KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[cantab]

Actual numbers do show that today AMD cards use more power than nVidia ones for similar performance. The figures Alphasus gave tally with others such as from this review http://www.trustedreviews.com/amd-radeon-r9-390x-review where the total power drawn by the PC under load jumps from 270 Watts with a GTX 980 up to over 400 with an R9 390X. While the AMD graphics rig is still fine on all but the weediest power supply, that's a big jump in my opinion.

[Slam_Jones]

Afternoon!  A question or two regarding PSUs (while we're somewhat on the subject).

I was under the impression that one would get a PSU as close as possible to your peak usage, without going under.  So in my mind, a PC that tops out at 512W would do best with a 550W PSU.

Is there any problem in having higher wattage?  I imagine it wouldn't be a great idea to, say, toss a 1000W in there.  Or are they advanced enough that they can regulate themselves?

 

Basically: if I plan on continuing to upgrade my PC, should I just grab a huge 1000W PSU (well-rated of course, probably silver or gold) and not worry about it?  Or (all else being equal) is it safer for my components to match the wattage closely?

Edited December 14, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[DuoDex]

7 minutes ago, Slam_Jones said:

Afternoon!  A question or two regarding PSUs (while we're somewhat on the subject).

I was under the impression that one would get a PSU as close as possible to your peak usage, without going under.  So in my mind, a PC that tops out at 512W would do best with a 550W PSU.

Is there any problem in having higher wattage?  I imagine it wouldn't be a great idea to, say, toss a 1000W in there.  Or are they advanced enough that they can regulate themselves?

 

Basically: if I plan on continuing to upgrade my PC, should I just grab a huge 1000W PSU (well-rated of course, probably silver or gold) and not worry about it?  Or (all else being equal) is it safer for my components to match the wattage closely?

Overly powerful PSUs should not burn out any components unless you have connected wires incorrectly. I'd also say that a PC "topping" at 512W is likely to be somewhat bottlenecked by a 550W PSU - these power requirements are not always totally accurate . I'd say your best chance would be to get a 900W or 1000W PSU if you're planning to upgrade, or 600W if you're not.

[Alphasus]

No, what you really want is maximum efficiency from a power supply. So, stay between about 20% at idle and 70% at max for the best efficiency(about a 3% to 9% increase in efficiency by the way). From my experience, the usage should be between 50% to 70% at maximum. So, you want between 650 and 750 watts of power supply for your build. That also has some nice upgrading headroom. 850 watts if you plan a serious upgrade, but then you run a risk of lower efficiency when not under full load. For example, if I want to upgrade my desktop(i3 with about 60 watts of maximum usage) to an i7, then its about 130 watts at maximum, or 70 watts more. The 550W PSU inside will cover that already, because 300W up to 370W still stays within that 70% range at maximum load. That is really the consideration required, because it keeps the computer most efficient over time.

[Slam_Jones]

22 minutes ago, DuoDex said:

Overly powerful PSUs should not burn out any components unless you have connected wires incorrectly. I'd also say that a PC "topping" at 512W is likely to be somewhat bottlenecked by a 550W PSU - these power requirements are not always totally accurate . I'd say your best chance would be to get a 900W or 1000W PSU if you're planning to upgrade, or 600W if you're not.

 

Those numbers were pulled outta my... err, thin air... and not as much representative of the actual numbers.  Good advice nonetheless, thank you.  I might end up with a 750W or so, as I can't imagine going over that (especially if I go through with my i7 upgrade... more speed for less wattage sounds nice, if a bit pricey )

I̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶(̶v̶a̶g̶u̶e̶,̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶)̶ ̶m̶e̶t̶r̶i̶c̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶g̶o̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶t̶l̶e̶n̶e̶c̶k̶e̶d̶?̶ ̶ ̶1̶0̶%̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶p̶e̶a̶k̶?̶ ̶ ̶2̶0̶%̶?̶ ̶ ̶S̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶i̶c̶a̶t̶e̶d̶?̶ ̶ ̶:̶)̶

Thanks!

19 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

No, what you really want is maximum efficiency from a power supply. So, stay between about 20% at idle and 70% at max for the best efficiency(about a 3% to 9% increase in efficiency by the way). From my experience, the usage should be between 50% to 70% at maximum. So, you want between 650 and 750 watts of power supply for your build. That also has some nice upgrading headroom. 850 watts if you plan a serious upgrade, but then you run a risk of lower efficiency when not under full load. For example, if I want to upgrade my desktop(i3 with about 60 watts of maximum usage) to an i7, then its about 130 watts at maximum, or 70 watts more. The 550W PSU inside will cover that already, because 300W up to 370W still stays within that 70% range at maximum load. That is really the consideration required, because it keeps the computer most efficient over time.

 

Ah, just saw your reply.  Those numbers are pretty much exactly what I was looking for, thanks.  Should help out a ton!

Edited December 14, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Red Iron Crown]

It only really matters for power efficiency, PSUs tend to be most efficient when loaded to about 85% of their rated capacity. It's really not a big deal to run at less than that (differences are often on the order of a few watts compared to a more loaded PSU), and some extra capacity gives you headroom for upgrades.

That said, I wouldn't go nuts on a kilowatt-class PSU, it's just overkill for any single-GPU system. Somewhere around 650W is the sweet spot IMO.

And as always, shop for PSUs by brand, Corsair and Seasonic are solid choices, and I've heard good things about EVGA.

[Alphasus]

23 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

It only really matters for power efficiency, PSUs tend to be most efficient when loaded to about 85% of their rated capacity. It's really not a big deal to run at less than that (differences are often on the order of a few watts compared to a more loaded PSU), and some extra capacity gives you headroom for upgrades.

That said, I wouldn't go nuts on a kilowatt-class PSU, it's just overkill for any single-GPU system. Somewhere around 650W is the sweet spot IMO.

And as always, shop for PSUs by brand, Corsair and Seasonic are solid choices, and I've heard good things about EVGA.

EVGA's B series line aren't the greatest. Their supernova line is pretty nice though, fully modular and all. I've also heard good things about XFX, Antec, and Cooler Master.

[cantab]

1 hour ago, Slam_Jones said:

Afternoon!  A question or two regarding PSUs (while we're somewhat on the subject).

I was under the impression that one would get a PSU as close as possible to your peak usage, without going under.  So in my mind, a PC that tops out at 512W would do best with a 550W PSU.

Is there any problem in having higher wattage?  I imagine it wouldn't be a great idea to, say, toss a 1000W in there.  Or are they advanced enough that they can regulate themselves?

As a new build I would not choose a power supply that can only just run the PC in that way, I'd want some headroom for several reasons. PSUs do degrade a bit over the years and may stop being able to output the rated wattage. If you're already virtually maxed out on your power supply you have no room for upgrading or even overclocking. Power supplies aren't at their most efficient so close to 100% load. And they might also be somewhat noisier than a higher-rated supply subject to the same power draw.

On the other hand I don't want overkill. A 1000 Watt supply to run a ~500 Watt build is a waste of money and it may well be heavier and bulkier than you need. It also might be less efficient because supplies aren't at their most efficient at very light loads either.

If you genuinely did have a 512 Watt build, then a 650-750 W supply would seem about right I think. However very few single-GPU PCs will draw that much, though an SLI setup easily could.

Custom PC recommended 550 Watt supplies for PCs with single graphics cards, and 750 Watt for a 2 way SLI/Crossfire setup, and that's advice I can agree with in most cases. If you're buying more wattage then IMHO you should have a good reason for doing so.

[Camacha]

21 hours ago, Alphasus said:

No, what you really want is maximum efficiency from a power supply. So, stay between about 20% at idle and 70% at max for the best efficiency(about a 3% to 9% increase in efficiency by the way). From my experience, the usage should be between 50% to 70% at maximum. So, you want between 650 and 750 watts of power supply for your build.

