New System Build - Reality Check

[theswede #100093]

Doublehelix wrote:

Thanks so far for all of the answers. I have been doing some reading over at Tom's Hardware, and now I am beginning to question the 3930 (and X79 chipset) in favor of the cheaper 3770K or even the newer Haswell 4770K.

Any comments here before I pull the trigger on the older Gen2 CPU?

4770K will get you six high speed SATA ports and a pile of USB3 ports all running from the Intel chipset. That's worth a lot right there. You also get on board graphics which is enough to run photo applications from, saving you the heat and extra failure point of a dedicated GPU card if you like.

The disadvantage is it won't overclock quite as well, but it will do more per clock cycle so that's probably no issue.

If I get a new Intel I wouldn't even consider anything but Haswell due to the SATA and USB3 advantages alone.

Jesper

 

[SushiEater]

Good advice!!!!!

So lets see:

Loading…

www.extreme.outervision.com

According to PSU calculator:
3930K CPU at 4.5Ghz 1.42V
32GB Ram 4 sticks.
AMD 6870
2HDs
1 DVD-RW
1 Blue-ray RE
1 SSD
Watercooling Swiftech H20-120
4 120mm fans.
Capacitor aging 10%

591W!!!!!!

Double that 1200W.

And that is what I got.

2 Burnt PSU are Thermaltake and Corsair.

 

[SushiEater]

theswede wrote:

Doublehelix wrote:

Thanks so far for all of the answers. I have been doing some reading over at Tom's Hardware, and now I am beginning to question the 3930 (and X79 chipset) in favor of the cheaper 3770K or even the newer Haswell 4770K.

Any comments here before I pull the trigger on the older Gen2 CPU?

4770K will get you six high speed SATA ports and a pile of USB3 ports all running from the Intel chipset. That's worth a lot right there. You also get on board graphics which is enough to run photo applications from, saving you the heat and extra failure point of a dedicated GPU card if you like.

The disadvantage is it won't overclock quite as well, but it will do more per clock cycle so that's probably no issue.

http://techreport.com/review/24889/haswell-overclocked-the-core-i7-4770k-at-4-7ghz

Actually it overclocks better. It has 2 less cores means can go higher in speed.

Notice it requires 1.275V for 4.5Ghz while my 3930K requires 1.425V

At 4.7Ghz voltage was 1.35 which is still lower than my.

At 1.375 it reached 4.8Ghz stable.

Now, their cooling system sucks. A single radiator with 2 fans?!?!.

I use dual radiator. I can go to 4.7Ghz and it stable while running but if I put system to sleep it will not wake up.

The question here is the 4770K more powerful than than 3930K at the same speed. I would say it is judging by few Photoshop tests and maybe even more powerful is some other programs as long as operations are not too multi-threaded. If software can utilize all 6 cores then 3930K will be faster.

As far as price/performance 4770K is on top.

If I get a new Intel I wouldn't even consider anything but Haswell due to the SATA and USB3 advantages alone.

Jesper

 

[theswede #100093]

SushiEater wrote:

Good advice!!!!!

So lets see:

http://www.extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine

That one already includes the recommended extra power.

According to PSU calculator:
3930K CPU at 4.5Ghz 1.42V
32GB Ram 4 sticks.
AMD 6870
2HDs
1 DVD-RW
1 Blue-ray RE
1 SSD
Watercooling Swiftech H20-120
4 120mm fans.
Capacitor aging 10%

591W!!!!!!

So a 650W would be perfect for your needs.

Double that 1200W.

That's tremendously much too much for what your system draws. The added heat from that is likely to make it last shorter than a properly sized PSU.

And that is what I got.

The doubling is a rule of thumb going from theoretical power draw and leaving room for things like overclocking and extra fans. The calculator is a much more precise tool, providing you with very exact results. No need for rule of thumb there.

For my system it recommends 412W. I have a 550W PSU leaving me with comfortable room to spare and less heat.

2 Burnt PSU are Thermaltake and Corsair.

The only time i had a PSU burn I was feeding it very unclean power. I would suggest using the savings from a smaller PSU on a good power scrubbing UPS.

Jesper

 

[SushiEater]

I have used UPS as soon as I could afford one and still burnt 2 PSUs.

 

[malch]

theswede wrote:

591W!!!!!!

So a 650W would be perfect for your needs.

Make that 750.

Modern power supplies generally operate well and most efficiently at around 80% of rated load.

It gives some headroom for system additions too.

 

[SushiEater]

Make that 1200w. I only paid $99 after rebate. And it is a single rail and fully modular. Can't beat that.

 

[theswede #100093]

SushiEater wrote:

I have used UPS as soon as I could afford one and still burnt 2 PSUs.

It needs to be cleaning up the power, otherwise it makes no difference. Yes, it's expensive, but so are good PSU's. 1200W for $99 sounds like you'll soon have three burned PSU's.

Jesper

 

[theswede #100093]

malch wrote:

theswede wrote:

591W!!!!!!

So a 650W would be perfect for your needs.

Make that 750.

Modern power supplies generally operate well and most efficiently at around 80% of rated load.

591W is peak load. The system is unlikely to be over 40% of that in most operations except gaming, where it may sustain 70-80%.

It gives some headroom for system additions too.

That could be wise, but it looks very complete as it is. Hard to slip in much more power using stuff, maybe a few HDD's or USB peripherals.

Jesper

 

[SushiEater]

theswede wrote:

SushiEater wrote:

I have used UPS as soon as I could afford one and still burnt 2 PSUs.

It needs to be cleaning up the power, otherwise it makes no difference. Yes, it's expensive, but so are good PSU's. 1200W for $99 sounds like you'll soon have three burned PSU's.

I don't think so. I think you misunderstood. I was and am using UPS. 3 of them in fact, one per each computer. For the main computer I am using Belkin 1500w. For others I use Cyberpower from Costco. WE don't get power outages here either. Maybe one in 10 years.

Jesper

 

[Ron AKA]

I ran it through the Puget custom computer site build and it came up with a recommended power supply of 600 watts (without overclocking). I think power conditioning is a waste of money.

 

[SushiEater]

I also ran my system and it showed 650w without overclocking.

OT,

Holy sh i i i i i t over $3200 for what I paid about $1600-$1700 for. And my system has real liquid cooling not just self enclosed one which can take a lot more heat out.
Who the f u c k do they think they are?

 

[Ron AKA]

They appear to cater to those who think they know what to build, but can't be bothered to source the material and put it together themselves. I guess they also want someone to blame if they do build it and it doesn't post.

 

[kelpdiver]

Ron AKA wrote:

They appear to cater to those who think they know what to build, but can't be bothered to source the material and put it together themselves. I guess they also want someone to blame if they do build it and it doesn't post.

Puget does more than just piece commodity components together, burn test, and ship, particularly for the silent models. They do a considerable amount of engineering around the sound panels and in the part selection. And for warranty support, they'll need to maintain some inventory of those parts, rather than just buy whatever is available now. This isn't free in time or money. Now of course this doesn't total the added cost of their servers - that's called profit, people. Apple figured it out a while ago too - you can sell quality for a higher margin than cookie cutter.

For any DIY type, it's a hard sell. One can get 95% of their result at 60% of the cost.

 

[kelpdiver]

SushiEater wrote:

I don't think so. I think you misunderstood. I was and am using UPS. 3 of them in fact, one per each computer. For the main computer I am using Belkin 1500w. For others I use Cyberpower from Costco. WE don't get power outages here either. Maybe one in 10 years.

Is a Belkin 1500W the same as a Seasonic 750? This may be why you're burning them out so readily. And what sort of UPS are you using...the Belkin class are pretty much glorified surge protectors.

Having run more than a few systems, multiple in 7x24 mode, using 380 and 450W PS, I think your problem lies elsewhere.

 

[Ron AKA]

kelpdiver wrote:

One can get 95% of their result at 60% of the cost.

I would suggest with the same components (everything they appear to sell as a desktop is just off the shelf), you should get 100% of the performance.

 

[Doublehelix]

Thanks to everyone's advice around here and over at Tom's Hardware, I have purchased the following components at a cost of about $2,700. I decided to build an entirely NEW box rather than upgrade the old case/PS/DVD burner, and will give the old system to my son to record music on, so the price went up a bit from my initial estimates:

• Intel i7 3930K
• Asus P9X79 PRO LGA2011 Mobo
• 32 GB DDR3 1866 RAM (Quad Channel)
• Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB (OS and Programs)
• Samsung 840 Pro 128 GB (swap and temp, LR catalog and previews)
• TWO Western Digital Black 4TB HDD (SATA 3) (Data) - Run in a RAID1 mirrored array
• Asus 24X DVD burner
• Antec 750w PS
• Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO cooler
• Thermaltake Soprano EO900 case (very nice! I have used Antec for years, but this is sweet.)
• Win 8 Pro (Yes! Win 8!)

Some of the main changes I made to my original plan:

1. I decided to stick with a second small SSD drive as the swap drive over some advice I received around here. Over at Tom's, I received some information (which I have since researched) that indicates that the SSD drives don't like to be written to a lot, so rather than have my main OS/Program drive written to all the time, I use this smaller, less expensive SSD, and if it dies, I am only out US$130, and won't be losing my program data.
2. Changed mobos to the P9X79 PRO based on feedback over at Tom's as well.
3. Going with TWO data drives in a RAID1 array. This gives me a mirrored backup and improves read time significantly. I will be still be backing up to an external drive as well as to the cloud (I am paranoid about losing my data).
4. As mentioned, I decided to get a new case, PS and DVD burner and build an entirely new box from scratch so that I can give my old box to my son as-is. Seems silly to just throw away the components when they can be put to good use.
5. I switched to Windows 8 at the last minute. I know... I know...!!! I have been playing around with it as I have been laptop shopping, and I think it is fairly decent actually, especially with a Win7 type of shell. Soon, Win 8.1 will be out that contains the shell natively, so I decided to just go for it. I have always been leery about doing a major OS upgrade (i.e. from Win 7 to Win 8), so I decided to just bite the bullet now.

This box is probably a bit overkill, and probably not the best choice from a cost/performance standpoint, but there is a new LGA 2011 extreme CPU due out later this year, and eventually, I should be able to upgrade the CPU while keeping the same mobo (probably a firmware upgrade). This box should scream however which was the original plan!

Thanks again for all of the great advice!

--
James

 

[Ho72]

Doublehelix wrote:

1. I decided to stick with a second small SSD drive as the swap drive over some advice I received around here. Over at Tom's, I received some information (which I have since researched) that indicates that the SSD drives don't like to be written to a lot...

Urban myth. Tom's is really not the place to find people who know fact from fiction when it comes to SSD longevity, at least on the fourm side.

In testing Samsung's lower tier, non-pro 840 drives (TLC), Anand's reviewer predicted the life of a 128GB drive experiencing 20GB of writes per day would be just short of 6 years. That number climbs to 35 years for the MLC drives.

Another popular myth when it comes to SSDs is that when they fail they revert to "read only" mode so you "don't lose your data". I read the results of a study where numerous SSDs from various vendors were driven to failure. None failed in read-only mode — not a single one.

 

[Doublehelix]

Thanks Ho72, I appreciate the feedback. I did read some conflicting reports, and decided to error on the side of caution, especially when the extra SSD drive was only $130. Not a lot in a $2,700 build and worth the piece of mind. I guess if it is wasted money, it might be worth $130 just for the piece of mind.

This whole build turned into "overkill city", and I am not sure this is most efficient use of money, that is for sure!

 

[Ron AKA]

A couple of comments:

1. On the SSD, I would be a bit cautious about how much of a performance improvement you will get. See this article, Will a SSD improve Adobe Lightroom Performance? It is on a Mac, but the hardware between Mac and PC now seems to be the same. The SSD part is the second half of the article. The very detailed testing of all the different storage locations indicates the performance improvement is quite marginal with an SSD. It is not even that great when you put the image files on the SSD. My opinion remains the same. If one is going to do an SSD for the boot drive, all you really need is one. I would suggest the 128 GB Samsung 840 Pro. I also think the drives die from old age, and will probably outlast us. With two drives you have two drives aging at the same time. Much more bang for the buck to buy the second one when and if it ever dies.

2. I don't see any graphics processing card. For a high resolution large monitor, the load on the graphics system is very significant. Perhaps not quite as huge as a full blown hard core gaming computer, but not all that far off. I don't have my head around it all yet, and it is hard to get usable data as nearly everything on line is about gaming. But I do think there is a very significant performance issue with the graphics system. And, there may be an advantage in using an integrated graphics processor in the CPU, because a lot of the load is large data transfer between the CPU and GPU. I can't recommend a GPU for you as I don't know enough about them. However, you need a decent one. I think I will go with an integrated solution such as the Haswell i7 4770K, or the Richland A10-6800K. Not out and out gamers but pretty reasonable graphic capability, especially if the software can use graphics acceleration. Here are some test results.

Hope that helps some,