Lots of questions.

thirdchances

thirdchances

thirdchances

Associate
Joined
2 Jun 2012
Posts
63
Hi Guys,

Quite a few questions i'm afraid but I would be grateful for your help.
Im looking at putting together a new computer but have a few questions about different specs.

1. In terms of RAM why is it that people seem to stick to the 1600Mhz RAM when the 2400Mhz sticks don't seem to much more expensive?

2. With the DIMM slots for the RAM is it a good idea to populate them all or does that sometimes affect the quad channel ability or performance of the RAM?

3. What about the voltage of the RAM? If I have a lot of high speed RAM do I need a beefier power supply?

4. Can certain processors handle different speeds of RAM and memory channels?

5. I heard that most applications/games only use 4 cores so is it only worth investing in a 4 core processor?

6. If I have more than a 4 core processor will I benifit when using multiple applications as they will use different groups of 4 cores (if that makes any sense)?

7. With graphics cards when in SLI do I need them to both be in a motherboard that can support x16 on both in terms of bandwith as well as physical pci slot?

8. With graphics cards in SLI can I use the monitor outputs from both graphics cards or just one?

9. If I have two graphics cards not in SLI and I start an application which is graphics intensive will it still just use one?

I think that is the only questions I have for now but i'm sure I will have more as I seem to be struggling to understand all this.

I greatly appreciate any input. Thanks in advance.
 
1. 1600mhz is the standard minimum, anything else is just icing on the cake and gives little to no performance boost in gaming + you can easily clock most of the 1600mhz models such as the samsung green at £32

2. It has been a long time since PC's last complained about empty DIMM slots, however no idea if it actually effects the performance...highly doubt it.

3. The higher the voltage the more power it will draw, technically yes you would need a beefy PSU if you have every OC'd and upped the voltages but nothing major, an extra 100watts would be enough a CPU, GPU, and RAM OC...lucky it would even use your current.

4. Yes, for instance AMD APU's can handle stupid RAM speeds and the faster the better but standard CPU's do more or less the same with a 1600 clock as it does with a 2400 clock, to my knowledge

5. Most games don't even use hyperthreading, it is slowly becoming more common but in general 4 cores is enough for gaming, for any sort of video/3d/music editing, more cores = more threads = more processing power

6. Anything outside of gaming will usually benefit from a 6 or 8 core CPU, if it is programmed well and designed to run optimal, such as photoshop or maya/3ds max. Most regular programs however don't.

7. Any board that says it can support SLI will, I would not be worrying about that too much and would be more concerned about a decent PSU and heat.

8. You can use it from both

9. Yes, unless your GPU hits I beleive 80% load the other one will sit idle on a low fan speed.




Someone will build on my post, as I am sure there is more to it and more answers in depth and probably a correction or 2 :p
 
on questions 5 & 6, its just not a matter of how many cores, yes 4 is plenty for gaming but don't go buy an FX4100/FX4300 as these aren't really true quad cores.

The i5's are perfect for gaming and so are the Fx8320/8350. This confusion happened due to AMD redefining its meaning of 'core' during bulldozer.

The hex-core i7's are not needed/used in gaming. If heavy video editing or CAD modelling they shine but its not worth the money just for gaming.

If you really want to cover your back, the quad core i7 use twice as many threads as the i5. Though at the moment games don't really use hyperthreading, it could go that way soon (though it may be a good year or two away)..
 
5, well that also depends on game, look at Crisis 3 for a modern example just to name one, look at any i5 score, no matter what clock speed, and add in any card for display, look at combined score, then throw any i7 in the mix with same or lower video card and look at score, by now you will see what difference a i7 can make to some, but not all games.

now this is where it gets harder, 4 core, 6 core and 8 core, well very few games, less than a couple of handfuls will use more than 4 cores atm, some are even slower on 4 cores as the programming is so poor, but patches / fixes soon sort that out, but a pain when you have just bought it mind you.

for me a four core i5 / i7 is plenty for now, or same in amd if you want the cheaper option etc, but next year, or even later this year it may change, but never plan too far ahead, or you pay over the odds tbh.

then onto ram, do same above with 8gb of any speed tbh in the mix then throw 16gb into the picture and again run the same test as above, scores go up.

plus rule of thumb for me, is 16gb of slower ram will always be better than 8gb of faster ram, which can cost about the same if you look around at speeds/offers etc

and please don't mention not in benchmarks it won't, as i play games, not spend all day caring who's benchmark to beat with 2400 speed who give a damram :)

gamers and benchmarkers are too different breeds, and rightly so.....

look at sdd's now, hdd will be the slowest point so go straight to sdd, no matter what you choice, it will be better than any hdd to above score.

o/s is a mine field, some will stick on xp for now, most moved to win7 with plenty saying win8 is faster still, which to be it fair is true and a good gaming platform, but i'll only go when sp1 comes out for it, as thats how i do all my upgrades, wait for most to get fixed before i take the leap.

video, nvidia make great cards, but most of the time cost is higher so amd will be better value for same speed, simple as that, also crossfire atm seems to be less problematic that sli, but this is down to drivers most of the time, and not the cards in use, or how it's used in the games etc, so not just drivers etc

so budget, cpu first, m/b second, psu 3rd, ram and sdd/hdd selection and video will be budget related but only after first 3 are picked, case, k/b, mouse are personnel choices like speakers etc

not mentioned sound cards as most m/b have good enough for me, so again a personnel choice like monitors, wireless cards etc etc
 
Last edited:
Ill try and not be confusing here, but to begin ill answer (2) first :P

thirdchances said:
2. With the DIMM slots for the RAM is it a good idea to populate them all or does that sometimes affect the quad channel ability or performance of the RAM?
Click to expand...