You are right, except for one major detail: systems generally use a lot less than the maximum peak load. Your attempt to achieve efficiency goes right out of the windows because of that People are always surprised how little systems actually use under load. Look up some reviews that actually measure consumption and even ridiculous systems with overlocked octocores and multiple high end cards often only pull 400-500 watts from the PSU.

A few things to remember:

- Computers almost always use considerably less than the maximum theoretical draw, even under significant load
- Good power supplies will provide well beyond what they are rated for, so you have quite some room to spare for the odd peak load anyway

People almost always vastly overestimate their power needs.

[cantab]

For what it's worth, though, I think that if you're going to "stress test" your system, which is always sensible after a new build or even an overclock, you should do that under maximum power draw. That means GPU and CPU together - I suggest Prime95 with one or two fewer threads than it defaults to, and then something like Furmark. This can sometimes highlight stability issues that don't occur when you just test CPU and GPU in isolation. You could even throw in a disk benchmark if you like too.

Even though the system will rarely be under anything like that much load, I for one sure don't want it crashing when it is!

[Camacha]

I ran into this video and think it could contribute to the knowledge and ideas people have about clockspeed. It perfectly shows that chips cannot be compared based on specifications alone and why benchmarks are always key.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfoI-m-3vOk

[Alphasus]

On 12/17/2015, 8:07:25, Camacha said:

I ran into this video and think it could contribute to the knowledge and ideas people have about clockspeed. It perfectly shows that chips cannot be compared based on specifications alone and why benchmarks are always key.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfoI-m-3vOk

Equally important to notice that both CPUs aren't near the same in surrounding technology(nothing Linus can do about it though). The Core 2 Quad(Quad) and I7 5960X(Extreme Edition) don't have the same support for types of RAM. Thus, the RAM is slower by far(DDR4 vs DDR2), and the smaller cache on the Q6600 also holds it back.

[scribbleheli]

So close.....

My folks said that if I got an all A's in this semesters classes, they would buy me the Core i7 6700k.

They didn't say that until two weeks before finals. 

Couldn't make it happen...  :'(

I countered with, "Since GPA wise, a B is ³/₄ an A. Would that get me ³/₄ of a CPU." They changed the subject.

[Alphasus]

Ask for an i5 6600k then, 3/4 of the i7.

[Elthy]

I had a similar deal with my parents some years ago. I was almost failing, so i said "if i get 5 "very good" next time you wil buy me a gaming computer". My parents agreed, thinking thats impossible.

I got much better in school (not due to learing, i was still lazy as kraken, but because i noticed lessons feel way shorter if you actually do stuff), i had 4 "very good" and one mark one point below. Sadly i didnt make the deal last longer, because after that year i got 5 "very good". Anyway, i saved money and worked in the holidays, so i bought one myself.

[StrandedonEarth]

Ooohhh, the temptation. Is this PC worthwhile? I have the 5500 AirMiles to get it, valued at $550 (USD?) on the HP website, Decisions, decisions...

The backstory: My boys have been wanting to buy an XBox One (they have a 360) with all the money they've saved up until Christmas (including gifts). The Boxing Week sales are pushing a $399 deal for a 1TB XB1 with 5 games. After taxes, they have just barely count-out-the-pennies enough, not even enough for a second controller. I've been trying to push them more in the direction of a desktop PC, mostly so they'll leave my laptop alone. I don't see anything that meets my minimum hopes (Core i3/5, 8Gb Ram, usable video) in the budget they have (~$450CDN, barely enough for an XB1 after taxes),

It has the bare minimum I'd hope for, although I don't think the graphics are that great. The other problem with that unit is the 180W PSU, which would make it even more difficult to upgrade the graphics with a low-pro card.

But what the heck, it's basically free. It sounds like we'll end up with both....

[Elthy]

Since this wont be better than the 360 i wouldnt buy it. Only integrated graphics, so no modern games (other than stuff like KSP) will run and i doubt there is space for a dedicated GPU.

The XBOX sound like a ok deal, but dont forget there are lots of hidden costs. Games are way more expensive than on PC and you have pay extra for multiplayer gaming. Those sum up over the years, often a medium gaming computer is cheaper in the long run.

