Amazing sleeper build!
It's called a music creation build for a reason. Yes, all, if not most, professional music artists have sound cards of some sort.
The latency of my RAM choice is ~8.33 ns, while your RAM choice is 8.75 ns. Not that noticeable, however when you look at it as a whole, when using large files, it can be the difference of a few seconds from a render time of about a minute (not that important to me, but why not get the best out of your budget?) Also, this is a music creation build, where Intel CPUs can really shine. DAWs like FL Studio can use a lot of cores, so a Ryzen 7 2700 (X or non X) would be the best choice, however they don't come with an integrated GPU, making the 8700K the most affordable option. About the cooler, I believe the R1 Universal is comparable to the D15, and does not have any RAM height limitations, and supports ~240W, whereas with your cooler's choice, I could not find any official documentation on how much it could support. I understand the case supports bad airflow, however this is meant to be a fast yet silent build. Therefore, the Silencio is a great option.
It is for music creation, and the GPU is the iGPU. Modern Intel iGPUs are more than enough to display DAWs at high quality.
I agree, however I was using parts in PCPP. But, thanks for letting me know about those parts!
Ok here is the updated list:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
Well, there is no GPU, and the CPU, although overclocked, shouldn't go over 140W. And, I chose the 400W specifically because it was fanless. While the 520W is a much better deal, #1, I can't find it anywhere, and #2, I chose the parts based on today's prices (if you look in my parts lists, you will see it). Although, I think I will trade it out for the 500W Rosewill since it is a little cheaper and also fanless. Thanks for letting me know about the power supply!
I just happened to come across this article: https://www.pcgamer.com/pro-overclocker-der8auer-on-why-the-race-to-add-cpu-cores-doesnt-make-any-sense-and-why-you-should-still-overclock/
Around middle of the page, you can find Der8auer's comments on that.
Ah ok, makes sense. About the VRM thing, I would highly suggest you check out Gamer's Nexus's video on that for Ryzen because it gives a lot of interesting insight on the actual VRM lifetime when used at high temps w/o a heatsink. It also factors in overclocking.
In other games, I would not expect a lot of performance. You are looking at GTX 750 performance here, not TERRIBLE, but for today's popular games, you can expect low to very low settings at 30-50 FPS, with an average of 45 FPS. However in many eSports titles, 60 FPS at medium to high settings should be doable. Keep in mind that eSports titles are intentionally low spec on the hardware requirements because they want as many possible players to play to ultimately find the best players. Also it is fun for everyone (usually)!
Well, I do personally like the AMD RGB coolers :)
Yes, it is out of spec however I was running them for short periods of time. Of course it is likely to damage hardware when ran in a normal scenario (at 1.9V; I have used them above 2.2V when overclocking for maximum frequency, with my personal record at ~2.15V), however when I was testing via XTU, under the benchmark load, my CPU load temperatures actually dropped 10C when going from 1.9V (2x4GB G.Skill RipjawsX clocked at 2933 MHz) to 1.2V (1x1GB Elpida ram stick clocked at 1066 MHz). However obviously this is an extreme case, and generally speaking when lowering voltage from, say 1.65V to 1.5V, (using the same kit of RAM) a 1C-3C drop is typical. I can retest those test and send you the spreadsheets with the data if you would like. Note that I was using a G3258, delidded with ICD under and above the IHS, a Maximus VI Hero, an Enermax Liqmax II 240 w/ 4x 120mm fans in push pull config, and a dual PSU config (1x Corsair CX 750W and 1x Dell 280W).
Edit: Just to be clear, you were talking about the RAM voltage, right? Thanks again!
Yea well, its a 6 core CPU we are talking about here. Also, I wonder if 40.25, 40.5, or 40.75 multipliers worked?
Hi kid, that is a Ryzen 5 2400G, with Ryzen 11. YOU might want to check your facts before accusing others, buddy. The 2200G uses Ryzen 8. Now go ahead and compare that. See if it is comparable.
If it isn't even comparable to a GTX 750 Ti, it is not fine. Also, I will no longer recommend the APUs as AMD has made it official they will go through a 3 month cycle for driver updates, which is not really a good end user deal.
