KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[deskjetser]

Its all about Surface Area and Heat Pipes when it comes to Air Cooling, Two things the massive phanteks does. Then agian the PH-TC14PE can compete and beat the H100i.

Certianly a ton of air moving in that case, I could only guess if an aircooler would do good in there.

I need to look into getting a wider case, This Cooler barely fits in my current one.

If your looking for a wide case, this case is your best bet, its the phattest mo'fo' out dere'

Joking aside, you could litterally fit a baby in the rear panel, not that i'd know....... What, baby? I DIDNT DO IT, HUUUSSSHHH!

[Leonov]

-snip-

That went right over my head, you are running at 5Ghz?, Whats the TDP at that Freq?

[Camacha]

Pretty rig, I have that same Motherboard and CPU.

it keeps my 8350 down to 15C/35C Idle/Load.

15 degrees seems a little low to me, is that in celcius? Unless you have an airconditioned room or live in a cold region and with your windows open, that doesn't seem right to me.

That went right over my head, you are running at 5Ghz?, Whats the TDP at that Freq?

The TDP stays the same, as it is a fixed value. The power consumption however...

[briansun1]

15 degrees seems a little low to me, is that in celcius? Unless you have an airconditioned room or live in a cold region and with your windows open, that doesn't seem right to me. -snip-

it is in C. "it keeps my 8350 down to 15C/35C Idle/Load."

[Tataffe]

15 degrees seems a little low to me, is that in celcius? Unless you have an airconditioned room or live in a cold region and with your windows open, that doesn't seem right to me.

Could be the difference to room temperature, a value that makes more sense imo.

[Leonov]

The Cooler is of monstrous proportions i assure you. 59F/95F Idle/Load. Im switching to a larger case today a Corsair C70 Vengeance in Black, more fans so i may see better temps form other components. Ill post pics when i am done.

[briansun1]

could also get the 700D

[Camacha]

it is in C. "it keeps my 8350 down to 15C/35C Idle/Load."

Yes, I saw the C, but it is not making sense. That is why I asked.

Physics wise it is impossible for core temperatures to be lower than the surrounding environment, except for phase change and sub zero liquids (nitrogen for example). In practice, even with the most massive coolers a postitive difference between core temperature and ambient temperature will exist.

That is why I made the comment about the air conditioning. Unless it is 10 degrees celcius in the room, the readings are not right. As a delta T it would, as Tataffe said, make more sense.

[deskjetser]

That went right over my head, you are running at 5Ghz?, Whats the TDP at that Freq?

Sorry for late reply, been buzy alot recently. *Edit* And the forums were down :[

The power consumption at stock turbo clock of 4.2GHz was 129W on my system.

And I dialed in my OC to 4.9GHz @ 1.45V, but I have no clue to what as the wattage consumption is on that.

Anyway, GOOD NEWS! It arrived today, It was on sale @ £150, so I couldn't pass it up. I got an FX9590!

This thing is a monster, 225W TDP, 4.7GHz and upto 5GHz turbo, runs KSP lika' boss. However my H80i is no longer upto the job of cooling this monster @ 5GHz, it can run @ 5GHz for about 1-2 mins before it gets to about 55 degrees C and caps itself at 4.7GHz. None the less for this price this thing is a beast.

I am going to be getting either a H100i or H110, the 110 has only a lil' more cooling potential, and it would better fit the dual 140mm slot ontop of my PC. Along with a Corsair AX1200i so I can get another ASUS 7970 to run in crossfire. *Edit* With this CPU, and two 7970s under full load it's going to be pulling around 1000W

Tell me, whatcha' think of that idea?

*Edit* Oh and if anyone wants to buy a very slightly used FX8350 proved to run at 4.9GHz/5GHz on a Crosshair V Z mobo for a decent price, please lemme know.

Edited September 25, 2013 by deskjetser

[briansun1]

if the 110 fit's then go for it

[jfx]

it is in C. "it keeps my 8350 down to 15C/35C Idle/Load."

Temperature reporting on AMD tools has been broken since Phenom I.

This thing is a monster, 225W TDP, 4.7GHz and upto 5GHz turbo, runs KSP lika' boss. However my H80i is no longer upto the job of cooling this monster @ 5GHz, it can run @ 5GHz for about 1-2 mins before it gets to about 55 degrees C and caps itself at 4.7GHz. None the less for this price this thing is a beast.

All fun and games until the next power bill.

[Leonov]

-snip-

Good thing i Use HW Monitor and not the AMD Tools.

The Power consumption depending on your area and factors as such is barely a factor in MOST situations, at best it as a facetious talking point, This is not the place for such talk.

I think more of his concern is those Cards pilling tons of power, That would really be the killer.

-snip-

Look at your options before jumping on a cooling solution, The NZXT Kraken Series have been getting good reviews maybe look at them. Maybe look into a Heatsink/Fan.

I honestly do not think the 9590 is worth its salt, But to each their own.

[Camacha]

Good thing i Use HW Monitor and not the AMD Tools.

The Power consumption depending on your area and factors as such is barely a factor in MOST situations.

In Europe, the guide line is that 1 watt of powers costs 2 euro per year. That means the 100 watt difference compared to an FX-8350 or i7-4960X, at worst, costs you 200 euro/year. When we take into account that computers only spend a very small amount of time at full load, it will probably be more like a fraction of that. It will, however, be something that shows up on your electrical bill.

To be honest, I would be way more worried about the heat and associated noise. I like efficiëncy because I like silence. It also feels like wasting a lot of power.

[deskjetser]

I think more of his concern is those Cards pilling tons of power, That would really be the killer.

I honestly do not think the 9590 is worth its salt, But to each their own.

Yes, the second 7970 is why I will be upgrading from a AX760 platinum, to a AX1200i platinum. Should be ample power for this system.

And honestly, yeah, the 9590 really isn't worth getting at anything other than around what I paid for it. For the price I paid, it is as powerful @ 4.7GHz as my 8350 was @ 4.9GHz, so although it may not be the fastest thing in the world, it is definitely a major upgrade over the 8350.

All fun and games until the next power bill.

Honestly, where I live in the UK, under my supplier, electric is around 3p per kW/hr compared with the 'average' US equivalent cost of around 8p per kW/hr.

if the 110 fit's then go for it

Yeah it fits, I have a Air 540, it has room for a 120/140mm single rad in the back, room for a dual 120/140mm rad in the top, and room for a dual 140mm or triple 120mm rad in the front.

*Edit*

To be honest, I would be way more worried about the heat and associated noise. I like efficiëncy because I like silence. It also feels like wasting a lot of power.

With my current H80i I can keep my 9590 @ a constant 4.8GHz in turbo, and at that clock speed it maxes out at 56C, which if you compare with some peoples overclocks on a Haswell architecture CPU of like 60-70C+, is a pretty good temp actually.

Edited September 26, 2013 by deskjetser

[Camacha]

With my current H80i I can keep my 9590 @ a constant 4.8GHz in turbo, and at that clock speed it maxes out at 56C, which if you compare with some peoples overclocks on a Haswell architecture CPU of like 60-70C+, is a pretty good temp actually.

I was also referring to the noise the cooler makes to accomplish this and the increased heat inside your case, which heats up other parts and increases the need for airflow, which again increases sound levels.

Since I built a dead silent computer I really can not stand noisy machines anymore.

[deskjetser]

I was also referring to the noise the cooler makes to accomplish this and the increased heat inside your case, which heats up other parts and increases the need for airflow, which again increases sound levels.

You make it sound like a vicious cycle, I do see where you are coming from though, however remember that I'm using an Air 540, this thing keeps everything very cool.

The H80i is really not that loud, maxed out it's like a quiet humming. My system while it may be louder than your conventional quietness madman PC, is not its primary function. I built it the way it is for low temperatures under high loads.

Considering that my CPU is pulling 1.52v @ 4.8GHz, that my mobo is high end, that my ram is running @ 2133MHz and that my graphics card is running OC'd... I need all the cooling I can get.

I just did a sound test with my phone, I know it's not accurate but it is at least a basic measurement. It came to 43dB max.

[Camacha]

My system while it may be louder than your conventional quietness madman PC, is not its primary function. I built it the way it is for low temperatures under high loads.

My rig was designed to be as silent as possible under full load, as it is somewhat workstation oriented and working with a hoover in the background is not very good for productivity. That was also on of the reasons to go for Intel, as those chips are a little more efficient in terms of work per watt. The great single threaded performance is another, as many programs still fail to utilize multiple cores properly.

Since the loudest part of the build is my monitor I can safely say I succeeded.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Camacha

[Moustachauve]

Wait, your monitor is making sound? o.O

[deskjetser]

That was also on of the reasons to go for Intel, as those chips are a little more efficient in terms of work per watt. The great single threaded performance is another, as many programs still fail to utilize multiple cores properly.

Hate to tell you, the FX9590 is actually pretty efficient for 5GHz.

And while many programs do not utilize multiple cores, you can still have multiple programs spread out over multiple cores. While the 9590 may not have as efficient cores as Intel, they only have to be 51% as efficient, because in the majority of cases it has twice as many cores. So if you think about it, AMD = >half as efficent cores, but twice as many. Intel = Efficient cores, but half as much.

Obviously you have 6 core Intels, but this is just a basic explanation.

[jfx]

Hate to tell you but ghz as seen in your image don't tell you anything about efficiency or performance.

Tomshardware have some graphs that show how many kilojoule a specific workload (eg encodig a video or opening x web sites) needs on a cpu - AMDs pretty consistently take 200% of a modern intel cpu there - which does not surprise - Intel does have a 2-3 year lead in manufacturing compared to everyone else.

[deskjetser]

Hate to tell you but ghz as seen in your image don't tell you anything about efficiency or performance.

I was specifically talking about GHz per/W efficiency. You need to read a lil' more carefully.

[zerox22x]

My Current machine ( about 2 months old now )

ASUS GTX650TI-DC2O-1GD5

Intel® Core™ i5-3570K

Sharkoon WPM 500

Sharkoon VS3-S chrome

LiteOn iHAS124-04

ASRock P75 Pro3

Seagate ST1000DM003 1 TB HDD

GeiL Dragon 8 GB DDR3-1333 Kit

Made a small error and have the wrong chipset on the mainboard for overclocking , but for the rest runs very smooth , pretty powerfull aswell and not too expensive

[Camacha]

Wait, your monitor is making sound? o.O

Jup. The slightest buzz, but a buzz none the less. The incredible pixel pitch makes up for it though.

I was specifically talking about GHz per/W efficiency. You need to read a lil' more carefully.

I was talking about work per watt, so I could say the same to you AMD's are getting better every generation, but they are not up to the levels of efficiency of Intels yet - by a long shot. If you look at GPU's/APU's AMD is doing a lot better, so for low to mid range computers without discrete GPU AMD is actually a great option.

And while many programs do not utilize multiple cores, you can still have multiple programs spread out over multiple cores. While the 9590 may not have as efficient cores as Intel, they only have to be 51% as efficient, because in the majority of cases it has twice as many cores. So if you think about it, AMD = >half as efficent cores, but twice as many. Intel = Efficient cores, but half as much.

Obviously you have 6 core Intels, but this is just a basic explanation.

Well, I could make a post a couple of pages long about this, but I will keep it short. The downfall of this argumentation is that not all programs can utilise multiple cores. KSP is a prime example; even though I have four cores available, only one gets fully used and another partially. Having more cores is not useful, faster cores is. Unfortunately a lot of modern programs and games suffer from this. In the near future the consoles will alleviate this problem since they use more relatively weak cores and games will be designed to utilize hardware like this, but we are not there just yet. AMD will at that point gain some terrain when it comes to gain, but do not expect that for a couple of years. Both our computers will be old and slow by that point

Also, please note that AMD cores are not full cores. They resemble hyperthreading in that cores share a part of their architecture. The difference with hyperthreading is that with hyperthreading only a small fraction of a second CPU core is there, while with AMD's modules a larger portion is present. The modules do, however, share a significant portion of their CPU core and thus can not be considered full cores. This makes them hard to compare directly to Intels cores, but seeing them as full seperate cores is a mistake.

Of course, octocores make for great marketing, so I do not blame them calling their chips just that, but when it comes to traditional definitions it is not really truthful.

[deskjetser]

I was talking about work per watt, so I could say the same to you

And you completely miss the fact that if the work was multi-threaded, then it would be more efficient for work per watt.

The downfall of this argumentation is that not all programs can utilise multiple cores.

That is completely not what I was talking about,

have multiple programs spread out over multiple cores.

I clearly did not say, 'program/s running on multiple cores'.

[Camacha]

And you completely miss the fact that if the work was multi-threaded, then it would be more efficient for work per watt.

That is quite simply not true. If you look at the reviews the FX 9590 is more often than not bested by the 4770K - even with fully multithreaded benches and especially in real world benches. When the FX does defeat the HD4770 it is often by a much smaller margin than the other way around, but the best case scenario is probably 15%. Meanwhile the measured power consumption is about 250% of the 4770k for the FX 9590. You do not have to be a mathematician to see that the FX loses out big time when it comes to efficiency, as a gain of at best 15% costs a 150% more power.

It is a nice chip, but let us not lose sight of reality.

That is completely not what I was talking about, I clearly did not say, 'program/s running on multiple cores'.

It is pretty rare for two programs to run at full load simultaneously outside benchmark conditions, having four or even eight run at the same time just does not seem to happen. You would have to encode multiple movies at the same time or something.

Even so, a Haswell chip often outperforms the FX 9590, even in multithreaded situations. The FX really does need all those cores/modules to keep up. In very specific situations the FX can be quicker, but at a cost