Most boards are dual channel but LGA1366 (original i7) boards support triple channel and LGA2011 (high end enthusiast i7's) support quad channel, that doesn't mean you have to run them in tri or quad channel just that they support it. So in a board that supports triple/quad channel putting more sticks in will give you more GB and more bandwidth as its using more channels, in a regular duel channel board using more than two sticks will just give you more space. More sticks also = more load on the memory controller.

Also using more channels does not guarantee more performance as the increased bandwidth is just a rise in the maximum that can be used. I have a quad channel board but I'm only running two sticks as I don't need the extra bandwidth or GB. (testing on the LGA 1366 platform confirmed that you don't actually need triple channel unless your loading a hex core, I don't think the are any i7's that actually need quad channel yet).


thirdchances said:
1. In terms of RAM why is it that people seem to stick to the 1600Mhz RAM when the 2400Mhz sticks don't seem to much more expensive?
Click to expand...

Depends on the RAM, some people just buy DDR3 1600 as its considered the sweet spot or the standard at the moment, however it is actually posisble for it to outperform 2400, ill try and explain, lets look at it like this, think of a busy motorway, the MHz is the speed the vehicles are moving at (the memory channels would be the amount of lanes), the faster the traffic goes the more cargo you can get down the road. 1600 MHz DDR3 is also referred to as PC3-12800 which means DDR3 with a bandwidth of 12800 this is because the MHz is 1600 so 1600 MHz * 8 = 12,800. So as MHz increases so does the available bandwidth, similar to using multiple channels.

However the is another factor, latency, usually seen like "CL9, CAS 9, etc" this determines how fast the memory responds, and response is more important for gaming than bandwidth. To calculate the response time in seconds divide the CAS by the MHz, so:

DDR3-1600 CAS 9 = 0.005625
DDR3-1600 CAS 7 = 0.004375
DDR3-2400 CAS 11 = 0.0045833333333333

So as you see the 1600MHz RAM with CAS 7 will respond faster than the 2400MHz RAM with CAS 11 which makes it better for gaming despite its lower bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
Wow thanks for all the great responses.

Based on what you have said I was looking at this RAM:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-315-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=

That seems like a good amount of fast, low latency RAM.

In terms of CPU I was looking at this one:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-403-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=567

Seems like a good Quad core i7

I don't think I will be doing any overclocking as that is a bit beyond me and I want the build to be very reliable.
 
Always get a respected make and model PSU, something like a Seasonic (highly regarded as one of the best around) or an XFX, Enermax, depends on your needs and budget really but rule no.1 never skimp on the PSU :)
 
thirdchances said:
Wow thanks for all the great responses.

Based on what you have said I was looking at this RAM:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-315-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=

That seems like a good amount of fast, low latency RAM.

In terms of CPU I was looking at this one:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-403-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=567

Seems like a good Quad core i7

I don't think I will be doing any overclocking as that is a bit beyond me and I want the build to be very reliable.
Click to expand...

I'd go for this RAM: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-134-GL&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1517

The RAM you've specced is great but MASSIVELY expensive..

This is 1600Mhz CAS 9 RAM for a fraction of the corsair.

To be honest, it'd be a waste to get a 3770k and not overclock it..

Overclocking ivybridge is easy, just make sure you get a good aftermarket cooler.

thirdchances said:
Also should I just go for the highest wattage power supply I can afford just to be safe or is there a disadvantage to go overkill on the power supply?
Click to expand...

No need for more than 850W IMO..

That should handle SLI 680's and an ghighly overclocked i7 easy.
 
Thank you,

That RAM is a lot cheaper, would you recommend overclocking that as well?

I wanted to avoid overclocking any of the system because I want it to run reliably for up to 10 hours a day and also because I have no clue about overclocking or what I need to do or change.

Is it something I should just bite the bullet and try and learn about or can I get away with not overclocking by spending a bit more money?

Thanks again for all your input so far
 
Another question in addition to the above, if I have a graphics card with HDMI out can I just use a HDMI splitter to send the same signal to several monitors/tvs? Will this affect framerates in games at all?
 
thirdchances said:
Thank you,

That RAM is a lot cheaper, would you recommend overclocking that as well?

I wanted to avoid overclocking any of the system because I want it to run reliably for up to 10 hours a day and also because I have no clue about overclocking or what I need to do or change.

Is it something I should just bite the bullet and try and learn about or can I get away with not overclocking by spending a bit more money?

Thanks again for all your input so far
Click to expand...

You should be able to get 1800 out of them..

If you want over clockable ram Samsung green goes upto 2400 from 1600 easy..

To be honest, its free performance and keeping it stable at 4.5Ghz should be easy and not distrubt stability.
 
From experience, I don't think sending the same signal to multiple monitors does affect the framerate or if it does it's only slightly, however I would expect it to add some load to your graphics card knocking the temps up slightly.

Compared to running 2 screens which uses up VRAM quickly, and splitting a signal between 2 screens, I don't think it should be a problem. But, could be wrong!
 
Sorry I don't mean to reject cheaper options as it is always nice to save money I just didn't want to sacrifice performance in any way and am willing to spend the money if there is a faster option
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom