than the 4690K but at the same time more energy efficient and cooler (overclocking). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canberra Gaming Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) I've heard that 1.1 will feature multi threading (From HatBat) so I'm hoping that will fix my lag wall at 250 parts on my Athlon X4EDIT: Okay, Here's the newish build White Lighthttp://pcpartpicker.com/p/WtRKmG Edited August 9, 2015 by Canberra Gaming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Same critic points still apply, also i noticed that the mainboard it terribly overpriced, why do you need such an expensive one?Also you are upgrading from a 960 to a 970, sure thats worth it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantab Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 On that kind of overall budget I would be thinking about either Skylake or Haswell-E myself. The Skylake processors are a shade faster than the Haswells but the real benefit is having the latest features on the motherboards. Haswell-E would give you six rather than four cores, though you might not get quite such a high clock frequency. Either way you'll get better dual-graphics-card support and more maximum RAM capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canberra Gaming Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 From my experience the 970 is much better in the field of gaming than the 960 4GB I'm running now. I was looking at Cantab's right. That board is over priced but I was also looking to three way SLI at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 From my experience the 970 is much better in the field of gaming than the 960 4GB I'm running now. I was looking at Cantab's right. That board is over priced but I was also looking to three way SLI at the time.You might want to take AMD cards into account too, those generally have a wider bus for the same money. The 960 seems to have some issues with its 128 bits memory bits, though mere numbers are not the whole story in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) The dilemma:L2 cache: 128kb of 15ns cache SRAM, or 256kb of 20ns cache SRAM?128kb is stock for 16MB RAM, but I'm looking to add another 16MB... how much difference will another 128kb of L2 cache make, and will I be better off with more but slower, or less and faster?Alternatively, anyone know where to get a full set of (9x=256kb) 256b 15ns cache chips?System specs:Model: IBM 330-100DX4 (6571-W5W)Chipset: OPTiCPU: Intel 80486DX4-100RAM: 16MB 70ns FP.HDD: Seagate 545MB 4200RPMGPU: Cirrus Logic GD-5430, 1MB VRAM.Audio: Creative Soundblaster 16 Value (ct2950)Ethernet: 3Com Etherlink III (3c509b-tpo)OS: OS/2 Warp 3 connect. Not exactly a KSP-worthy machine, but I'm taking that "All Questions Acceptable" literally here. Edited August 11, 2015 by steve_v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 The dilemma:L2 cache: 128kb of 15ns cache SRAM, or 256kb of 20ns cache SRAM?128kb is stock for 16MB RAM, but I'm looking to add another 16MB... how much difference will another 128kb of L2 cache make, and will I be better off with more but slower, or less and faster?It really depends on what you want to do and why it will not work appropriately right now. It is like asking what car to buy, without knowing whether someone wants to take lots of stuff, be efficient and cheap or drive as fast as possible with little to no ballast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Err, really? That's a non-answer if ever I heard one.What I want to do is add another 16MB of RAM, and if possible improve cache performance.I have read/heard that 128kb is about right for 16MB, but will likely cause excessive cache misses when accessing RAM >16MB and a corresponding performance drop off. Correct?What I would like to know is: Will the benefit of a larger L2 cache outweigh the slower access time (20ns) for typical (OS/2) workloads, or DOS games (DooM etc.) within OS/2 (which will probably be hitting 16MB+).I'd just "suck it and see" but those chips are a pain to install/remove without damaging them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Err, really? That's a non-answer if ever I heard one.Yes, really, for reasons explained. The question what is better almost always needs a context. Garbage in, garbage out.What I would like to know is: Will the benefit of a larger L2 cache outweigh the slower access time (20ns) for typical (OS/2) workloads, or DOS games (DooM etc.) within OS/2 (which will probably be hitting 16MB+).I think you answered your own question there. As soon as we are talking about 16MB+ workloads, having slower components is not relevant at all any more. Anything that the hardware can do to compensate for the lack of RAM will most certainly yield a massive performance penalty compared to the slightly slower cache, if it can compensate at all.The next question would be what you think is more important: doing 16 MB- tasks the best your hardware can, or have the option to do 16 MB+ tasks. Depending on the answer, you have your answer too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) So the question then becomes: Faster memory access for small tasks, slow access for large tasks. VS. Slightly slower memory access for all tasks. If it were pure DOS, I'd not need the extra RAM in the first place. But with OS overhead, I'm thinking the larger cache will be a benefit, as even if slightly slower it's still much faster than system RAM.Opinions is all I'm after, what would you pick here? Edited August 11, 2015 by steve_v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Opinions is all I'm after, what would you pick here?I am all for maximum flexibility, so I would opt for extra RAM, unless the OS overhead is a very rare (< 1 per 6 months) occurrence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) RAM is a moot point, it's got 32MB now. 'Tis the L2 cache I'm asking after.If by RAM you mean cache SRAM, I'd tend to agree. Time to break out the IC extractor.Also, posted from Mozilla 1.6 on machine in question. Looks like the current Firefox needs a tad more than 32MB Hmm, Mozilla + SSL crashes the OS (trap!)... further investigation pending. Edited August 11, 2015 by steve_v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 RAM is a moot point, it's got 32MB now. 'Tis the L2 cache I'm asking after.Fair point, though the same answer applies Also, posted from Mozilla 1.6 on machine in question. Neat-o! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I'm thinking about building a computer. Should I go with one of the new Skylake processors (6600k), wait for a Skylake version with better graphics, or get an older processor? Or should I go AMD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) I'm thinking about building a computer. Should I go with one of the new Skylake processors (6600k), wait for a Skylake version with better graphics, or get an older processor? Or should I go AMD?It mostly depends on your budget, though on-board graphics are always a compromise. Buying just a Skylake (or any other i5 or i7) for gaming makes little sense, you will always need to combine it with a decent video card.Oh, and do not fall for the standard computer seller's trick: selling computers with beefy processors, but very slow GPU cards with a lot of RAM. More RAM is not necessarily better, the actual GPU chip also needs to be decent, and more often than not the VRAM is also of a very slow variety. If you buy a complete system, be sure to check out the other components too (motherboard, PSU, et cetera) since money is often saved on those too. Edited August 13, 2015 by Camacha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 It mostly depends on your budget, though on-board graphics are always a compromise. Buying just a Skylake (or any other i5 or i7) for gaming makes little sense, you will always need to combine it with a decent video card.Oh, and do not fall for the standard computer seller's trick: selling computers with beefy processors, but very slow GPU cards with a lot of RAM. More RAM is not necessarily better, the actual GPU chip also needs to be decent, and more often than not the VRAM is also of a very slow variety. If you buy a complete system, be sure to check out the other components too (motherboard, PSU, et cetera) since money is often saved on those too.Forgot to mention GPU, the whole computer building thing isn't very linear is it? NVIDIA GPU's are supposed to be the best for gaming right? I don't play any FPS games or AAA titles, just KSP and Dwarf Fortress mainly. My current system is a 27" iMac late 2012. 3.4 GHz i7, 16 GB of 1600 MHz DDR3 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX. As far as budget goes, less than $1500, preferably around $1000.I looked around on pcpartpicker.com and suffered some paralysis from too many choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Nvidia cards are certainly better supported under GNU/Linux, and IME tend to be slightly faster (and slightly more expensive) than the comparable AMD offering. But in reality it's neck-and-neck, and which is better value depends on the month you ask. 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.