[cantab]

3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Ooohhh, the temptation. Is this PC worthwhile?

It's worth more like $400 Canadian, at least that's what Best Buy are currently charging for it. If you want a home/office PC it's fine, and nice to not have a massive tower taking up space. If you want play games, not so much.

As far as upgrading goes the big unknown is the power supply; you've no idea if it's a standard format that's upgradable, or something proprietary with no option for anything better. *If* it can be upgraded, you could add a low-profile 750 Ti or similar, but of course the new PSU is an added cost.

[Camacha]

It looks like an office PC from HP. Having worked with those, they are generally pretty good. For office use, that is. If you want a flexible, upgradeable gaming machine, I would look long and hard at available power, space and cooling before pulling the trigger.

[jmiki8]

Hello!

I'm considering buying a new portable device which would complement my home desktop computer. I'm in the second year of my university studies, and I'm in need of a computer-like thingy I could carry to the school everyday. I have used Android and iOS tablets before, but I didn't like them very much, mostly because the absence of the "normal" PC GUI (i.e. windows & desktop), the lack of PC controls (physical mouse and physical keyboard), and the tendency of slowing down to unusable levels in 1-2 years.

Portability is very important for me: the device should be small enough to be carried safely in a backpack (while riding a bike), so I'd forget the 'standard' 15,6" laptops as they're big and heavy (and difficult to protect). The absolute maximum I'd accept is ~13". By portability I also mean endurance, so the device should survive at least 5-10 hours without recharging under light workload (like MS Word).

Budget-wise I'm constrained to ~$500 or below. The devices defined by these criteria (afaik) are Windows-based 2in1 hybrids and subnotebooks, mostly equipped with quad-core Atom and Pentium processors.

 

What would I use the device for, you'd ask?

-Viewing and editing PDF and DOC files

-Browsing the web

-Playing old games (like Age of Empires II and Transport Tycoon)

-Viewing RAW and JPG photos on the go

-Occasional photo editing (in Photoshop or Lightroom - and by ocassional I mean ocassional, like 1-2 photos at a time. I know these small devices are weak for heavy workloads, and their screens aren't up for the job either - for serious work I have my desktop machine.

 

So here is my question: do devices with the specified properties exist in the given price range? Which family of processors is generally better (I hope it's not a dumb question) for my activities? Thanks for your answers in advance.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2015 by jmiki8

[Camacha]

I work with Surface Pros quite a bit and they are amazing machines. Unfortunately, they are a bit above your budget. Is that the kind of machine you would be interested in?

Edited December 27, 2015 by Camacha

[jmiki8]

Yeah, I know the Surface Pro, but that's way too expensive (especially in Hungary, with its world-record 27% VAT -.-). I've seen cheaper hybrids like some Asus Transformers, Acer Aspire Switch series and others. I just don't know if they could get the job done.

Edited December 27, 2015 by jmiki8

[cantab]

We own a by now old Acer hybrid. It seems to do OK for web browsing and watching catch-up TV, but we've never really tested it further.

[Camacha]

I have finally been able to toy around with a Surface Pro 3 and 4, besides normal production work. I can honestly say it is the first time drawing virtually has felt pretty natural. I have tried many solutions over the year, and nothing ever felt satisfactory. Mind you, it is still not perfect by a long shot, but this is the first time I see it being more convenient and easy to use than paper.

The downside is that I need to start figuring out where I am going to get $1500 from for something I really do not absolutely need

Edited December 28, 2015 by Camacha

[Elthy]

When i bought my Surface Pro 3 i could get half of the money from my parents, since i was going to use it for university. Its realy great for students:

-Writing is more confortable than on paper (no fliping pages...)

-Great to annotate PDFs

-Can run the CAD and programming software (Eclipse) anywere

-For boring lessons: Civilsation 5 somehow runs on it, propably the best real game with touch controlls

 

Only downside is the battery, about 7 hours when browsing/making notes or just 3h when playing Civilisation...