I would like to test this out, and see if the rumors are true. I am not saying I don't believe you, it's just that I feel like many of these reviewers are inexperienced with overclocking, and are not willing to spend the time necessary to hit the higher overclocks. Also, keep in mind you can go in .25x increments. As in, how would I know if 4025, 4050, or 4075 MHz speeds are stable based on those reports? Usually not a lot of people factor that in, but it makes a difference in the end as to exactly how much AMD binned their 2600X CPUs vs the 2600s.
Roblox is a lot more intensive if you want good quality. On the more popular games, it's quite hardware intensive if you plan on chatting with friends in a discord call and playing.
I don't see why 4 GHz overclock is a problem... At this point you are trying to go way past specifications, which is why AMD or other companies don't give warranties in the first place. There is nothing wrong with going above and beyond, but what you are trying to do is say that "on air cooling you should be able to do 4.2 GHz", when there is so many different air coolers to talk about. Also, the 2600X does come with a cooler if I am not mistaken.
Good luck rendering Phantom Forces on a single core. And good luck running on a G3258 w/ one core enabled.
Yes, this is the optimal route for long term future proofing
In any case, happy computing!
Nah, the 2600 is fine, since you can overclock it to about the same level as a 2600X.
The 2600 can provide slightly better experience, however with a 1700, you can get better streaming performance, if you are into that.
No it won't. CPU will not be powerful enough, nor will GPU.
If you are comparing stuff like Phantom Forces or the really good new games, you are looking at 50 FPS at max, however for most other games on Roblox, 60 should not be a problem. Also, there is a difference with "60" and what I like to call "smooth 60". Yes, while the GPU is rendering 60 FPS, it sometimes doesn't have the buttery smooth effect that 60 FPS is supposed to bring. You will need a higher end GPU to be able to get the smooth 60 FPS mark. A GTX 1060 3GB should be no problem for the highest end Roblox titles.
I'd go with the 1080, since it has GDDR5X, and of course a higher core count. Plus, you have better cooling support, which can result in slightly higher overclocks!
It's not the speed I was looking at, it was the fact that #1, it is overclocking friendly, and #2, it has lower latency in ns.
Well, of course you want to get the basics down first! So, X58, huh? i7-960, 3x4GB (or 6x2GB) I'm pretty sure... Allow me to guess, you tried overclocking the BCLK? I am pretty sure the stock is 133 MHz (BCLK)... I am pretty confident 140 MHz BCLK can work, assuming your RAM is not of mediocre quality, that is! If the RAM cannot handle the higher speed, I suggest either increase the primary timings, or lower the memory multiplier to one lower, to compensate for the increase in BCLK. If it is the CPU, then either increase your voltage a bit, or you may be forced to lower the BCLK, although I am pretty sure 140 MHz BCLK should work flawlessly. Also, have your CPU turbo clocked, for maximum speed increase! Your i7-960 should be capable of running at a multiplier of 25 or 26, since those are the turbo boost ratios for 3/4 core and 1/2 core respectively. (Yes, I have my own database with all of this info :) ) Hey, everyone starts somewhere, and it is fair to say you started with dust in thermal compound :) It's ok. That's how we learn, from making mistakes. Just don't put 2V on the CPU. Never do it. If you need or want any help overclocking or performance tuning, please let me know!
This is slightly over 1400 but it should do.
MSI Z370i Gaming Pro Carbon AC. Period.
Well, if you did not already buy it, you can just go with a Ryzen 5 2600 and overclock it! It is cheaper, and essentially, the 2600 is a downclocked 2600X, with a somewhat lower end cooler (however you can still achieve a decent overclock for your money)
I can help you with overclocking if you would like! If not overclocking, then I suggest get a high clocked modern CPU such as the i7-8086K or the Ryzen 5 2600X. Just because you have a unlocked part, doesn't mean you have to overclock it! (although it will greatly improve your overall performance).
8700 or 8600K is the best option. I am saying 8600K because you can overclock that thing, past 8700 performance. And it's a bit cheaper!
You don't even know what you are saying do you? Do you understand that i7s always run at higher frequencies than their equivalent i5 counterparts?
You are clearly misunderstood. Games like PUBG can actually use 6 cores. And it is a very popular game. You have an interesting username, perhaps a spam account?
