|
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
On July 12 2017 09:01 FiWiFaKi wrote:So I have a question about wifi, not sure how knowledgeable you guys are on this, as I don't see it discussed much, but here I go: Currently the fastest network card on the market is a 1024QAM 4 MIMO-OFDM, which therefore is capable of producing a theoretical speed of 1000Mbps on the 2.4Ghz band, and and 2167Mbps on the 5Ghz band. So to actually take advantage of this network card, I have to have a router that supports 1024QAM and 4 spatial streams, right? So when I go look at routers on memory express, there's only 10 routers out of the 100~ that have a speed of 3100Mhz+. Then, I am assuming that this all needs to be on a single band, so the triband ones that do N600 + AC1300 + AC1300 wont be compatible, yes? If that's the case, the cheapest 2 are eliminated, and then there's on talking about "tri-stream 160", so like... at 5Ghz using 3 160Mhz channels, which is confusing to me, because based on the graphs I saw on the internet: In NA without DFS, you can only get 2 80Mhz channels and zero 160Mhz channels, and with DFS, you can get at most 5 80Mhz channels, and 1 160Mhz channels (and hence a big reason why we don't see them)... Which leads me to another question?... How are those AC5300 that use AC2166 + AC2166 + N1000 even possible? I understand one device can only be connected to one of these at a time, so a theoretical max speed of 2166Mbps, but that requires 4 spatial streams, so how can you have 2 separate 5Ghz bands if the maximum available 80Mhz channels are 5. Do these just throttle each other? Because if so (I mean they must, physics wouldn't make sense otherwise), then why would you want two separate ones rather than just one which doesn't get throttled. And then this product says it has 4 active antennas and 4 internal antennas (as the picture shows as well), but then in the description it says it has 5x IEEE 802.11ac channels at 433Mbps each, which is also confusing, where is the last antenna. If that's the case then, does this mean that this Netgear router costing $500CAD only uses 256QAM modulation, and hence wont let me get full potential out of my network card? Since I've only found 4 routers that do a 2167Mhz signal with 4 spatial streams on memory express. I would also be interested in getting a router that supports 802.11ad, just to future proof a little bit... And, I cannot find a single 802.11ad router that supports 4 MIMO 1024QAM? Am I looking for a product that doesn't exist? Also, I'm just wondering about the range of routers. I'm unable to find any kind of signal strength quantifiers or anything like that. I understand that a 5Ghz signal wont travel as far as 2.4Ghz, but what about two 5Ghz signals between routers? Surely just by raising the voltage inside the circuit you can create a larger oscillation and thus a signal that will take longer to dissipate. I can't find any of this information in the specifications though. Lastly, if I have a router with 4 antennas, and I'm using my computer which also has 4 antennas, I would technically be using all 4 of the routers spatial streams. So I'm just wondering, if someone else in the house wants to access the network, how does it work? What exactly is the advantage of MU-MIMO opposed to SU-MIMO... Because let's just assume that two users are using a 5Ghz band capable of 2167Mbps with an internet connection of 100Mbps, and they both go download files simultaneously. Assuming the server they are being downloaded from is no bottleneck, What use does MU-MIMO play? Couldn't the router spend 10ms using the 100mbps connection to download the file on the first computer, then switch after 10ms more and continue the download on another computer? By quickly flickering which device receives the signal, doesn't that act like MU-MIMO? I actually have no idea how it works, but would be nice to understand how many devices can be receiving a signal at once, how efficiently is it split, etc, etc.
I only saw your post now, I have some knowledge with Wifi, but I did have to look a few things up, mostly on Wikipedia. I cannot help you which equipment to pick, but I think I can answer some of your questions.
- 1024 QAM is proprietary. The highest QAM according to 802.11ac Wave 2 is 256 QAM. So if you go with 1024, make sure the devices can actually talk to each other. It will probably be standardized in 802.11ax, and there are already devices out there claiming to support 802.11ax.
- " 5x IEEE 802.11ac channels at 433Mbps" references to 5 x 80 MHz Channels, and each can do 433 Mbps. This has nothing to do with Antennas.
- 2166 x 2166 x 1000 means that the Access Point has 3 Radios (not Antennas), 1x 2,4 GHz and 2x 5GHz. The two 5GHz radios can service up to four spatial streams over 4 antennas at once with 1024 QAM, that's how you get that speed.
- According to this Wiki page you can have the following 80 MHz Channels (all in MHz) in the US:5170–5250, 5250–5330, 5490–5570, 5570–5650, 5650–5730, 5735–5815
- You can have the following 160 Mhz Channels (All in MHz): 5170–5330, 5490–5650
- Regarding 802.11ad, you are aware that this is a different technology working in the 60 GHz band, right? It is very limited in reachability and will have troubles penetrating walls. What you are looking for is probably a router supporting 802.11ax (see first bullet point) and 802.11ad. However, I haven't seen anything like this.
I'm running out of time, I will write some more later
Edit: some More:
I understand one device can only be connected to one of these at a time, so a theoretical max speed of 2166Mbps, but that requires 4 spatial streams, so how can you have 2 separate 5Ghz bands if the maximum available 80Mhz channels are 5.
The spatial streams are all running in the same band. So if you are using Channel 42 with 80 Mhz, all 4 spatial streams will run in that channel.
Lastly, if I have a router with 4 antennas, and I'm using my computer which also has 4 antennas, I would technically be using all 4 of the routers spatial streams. So I'm just wondering, if someone else in the house wants to access the network, how does it work?
If there is only one radio, it will have to split up the spatial streams. So it either goes 2 and 2 or 3 and 1. Thanks to MIMO it will be able to server all 4 streams at the same time.
