Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Build (Actually going to this time)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Build (Actually going to this time)

    So about a year ago I was "about" to build a new PC. Decided against that after some tinkering and everything was sort of alright. After some software issues lately I decided that if I'm going to clean the whole thing and start again, I may as well do it from scratch with a new setup.

    What I have now:

    X79-UD5
    i7 3930k
    16GB Corsair Vengeance
    2 x 980Ti
    750GB Samsung 840

    All under a custom watercooling loop.

    I'm going to be keeping the case and re-using the rads/pump etc as they are all still in very good condition. But the cpu/mobo/RAM is getting on now (had it 6 years) and while the GPUs are still alright, if there's something I can do there, I may well do so (1080Ti SLI sometimes reaches twice the performance of the 980Ti setup).

    I run a central 4K monitor with 2 portrait 1080p monitors either side, so power was always required when playing at high resolutions, but is switching to those 1080Tis just a little overkill? It doesn't seem worth going to a single card unless the consensus is otherwise. Alternative is to wait for Volta in 2018 at some point. I'm also a software dev so use the PC for writing/compiling some pretty heavy distributed computing C# .NET applications.

    For the base system however I'm thinking of this:

    https://www.aria.co.uk/WishList/e52YxlQt5VlmAl9S-22l6Q,,

    Anyone got any thoughts?

  • #2
    As money is clearly not a huge issue for you I think the memory is a bit low. I do .net dev on my machine with several SQL servers, a couple of Visual studio solutions open, and then a couple of VM's running for testing 16GB is quite tight!! i'd go at least 32 for a little headroom!!!
    FILM QUIZ!!!!? Name the film from the quote!!
    "Right. Better clench up, Legolas"

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah perhaps. Probably a good call. I suppose the flipside is that upgrading isn't that hard!

      Comment


      • #4
        Look at threadripper cpu's seb, much better overall 64 lanes of PCI-E 3.0, more cores.


        Looking at the cpu you linked, it's not very good at all struggling match a ryzen 1700x which is cheaper.

        Last edited by k3vst3r; 19-11-17, 19:48.

        4770k @ 4.6, XSPC Raystorm, Avexir 4x4GB 2400MHz, ASUS Z87 Maximus Hero VI, Tri-fire 290x/290x/290 Reference EK 290X CSQ Full Nickel Blocks, Alphacool 240 ST-30, Alphacool 360 ST-30, Asus Xonar, Alphacool D5, Corsair AX 1200i, Carbide 540

        Comment


        • #5
          Interesting. It's been almost 11 years since I had an AMD cpu. I suppose the tradeoff is that per core the Intels might be stronger (so for badly optimised CPU bound games it'll be better), but for multi threading the AMDs push past?

          Comment


          • #6
            Single threading it's pretty close 5-10% for very latest cannonlake vs ryzen. Multi threading and power usage ryzen actually wins. Games theirs small difference at 1080p as in intel win by about 5 to 10% depending on game, at 1440p it's within 1 fps usually, at 4k usually identical performance.

            It took the 18 core i9 7980Xe (1800 quid cpu) 44 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 to beat the 16 core 1950X threadripper (900 quid cpu) 64 lanes of PCI-E 3.0

            That's how good threadripper is.

            AMD really delivered a good cpu lineup this time round.

            Intel getting dominated in server space by AMD EPYC line of cpu's, nothing they have can beat those either.
            Last edited by k3vst3r; 19-11-17, 22:25.

            4770k @ 4.6, XSPC Raystorm, Avexir 4x4GB 2400MHz, ASUS Z87 Maximus Hero VI, Tri-fire 290x/290x/290 Reference EK 290X CSQ Full Nickel Blocks, Alphacool 240 ST-30, Alphacool 360 ST-30, Asus Xonar, Alphacool D5, Corsair AX 1200i, Carbide 540

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah that's fair. I'm just trying to figure out what's best for my uses.

              It seems that under full load the TRs really push it with the 1920X hitting 176W, whereas the 7800X only gets to 146W. The normal Ryzen cores (1800X) seem to be much lower on power consumption but according to anandtech it scores much lower than the graphs you have above, lower than the 7800X which is cheaper.

              Edit: BUT with 2 x 980Ti and an NVMe SSD, I think I might need all the lanes I can get.
              Last edited by Seb.F; 20-11-17, 20:53.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yeah Aandtech are bit biased towards Intel, independent reviewers not paid by Intel show more neutral picture of performance.

                http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,8.html power/temperatures 1950x

                http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,10.html single thread/multithread performance 1950x

                http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages...review,19.html 3D Mark Timespy cpu scores 1950x


                The conclusion

                The hype is now real. AMD delivers what they promised with Threadripper. With a processor choice of up-to sixteen cores and thirty-two threads combined with acceptable heat and power consumption levels the sky is the limit, and that's what you get for under a thousand USD. Now honestly, I would not label the platform as perfect, but I would label it really good as, hey, this platform is such a crazy multi-threading beast! I am also not going to state that everybody should get a PC like this either, as realistically who really needs 12 or 16 cores, right? And sure, in that respect I also have to state that this is not a gamer's platform in the sense that it offers value for money (specific to gaming though). The UMA/NUMA configurations are silly yet I can live with them. And also quad-channel memory does not bring in additional performance gaming wise (aside from Tomb Raider), so really you are better off with, say, a 4.0 GHz tweaked Ryzen 7 1700 or Ryzen 5 1600 as a gamer. You could argue and throw multi-GPU at two x16 configured lanes at me, but realistically over two x8 lanes gen 3.0 you're not going to see much difference there either as the PCI bus is not data flooded. But it is nice to have all that PCIe bandwidth for sure. That said, X399 has a lot to offer, certainly more than what Intel offers with X299.

                The people that do benefit from all this crazy core madness and will adore Threadripper are content creators: video-editing, 3D content rendered on the CPU, megatask-o-maniacs that play games, record and stream at the same time (albeit an 8-core would probably be sufficient here as well). I can also see many benefits for developers and programmers who like to run many virtualized OSes and so on. So the ones that do have a need for many (mega) threads and processors are real enthusiasts yet rather specifically maybe, the professional crowd. But sure, they will justifiably go wild about this release alright.

                At twelve or sixteen cores you also cannot beat the value that Threadripper brings to the table compared to team blue. If you decide to invest in one, it's going to last you so many years. And with software slowly getting more and more threaded, it might even be a wise investment. That said, purely for gaming and everyday usage this investment really doesn't make much sense. But let me throw another mindfrack at you; does it have to make sense? It's a question I have asked myself a number of times while writing this review. See, this is x-factor stuff, it's for the same reason that you spend mo' money on a factory tweaked graphics over a reference one. The same people that buy the most expensive graphics cards. My point, it doesn't always have to make sense.

                Most, and certainly all important variables are good including price, performance and the ability to tweak all the cores on the processor. The X399 motherboards are going to sit in the same price range as the X299 boards from Intel. They'll start at the 300 USD marker and work their way upwards from there onwards, and there will be a lot to choose from alright. Tweaking wise, I am sure that all Threadripper processors will reach 4 GHz on all cores, really the chance and likelyhood they can do that is very probable, but even 100 MHz higher can be problematic to achieve with that all-core overclock. Regardless, with 64-PCIe-Express gen 3.0 lanes, quad-channel memory and the biggest smile on your face in years I do know this, you'll love your Threadripper PC. This 16-core processor, at under a thousand bucks simply is a top pick (for those that need it).

                4770k @ 4.6, XSPC Raystorm, Avexir 4x4GB 2400MHz, ASUS Z87 Maximus Hero VI, Tri-fire 290x/290x/290 Reference EK 290X CSQ Full Nickel Blocks, Alphacool 240 ST-30, Alphacool 360 ST-30, Asus Xonar, Alphacool D5, Corsair AX 1200i, Carbide 540

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hmm, I think the 1950X is going to be overkill for me. Was looking around the 1900X price range really. That way I can keep the build under 1250ish. 1920X pushes that up to 1450 and the 1950X goes right up to like 1600ish

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X