The i7 8700 is the best out of the three. The i5 series has been said to be the gamer's best friend cus it offers awesome gaming performance (slightly under equivalent i7 performance) for less money.
The 8600 has 6 cores, 6 threads, where the 7700 has 4 cores, 8 threads. The 8600, at 4100 MHz (turbo clocked), should outperform the 7700 at 4000 MHz (turbo clocked). Also, you did not mention if the RAM will be ran overclocked, or 2666 on the 8600 and 2400 on the 7700, which is the rated speeds for both CPUs. Generally speaking, the 8600 SHOULD beat the 7700 for most tasks, streaming may actually favor the 7700. However for just gaming, the 8600 should win. Now, when comparing the 8600 (i5) to the 8700 (i7), the i7 variant will always win, since it has the most features, you can disable hyper-threading if you choose, you get 2MB L3 cache per core vs 1.5MB L3 cache per core on the i5 (doesn't really help but helps nonetheless), and the 8700 can do 4300 MHz when turbo clocked. Oh quick tip, if you disable two cores on the 8600, you can force a turbo clock of 4200 MHz, which can further beat the 7700 at most games, however in games like PUBG and Battlefield it is best to leave all cores enabled.
I am pretty positive it would be very acceptable for mobile solutions.
Yes. Here is a perfect example: The i7-8700K vs the i7-8086K (newly released and faster). The i7-8086K runs at say, 4 Ghz base, while the 8700K runs at 3.7 GHz base. If you were to disable turbo boost, they would run at those frequencies. Essentially, when you overclock the 8700K to 4 GHz, it should match the performance of the 8086K when at 4 GHz, with a less than 1% margin of error. The i7-8086K is actually an 8700K under the hood, with vPro disabled, and higher stock clock speeds.
You do understand that higher quality parts (typically included in higher efficiency ratings) tend to be able to run at lower temperatures, right? If what you are trying to say is that heat kills parts, and trying to say my claim is wrong, well essentially you are saying a HX1000 will be operating at the same temperature under full load, compared to a Supernove T2 1000W. Good luck with that. Apparantly you don't understand that heat kills the POWER SUPPLY quicker when the POWER SUPPLY is running hotter because it is not as efficient, as in, it takes more input wattage to output the same wattage as a more efficient power supply. It is only logic. That is the point of efficiency. You are losing more energy to heat with lower efficient parts.
I just go higher than PCPP's values so that I can ensure that under max load, it will work, and with an upgradeability factor, in case they want to upgrade at a later date, they can still use the power supply and save a hundred bucks or something.
What is your build list?
Through GPU Boost 3.0 alone, you won't go as high as 375W for sure, but 180-210W is more likely. When you manually overclock, and push that power limit all the way up to 375W, yea, 2100 is possible, but that depends on your GPU's ASIC quality, and voltage provided, and heat output.
I was just trimming his original list for near similar performance. I understand it's not half the price, however I was just optimizing his list at that performance point, in case he wanted to get it, so that it would have a higher performance/cost ratio.
Well, it can help with energy savings, as well as component lifespan.
You obviously have experience overclocking Intel CPUs to the very max. Also, how much energy does 2x 8 pin PCIe ports provide? 150W each. For a total of 300. +75 from PCIe slot. I was maxing out the wattage in a very worst case scenario. If you want to get more technical, those PCIe 8 pins can actually go much higher than 150W (roughly 320W), just look at Buildzoid's vids on that! Also, go check on Intel XTU (on your computer), and check the power reading. The Package TDP is what you want to look at. Tell me what you are hitting at that 5GHz frequency, and tell me if it is still 91W under benchmark load (and NOT stress test load)! (It should not be unless you have a golden chip)
120 (CPU) + 10 (cooler) + 100(mobo) + 10(RAM) + 50(storage) + 375 (GPU). I have done my calculations, 665W. 750W is what I recommend minimum.
Not when putting the 8700K at a very large overclock (I put about 150W for the CPU, yes it can go that high), and the GPU can pull up to 375W. Now, we don't want this user to have to lower the overclock due to "Current Limits" now, do we? (The worst kind of throttling). Yes, a 750W would do, however for efficiency measures, the 850W would be better. A 650W will not be enough when maxing out the overclock.