Assuming the server they are being downloaded from is no bottleneck, What use does MU-MIMO play? Couldn't the router spend 10ms using the 100mbps connection to download the file on the first computer, then switch after 10ms more and continue the download on another computer?
MU-MIMO does not do anything for you in this situation, because the Access Point is waiting for traffic. The bottle neck is the internet connection, and nothing you do in your wifi network will change that.
Regarding the internet connection, if both computers are downloading files from the same server, the bandwidth should be split in half, giving you about 40 to 50 Mbps for each computer (the exact value is depending on your ISPs settings). the router is not dedicating a time slot for one connection. He will just receive packets and forward them, first in first out. The ISP will have some sort of mechanism implemented that will limit the bandwidth, so if two many packets are coming in the ISP will either drop packets or queue them.
If all you do with Wifi is connect to the internet, then all the high speeds on the wifi will not do anything for you until you get your ISP line upgraded to about 1 Gig. However, if you also move alot of files around in your home network (from/to a NAS), than you will benefit from the high performance.
TL;DR: In the US, you can have 5 80MHz Channels. 4 of them can also be combined into 2 160MHz Channels. If you use Spatial streams, all of them will run in the same channel. You need an antenna for each spatial stream, so up to 4 antennas, but you only need one 5GHz radio to serve those 4 antennas. If you have two 5GHz radios, you can serve 2x 4 spatial streams on 5 GHz on those 4 antennas.
I hope I could clear it up a bit. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.
|
Thank you for your reply, I'll try to go through point-by-point:
1. I know that 1024QAM isn't officially supported in 802.11ac, but I believe what I was saying is that if I purchase: https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-802-11AC-Wireless-AC3100-Adapter-PCE-AC88/dp/B01H9QMOMY , then I would need a Router that has at least 4 radios (I just said antennas because you can count radios just by counting all the antennas is most cases).
2. I believe that's the maximum, no? The 5 spatial streams. Because that would mean that every 11ac router would have a 2167Mbps 5Ghz band, which isn't the case. Any router that is capable of these speeds with 256QAM would have to be at minimum of 5 antennas, which isn't the case. Hence why I mentioned the physical antennas, and I believe they do have some meaning. If on a router you see 3 antennas, you know that at most it can handle 3 spatial streams, no?
3&4. I must've been imprecise with my speech here. Yes, I understand, it's a triband router rather than a dual band, but you just said that these 3 radios work over 4 spatial streams. So lets neglect the 2.4Ghz band for a little bit. Let's assume I have 2 NAS storages each on a different network, and am using a triband router that uses 1024QAM with 4 spatial streams, so we have a top of the line 5.3Gbps router. Say that my NAS is close to my router, and I'm doing two simultaneous back-ups, maybe I could expect a real world speed of 800Mbps over these ranges on one of the 5Ghz bands, so 100MBps, or a little below the maximum sequential speeds of modern hard drives. Now to achieve this speed, I'm using all four of the 5Ghz spatial streams, no? Or are you saying that if in theory I had 20 5.0Ghz radios in my router, they would all be simultaneously be able to send this 2167Mbps signal to different stations (as long as it isn't the same one). Because I didn't believe this to be the case.
Either way, you're saying there is 6 80Mhz channels at your disposal (opposed to the 5 I read elsewhere). I'm just trying to understand what is the benefit of having 2 5Ghz "radios", versus 1 5Ghz radios. Like I've read online, it should help in theory with congestion in a network with many devices, but I've seen no evidence or numbers showing this. If there's only 5-6 80Mhz bands available anyway, does that mean the theoretical improvement of a normal dualband ac router is theoretically only 25-50% (5/4-6/4), because there are no other 5Ghz bands to tap?
(I might have been looking at Canada before, because we have some stuff in the 5Ghz band dedicated to weather instruments, so for us it is only 5 80Mhz bands)
5. Yep, looks like I was looking at Canada rather than the US, most of EU and Canada have only 1 available, my bad.
6. Yep, I'm aware. My main usages for this would be NAS... Yes, I don't have storage that supports the 60Ghz band just yet, and if I ever upgrade my printer that is on my network. My router is in my home entertainment room, so the two relatively short term uses it could have is displaying my monitor on my TV without the use of an HDMI cable (HDMI cables are 18Gbps maximum, 14.4Gbps without the overhead... A 1080p 30fps signal requires some 1.5Gbps, this could be a good use for 802.11ad, much more clean, and more convenient than having to get out of the chair and close to the laptop to pause the video playing, etc. Among other reasons is possible wireless VR later down the road.
Outside of that, I want a good router, because even though right now I have "only" 50Mbps internet speeds, we will soon have 250Mbps available to us, and I believe that most 100-200 dollar routers will not be able to achieve those speeds. I figured spending a bit extra on the extra ad feature wouldn't be that bad if I'm already spending $400+ on a router. If it doesn't exist, then too bad.
The spatial streams are all running in the same band. So if you are using Channel 42 with 80 Mhz, all 4 spatial streams will run in that channel.
Well this answers a whole bunch for me, thanks! So in theory, it shouldn't be that difficult for them to create a router that uses 5 5Ghz radios, all just running in a different 80Mhz channel if they wanted to? Of course your neighbors might hate you, and it would be quite expensive for little real world benefit.
If there is only one radio, it will have to split up the spatial streams. So it either goes 2 and 2 or 3 and 1. Thanks to MIMO it will be able to server all 4 streams at the same time.
Well now everything makes more sense now that I understand the 4 spatial streams are all on one channel ^^. So if we're looking at only using the wireless network for internet usage that is 50Mbps or say even 250Mbps, would there be added benefit of adding the 2nd 5Ghz radio? Since if I'm using 4 devices, they could each just take one spatial stream, which would have a theoretical speed of 433Mbps (or a bit higher for 1024QAM)... And so each one should be capable of more than 50Mbps in the real world unless I'm in the darkest corner of my house. So in this case, even running these 4 devices simultaneously, with one of those 4 spatial stream 1024 QAM radios, there should be no congestion that leads to slower internet speeds for anyone, right? I mean yes, nobody would get the full 50Mbps, but if you did a speedtest of the four signals, it should be 50Mbps, yes?
So then I guess that leads me to the next part, of what happens if I add a 5th device, how does it deal with the traffic then? How are the individual MIMO streams shared? Because surely even if I had 5 radios, more than 50Mbps wont come into my modem from my ISP, so a sum of 50Mbps is the best I can do. Or is there some delay when servicing two devices with the same spatial stream, and that leads it to be a negative sum game, and that one spatial stream might be capable of 12.5Mbps (if the other 3 are getting 12.5Mbps), but if that one spatial stream is split between two devices, it'll only be say 5Mbps per device? Is having 8 spatial streams to be able to serve these 5 simultaneous devices significantly advantageous over having 4 spatial streams and splitting those? I have 4 pretty internet hungry people in the house, so it's of great interest to me.
Anyway, I appreciate your help, that one mistake about not knowing that all four spatial streams are on one channel really confused my thinking and set me on the wrong path, now a lot more makes sense.
|
Hopefully someone can help me out, I appreciate any help in advance. I've watched a ton of video's lately and I think, based on my understanding and what I've read/watched, that I should go with a Ryzen 7 1700. I don't anticipate overclocking (no experience) but if I ever get to that the 1700 supposedly OC's to 4.0ghz and competes with the 1800x. At any rate, I don't do a ton of productivity (where the Ryzen would be good) but I'm thinking having it for the future would be good in the event I do more multi-tasking and productivity outside of just playing games?
What is your budget? $1500.00 USD
What is your monitor's native resolution? BenQ @ 1920x1080 and an HP 1680x1050
What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings? Battlegrounds (Pubg), Rainbow Six Siege, City building games like Civ6, Witcher 3 - preferrably on ultra or very high.
What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming? General PC use, excel documents, browsing, youtube, etc
Do you intend to overclock? Not at first, but am not completely opposed to it in the long run if it is worth it.
Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire? I've never done it. I wouldn't be in a position to purchase another graphics card for atleast another year. At that point would I get that much considerable performance out of adding another like card and running crossfire or just upgrading to whatever is the newest out?
Do you need an operating system? Yes, most likely Windows 10
Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget? No
If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify. No
What country will you be buying your parts in? US
If you have any retailer preferences, please specify. Preferably Amazon unless the deal on another site is far better.
Looks to me aren't that important so no plans to do RGB lighting or anything like that. I'd rather have a quiet case than any of the other stuff. Also I don't see myself ever bothering with liquid cooling if that helps with things.
|
In my opinion your part list should go something like this:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/MZDyPs
It's at $1400 without the case added, because that's really so much dependent on taste. Just take a look through some there. Motherboard really really depends on what you want to do with it. Just look at some of the most popular on part picker, they're usually good value, and find something you like, a mid tower ideally.
Ask yourself if yourself if you ever want to run dual GPU setups, and check X370 vs B350 motherboards and how much IO they have. Ryzen does a pretty shit job at giving you PCIE lanes (44 on Kaby Lake w/ the best chipset, 28 on Ryzen w/ the best chipset), but should be enough, the only issue you usually run into is being unable to run multiple m.2 SSD's, nothing else that normal people buy besides SSD's and GPU's uses that many PCIE lanes and that much bandwidth. A problem I'd have with B350 is at most you'll have 2 Gen1 and 2 Gen USB3.1, and 6 USB2.0. Connecting external hard drives for back up via USB (and external SSD's if you're that wealthy), thumb drives, network card dongles for wifi, newer printers connected through USB, card readers-USB from cameras are among some of the uses. Also USB 3.0 is able to charge devices almost twice as fast if that's any interest to you.
So yeah, just look at a few of those specs, and see which performance/cost will suit you better. For example one feature I really like is built-in wifi on motherboards, depending on how important that is to you, you can find that.Outside of that, both motherboards support overclocking, and B350 has 2 less PCIE lanes, and 2 less SATA ports (allowing you only 2 SATA drives rather than 4.
I think a 500GB super speedy m.2 SSD is well worth it, and really depends on what you do, but unless you have a 30+ game steam library on your computer downloaded, or you have a tendency to download all the videos you watch, for most people it should be more than sufficient. You can buy a 1-2TB HDD in the future if you see it becoming an issue, or even reuse your HDD from your old computer, since it'd be mostly as a storage medium for videos and photo libraries, etc. You'd have all your programs on the SSD.
Also the stock cooler is very good (similar to good $30 coolers), and Ryzen doesn't overclock well at all. You should get 3.6-3.7Ghz with the stock cooler. So it doesn't make sense to buy something for $60 dollars if it'll get you only 100Mhz more. If you really want an air cooler for whatever reason, spend the $90 on the Noctua NH-D15, the best air cooler on the market. But realistically it'll "only" get you to 3.9-4.0Ghz speeds, so a 300Mhz improvement, or less than 10% CPU performance for $90, your call. Definitely, the Ryzen 1700 is the processor to buy right now.
The NH-D15 is an amazing air cooler, good as any all-in-one cooler, but runs quieter, smaller chance to break (since it's only a heatsink with a fan), and water cooling is a scam, so unless you want to do it for aesthetics, don't waste your money on it (you already said you didn't want it though). http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/noctua/nh-d15-versus-closed-loop-liquid-coolers/1
For 1080p60hz gaming, the GTX1070 is already overkill for 98% of games, but at the end of the day, you gave us a budget and I tried to use it up. Realistically, even a GTX1060 would be overkill most of the time, but since the GTX1050ti isn't as good, the 1060 would probably be the way to go if you plan on keeping those monitors. On the flip side of things, if you believe a standard m.2 SSD like the 850 Evo, and a B350 mobo has enough features for you, you could also buy a GTX1080 instead if you plan on getting a different monitor eventually, and fit it within your budget.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 26 2017 02:50 FiWiFaKi wrote:In my opinion your part list should go something like this: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/MZDyPsIt's at $1400 without the case added, because that's really so much dependent on taste. Just take a look through some there. Motherboard really really depends on what you want to do with it. Just look at some of the most popular on part picker, they're usually good value, and find something you like, a mid tower ideally. Ask yourself if yourself if you ever want to run dual GPU setups, and check X370 vs B350 motherboards and how much IO they have. Ryzen does a pretty shit job at giving you PCIE lanes (44 on Kaby Lake w/ the best chipset, 28 on Ryzen w/ the best chipset), but should be enough, the only issue you usually run into is being unable to run multiple m.2 SSD's, nothing else that normal people buy besides SSD's and GPU's uses that many PCIE lanes and that much bandwidth. A problem I'd have with B350 is at most you'll have 2 Gen1 and 2 Gen USB3.1, and 6 USB2.0. Connecting external hard drives for back up via USB (and external SSD's if you're that wealthy), thumb drives, network card dongles for wifi, newer printers connected through USB, card readers-USB from cameras are among some of the uses. Also USB 3.0 is able to charge devices almost twice as fast if that's any interest to you. So yeah, just look at a few of those specs, and see which performance/cost will suit you better. For example one feature I really like is built-in wifi on motherboards, depending on how important that is to you, you can find that.Outside of that, both motherboards support overclocking, and B350 has 2 less PCIE lanes, and 2 less SATA ports (allowing you only 2 SATA drives rather than 4. I think a 500GB super speedy m.2 SSD is well worth it, and really depends on what you do, but unless you have a 30+ game steam library on your computer downloaded, or you have a tendency to download all the videos you watch, for most people it should be more than sufficient. You can buy a 1-2TB HDD in the future if you see it becoming an issue, or even reuse your HDD from your old computer, since it'd be mostly as a storage medium for videos and photo libraries, etc. You'd have all your programs on the SSD. Also the stock cooler is very good (similar to good $30 coolers), and Ryzen doesn't overclock well at all. You should get 3.6-3.7Ghz with the stock cooler. So it doesn't make sense to buy something for $60 dollars if it'll get you only 100Mhz more. If you really want an air cooler for whatever reason, spend the $90 on the Noctua NH-D15, the best air cooler on the market. But realistically it'll "only" get you to 3.9-4.0Ghz speeds, so a 300Mhz improvement, or less than 10% CPU performance for $90, your call. Definitely, the Ryzen 1700 is the processor to buy right now. The NH-D15 is an amazing air cooler, good as any all-in-one cooler, but runs quieter, smaller chance to break (since it's only a heatsink with a fan), and water cooling is a scam, so unless you want to do it for aesthetics, don't waste your money on it (you already said you didn't want it though). http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/noctua/nh-d15-versus-closed-loop-liquid-coolers/1For 1080p60hz gaming, the GTX1070 is already overkill for 98% of games, but at the end of the day, you gave us a budget and I tried to use it up. Realistically, even a GTX1060 would be overkill most of the time, but since the GTX1050ti isn't as good, the 1060 would probably be the way to go if you plan on keeping those monitors. On the flip side of things, if you believe a standard m.2 SSD like the 850 Evo, and a B350 mobo has enough features for you, you could also buy a GTX1080 instead if you plan on getting a different monitor eventually, and fit it within your budget.
Thanks for the response. Gave more more to look at that's for sure. I initially had planned on asking about an i7-7700k build but switched after watching some videos about the Ryzen capabilities. I was also thinking I didn't wanna pay more for an Intel if I could get nearly the same performance out of a Ryzen for cheaper - while still thinking of a bit future proof.
I wont ever be doing any video creation or anything like that, not sure if it matters. Its primarily a gaming rig with basic features needed as well. I'd anticipate buying a better monitor in the future for sure. I use the BenQ right now for my PS4 and the HP is from my current outdated PC.
The USB 3.0 would be great because I do charge some stuff via my PC.
I haven't gamed on PC in forever and have never built my own. Any tips or advice besides what you gave me is appreciated.
|
On July 26 2017 03:50 ExPresident wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 26 2017 02:50 FiWiFaKi wrote:In my opinion your part list should go something like this: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/MZDyPsIt's at $1400 without the case added, because that's really so much dependent on taste. Just take a look through some there. Motherboard really really depends on what you want to do with it. Just look at some of the most popular on part picker, they're usually good value, and find something you like, a mid tower ideally. Ask yourself if yourself if you ever want to run dual GPU setups, and check X370 vs B350 motherboards and how much IO they have. Ryzen does a pretty shit job at giving you PCIE lanes (44 on Kaby Lake w/ the best chipset, 28 on Ryzen w/ the best chipset), but should be enough, the only issue you usually run into is being unable to run multiple m.2 SSD's, nothing else that normal people buy besides SSD's and GPU's uses that many PCIE lanes and that much bandwidth. A problem I'd have with B350 is at most you'll have 2 Gen1 and 2 Gen USB3.1, and 6 USB2.0. Connecting external hard drives for back up via USB (and external SSD's if you're that wealthy), thumb drives, network card dongles for wifi, newer printers connected through USB, card readers-USB from cameras are among some of the uses. Also USB 3.0 is able to charge devices almost twice as fast if that's any interest to you. So yeah, just look at a few of those specs, and see which performance/cost will suit you better. For example one feature I really like is built-in wifi on motherboards, depending on how important that is to you, you can find that.Outside of that, both motherboards support overclocking, and B350 has 2 less PCIE lanes, and 2 less SATA ports (allowing you only 2 SATA drives rather than 4. I think a 500GB super speedy m.2 SSD is well worth it, and really depends on what you do, but unless you have a 30+ game steam library on your computer downloaded, or you have a tendency to download all the videos you watch, for most people it should be more than sufficient. You can buy a 1-2TB HDD in the future if you see it becoming an issue, or even reuse your HDD from your old computer, since it'd be mostly as a storage medium for videos and photo libraries, etc. You'd have all your programs on the SSD. Also the stock cooler is very good (similar to good $30 coolers), and Ryzen doesn't overclock well at all. You should get 3.6-3.7Ghz with the stock cooler. So it doesn't make sense to buy something for $60 dollars if it'll get you only 100Mhz more. If you really want an air cooler for whatever reason, spend the $90 on the Noctua NH-D15, the best air cooler on the market. But realistically it'll "only" get you to 3.9-4.0Ghz speeds, so a 300Mhz improvement, or less than 10% CPU performance for $90, your call. Definitely, the Ryzen 1700 is the processor to buy right now. The NH-D15 is an amazing air cooler, good as any all-in-one cooler, but runs quieter, smaller chance to break (since it's only a heatsink with a fan), and water cooling is a scam, so unless you want to do it for aesthetics, don't waste your money on it (you already said you didn't want it though). http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/noctua/nh-d15-versus-closed-loop-liquid-coolers/1For 1080p60hz gaming, the GTX1070 is already overkill for 98% of games, but at the end of the day, you gave us a budget and I tried to use it up. Realistically, even a GTX1060 would be overkill most of the time, but since the GTX1050ti isn't as good, the 1060 would probably be the way to go if you plan on keeping those monitors. On the flip side of things, if you believe a standard m.2 SSD like the 850 Evo, and a B350 mobo has enough features for you, you could also buy a GTX1080 instead if you plan on getting a different monitor eventually, and fit it within your budget. Thanks for the response. Gave more more to look at that's for sure. I initially had planned on asking about an i7-7700k build but switched after watching some videos about the Ryzen capabilities. I was also thinking I didn't wanna pay more for an Intel if I could get nearly the same performance out of a Ryzen for cheaper - while still thinking of a bit future proof. I wont ever be doing any video creation or anything like that, not sure if it matters. Its primarily a gaming rig with basic features needed as well. I'd anticipate buying a better monitor in the future for sure. I use the BenQ right now for my PS4 and the HP is from my current outdated PC. The USB 3.0 would be great because I do charge some stuff via my PC. I haven't gamed on PC in forever and have never built my own. Any tips or advice besides what you gave me is appreciated.
Glad to help.
Intel is seen as the more tried and tested platform, as it's been around for longer. So most likely less things that can go wrong, I've worked with them in the past, they have good support, etc. That's why I personally went with Intel for my last recent build.
When looking at raw performance, and both overclocked to reasonable levels on a Hyper212 Evo type of cooler, the 7700k will have 20% higher single core performance, but the R7 1700 will have twice the number of cores and threads.. And while true that most games only use 2-4 cores at the moment, different graphics engines in the future will be changing that (hard to predict how fast they will be adopted). But regardless, the average game is bound by the GPU speed 80% of the time, and CPU speed 20% of the time, so even if your CPU is a little bit slower per core during that 20% of the time, it wont lead to significant FPS drops. For example, if a CPU was 80% the performance, and if it was 100% performance you were getting 100fps in a game, then the 80% performance would give you 96fps. So it's a fairly small drop due to the lower single core performance, which really doesn't impact your gaming performance much (and possibly might improve it if games will be able to utilize 6-8 cores later down the road).
Not to mention the R7 1700 is a bit cheaper than the 7700k now, and it has double the cores, so in workloads that can be multithreaded, it's not an exaggeration to say that you'll see 50-60% performance improvement. This is video encoding/decoding (so streaming, but also video playback, for example if I watch an 8k video at 30fps, my CPU usage is 70-80%, and 8k60fps will produce stutters), video and picture editing, computational software (statistics, monte carlo simulations, MATLAB, ANSYS, etc). I personally think the youtube reviewers are a little bit biased, because they always talk about productivity software, but all they do is use Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects, which are video editing softwares, and it just so happens all the youtube people use them. For using the web, most people won't be using many threads much. I do streaming and I like playing with a Rubik's cube, and there's this algorithm generation software that analyses millions of positions per second, and blah blah, that process can be well parallelized. Unless it's for work or streaming though, I can't think of too many uses for 16 threads at this time though. Like how many pictures or videos did you guys really edit in the last 5 years if you're not a serious content creator. Like okay, maybe here and there touch-up some pictures in photoshop. Also some of the benchmarks you see on the internet, a lot of simple tasks can be offloaded to the GPU, which can do it a lot more efficiently (like cryptocurrency mining, and CAD evaluations), since GPU's have many more cores, just much simpler ones.
All I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't have too many uses, though I'd still prefer it over the 7700k in terms of raw performance.
As for some general tips:
1) GTX1000s are limited by their voltage, not their temps so long as the cooler isn't awful. For example my Zotac GTX1070 mini is one of the cheapest out there, and I get 2050Mhz boost clocks, while the most crazy watercooled ones will be able to achieve around 2100Mhz with a crazy overclock, simply because temperatures aren't the issue, but the voltage of I believe 1.093V, and you can't really put more through the card unless you disable that Nvidia feature, which most don't allow you to do, because it's easy to damage the card by bumping that number higher. Having a company with good support (EVGA and ASUS come to mind, MSI has been known to be not so good recently) for any issues is probably the most important thing to look at.
2) I spend 80% of my time in google chrome, watching videos, watching streams, emails, viewing forums and other websites. For this type of usage, by far the most important piece of hardware is a quick SSD, that's why my recommendation would be to not cheap out on it (I can't emphasize it enough). The second most important would be a fast and stable internet connection, so rather than spending too much money on the PC, I'd allocate some money for that, having a 50Mbps internet connection at all points during the day (at some point it drops off, because servers will allow you to download webpages and other things at a certain maximum speed).
3) Having BSOD is the most frustrating thing, and troubleshooting them can be extremely difficult. Rather than saving 10% of the cost, it can be worthwhile to purchase a parts, or a fully functional system somewhere where they can repair it to use with ease, with trouble free warranty. For example, I live close to a memoryexpress (Canada), and if you buy a warranty with them, if you have any issues, you can bring it in and within 2-3 days they'll have it fixed for you. For example, I was getting BSOD every 2-3 days (and crashing in multiplayer games is sure to piss off your friends), and I could not figure out what it was, I ran every kind of diagnostic, reinstalled Windows, etc. It was not until a couple months later that my computer crashed and would not boot that I started out swapping out components until I figured out my SSD completely failed, and I had to have it send to Intel for replacement.
4) Building computers nowadays is easy, and software compatibilities between parts are very good, you should have no problem assembling your own computer.
|
Will the Biostar - X370GTN be compatible with 2x16 GB Gskill ripjaw at 3200? From the flare line, it looks like only the 2x8 GB kit is 3200 while everything else is 2400 or slower
|
Hi,
My rig is:
Asus B85M-G R2.0 Intel Core i5 4460 14,0 G RAM GeForce GTX 660
I am looking to upgrade my GPU to get 60+ FPS on PUBG. What would be the best bang for my buck on a budget of around 200-250 $?
Is it even possible and or worth it on this budget?
Thanks guys,
|
On July 28 2017 02:04 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: Hi,
My rig is:
Asus B85M-G R2.0 Intel Core i5 4460 14,0 G RAM GeForce GTX 660
I am looking to upgrade my GPU to get 60+ FPS on PUBG. What would be the best bang for my buck on a budget of around 200-250 $?
Is it even possible and or worth it on this budget?
Thanks guys,
US or CAD? If CAD, not worth it on that budget, it's a nasty game, it'll be peasant gaming, you'll still have stutters. Especially on that game, lower settings don't change much, and it's also very CPU bound. Your CPU only gets 3.4Ghz turbo, even a serious 4.8Ghz 7700k bottlenecks the game really hard (anything above a GTX1070 is very minor benefits).
Heck, even if you had a GTX1080ti with your RAM and CPU, you'd probably get 50-55fps average on Ultra.... I would imagine that if you had 90% settings on very low, with a GTX1060 6GB you could expect 80-90fps (for this game depends on your RAM speeds and timings which you didn't mention, but a GTX1080 would get you the same FPS, I think a GTX1050ti would get you 65-70fps if you went that route).... What do you get now on very low settings, like 50-60fps average?
For this game it's all about buying a i5 7600k, Noctua D15, OC to 4.9-5Ghz, DDR4 3200Mhz 16-18-18, GTX 1060 6GB, load up EVGA precision, max temp and power percentages (but don't touch voltage), run Unigine Valley, keep raising offset until your max temps on your GPU reach 70C, then raise VRAM frequencies until you find your maximum stable clocks, lower them by 100Mhz, and you're good to go. 70fps on Ultra, 120fps on low (just to give you an idea of rough performance increases based on what you'd buy).
Also if you haven't already, check out some of the setting optimizations people have done, many people have this problem, as it's a difficult game to play smoothly, so a lot of experimenting has gone into it. And I suppose, just hope they optimize the game more in the future.
|
Quick question first:
If I put an itx motherboard into a matx case, will the position of graphics card inside the case change so that the graphics card won't fit? (assuming it fits when installed with a matx board)
Long question later:
Looking for advice
I have a cm elite 110 mini itx case which can house a 210mm graphics card at most. Right now I have a gtx 750 and looking to upgrade to a 1060.
From what I read only single fan 1060's and a zotac 1060 AMP! edition can fit in my case. All of these are reviewed to have loud fan noise at load, around 38-40 dbA. Noise was something I would like to reduce since my gtx 750 is sometimes uncomfortable.
Question is should I ditch my itx case, buy a cheap matx and install my itx mobo into it then upgrade with a double fan gpu which everyone says quieter than a single fan one?
Or just swallow it and get a single fan 1060?
|
I have a GTX1070 mini and it's not that loud at all, I mean it depends how fast you're running your fans, but I'm sure you can run your fan at 40-50% PWM, and has plenty of performance. Like I was saying to other people, Nvidia Pascal GPU's are very voltage limited, not temperature limited.
So sure, youll probably get 100-150Mhz less than a comparable mid-high level cooling alternative (at same noise and temp levels), but that's only a 5-10% performance drop... Not a bad tradeoff to having a smaller system, or justifying buying a new case.
|
On July 29 2017 03:21 FiWiFaKi wrote: I have a GTX1070 mini and it's not that loud at all, I mean it depends how fast you're running your fans, but I'm sure you can run your fan at 40-50% PWM, and has plenty of performance. Like I was saying to other people, Nvidia Pascal GPU's are very voltage limited, not temperature limited.
So sure, youll probably get 100-150Mhz less than a comparable mid-high level cooling alternative (at same noise and temp levels), but that's only a 5-10% performance drop... Not a bad tradeoff to having a smaller system, or justifying buying a new case.
On a second thought https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_750_OC/24.html this review says my current card is 27dbA under full load, hence very silent. It makes me wonder if the noise when gaming is coming from the CPU fan, or I'm bothered way more than ordinary people by fan noise :D
|
On July 28 2017 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 02:04 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: Hi,
My rig is:
Asus B85M-G R2.0 Intel Core i5 4460 14,0 G RAM GeForce GTX 660
I am looking to upgrade my GPU to get 60+ FPS on PUBG. What would be the best bang for my buck on a budget of around 200-250 $?
Is it even possible and or worth it on this budget?
Thanks guys, US or CAD? If CAD, not worth it on that budget, it's a nasty game, it'll be peasant gaming, you'll still have stutters. Especially on that game, lower settings don't change much, and it's also very CPU bound. Your CPU only gets 3.4Ghz turbo, even a serious 4.8Ghz 7700k bottlenecks the game really hard (anything above a GTX1070 is very minor benefits). Heck, even if you had a GTX1080ti with your RAM and CPU, you'd probably get 50-55fps average on Ultra.... I would imagine that if you had 90% settings on very low, with a GTX1060 6GB you could expect 80-90fps (for this game depends on your RAM speeds and timings which you didn't mention, but a GTX1080 would get you the same FPS, I think a GTX1050ti would get you 65-70fps if you went that route).... What do you get now on very low settings, like 50-60fps average? For this game it's all about buying a i5 7600k, Noctua D15, OC to 4.9-5Ghz, DDR4 3200Mhz 16-18-18, GTX 1060 6GB, load up EVGA precision, max temp and power percentages (but don't touch voltage), run Unigine Valley, keep raising offset until your max temps on your GPU reach 70C, then raise VRAM frequencies until you find your maximum stable clocks, lower them by 100Mhz, and you're good to go. 70fps on Ultra, 120fps on low (just to give you an idea of rough performance increases based on what you'd buy). Also if you haven't already, check out some of the setting optimizations people have done, many people have this problem, as it's a difficult game to play smoothly, so a lot of experimenting has gone into it. And I suppose, just hope they optimize the game more in the future.
Its USD (converted it before posting but the loonie is stronk atm!!) and my ram speed is 1333.
I dont mind lower settings, I want frames! I already tinkered as much as I could with the game, setting launch options and such. I think I am getting every ounce of power from my setup atm.
I realize even the guys at NASA dont have the computers to run this game on ultra with 100+ fps but at the same time I am not expecting too much from the dev's efforts to optimize the game... However the vibe I get from you is that I shouldnt bother unless I get a 6 gb vram GPU?
thx for teh advice again!
|
On July 29 2017 11:47 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 28 2017 02:04 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: Hi,
My rig is:
Asus B85M-G R2.0 Intel Core i5 4460 14,0 G RAM GeForce GTX 660
I am looking to upgrade my GPU to get 60+ FPS on PUBG. What would be the best bang for my buck on a budget of around 200-250 $?
Is it even possible and or worth it on this budget?
Thanks guys, US or CAD? If CAD, not worth it on that budget, it's a nasty game, it'll be peasant gaming, you'll still have stutters. Especially on that game, lower settings don't change much, and it's also very CPU bound. Your CPU only gets 3.4Ghz turbo, even a serious 4.8Ghz 7700k bottlenecks the game really hard (anything above a GTX1070 is very minor benefits). Heck, even if you had a GTX1080ti with your RAM and CPU, you'd probably get 50-55fps average on Ultra.... I would imagine that if you had 90% settings on very low, with a GTX1060 6GB you could expect 80-90fps (for this game depends on your RAM speeds and timings which you didn't mention, but a GTX1080 would get you the same FPS, I think a GTX1050ti would get you 65-70fps if you went that route).... What do you get now on very low settings, like 50-60fps average? For this game it's all about buying a i5 7600k, Noctua D15, OC to 4.9-5Ghz, DDR4 3200Mhz 16-18-18, GTX 1060 6GB, load up EVGA precision, max temp and power percentages (but don't touch voltage), run Unigine Valley, keep raising offset until your max temps on your GPU reach 70C, then raise VRAM frequencies until you find your maximum stable clocks, lower them by 100Mhz, and you're good to go. 70fps on Ultra, 120fps on low (just to give you an idea of rough performance increases based on what you'd buy). Also if you haven't already, check out some of the setting optimizations people have done, many people have this problem, as it's a difficult game to play smoothly, so a lot of experimenting has gone into it. And I suppose, just hope they optimize the game more in the future. Its USD (converted it before posting but the loonie is stronk atm!!) and my ram speed is 1333. I dont mind lower settings, I want frames! I already tinkered as much as I could with the game, setting launch options and such. I think I am getting every ounce of power from my setup atm. I realize even the guys at NASA dont have the computers to run this game on ultra with 100+ fps but at the same time I am not expecting too much from the dev's efforts to optimize the game... However the vibe I get from you is that I shouldnt bother unless I get a 6 gb vram GPU? thx for teh advice again!
I've been checking the ER every day, it's making me very happy . It's like a 10% raise for us.
Many players within your field of view requires significant computational power. Every person who's moving you have to compute the grass and trees, projectile trajectories, just tons of stuff that can't be simplified.
Its not like an AI where you know their exact movement patterns unless they specifically interact with you, which they might only do every few seconds if they're far away depending on what you're doing. That loop can be computed all at once, and it just makes it a lot more simple than having to recalculate tens of times per second. There's more reason than its tough on the server why we don't see many games with too many players at once. I'm sure PUBG team has given it some thought. The physics and graphics of the game are really quite bad for a modern game, I'm sure that's intentional. Maybe there isn't much optimization for them to do.
Buying a GTX 1060 6GB isn't a bad idea to give you a band aid solution of making the game more playable now, especially if in a year you'd be upgrading your whole system. The expectations aren't very high for the next generation of Nvidia GPU's, so you'll be good to keep that for your next build within 1-1.5 years. But if you plan on keeping this system for a while (4 years), it's like doing a $2000 repair on a $4000 car, not really worth it imo. Any cheaper GPU will net marginal gains, and not be up to par for gaming going forward either.
Typed on phone, so brain works faster than the keyboard, might be some odd sentences.
|
Thanks for the advice man
|
Since i dont feel like typing issue out ill sum up with this : I was playing PUBG computer started lagging(HDD runs at 100% semi often?) Not an SSD, Running W10 and all of the sudden computer cuts off. refuses to turn on for about 45~ minutes or so then after i go to test the ram by taking old stick out and putting another one in(which ofc didnt fit) and putting the one thats in currently back it cuts on.
Should i upgrade to an SSD to run W10? Or a larger HDD? Also any troubleshooting on the above error would be most welcome
|
Is stuff getting too warm? Are any connections inside the PC loose?
Was the PC off, or was the picture off while the PC appeared to still be running? The second would mean something with your graphics card is probably the problem.
Test your RAM using Memtest86
|
On July 30 2017 07:55 Simberto wrote: Is stuff getting too warm? Are any connections inside the PC loose?
Was the PC off, or was the picture off while the PC appeared to still be running? The second would mean something with your graphics card is probably the problem.
Test your RAM using Memtest86 Computer usually runs at around 50c when playing games, and no the pc just flat cut off. I thought the graphics card could have been why it wasnt starting, but i unplugged it and it still wouldnt start.
only thing that seemed to fix it was replacing the ram stick
|
Edit: Post made obsolete by unexpectedly low price of cut-down Vega. I might go whole hog. Would still be curious of your opinion on Ryzen 1600x vs i5-7600 for gaming. Old post is in the spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +Been such a long time posting, a new username was appropriate. Nevertheless, I am finally upgrading, and TeamLiquid is the place to be for advice! What is your budget?$1000 give or take. Preferably take. I have some (relatively?) specific requirements that I hope can be addressed with as little spending as possible. What is your monitor's native resolution?1680x1050 - this is something I'm thinking about addressing. What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings?Probably the biggest thing that's been irritating me that I cannot do is heavily modded Skyrim. Other than that, I sometimes play games with heavy AI computing use, which prioritizes high single-threaded performance? (I'm thinking of the length of AI turns for games like Civilization or Total War campaigns.) What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming?Nothing resource intensive. Do you intend to overclock?Eh, I might play around with it with Ryzen. But when it comes to picking parts - mostly no. Last I remember, Intel has a hefty $100-200 premium for overclocking between motherboard, K processor, etc. Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire?Nope. Do you need an operating system?Nope. Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget?Yes. I'm considering getting a monitor at the time of or a few months after an upgrade. I'm thinking a big screen, 27" or larger. Looking at monitor prices, I'm also thinking 2560x1440 or 4k. Not sure what to prioritize after that. (IPS, response time, whatever.) I'd like decent quality first & cheap second. I've never used Freesync or G-Sync before. I'd prefer a Freesync monitor if those are actual useful features (been told it's cheaper). If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify.AMD is preferred for video card. (I'm thinking 580 - because of ?cost-effectiveness? and 8gb VRAM.) I never really thought about VRAM before, until it was a reason I couldn't mod out Skyrim. Surprising bottleneck. It might be not particularly important, say 6gb or 8gb (and tell me so if there's a big overall cost-effectiveness difference), but I want to err on the side of more RAM not less. Because Freesync is also ?cheap?, & I'm not looking at top of the line, this seems like a reason to ignore Nvidia. I don't care Intel vs. AMD. Cost-effectiveness preferred. What country will you be buying your parts in?USA If you have any retailer preferences, please specify.I like Newegg's service - but any retailer that is cheaper than them by more than a few bucks is preferred. Other notes: while this is mostly a new system, there are some parts I expect to be able to re-use. Non-monitor peripherals. Case. Storage. Probably PSU. Currently I have an old Rosewill Green 430w which should have proper connectors. What I'm thinking so far: Not sure on Monitor. Trying (failing) to find a decently cheap 580 8gb Ryzen 1600x (I don't think I want to pay the extra $60 to go to 8 cores over 6) Random 2x8 gb of RAM (DDR4 3000?, I hear faster is important) - I kind of want 32 gb (I upgraded RAM during my last system), but I figure 2x8gb of RAM & a motherboard with 4 RAM slots is better. Some preliminary looking suggests that comes to about: $130 for RAM $90 for mobo $250 for processor $350ish for GPU: $820 for the main parts, w/o monitor. Which would put me over but in the flexible range with a monitor? I can tell I only sort of know what I'm looking for though, so I'm hoping others can do better. Edit: Looking more Intelish, how different would be the performance of an i5-7600, this combo: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3577785(580 + cheap H110 mobo that probably works for the processor) and cheaper DDR4 2133 RAM (limited by mobo?) That looks like it would cut the price by $150ish, but I'm not sure how much I'd be losing or if the mobo even works for an i5-7600.
|
How much do you guys reduce the price when selling your old hardware?
For example if you were upgrading from haswell to latest Intel what % of the original price would you sell it for?
I'm looking at used hardware prices in my country and people are selling them for very close to new prices it's almost never worth to buy second hand. I don't risk it when its for 1100 and unused is for 1200.
|
|
|
|