![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
hyperion0101
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 148
Introduction
What are we trying to do?
This setup is intended to give the best gaming experience possible.
GPU
After reading this:
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfirex_drivers_opportunity_lost
I wonder sometimes. So far, every single multi-GPU setup has had issues.
- I've never seen the dual GPUs (9800 GX2, 4870x2, GTX 295, 5970, 6990, GTX 590) released without a ton of issues
- AMD's Crossfire drivers continue to suck
- Nvidia's SLI drivers appear to be better overall, but there's still work to be done
I wish that one of the 2 vendors would fully open source their drivers.
I'm a student right now, and I use the MSI GTX 560TI Hawk. I'm working right (on co-op here in Canada) and will get my bachelors at the end of the year. I think that my financial situation is improving and there's a good chance that I will escape university with my bachelors with no debt. (On that note, I'm still considering graduate school). I've been debating personally between just getting a second GPU or upgrading to the best single GPU out there.
Is the most powerful single GPU at 2560x1600 still the pinnacle of gaming?
Let's jump back a moment to summer 2011. Something like the MSI N580GTX Xtreme Edition at 2560x1600 (and it's next generation successor) seem like the way to go. On that note, IMO the N580GTX Xtreme was the best single GPU out there (please indicate if there were any that you feel were better).
1. Completely avoid the issues of multi-GPUs (ex: microstutter). From my experiences with microstutter (I've played on systems on both sides of the aisle), consider the following: 60 fps on a single GPU, with 100-110 fps on a dual GPU. I've found that the single GPU seems to "feel" faster.
2. No bezels to look at (I can't stand bezels; there are issues, like in a 2x1 configuration, the targeting reticle is cut off by the damned bezel). IMO, despite the lower resolution, a 30" beats 3x1 24" panels. I also like using a 30" for photowork. Note though that professional applications can benefit from multiple monitors. Ever try working with 2 30"? It is a pleasure for certain tasks.
As of January 2012, there are no 120Hz 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 IPS monitors on the market. Part of having a great gaming experience IMO is good image quality, and for me personally, a 60Hz IPS > 120Hz TN panel. The only disadvantage of IPS is the slower response and input, but even some of the bigger 30" panels nowadays can keep up with FPS games.
3. The N580GTX 3Gb has enough power to run pretty much any game at 2560x1600 at a playable frame rate and it's successor should hold it's own in 2012. You may not be able to max every setting (depends game by game), but overall, it seems to be a better compromise than running a multi-GPU setup.
4. The 3Gb means that you aren't likely to run out of GDDR; even the ASUS MARS 2 review demonstrated that there are situations at high resolution where you will run out of memory.
5. You have more PCI-E slots. To me good audio for example is very important to my gaming experience. For me, a good experience NEEDS a dedicated sound card and audiophile-grade cans (or very good speakers and in the proper positions). This is not possible with triple or quad GPUs. With dual GPUs, you'd often have to put the sound card in front of a GPU, thereby chocking it's air intake. It's part of what makes a gaming experience immersive - it's not just what you see, but also what you hear.
There are other things that you may need PCI-E slots for; such as wireless cards, maybe once SSDs become more mainstream, PCI-E SSDs will be the way to go (check out the write speeds on the benchmarks), more USB 3.0 slots (it's shocking how fast you can use USB ports), and so on (insert favorite expansion card here). While true that more functions are being integrated onto the motherboard, you still need upgrades (ex: I'd like to see a motherboard that can match my Xonar Essence STX).
6. Less heat and power consumption with the single GPU. Heat is especially a problem when you've got 3 or 4 GPUs on air all beside each other. For me personally, I move my PC around a lot, so a liquid cooled system (which is maintenance intensive) is impractical (as you would need triple or quad radiators externally cooled).
7. Getting a non-reference GPU seems to have it's own advantages. Higher quality components are standard fare in custom PCBs, which meant more life from the GPU and more overclocking headroom. Plus I don't think that there is an air cooler on the market that could match the Twin Frozr III on that GPU. Instead of getting a 2 or 3 single GPUs at launch day and upgrading your rig every 2 years, it makes sense to wait for launch day of the best non-reference, then buy it ASAP and then use it until the best non-reference designs of the next generation emerge. You spend roughly the same amount.
Other thoughts:
Nvidia vs AMD: based on history
- For single GPUs, AMD offers better price to performance and performance to watt; all very important metrics. Basically, everyone not buying top end GPUs who have no intention of ever going multi-GPU should go AMD.
- For multi GPUs, Nvidia has better drive support and from personal experience, I have less multi GPU issues on Nvidia; anybody who wants multi GPU is more likely to have a better experience with team green
- The latest generation of AMD cards when the XFire drivers work properly seem to scale better than SLI
However, for single GPUs
- Nvidia goes for a large, hot, and inefficient die. However, for my ideas, it's absolute performance that matters. That means that there is a firm Nvidia bias in this strategy.
- AMD's smaller die strategy works for mainstream single GPU, but for the enthusiast segment, absolute performance matters, not power or price to performance.
- Part of AMD's strategy is to lead in die shrinks, but while they may be able to briefly get a performance advantage in single GPUs (ex: 5870 or 7970), historically, AMD is not able to hold it. It is best to wait until both companies release their cards for that generation before making a buying decision regardless of your setup (unless of course, you are a fanboy, in which case ...).
- The top end Nvidia's generally outperform the best AMD by an average of about 15%, albeit cost like 40% more within each generation. They also use a lot more powerful at full load (test with Furmark).
This has been very consistent and consider the following:
- GTX 280 vs HD 4870
- GTX 285 vs HD 4890
- GTX 480 vs HD 5870
- GTX 580 vs HD 6970
It is expected at time of this writing that the absolute best single GPU performance will not be held by the 7970 once Nvidia releases it's high end parts.
Remember though, with my strategy, it's about getting the best non-reference GPU of the fastest single GPU card, so it will be a couple of weeks (if not months) at least after the new generation is released before you upgrade. This is actually beneficial. You avoid any issues that are discovered that failed to escape the less than stellar driver teams that both companies seem to have.
CPU, motherboard, and storage
Also, I think that the non-enthusiast platform is the way to go. Ex, the i7 2600k is a better buy than the Sandy Bridge E.
Why?
- Sandy Bridge E has a higher power consumption
- Single threaded performance is largely the same, except in cache-heavy benchmarks
- Very few desktop applications can take advantage of a 12 thread, 6 core GPU versus a 8 thread, 4 core one
- Very few desktop applications take advantage of the super-high memory bandwidth too
But the thermals is the big problem. This means less overclocking headroom on the E. The very best air coolers can put perhaps 5GHz on a i7 2600k for day to day use (you'll do better with something like the H100, but not much more than a couple of multipliers). That would not be possible on the Sandy E CPUs which have a much higher heat output.
I do some things like video encoding and I'm plan to learn to use AutoCAD (game modding as a hobby), but even then, the price tag of the E platform is hard to justify. I bought the 2600k for video encoding and CAD; otherwise it would have made more sense to save some cash and get the 2500k. Servers is a different story, but we are talking desktops too. It's also worth noting that some types of PC games (like RTS games) DO benefit from adding more than 2-3 cores.
So far, it looks like:
1. Intel for each generation will introduce a performance and enthusiast platform, each with it's own socket
Ex:
X58 vs P55; i7 875K seemed like a win
X79 vs P67; i5 2500k and i7 2600k seemed like a win
We can expect this to continue for Haswell
2. The Performance seems to have identical per core performance, but lower power consumption
3. AMD is not even relevant any more in the enthusiast desktop segment. Sad, considering I used to be an AMD fanboy and years ago, bought AMD CPUs religiously.
4. Get the best cooler available for that CPU unless you plan on liquid cooling.
When to switch CPUs? Well, if you are on a budget - not unless your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU. Otherwise, I think every new architecture. Skip the die shrinks. Die shrinks, only bring at best, 10% clock for clock speeds in most meaningful benchmarks, although they do run cooler (and perhaps allow for slightly higher overclocked speeds). The biggest gains IMO tend to come with the new architecture. For example, if you bought a i7 920, you would buy the 2600K (2.5 years is plenty of life for an enthusiast from a chip). Now with that 2600K, skip Ivy Bridge, and wait for Haswell. Even this may not be necessary as you won't be CPU bottlenecked. Just overclock the hell out of that CPU. You're upgrading every 2 years so don't worry too much about the decreased lifespan - just enough voltage as to not fry your chip and you'll be ok.
I'm on the fence on whether or not to get a high end (ex: ROG) motherboard. I think that you should if you can take advantage of the high end features. Otherwise, just get a good mid-ranged board. Pay close attention to which boards have what issues and research forums before buying. I generally choose Asus. Each motherboard vendor has released boards with issues, but personally, Asus has given me the fewest problems overall. Go with your gut or if there's a good deal. You don't need a high end motherboard with my ideas, because you don't need a multi GPU setup. Keep that in mind. But there are other things on the premium motherboards that can be useful.
It's also not worth keeping the current motherboard and paying $300+ for a die shrinked CPU when the performance gains aren't enough to justify it, even if you don't have to replace the motherboard and RAM. Remember to wait a couple of months after release before upgrading to avoid the issues (the 1.0 motherboards always have a terrible BIOS and issues like the SATA bug on Sandy would have been missed). Don't wait too long though to maximize utility and because really mature revisions of motherboards tend to have cheaper components. 3 months is probably good. Motherboards don't quickly drop in price anyways. Nor do CPUs. For example the 2600ks $330 price and 2500ks $230 (in Canada) were very consistent from launch to pretty much the end of 2011 (although they did rise when AMD Bulldozer flopped).
The other reason is that 2-3 years means new features. For example if you had that X58 with the i7 920, you wouldn't have SATA 3 which means you won't be able to max the potential of any SSDs that you buy this year. With good SSDs out like the Crucial M4, it makes sense from a performance standpoint to get good SSDs. I would recommend staying away from SandForce for a reason; a buddy of mine got an OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPs 240 GB and regretted it (many BSODs); swapped it for a 256 GB M4 and has been happy. On that note, for us enthusiasts, there are stable enough SSDs and the performance gains are big enough over the traditional magnetic platter HDDs that if you haven't gotten one, you're missing out big time.
The Marvell and Intel based controllers seem to be the best. Sandforce has way too many issues that despite the performance, I can't recommend it. Samsungs appear to be stable, but even the newer SSDs have terrible garbage collection. Performance over time on Samsungs (including the 830) has been reported to drop to sub-HDD speeds within months. All SSDs will lose some of their initial speed, but how much is the one big question - every SSD is fast when you do a format and clean install. The ones that stay fast and are stable are the winners.
Load all your demanding apps onto the SSDs and of course, the OS. For movies and other stuff, buy high end HDDs (ex: WD Caviar Blacks or the enterprise equals like the RE4). Why? High end HDDs have better parts like actuators and magnets, along with the 5 year warranty. Storage is cheap enough for HDDs that price per gigabyte penalties aren't that big.
Hopefully someday, we will see a good PCI-E based SSD that can be used as a boot drive. By good, remember what I said what is important for an SSD. Stability and ability to retain performance over time. OCZ's Sandforce based Revodrives fail on the stability part. Idk about their performance over time though.
RAM, Case, PSU, and Cooling
RAM makes very little difference in real world scenarios, so you don't need the highest bandwidth RAM. If you want best real world performance though, pick loose timings and a high bandwidth over tight timings and a lower bandwidth. Either way, it won't make a big difference in most real world use scenarios. It's not worth pushing past 1.65V and risking damaging the memory controller either because the gains don't justify it. If you buy a high end CPU cooler, just make sure that you don't have clearance issues before buying RAM if you've got RAM with tall heatsinks. You don't need tall heatsinks (or those RAM cooling fans) if you want RAM that is at 1.5V anyways.
Capacity is more important than speed. Get as much RAM as you need at first if possible. If possible, keep half the RAM slots empty. It may reduce the maximum CPU clock speed if you don't (in the past filling all 4 or in the case of Sandy E, all 8 RAM slots).
For optimal cooling, you want a well ventilated full tower, although this setup should have no difficulties fitting in a good mid-tower case. Upgrade the fans with good fans (Gentle Typhoon, San Ace, Nidecs, perhaps Noiseblockers or FDB fans). Too many towers these days come with cheap sleeve bearing fans that die within a year. Use dust filters or get a Datavac ED 500. Right now I use the Cooler Master Storm Trooper and I have upgraded it with 9x 120mm 1850 Gentle Typhoons. A good case is a good investment - it will outlast the GPU, CPU, and motherboard.
I don't think I need to tell enthusiasts about the importance of getting a good PSU. 850W should be more than adequate, although it's best to be conservative with PSUs and add more than you need. Personally, I bought a 1000HX back when I was thinking about multi-GPUs. I still feel that it was money well spent though ... it is a good PSU and in the future, it has a lot of upgrade potential.
Personally, I'm sticking with air for now, although a closed loop CPU cooler might be practical. I want to minimize maintenance and make this setup easy to transport. The high end CPU cooler and non-reference GPU cooler combined with a good case should ensure reasonably good temperatures.
Closing Thoughts
So after all of this, I have concluded that the most powerful non-reference GPU that you can get plus a 30" IPS monitor is the way to go. I have tried to keep as much fanboyism out of this as I can. Get the best performance segment CPU; unlocking multipliers being a must for ease of overclocking. The 30" IPS should also be great for daily web browsing. Try a 3x 24" 1920x3600 (or 3240) setup on web browsing and reading text between the bezels. It's worse than gaming between bezels.
This setup is also intended to be relatively hassle free. Choosing good components such as a non-reference GPU, a high end HDD, proven SSDs, high end case fans, etc are intended to minimize breakdowns and other issues. Waiting a couple of months for the latest GPUs and CPUs should also allow you to avoid most issues associated with new architectures.
A final benefit is that this setup is very practical for LAN parties (water cooling in particular is difficult to transport which is why I avoided and the performance gains IMO are hard to justify for the money and maintenance).
Idk .... does this sound sane or am I crazy?
What are we trying to do?
This setup is intended to give the best gaming experience possible.
GPU
After reading this:
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfirex_drivers_opportunity_lost
I wonder sometimes. So far, every single multi-GPU setup has had issues.
- I've never seen the dual GPUs (9800 GX2, 4870x2, GTX 295, 5970, 6990, GTX 590) released without a ton of issues
- AMD's Crossfire drivers continue to suck
- Nvidia's SLI drivers appear to be better overall, but there's still work to be done
I wish that one of the 2 vendors would fully open source their drivers.
I'm a student right now, and I use the MSI GTX 560TI Hawk. I'm working right (on co-op here in Canada) and will get my bachelors at the end of the year. I think that my financial situation is improving and there's a good chance that I will escape university with my bachelors with no debt. (On that note, I'm still considering graduate school). I've been debating personally between just getting a second GPU or upgrading to the best single GPU out there.
Is the most powerful single GPU at 2560x1600 still the pinnacle of gaming?
Let's jump back a moment to summer 2011. Something like the MSI N580GTX Xtreme Edition at 2560x1600 (and it's next generation successor) seem like the way to go. On that note, IMO the N580GTX Xtreme was the best single GPU out there (please indicate if there were any that you feel were better).
1. Completely avoid the issues of multi-GPUs (ex: microstutter). From my experiences with microstutter (I've played on systems on both sides of the aisle), consider the following: 60 fps on a single GPU, with 100-110 fps on a dual GPU. I've found that the single GPU seems to "feel" faster.
2. No bezels to look at (I can't stand bezels; there are issues, like in a 2x1 configuration, the targeting reticle is cut off by the damned bezel). IMO, despite the lower resolution, a 30" beats 3x1 24" panels. I also like using a 30" for photowork. Note though that professional applications can benefit from multiple monitors. Ever try working with 2 30"? It is a pleasure for certain tasks.
As of January 2012, there are no 120Hz 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 IPS monitors on the market. Part of having a great gaming experience IMO is good image quality, and for me personally, a 60Hz IPS > 120Hz TN panel. The only disadvantage of IPS is the slower response and input, but even some of the bigger 30" panels nowadays can keep up with FPS games.
3. The N580GTX 3Gb has enough power to run pretty much any game at 2560x1600 at a playable frame rate and it's successor should hold it's own in 2012. You may not be able to max every setting (depends game by game), but overall, it seems to be a better compromise than running a multi-GPU setup.
4. The 3Gb means that you aren't likely to run out of GDDR; even the ASUS MARS 2 review demonstrated that there are situations at high resolution where you will run out of memory.
5. You have more PCI-E slots. To me good audio for example is very important to my gaming experience. For me, a good experience NEEDS a dedicated sound card and audiophile-grade cans (or very good speakers and in the proper positions). This is not possible with triple or quad GPUs. With dual GPUs, you'd often have to put the sound card in front of a GPU, thereby chocking it's air intake. It's part of what makes a gaming experience immersive - it's not just what you see, but also what you hear.
There are other things that you may need PCI-E slots for; such as wireless cards, maybe once SSDs become more mainstream, PCI-E SSDs will be the way to go (check out the write speeds on the benchmarks), more USB 3.0 slots (it's shocking how fast you can use USB ports), and so on (insert favorite expansion card here). While true that more functions are being integrated onto the motherboard, you still need upgrades (ex: I'd like to see a motherboard that can match my Xonar Essence STX).
6. Less heat and power consumption with the single GPU. Heat is especially a problem when you've got 3 or 4 GPUs on air all beside each other. For me personally, I move my PC around a lot, so a liquid cooled system (which is maintenance intensive) is impractical (as you would need triple or quad radiators externally cooled).
7. Getting a non-reference GPU seems to have it's own advantages. Higher quality components are standard fare in custom PCBs, which meant more life from the GPU and more overclocking headroom. Plus I don't think that there is an air cooler on the market that could match the Twin Frozr III on that GPU. Instead of getting a 2 or 3 single GPUs at launch day and upgrading your rig every 2 years, it makes sense to wait for launch day of the best non-reference, then buy it ASAP and then use it until the best non-reference designs of the next generation emerge. You spend roughly the same amount.
Other thoughts:
Nvidia vs AMD: based on history
- For single GPUs, AMD offers better price to performance and performance to watt; all very important metrics. Basically, everyone not buying top end GPUs who have no intention of ever going multi-GPU should go AMD.
- For multi GPUs, Nvidia has better drive support and from personal experience, I have less multi GPU issues on Nvidia; anybody who wants multi GPU is more likely to have a better experience with team green
- The latest generation of AMD cards when the XFire drivers work properly seem to scale better than SLI
However, for single GPUs
- Nvidia goes for a large, hot, and inefficient die. However, for my ideas, it's absolute performance that matters. That means that there is a firm Nvidia bias in this strategy.
- AMD's smaller die strategy works for mainstream single GPU, but for the enthusiast segment, absolute performance matters, not power or price to performance.
- Part of AMD's strategy is to lead in die shrinks, but while they may be able to briefly get a performance advantage in single GPUs (ex: 5870 or 7970), historically, AMD is not able to hold it. It is best to wait until both companies release their cards for that generation before making a buying decision regardless of your setup (unless of course, you are a fanboy, in which case ...).
- The top end Nvidia's generally outperform the best AMD by an average of about 15%, albeit cost like 40% more within each generation. They also use a lot more powerful at full load (test with Furmark).
This has been very consistent and consider the following:
- GTX 280 vs HD 4870
- GTX 285 vs HD 4890
- GTX 480 vs HD 5870
- GTX 580 vs HD 6970
It is expected at time of this writing that the absolute best single GPU performance will not be held by the 7970 once Nvidia releases it's high end parts.
Remember though, with my strategy, it's about getting the best non-reference GPU of the fastest single GPU card, so it will be a couple of weeks (if not months) at least after the new generation is released before you upgrade. This is actually beneficial. You avoid any issues that are discovered that failed to escape the less than stellar driver teams that both companies seem to have.
CPU, motherboard, and storage
Also, I think that the non-enthusiast platform is the way to go. Ex, the i7 2600k is a better buy than the Sandy Bridge E.
Why?
- Sandy Bridge E has a higher power consumption
- Single threaded performance is largely the same, except in cache-heavy benchmarks
- Very few desktop applications can take advantage of a 12 thread, 6 core GPU versus a 8 thread, 4 core one
- Very few desktop applications take advantage of the super-high memory bandwidth too
But the thermals is the big problem. This means less overclocking headroom on the E. The very best air coolers can put perhaps 5GHz on a i7 2600k for day to day use (you'll do better with something like the H100, but not much more than a couple of multipliers). That would not be possible on the Sandy E CPUs which have a much higher heat output.
I do some things like video encoding and I'm plan to learn to use AutoCAD (game modding as a hobby), but even then, the price tag of the E platform is hard to justify. I bought the 2600k for video encoding and CAD; otherwise it would have made more sense to save some cash and get the 2500k. Servers is a different story, but we are talking desktops too. It's also worth noting that some types of PC games (like RTS games) DO benefit from adding more than 2-3 cores.
So far, it looks like:
1. Intel for each generation will introduce a performance and enthusiast platform, each with it's own socket
Ex:
X58 vs P55; i7 875K seemed like a win
X79 vs P67; i5 2500k and i7 2600k seemed like a win
We can expect this to continue for Haswell
2. The Performance seems to have identical per core performance, but lower power consumption
3. AMD is not even relevant any more in the enthusiast desktop segment. Sad, considering I used to be an AMD fanboy and years ago, bought AMD CPUs religiously.
4. Get the best cooler available for that CPU unless you plan on liquid cooling.
When to switch CPUs? Well, if you are on a budget - not unless your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU. Otherwise, I think every new architecture. Skip the die shrinks. Die shrinks, only bring at best, 10% clock for clock speeds in most meaningful benchmarks, although they do run cooler (and perhaps allow for slightly higher overclocked speeds). The biggest gains IMO tend to come with the new architecture. For example, if you bought a i7 920, you would buy the 2600K (2.5 years is plenty of life for an enthusiast from a chip). Now with that 2600K, skip Ivy Bridge, and wait for Haswell. Even this may not be necessary as you won't be CPU bottlenecked. Just overclock the hell out of that CPU. You're upgrading every 2 years so don't worry too much about the decreased lifespan - just enough voltage as to not fry your chip and you'll be ok.
I'm on the fence on whether or not to get a high end (ex: ROG) motherboard. I think that you should if you can take advantage of the high end features. Otherwise, just get a good mid-ranged board. Pay close attention to which boards have what issues and research forums before buying. I generally choose Asus. Each motherboard vendor has released boards with issues, but personally, Asus has given me the fewest problems overall. Go with your gut or if there's a good deal. You don't need a high end motherboard with my ideas, because you don't need a multi GPU setup. Keep that in mind. But there are other things on the premium motherboards that can be useful.
It's also not worth keeping the current motherboard and paying $300+ for a die shrinked CPU when the performance gains aren't enough to justify it, even if you don't have to replace the motherboard and RAM. Remember to wait a couple of months after release before upgrading to avoid the issues (the 1.0 motherboards always have a terrible BIOS and issues like the SATA bug on Sandy would have been missed). Don't wait too long though to maximize utility and because really mature revisions of motherboards tend to have cheaper components. 3 months is probably good. Motherboards don't quickly drop in price anyways. Nor do CPUs. For example the 2600ks $330 price and 2500ks $230 (in Canada) were very consistent from launch to pretty much the end of 2011 (although they did rise when AMD Bulldozer flopped).
The other reason is that 2-3 years means new features. For example if you had that X58 with the i7 920, you wouldn't have SATA 3 which means you won't be able to max the potential of any SSDs that you buy this year. With good SSDs out like the Crucial M4, it makes sense from a performance standpoint to get good SSDs. I would recommend staying away from SandForce for a reason; a buddy of mine got an OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPs 240 GB and regretted it (many BSODs); swapped it for a 256 GB M4 and has been happy. On that note, for us enthusiasts, there are stable enough SSDs and the performance gains are big enough over the traditional magnetic platter HDDs that if you haven't gotten one, you're missing out big time.
The Marvell and Intel based controllers seem to be the best. Sandforce has way too many issues that despite the performance, I can't recommend it. Samsungs appear to be stable, but even the newer SSDs have terrible garbage collection. Performance over time on Samsungs (including the 830) has been reported to drop to sub-HDD speeds within months. All SSDs will lose some of their initial speed, but how much is the one big question - every SSD is fast when you do a format and clean install. The ones that stay fast and are stable are the winners.
Load all your demanding apps onto the SSDs and of course, the OS. For movies and other stuff, buy high end HDDs (ex: WD Caviar Blacks or the enterprise equals like the RE4). Why? High end HDDs have better parts like actuators and magnets, along with the 5 year warranty. Storage is cheap enough for HDDs that price per gigabyte penalties aren't that big.
Hopefully someday, we will see a good PCI-E based SSD that can be used as a boot drive. By good, remember what I said what is important for an SSD. Stability and ability to retain performance over time. OCZ's Sandforce based Revodrives fail on the stability part. Idk about their performance over time though.
RAM, Case, PSU, and Cooling
RAM makes very little difference in real world scenarios, so you don't need the highest bandwidth RAM. If you want best real world performance though, pick loose timings and a high bandwidth over tight timings and a lower bandwidth. Either way, it won't make a big difference in most real world use scenarios. It's not worth pushing past 1.65V and risking damaging the memory controller either because the gains don't justify it. If you buy a high end CPU cooler, just make sure that you don't have clearance issues before buying RAM if you've got RAM with tall heatsinks. You don't need tall heatsinks (or those RAM cooling fans) if you want RAM that is at 1.5V anyways.
Capacity is more important than speed. Get as much RAM as you need at first if possible. If possible, keep half the RAM slots empty. It may reduce the maximum CPU clock speed if you don't (in the past filling all 4 or in the case of Sandy E, all 8 RAM slots).
For optimal cooling, you want a well ventilated full tower, although this setup should have no difficulties fitting in a good mid-tower case. Upgrade the fans with good fans (Gentle Typhoon, San Ace, Nidecs, perhaps Noiseblockers or FDB fans). Too many towers these days come with cheap sleeve bearing fans that die within a year. Use dust filters or get a Datavac ED 500. Right now I use the Cooler Master Storm Trooper and I have upgraded it with 9x 120mm 1850 Gentle Typhoons. A good case is a good investment - it will outlast the GPU, CPU, and motherboard.
I don't think I need to tell enthusiasts about the importance of getting a good PSU. 850W should be more than adequate, although it's best to be conservative with PSUs and add more than you need. Personally, I bought a 1000HX back when I was thinking about multi-GPUs. I still feel that it was money well spent though ... it is a good PSU and in the future, it has a lot of upgrade potential.
Personally, I'm sticking with air for now, although a closed loop CPU cooler might be practical. I want to minimize maintenance and make this setup easy to transport. The high end CPU cooler and non-reference GPU cooler combined with a good case should ensure reasonably good temperatures.
Closing Thoughts
So after all of this, I have concluded that the most powerful non-reference GPU that you can get plus a 30" IPS monitor is the way to go. I have tried to keep as much fanboyism out of this as I can. Get the best performance segment CPU; unlocking multipliers being a must for ease of overclocking. The 30" IPS should also be great for daily web browsing. Try a 3x 24" 1920x3600 (or 3240) setup on web browsing and reading text between the bezels. It's worse than gaming between bezels.
This setup is also intended to be relatively hassle free. Choosing good components such as a non-reference GPU, a high end HDD, proven SSDs, high end case fans, etc are intended to minimize breakdowns and other issues. Waiting a couple of months for the latest GPUs and CPUs should also allow you to avoid most issues associated with new architectures.
A final benefit is that this setup is very practical for LAN parties (water cooling in particular is difficult to transport which is why I avoided and the performance gains IMO are hard to justify for the money and maintenance).
Idk .... does this sound sane or am I crazy?
Last edited:
