You might be confusing post with windows boot ?
Post = UEFI helps with this but varies with manufacturers. In general I feel Asus post fastest. I of course stand to be corrected.
Boot = This is when windows kicks in, and this will vary on HDD/SSD.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
***Haswell -E Owners Thread***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
You might be confusing post with windows boot ?
Post = UEFI helps with this but varies with manufacturers. In general I feel Asus post fastest. I of course stand to be corrected.
Boot = This is when windows kicks in, and this will vary on HDD/SSD.
Yeah, and upsetting; as my current mobo is significantly slower than the last one. I think it might be to do with how each one deals with checking HDDs during booting, and the fact I have half-a-dozen of them.
Yep, yep! By "BOOT" I meant from the second I press the Power, up until the second my desktop appears. The POST is where the time difference appears, as I've had the same SSD for all of my last three mobos.
Any X99 board you choose will be fit for purpose, imho a lot of the boards are very overpriced for what really offer largely the same feature set as the decently priced motherboards.
In my own experience of building PC's Gigabyte is the only brand I've built with that hasn't ever been DOA or had a problem that couldn't been fixed, and always put out new bios to address issues / increase performance etc so these days I only build with Gigabyte. All the boards are the fine though tbh, if you do have problems you will get it sorted anyway while it's under warranty.
Go for the board you like the look / features of the most within your budget, all will be fit for purpose. No need to spend twice the money on a X99 board for Wifi etc if you don't need it, some are really overpriced and offer lil extra.
Thanks! I hope so too, having no pc for a week is torture, I've had no distractions from jobs around the house!!
So what do you get with a retail chip nowadays? Only fancy packaging?
basically yes - there is meant to be an additional level of gaurentee of somekind with retail chips but not sure what that's really worth
Personally not sure the BIOS's are actually that different - apart from the removal of the added features
It depends on how extreme you want to go, personally given Ive only bought one of the cheaper water coolers, and a 5820 with cheap ddr4 Im not expecting a mammoth overclock at all, and I would be more than happy with 4Ghz stable. So imo £160-200 motherboards should be more than able to do these.
While I haven't oc'd recently, this does come with experience and yes silicon lottery is never more apparent than with early boards /bios's - if you are going to go extreme water/LN2 then you probably aren't worried about the extra £100+ on ram, and additional cost of a better motherboard - but to me spending the same cost on the motherboard as you do on the CPU itself....is a little crazy for everyday usage (without extreme clocks etc)
for the record I would say 30s is a slow boot time for a new install of 8.1 on these chips, and that's roughly what Im at now with a brand new SSD (Samsung evo 240GB). Its pretty evident where the time is being lost and I reckon a good 5 -10s could be lost with a better bios /switching off some features etc with relative ease (that's to the password box, rather than desktop but still)
Last edited:
Yeah its difficult then, post is one of those things that you have no control over...of course should you have a couple of hdd's, 3 cd's, dvd's, blu-ray writers and a half dozen external usb hdd's to check and scan for its going to be dog slow. It will vary from person to person's setup.
A good SSD will rip through windows.
Generally though, if you time a machines boot, you really should only start it when windows boots... you should ignore post.
Not sure I agree with that - a comparable chipset from any manufacturer should be going from initial switch on to windows password /desktop in the same time (with the same amount of optical/SSd's etc)
edit - as far as Im aware boot times have always included POST notifications, ie they are considered from initial power switch activation until Windows is up and running
Last edited:
But it's the POST that I'd like to minimize; it takes up the vast majority of boot time.
I haven't timed it in a while, but the actual "loading Windows" bit takes almost no time at all.
My old Z77, i7-2600K setup used to take ages to POST. It had a 5.25" floppy drive (yes, really, and yes, Windows 8.1 still has a 5.25" floppy drive icon in it too), an IDE ZIP drive, four SATA HDDs, a blu-ray writer, two SSDs and a DVD writer. It's no surprise it took so long, really.
That old motherboard is now in a different system with exactly one optical drive, one SSD and one hard drive, the 5.25" floppy and ZIP drive having gone back to the old P3 from whence they came. It boots in the blink of an eye.
My new motherboard sadly lacks IDE and floppy connectors, but it still has the various optical drives, hard drives and SSDs. It takes even longer than the older i7 to POST, because it has one of those Plextor PCIe SSDs. Why's that make it take longer? Simple - when it POSTS you get a nice BIOS screen where a
PLEXTOR
logo slowly appears, at the sort of speed an XT used to draw the Windows 3.0 loading screen. I can't see a way to turn that display off, not that it matters really.
You can (at least in Asus boards) tell it to only check
- all devices
- all SATA hard disks
- only SATA disks that are bootable
Obviously, the third option would mean that a system would POST faster. You can also configure what level of USC support and whether you want to enable or disable the network stack both of which contribute to POST times.
Last edited:
Just out of interest what typical times are people getting on X99 to initial POST / 1st sign on the monitor that the card is getting a signal?
My MSI board (which appears great apart from this) is around 10 seconds before I get the NVidia bios flash up very briefly for my 970
Once that appears Im in Windows in about 15 seconds (but even after disabling everything I can think of in the bios, its that 1st 10 seconds without a signal that ruins the boot up time)
My MSI board (which appears great apart from this) is around 10 seconds before I get the NVidia bios flash up very briefly for my 970
Once that appears Im in Windows in about 15 seconds (but even after disabling everything I can think of in the bios, its that 1st 10 seconds without a signal that ruins the boot up time)
Do you have a way to quickly switch your clock speed or something for when you're not gaming? I haven't tried over clocking with my 5960x yet as I still have a lame video card that I will be upgrading sometime later.
Associate
are you really using a 670 to run a 4K monitor.
I'm not sure if you mean different profiles? Or downclock when IDLE, most mobo's allow you to save different preset Overclocks, just reboot enter bios select the preset and off you go.
If you mean so the CPU downclocks when in use and not gaming, i.e CPU to be able to go into IDLE and low clocks / voltage, just don't set a fixed voltage, set CPU to Normal volts and then add what you need, so set mobo to default optimized settings, then adjust the turbo for each core to whatever speed you want, say for example 4.0Ghz. Then keep voltage @ Normal + 0.050v, this will allows your volts to boost up a bit extra to cope with the extra CPU speed and also downclock when the PC is @ IDLE.
You will need to up your VRing volts aswell, 1.15v, maybe a lil bump on other voltage settings as well, just read what your bios says they effect and give them a small bump, every motherboard has different terminology for the same things lol.
Thanks for the information. You answered my question that I meant to ask in both ways. I wasn't sure if profiles existed or if there was a way for it to downclock itself on the fly when you're overclocking.
Yeah it's just a temporary situation. I plan on getting a 980ti or a 8 gig 980 sometime soon...or two. I can't justify getting 4gigs of ram for 4k resolution right now since the 980ti might be coming out in a few months. Right now I'm just playing League of Legends and Diablo 3 though so nothing too crazy. They both run at 60FPS with medium(?) graphic settings which I'm fine with since as I said; it's just a temporary situation. If you want my opinion of 4k monitors I would say it's a bit ahead of it's time depending on what you want it for. If you want it for gaming and your machine can handle 4k resolution then go for it. The resolution is beautiful. If you want the resolution for browsing the web then i would just go with a large 1440 monitor. The scaling in windows isn't too great right now. Maybe windows 9 will help but the official release for that is still a ways.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Try disabling all the C states in BIOS and leaving turbo enabled. Should force the chip to run at 4.2.
Soldato
Try looking at the power profiles in control panel bud.