Highest-Peformance Build for $2k?

[charliechip95]

Hi there!
I've been researching the past couple of weeks to find the best computer (peformance-wise) that I can get for a budget of around $2000. I've never built a computer but I've had a lot of experience with computers in general, mostly in software but a little in hardware as well. I spend a lot of time gaming, and in the future I hope to be recording with Fraps and rendering the videos with Sony Vegas, which means fast hardware would be a huge help to the rendering process. I'm going to college soon and I may need the computer for other more taxing things in the future. I don't plan on doing any overclocking. Here's what I came up with so far:

SSD: Intel 520 Series Cherryville SSDSC2CW120A3K5 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167093

Case: COOLER MASTER HAF 932 Advanced Blue Edition RC-932-KKN3-GP ATX Full Tower Computer Case with USB 3.0, Black Interior and ...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119213

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-Z77X-UD5H LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128545

Graphics Card: GIGABYTE GV-R797D5-3GD-B Radeon HD 7970 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125408

PSU: CORSAIR Professional Series HX750 (CMPSU-750HX) 750W ATX12V 2.3 / EPS12V 2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS SILVER Certified ...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139010

CPU: Intel Core i7-2700K Sandy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 3000 BX80623i72700K
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115095

RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9Q-16GBXL
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231429

HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533

OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-bit - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116986

Newegg Wishlist Link: https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.aspx?ID=14312749
Grand Total: $1,833.37


Originally, I was hoping to get the i7-3930k processor and a LGA2011 motherboard to match. But I've been told that LGA2011 is still fairly new and is not as reliable, so it would be better for me (as a first time builder) to go for a LGA1155 build instead. Hopefully this change won't make a big toll on performance.

One thought I had about the SSD: Would it be better to get one 120gb drive or two 60gb drives? If I use the 120gb drive, I will be recording Fraps on the same drive that Windows 7 is installed on. Whereas if I get two 60gb drives, I could install Windows on one and record on the other. What's the best way to set that up for good FPS?

As a newbie, I couldn't really tell you for certain if these are the best parts possible for a high-end ~2000k gaming/editing computer, so I'm open to any ideas. If you feel a certain part/parts would be better be sure to let me know. And of course, I need to be sure everything is compatible too! That's very important. ;)

[RickyTick]

Welcome to MySuperPC forums.

That's an awesome build, and everything looks compatible.

You may consider waiting a few days before pulling the trigger. Nvidia is scheduled to make some big announcement on the 28th of April. It could be a new GTX6xx series video card, or maybe some better pricing on the current GTX680's. It may be worth waiting for.

If you have no plans on overclocking, then you could save a few dollars by switching to the i7-2700 as opposed to the i7-2700k.

Also keep in mind that the HAF932 is a FULL tower case and is kinda big. Make sure you have enough room to put it wherever it's going.

[charliechip95]

I'd rather not have a case that's bigger than it needs to be -- I'll be using the computer in a pretty small space. How about the Antec 900 (or 902) case? I was actually looking at that before as well, but heard about some inconvenience adding/removing drives. It looks like it's part of your rig though! Would you recommend it?

I was trying to avoid the Geforce video cards because I heard about faulty drivers in the Geforce 580, maybe the newer cards wouldn't have that problem?

[RickyTick]

My 900 is several years old now. It has great features. The 902 is a really nice case. I also like the Corsair 650D.

There's no reason to stay clear of Nvidia cards. There are always driver issues with cards from both ATI and Nvidia, especially newer cards. They are almost always worked out within a short period of time.

[charliechip95]

In that case, I'm researching several graphics cards now- What's the best GPU for about $500? I'm inclined to think it would be the GTX 680:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130768

On the other hand, would it make more sense to buy something cheaper? I could always connect two graphics cards in the future:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130587

[RickyTick]

This is a lot to read, but will give you great info on the GTX680. It's ok to skip to the conclusion.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22653

Personally, I prefer to run a single graphics card. There are times that SLI/Crossfire make sense, but they can be troublesome too.

[charliechip95]

Troublesome in what way? Less stable perhaps? I've never built a computer before so if SLI would be too difficult to troubleshoot it may make more sense to go with a single card.

[RickyTick]

There always seems to be driver issues with SLI, and since they are so close together they can get a little warm. Some games just don't seem to do well with SLI either.

I also forget to mention the Antec 1100 is probably on the top of my list of favorite cases right now.

[charliechip95]

The GTX 680 is out of stock at the moment, but I'll probably wait till the 28th to see if maybe some new shipments will be coming soon (and hopefully a price drop).

I'm a fan of the Antec 900's price and blue look, so I might just go for it. Some people have complained about the front USB ports not working though, any idea what that's about? Was it just a problem with some of the older batches or something?

[RickyTick]

Looks like the 900 is on sale at Newegg. The sale ends today, so if this is the case you want, jump on it now.
I don't know of any problems with the front USB. If there are any problems, I'm sure Antec or Newegg will take care of it. I wouldn't worry about that at all.

Yeah, the GTX680 is hard to come by.

[charliechip95]

Thanks for the heads up on the sale! I'm not sure we'll be able to get around to it today (busy) but $10 probably won't end up being a big deal. Hopefully whatever Nvidia announces on Saturday will mean better availability for their highest quality cards.

What kind of a difference in speed would it make to put both the OS and all my files on SSD? My plan so far has been to install the OS and programs on the 120gb SSD, and then put all my media and files on the 1TB HDD (steam games, music library, pics & vids etc). Although I would be opening the programs from the SSD, the actual content would be accessed from the HDD. I may be recording Fraps video onto the HDD as well. I've been wondering if this would considerably slow things down or not.

Also to be more clear about what I'd be using the graphics card for, I'd be running games like Skyrim, Crysis 2 & other new games at highest ultra settings, max AA in 2560x1440 resolution, sometimes recording in Fraps. Am I going to need the newest, most expensive GPU or would something cheaper handle all that?

[RickyTick]

If you plan to run Skyrim and Crysis 2 at their highest settings at that resolution, then yeah you should be looking at a GTX680 or HD 7970.

Typically, you would install your OS on the SSD and any other major software that you use regularly. Then the large mechanical drive would store pictures, video, games, and large files.

[charliechip95]

Okay, thanks! That makes sense.

There are quite a few LGA1155 Z77 motherboards out there, are there any you recommend? There's a more expensive Gigabyte motherboard on Newegg, I'm not sure why it's more expensive than the one I chose ($20 more) but here it is:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128549

Is Gigabyte the best brand for motherboards..?

[RickyTick]

Stay with big name brands like Gigabyte, Asus, and MSI. The differences are bells and whistles like a lot of overclocking features.

[charliechip95]

Alright, I'm hoping to hopefully pull the trigger sometime early next week :D Exciting!

The monitor I'm looking at is from Korea and only available on Ebay, the Crossover 27Q. I was looking at a Yamakasi one before but this one apparently has better build quality. It's very cheap for the resolution, so I'm a little concerned about the quality, although the reception online seems pretty positive:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1232496/crossover-27q-led-led-p-27m-led-2720mdp-gold-led-monitor-club#
And a video on Youtube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o__mNAvav7k

I'm not sure if I should go with that or perhaps a cheaper 24" Asus.

[zburns]

I recommend you stick with the normal retail suppliers such as Newegg or their competitors. Someone who you know will 'step up' if 'the warranty' must come into play. I have a Samsung 24 " 245BW LCD monitor that has been flawless and it was purchased in 2008. Any of the name brands. Read the reviews, see if one is recommended over another. Given that most monitors come from the far east, I assume the major brands are more or less equal. The current technology has been around a while, and, I cannot see how one brand is significant over another!

[ARchamps]

I have an ASUS 23.6" monitor and its great! Its one of the few monitors that has VGA, DVI and HDMI outputs.

You might want to take a look at the IvyBridge lineup (http://www.pcworld.com/article/252948/intel_ivy_bridge_chips_launch_dates_leaked.html)be fore taking the plunge (if you aren't in a hurry).

Solid build!

[zburns]

Charliechip95:
You make reference to this link: http://www.overclock.net/t/1232496/c...-monitor-club#

If you go down this page below the specs to the FAQ's and to # 7, note that the author says that these screens are 'rejects so to speak' !! This will explain any price difference between this brand and the brands offered by Newegg and other distributors.

Quote from the FAQ's: "While these use the same LG S-IPS panels found in Dell, HP, or Apple monitors they are the "rejects" so to speak that didn't quite meet the company's quality standards. In our case, we might have some minor backlight bleed (normally found in the bottom right-hand corner) and some dead or stuck pixels."
------------------------
Resolution comments:
Your Spec page link above shows three versions of the monitor. Let's use the middle one where the width is 645 mm and height is 395 mm. Convert to inches, you get width 25.4 inches and height is 15.6 inches. Convert length and height to 'pixels per inch' -- pixels per unit of length is 2560 pixels divided by 25.4 inches long, equal to 100.8 pixels per inch wide. For height: 15.6 inches high divided by 1440 total pixels high and you get 92.3 pixels per inch high.

The full screen image is made up of 100.8 pixels every inch of length (total length is 25.4 inches) and 92.3 pixels every inch of height (total height is 15.6 inches). Each pixel is a little wider than it is high - that is what the numbers tell us. A pixel is the 'dot' that makes the image. These are normal numbers give or take apx 5 % for all computer LCD monitors and these are the numbers going back to 2007, maybe earlier. These numbers do provide a very clear and sharp image.

But the numbers on this monitor are no better, plus/minus a small number, than the numbers on many manufacturers monitors ranging in size from 15 inch up to 30 inch, etc.. -- and again, this statement is true going back to at least sometime in 2007.
---------------------

[charliechip95]

Thanks zburns, that clears up quite a bit. It sounds like I'll probably be purchasing an Asus monitor. Hopefully in the future big name brands will lower the price of their 2560x1440 monitors, and I could take the plunge then.

I actually have heard quite a bit about the Ivy Bridge processors, and from the benchmarks I've seen it looks like the highest-model 3770k only very slightly beats the 2700k. Although I've also heard that the Ivy Bridge processors support PCIe 3.0 whereas Sandy Bridge does not. I'm not sure how big of a difference that makes.

Are there any other reasons I'm not aware of to consider an Ivy Bridge? And when will it be readily available?


Edit: It looks like the 3770k actually releases in a couple of days, with decent supply I hope.

Edit 2: I'm considering waiting and watching to see if I can't purchase a GTX 680. Does it matter which manufacturer I choose? I'm guessing it wouldn't, but I want to make sure. Asus, EVGA, Galaxy, MSI, Zotac, and PNY all sell GTX680s.

[zburns]

charliechip95,

Although I've also heard that the Ivy Bridge processors support PCIe 3.0 whereas Sandy Bridge does not. I'm not sure how big of a difference that makes.

I think your quote is correct; however, I cannot give you a reference for my 'thinking so'. I would suggest you put a decision on hold for several days until more is known about Ivy Bridge vs Sandy Bridge relative to PCIe 3.0. I have read that Sandy Bridge E does support 3.0, but such a statement begs the question 'Is that 100% support across the board, all Ivy Bridge features in SB E or not; I doubt that is the case.

Ivy Bridge is Intel's latest move in 'advancing state of the art' cpus. Their method of 'releasing new technology' in a piecemeal fashion over a period of months or years is 'valid' from a 'proven and reliable product point of view'.

You are at a 'point where new technology is replacing old' -- give it a few days to a week timewise and then make a decision!

[charliechip95]

It's funny that technology is at this state of transition when I'm just about ready to build a computer. Haha. Thanks for the info, I'm going to give it some days and see what people think of the Ivy Bridge. If I got one I would be an adopter of new technology, which could be an issue if I run into troubleshooting as new technology isn't as well documented.

I got a Chrome extension called Page Monitor that alerts me if any pages I specify change; in other words it's convenient for keeping an eye on various GTX680 models. Before I make a purchase, is there any quality difference between the various brands? Warranty, reliability, etc?

[RickyTick]

Ivy Bridge is a Tick
Sandy Bridge is a Tock
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/intel-tick-tock-model-general.html

Early reviews suggest that IB gets very hot with a overclock, especially with an increase in voltage.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22859

IB is not necessarily worth waiting for. Read through this.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/1

[charliechip95]

I may be purchasing the GPU at any given time, so does it matter which brand nVidia Geforce GTX680 I get? I really need to know :)

I'm honestly not super advanced as far as understanding the details of CPU specs, but I did give the articles a read. A lot of concern is being raised over the heat of Ivy Bridge processors, especially when overclocking. I'm not planning on overclocking, but I would like to feel like I had the option to in the future. Also, this article details 2700k vs 3770k benchmarks:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-24.html

The 3770k is just an average of 3.7% faster than the 2700k. I'm not sure that stock performance increase is worth the risk of hotter temperatures and less-established tech.

[RickyTick]

I may be purchasing the GPU at any given time, so does it matter which brand nVidia Geforce GTX680 I get? I really need to know :)
The major brands are all very good. Check for warranties, rebates, or games included. I like EVGA and MSI, but you won't go wrong with any of them.



The 3770k is just an average of 3.7% faster than the 2700k. I'm not sure that stock performance increase is worth the risk of hotter temperatures and less-established tech.
I agree.

[zburns]

What about support for PCIE 3.0 in the future. All the gpu technology will be redone to fit 3.0. Is this not true?

[charliechip95]

That's likely, the GTX680 isn't optimized for PCIe 3.0 (simply compatible) but I wouldn't be surprised if future GPUs were made to make use of the extra bandwidth. So that's something to consider as well. I'm not sure I would really need to upgrade though, the GTX680 is quite a powerhouse.

[charliechip95]

I bought the WD Caviar Black 1TB from Newegg before the $20 coupon expired! So that part of it's done.

I'm looking more closely at the SSD: I would I like to put my games on it if I could, to reduce load times. If I put ALL my games on it at one time, 120GB would not be enough, which is why I'm considering 180GB. This costs more though, so would getting this OEM version be okay?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167113&RandomID=56446661412521820120430012358

The only concern I can see is that the retail version has a straight-up 5 year warranty, but the OEM version has this:
"5 years limited
All Intel SSD 520 products sold in the OEM boxes have a five-year limited warranty term; however, the warranty includes a "Media Wearout" limitation. The Media Wearout limitation provides that the warranty shall expire when the usage of the drive has reached a predetermined usage limit established by Intel, which could result in a warranty term much shorter than five years for drives used in heavy-use, enterprise applications. The Media Wearout is determined by Intel's implementation of the SMART attribute "E9" Media Wearout indicator (as measured by and shown in the Intel SSD Toolbox, www.intel.com/go/ssdtoolbox). At any point during the warranty term, if the Media Wearout Indicator reads "1", as measured by the Intel SSD Toolbox, then the drive has reached its wear limit and the Limited Warranty at that point expires, regardless of how much time may have been remaining on the five-year term. This Media Wearout limitation is imposed due to the greater workload demands of enterprise/data center deployment on SSDs."

I'm also unsure if the OEM version would support firmware upgrades.

[zburns]

At any point during the warranty term, if the Media Wearout Indicator reads "1",

One would think the 'wearout' factor would apply to 24/7 non stop cpu operation such as servers and large 'enterprise' computers, banks, large companies with computers that never stop, etc.. Assuming this is so, then you measure your warranty for your computer used primarily for games against the 'enterprise' comment.

EDIT:Your use of your computer compared to 'enterprise use' will be a small amount of 'daily use' compared to a 24/7 'enterprise operation' running 7 days a week! Assuming the SSD meets 'quality manufacturing standards', it is going to 'wear' in proportion to use. All manufacturers of SSDs 'share' the same problem. I would think any warranty based on 5 years shows a remarkable 'respect' of the product by the manufacturer!

On the firmware clause, my first thought would be how can an SSD be affected by a firmware upgrade -- and I do not understand how the SSD could be affected. My suggestion here is that you call an Intel support line and try to get an answer on the 'firmware clause'. I did read the toolbox link, and the references to 'firmware' and it leaves me baffled as to meaning!

[ARchamps]

FYI, Ivy Bridge (i7 and i5) are now available at Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671%20600095610%20600315409&IsNodeId=1&name=Ivy%20Bridge

[charliechip95]

I've found another SSD called Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe that is faster and has a 240GB model for $250, rather impressive when compared to Intel's 120GB for $190. This would be way more bang for the buck. A few people have reported failures, but the same can be said for Intel. Most failures seem to be occurring soon after purchase, which would mean Newegg could replace it. Mushkin has a 3-year warranty for it as well, which seems quite sufficient!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226226

The two motherboards I was looking at (by Asus & Gigabyte) are nearly identical, but Asus' motherboard advertises "Turbo Boost Technology 2.0" which Gigabyte does not. What is that and is it important?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128545
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131820

ARchamps: I'm still looking at and considering Ivy vs. Sandy. It will be a week-ish before I purchase all the parts, so I have some time to keep watching reviews and impressions. The slight stock performance increase, although slight, is a bit enticing, considering that I'm not planning to overclock. Overclock or not, the heat dissipation issues still worry me.

[zburns]

The Asus motherboard data states: "Supports Turbo Boost Technology 2.0" which is an Intel innovation on 3rd Generation cpus only. Here is a Intel link which should cover the topic well for you: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html The Page title is the following: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology — On-Demand Processor Performance

Again, make sure you get a 3rd Gen Intel cpu.

Regards the SSDs, look for reviews online that are 'detailed' and several pages in length. There are a dozen, or slightly more, good reviewers who review 'all things computer' and generally provide lots of pages to tests and details!

EDIT: The i7 3820 (Sandy Bridge) specs page states 'Turbo Boost Technology 2.0', but if you wanted to go this way with Sandy Bridge and the Asus board, I would want to know more as to whether that Asus mobo had all the Asus features functional when using the i7 3820. (the i7 3820 is not a 'k' cpu)

Here is the link to the spec page for the i7 3820: http://ark.intel.com/products/63698/Intel-Core-i7-3820-Processor-%2810M-Cache-3_60-GHz%29

[charliechip95]

Again, make sure you get a 3rd Gen Intel cpu.

I assume you mean get the 3rd gen if I want to get any use out of 'Turbo Boost Technology 2.0'.
Here's another article on the Ivy Bridge heating issue...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/254713/intels_ivy_bridge_chips_appear_to_run_hotter_than_ sandy_bridge_chips_when_overclocked.html

[zburns]

The Sandy Bridge specs for the i7 3930k (6 core) and the i7 3820 (4 core but no 'k') are 'E' type cpus which means they will work with pcie 3.0 future technology. If you look at the Intel Spec pages, both links below, you will see that 'Turbo Boost Technology 2.0' is supported on the spec page.

It would be helpful to compare the intel spec page for these sandy bridge cpus to the spec pages for some of the ivy bridge to see any actual differences. Ivy Bridge is 3rd Gen Intel cpu, Sandy Bridge is 2nd Gen cpu with an exception for Sandy Bridge 'E' type cpus -- so my question is does the type 'E' suffix make these sandy bridge cpus into 3 gen, spec wise or not. One obvious difference is the manufacturing spacing of 32 nanometer for SBridge versus 22 nanometer for Ivy Bridge.

Another factor to consider is Intel's definition and warranty as to overclocking. They may provide a warranty and specify overclocking to be 'Turbo Boost only'. They may recognize overclocking by builders/gamers to get the max freq out of a cpu as the responsibility of the 'builder/owner'. Overclocking by jacking up the cpu voltage and frequency by builders is not something that Intel ever sanctioned, more so, several years ago.

[zburns]

Again, make sure you get a 3rd Gen Intel cpu.

The above quote by zburns several posts above is found on Intel pages and was not a quote that I came up with!! This discussion, for the purposes of 'overclocking' and comparison of Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, is complicated, more so in some respects than the Anandtech article indicates. However, the conclusions will be roughly the same!

PCIe 3.0 is supported by Sandy Bridge 'E' cpus according to published Intel data (as is Ivy Bridge). Here is a link to compare Sandy Bridge 'E' cpus to Ivy Bridge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_microprocessors (note: scroll down to Sandy Bridge E comparison chart and just below SB is the Ivy Bridge comparison chart -- get them both on your monitor screen for 'back and forth' comparison.

The link just given or mentioned, is entitled 'List of Intel Core i7 microprocessors'. This entire page gives a broad overview of all i7 cpus. A lot of footnotes to refer too, but they are important. Intel publishes 'specification pages' for each of the i7 cpus; I downloaded one Ivy Bridge and three Sandy Bridge spec sheets and found it very difficult to 'even try to make comparisons between them -- not because the pages were not 'standardized in their layouts' but because their are a number of 'variables to consider' and one has to 'google these variables' in order to get a full understanding. My point here is that this single wikipedia page: 'List of Intel Core i7 microprocessors' is vitally important for comparison -- it is well organized and 'easy to use'.

I read the Anandtech article on SB vs Ivy Bridge, main subject heat, but I also add another main subject and that is cpu voltage Vcore.

Heat first. In some past articles, Intel indicates that Ivy Bridge may be the 'limit' on decreasing 'spacing between components'. Whether Intel said this (previous statement) or a non-Intel reviewer said it, I do not remember. On Ivy Bridge because of smaller 22 nanometer spacing, the voltage between transistors must be less than Sandy Bridge in order to keep the currents the same or less. The Ivy Bridge voltage is less than Sandy Bridge voltage because the spacing is smaller and from a 'physics' perspective -- this absolutely has to be the case in order to limit the current between components.

One and half to several years ago (as I remember it) there were a number of Intel articles warning against overclocking with Ram voltages of 2 volts and maybe even voltages of 1.6 volts. The theory being that the increased voltages while overclocking increased current flow and therefore shortened 'cpu life'. -- this is same reasoning for reducing Ivy Bridge voltage as compared to Sandy Bridge.

I presume Intel is happy with Turbo Boost as the method for overclocking versus raising the voltage. Therefore, I assume Intel does not sanction raising Ivy Bridge volts for overclock purposes.

Before Sandy Bridge 32 nanometer spacing existed, Intel 45 nanometer cpus were the norm (Intel Core i7 series processors, i5 750 - Lynnfield and Clarksfield) then came Nehalem processors using the 45 nm process.

[charliechip95]

Thanks for your research! There is quite a bit of complexity to accurately comparing these processors. I’ve tried to make things easier by focusing on my personal interests and the major changes that were made in terms of performance. I believe I’ve made a decision based on all of the factors. Let’s look at the extra 'features' that Ivy Bridge provides first.

PCIe 3.0 is possibly useful in a GTX680 SLI setup, but the extra bandwidth is just not necessary for a single graphics card solution at this point in time. In fact, the bandwidth PCIe 2.0 provides is probably not maxed out either. Since I’m planning to use a single GTX680, I haven’t let this influence my decision too much.

USB 3.0 is also useable on Sandy Bridge, provided you have the right motherboard chipset. Z77 should do fine.

Reduced power consumption is nice, but probably doesn’t save too much in the long run. I heard maybe $30 per year (depending on your computer usage), which is definitely nice; but not a deal-breaker.

Those are the main features of Ivy Bridge, and for the most part they do not seem very important. What is more important is the change in microarchitecture. Like you pointed out zburns, because of smaller 22 nanometer spacing, the voltage between transistors must be less than Sandy Bridge. Anything above 1.3v, unless you have really great CPU cooling, is not recommended. For this reason, achieving anything above 4.8GHz is difficult on Ivy Bridge, which appears at a glance to be an issue. But there are other things to take into account. The IPC has been improved, die size has gone down, and beyond that many other technical changes have been made I’m sure. This all equates to a fair difference in performance. In a nutshell, an Ivy Bridge processor at 4.5GHz = a Sandy Bridge processor at 4.9 GHz. If this ratio holds, an Ivy Bridge processor at 4.8GHz is comparable to a Sandy Bridge around 5.2GHz. In conclusion: Yes, you cannot overclock an Ivy Bridge as high as Sandy because of voltage limitations. But considering the performance improvements your already getting over Sandy (approx 0.4GHz), why would you need to? If I ever overclocked in the future, it would probably be around the 4.2-4.5GHz range anyway.

Another thing to take note: while video encoding you can see as much as a 10-15% increase, which for me is definitely important.

So I’m leaning towards purchasing the i7-3770k. I probably will not overclock in the first year or two at least, and by that time I might find it more worth it to buy a Skylake processor/mobo or something. :D All this info is based off of my research, so if you notice anything that is not accurate let me know.

[zburns]

There is quite a bit of complexity to accurately comparing these processors.

Your quote is correct in all respects; however, you are being 'courteous' in your remarks. I believe it is very difficult to 'fully' compare Ivy Bridge to Sandy Bridge. At some point 'all of us' including the 'very good reviewers' I keep referring too
will know a 'lot more' about Ivy Bridge and pcie 3.0. I think 'a technology door' has been opened with regards to the 'ever increasing' smaller spacing between cpu transistors; differences and surprises in viewpoint will exist until 'the
marketplace' is full of 'good information' that all of us can refer too. This process will take some time. In the meantime I would keep reading reviews in order to 'see' the progress.

Here is a wikipedia link on Ivy Bridge Microarchitecture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_%28microarchitecture%29 .

Comments based on this Wiki link on what I consider to be important considerations:

1. Compared to Sandy Bridge: 5% to 15% increase in CPU performance[18] and 20% to 50% increase in integrated GPU performance[18]. My discussion: There are 1.4 billion tranistors in IvyBr; 995 million in Sandy Bridge. This is a 40.7% increase in transistors which translates into 5% to 15% more 'math' executions per second for Ivy Bridge vs Sandy Bridge. Therefore, one cannot require that a 4.9 Mhz run frequency for SB be compared to the same freq (4.9) on Ivy Bridge. Consider Ivy Bridge to be just 10% more efficient execution wise, meaning Ivy Bridge only needs to run at 90% ofSandy Bridge to match the 'total executions per second'. This computes to 4.4 Ghz for IvyBr to match SandBr.

2. The most important consideration is the voltage increases to allow Ivy Bridge to 'overclock' in the 'conventional sense' by just increasing the 'clock frequency'. As the spacing between transistors gets smaller (as on Ivy Bridge), the requirement to minimize or never increase the voltage beyond a 'certain Intel stated voltage' becomes paramount to life of the cpu. All I am saying here is that Intel provides a set of voltages that when never exceeded 'predict a certain useful life of the cpu'. One individual cpu may withstand an increase better than another, etc.. But the Intel spec data will cover all applicable cpus because they add safety margins to cover the outer limits of the 'poorer spec performing cpus.

3. This two sentence comment from the Wiki article is in "quotes below": Heat Problem

"Ivy Bridge's temperatures is reportedly 20°C higher compared to Sandy Bridge when overclocked, because instead of using fluxless solder to transfer heat from the die to the Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS), Intel used Thermal Interface Materials (TIM) to cut cost. The thermal paste has much lower thermal conductivity, causing heat to build up on the die.[19][20][21]

Intel has said that overclocking the CPU will result in higher temperatures due to the fact that with the die shrink, there is an increased thermal density; Intel at the same time stated that this is as expected and will likely not improve in future revisions.[22]"

My comment: I do not believe Intel authorized this exact wording. The greater number of transistors in a smaller space causes a certain amount of 'extra heat buildup'. The 'fluxless solder comment', if applicable, should have 'a percent contribution to 'extra total heat' -- that is measurable. If 'fluxless solder' causes extra 'heat buildup', I would imagine it is a relatively small percentage relative to the extra transistors and more dense packaging. Intel should clarify this comment if they participated in writing the Wiki article.

Final comment: The extra heat buildup is partially due to 40% more transistors and, in addition, somewhat due to 'fluxless solder' (contribution unknown). More important, the army of 'very good reviewers' out there should make their heat measurements based on 'standardized executions per second' irregardless of the 'overclocked frequencies' not being matched -- the Sandy Bridge cpus running faster than Ivy Bridge, but the final 'measured results' being the same.

4. Overclocking Ivy Bridge via voltage increases. Any voltage increase on Ivy Bridge 'should only' come from a 'official published Intel paper' that clearly states the maximum voltage in question and the 'safe amount of increase based on Intel recommendations'. As the cpu internal component 'spacing' decreases, never exceeding the recommended intel voltage becomes more and more important to the 'expected life of the cpu'.

[charliechip95]

Thank you for all the help and research! I’ve taken a week to consider everything, and I may be pulling the trigger in just a couple days now (it depends on a financial thing, but it will be very soon). I’ve decided to get the i7-3770k. The stock performance improvements over SB would be worth it to me, since they are in a very similar price-range. And although it would run a bit hotter, it is still very overclockable; I don’t really plan on doing so anyways, as I’m not experienced with it and I believe I would be quite satisfied with it at stock speeds.

Here’s my build:
CPU: Ivy Bridge i7-3770k
Mobo: Asus Sabertooth Z77 LGA1155
GPU: nVidia GTX680
PSU: Corsair Professional Series HX750 80Plus Silver
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) 9-9-9-24-2N
HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium OEM

Before making a final decision on the SSD, I have a question that I can’t seem to get a clear answer on: do different SSDs really differ much in performance? This site has drive benchmarks:
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html

These benchmarks make it look like there really is a difference, but I’m not sure how noticeable the difference would be in person. Number one is the Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe 240GB. My plan at first was to get this, but a lot of reviews on Newegg recently complain about DOA.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226226

Putting the complaints into consideration, I looked into perhaps the Samsung 830 or Corsair Force 3 instead, but they rank considerably lower in the benchmarks. It looks like the Mushkin is the best bang for the buck ($230 for a 240GB drive that is best ranked), but I’m not sure if I should take the risk in terms of reliability.

[zburns]

but I’m not sure if I should take the risk in terms of reliability.

It is a 'roll of the dice' -- I do not see how you can take the chance! Read reviews, see how long a product has been in the marketplace and then look at Newegg reviews -- the Newegg reviews have a specific time frame surrounding a product and you can see a 'pattern'. Their first page on the Mushkin looked bad, the second page all five star with the last item 'all disaster'. You do not know the 'true' story and I do not know how you would find out!
------------------
I probably will have a comment for you tomorrow reference RAM. Nothing wrong with what you have picked but there may be better more reliable choice for overclocking. Check out this page on this forum, the first several posts; you will see I recommended DDR3-2133 RAM instead of DDR3-1600 as you have. It all has to do with Intel XMP (extreme memory profile). If you want to read Intel about it, Google 'Intel XMP white paper'. I created some controversy by doing this. Still think I am correct. I plan to call several Memory manufacturers tomorrow and discuss 'the reasons why' with them -- looking for independent outside comments.

[bighoo93]

Before making a final decision on the SSD, I have a question that I can’t seem to get a clear answer on: do different SSDs really differ much in performance? This site has drive benchmarks:
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html

These benchmarks make it look like there really is a difference, but I’m not sure how noticeable the difference would be in person. Number one is the Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe 240GB. My plan at first was to get this, but a lot of reviews on Newegg recently complain about DOA.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226226

Putting the complaints into consideration, I looked into perhaps the Samsung 830 or Corsair Force 3 instead, but they rank considerably lower in the benchmarks. It looks like the Mushkin is the best bang for the buck ($230 for a 240GB drive that is best ranked), but I’m not sure if I should take the risk in terms of reliability.

I use this site for reviews and detailed benchmarking of SSDs (and HDDs): http://www.ssdreview.com/

I think it is both worth it to pay attention to the benchmarks AND to the reviews of users on Newegg. I routinely find deals for 120 GB SSDs that meet both criteria, on sale for $100. I have not seen the Samsung that low, however.

[charliechip95]

I recommended DDR3-2133 RAM instead of DDR3-1600 as you have.

The motherboard I chose, the Asus Sabertooth Z77, states on the specs page that the ‘memory standard’ it supports is “DDR3 1866/1600/1333”. Does this simply mean that I cannot overclock RAM on this board, or is it just not being advertised by the manufacturer?

I’m not sure I would really need to overclock my RAM anyway. I suppose I have not done a whole lot of research on this, but shouldn’t 1600 RAM be enough for what I want to do? Or would there be a major difference in my video editing / gaming, etc?

Back to the subject of SSDs, I cannot really afford an Intel or Samsung at the capacity that I want. So I’m looking at the Corsair Force GT 180GB. It has pretty high seq. read/write and IOPS, comes at a price (after rebate) of $194.99 and is 180GB, which is good for me. Would you recommend this SSD for its speed?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233211

[zburns]

the ‘memory standard’ it supports is “DDR3 1866/1600/1333”. Does this simply mean that I cannot overclock RAM on this board, or is it just not being advertised by the manufacturer?

I will answer this more completely tomorrow. My short answer is do not worry about it. Think about some of the motherboard memory support specs that show up as DDR3 1866/1600/1333 but now have the overclock frequencies in parenthesis but in the same sentence as DDR3 1866/1600/1333 -- I am guessing that this Asus page for this motherboard is somewhat old and has not been changed to have this spec look like some of the other Asus motherboard pages. If necessary, the easiest way to find out is to just call Asus USA tech support.

I still feel that we are at a transition in the way that RAM is specified if 'overclocking' is desired. Intel's newer chips will be operating at 1 volt or less due to the increasingly small spacing of 22 nanometers and maybe smaller -- who knows! The RAM voltage of 1.5 or 1.65 volts does impact the cpu. You cannot turn loose in these newer cpus voltages greater than one volt probably. Intel in order to protect the user must have some method to get the 'user'/builder and the folks who repair computers to be very aware of the maximum RAM voltage that can be used. Getting a handle on how to specify 'overclocking frequencies' which involve higher RAM voltages is necessary for protection of the cpu.

Again, I will try to have a more complete answer tomorrow!

[zburns]

charliechip95,


The motherboard I chose, the Asus Sabertooth Z77, states on the specs page that the ‘memory standard’ it supports is “DDR3 1866/1600/1333”. Does this simply mean that I cannot overclock RAM on this board, or is it just not being advertised by the manufacturer?
--------------------
I checked all the Asus Z77 motherboards for the memory freq statements. There are about a dozen Z77 mobos. All of them except for the Sabertooth (your choice) had what I call the 'expanded freq spec where the overclock freqs are shown plus the 'fundamental frequencies DDR3 1866/1600/1333. Notwithstanding this 'weird' difference, the information is still there. It is all in the online Z77 Sabertooth user manual.

EDIT: Note that there are several steps to get to the manual using the url just below. Select download, enter O/S (win 64), choose 'Manual', select the English version, then click on Global for the download of the manual.

This URL gets you to the manual: http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_1155/SABERTOOTH_Z77/#download Once you pull up the manual (Adobe PDF file), go to page 2-11 and you will find a chart with the following title: 'Sabertooth Z77 Motherboard Qualified Vendors List DDR3 2133 MHZ Capability' . If you want G Skill look down the list for the following listing:

'G Skill F3-17066CL9D-8GBPID(XMP) 8 GB(2 X 4GB) DS 9-9-9-24 1.65volts.'

Note the use of 'XMP' within the cat #. The one above is for 2 sticks of 4 gig; the cat #'s for G Skill just above this one are all for 4 sticks.

Again, based on what I read about Intel XMP, G Skill is in effect specifying that this RAM will work at 2133 MHZ freq and that it will also work at 1866/1600/1333 frequencies. The required voltage for 2133 MHZ is 1.65 volts (probably Intel's limit).

The other three G Skill cat #s, all for 4 sticks, differ only in the 'timings'. Naturally, you want the best timing, so why 3 different timings? I would be tempted to call G Skill about this and ask why the differences.

-------------------
But why is this particular mobo different from all the rest in the layout on overclocking. Was this the first Z77 mobo and this manual is how they did it for the first Z77 product? Or is it something different?

[charliechip95]

I would doubt that an expensive motherboard like this would not allow RAM overclocking of any sort, and I'm not planning to overclock at the moment anyways. 1600 should be enough for me, I think. So I pulled the trigger last night! :D I bought all the parts I listed from Newegg, with the exception of the processor and case, which I'm hoping to get locally. Thanks for all your help researching, I'm sure I will be very satisfied!

I've watched a lot of tutorials on Youtube for building computers, but I am unsure of one thing. Installing the CPU stock fan requires some force, and I'm wondering what the best way to do this is. I could install the fan outside of the case, and try my best not to bend the motherboard. Or I could install the mobo in the case w/ standoffs before installing the fan, meaning 9 points across the motherboard are being held in place while I push the fan points in. What would you recommend for a first-time build?

I will make sure to let you know how it goes, or if I have any questions during installation!

[zburns]

Fully install the motherboard in the case, then the cpu to the motherboard; then the cooler. You get the motherboard set up with any cooler or cpu mounting or reinforcing brackets on the back side of the motherboard before installing the motherboard - Rob's instructions should even deal with that. Best that you follow Rob's book or online instructions to the letter. The benefit of following Rob's instructions is that you do things in a proven specific order that does work.

You really need to use good static control from the beginning and be very diligent about using it for the entire build. W. Stumpp and myself went back and forth over a full page of posts, mostly about static. Take a look at it on the following link: http://forums.mysuperpc.com/showthread.php?4583-motherboard-question/page2 It is a more elaborate method than you normally see when you search; it is interesting that Mr. Stumpp independently was using the same method I used some four years ago on my build.

What cooler are you using?

[RickyTick]

Installing the CPU stock fan requires some force, and I'm wondering what the best way to do this is.
It does require a small amount of force, but it's really not that bad. I push down on two opposite corners at the same time until they click into place, then do the other two corners.

[charliechip95]

I got an anti-static wrist strap, so I think I should be alright! I'm using the stock Intel cooler, because I'm not overclocking so I don't see the need.

I was going to put this in my signature, but I can't seem to find the place to put it. Here it is anyways:
3770k @ 3.5 | EVGA GTX680 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB (4x4) DDR3-1600 | Corsair HX750 | Corsair Force GT 180GB | Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB | Antec 902 V3 | Windows 7 Professional 64-bit

[bighoo93]

I got an anti-static wrist strap, so I think I should be alright! I'm using the stock Intel cooler, because I'm not overclocking so I don't see the need.

I'm sure that will be fine, because that is what the pros here recommend and you are wise to listen to them. I always recommend the Cooler Master Hyper 212+ (http://forums.mysuperpc.com/showthread.php?4660-CPU-Cooler-Review), because it is cheap ($20-$30, depending on current deals), easier to install than the stock cooler, and lowers temps by 15 degrees compared to the stock cooler (in my experience). Even if I am not overclocking, I still believe that cooler components run better and last longer, and for $20 it is worth it to me.

[RickyTick]

, because it is cheap ($20-$30, depending on current deals), easier to install than the stock cooler, and lowers temps by 15 degrees compared to the stock cooler (in my experience). Even if I am not overclocking, I still believe that cooler components run better and last longer, and for $20 it is worth it to me.

QFT my friend.

[charliechip95]

My computer was built successfully! :D It's working very well, no real issues so far. The only mistake we made was that we left the little sticker on the mobo that covers USB slots on the back, so there is a sticker in-between the mobo and the IO plate. We think we may be able to just pull it out though. About the cooler: by the time the Hyper 212+ had been suggested, the computer had already been built with the stock cooler. Do you think it's safe to stay with what I've got, now that it's done with?

The USB 3.0 ports aren't working, but I assume this is because drivers need to be downloaded.

The only thing I'm not completely satisfied with is the hard drive, which makes a high-pitched humming sound that is louder than most drives I've had in the past. It performs well otherwise, but I am unsure if I should RMA it or not. The drive has a 64MB Cache, which might be why it is loud, I'm not sure. Is there any other 1TB drive with similar performance that is quieter?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533

[RickyTick]

The stock Intel cooler works just fine. I wouldn't worry about it.

If the sound of the HDD is too much, then yeah RMA it. It should be fairly quiet.

Congrats on your build.

[zburns]

Congratulations on completing your build!!

You have the WD Caviar Black 1TB and it should be 'flawless' in operation. Send it back without any concern!! Since you have experience with other hard drives and this new one is 'louder', then there must be a defect. They should give you a RMA number with no problem. (WD Caviar Black was recommended to me 4 to 5 years ago by this forum and it is the only drive I recommend. As far as I know, this is still the drive most often recommended by this forum!!)

[charliechip95]

Thanks! It was a fun experience, and (having used computers for years but never built one) it felt funny when finished to see that all those parts really do make a computer. haha

I'm not sure if there's a problem with my drive or if this is just the norm, because (looking online) this drive seems to be known for making more noise:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article904-page3.html
What I've been experiencing is Idle noise, a constant humming sound that wavers in pitch.

Is the Caviar Black substantially better than other drives, like say the Seagate Barracuda or WD Blue/Green, in performance? I would like a quite drive but I don't want to sacrifice too much speed if I can.

WD Caviar Black sound sample:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/files/sounds/hddnoise-anechoic/wd1001fals-1m.mp3
WD Caviar Green sound sample:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/files/sounds/hddnoise-anechoic/wd-green-2tb-1m.mp3

[RickyTick]

The WD drives are kind of like this:
Green | Blue | Black
Good | Better | Best

[charliechip95]

I've successfully gone through the RMA process with Newegg and I should be shipping the drive back soon. Here's the drive I'm expecting to replace it with:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148840

The specs are all the same as far as I can tell, so it should have about the same performance wouldn't you think? I've used external Seagate USB drives before and they work fine, so I'm familiar with the brand.

[zburns]

I do not think you will have any problems with the Seagate drive! Good luck and let us know when it's running, and that it is 'quiet'.

[charliechip95]

Thanks! I checked my CPU temps today, and under heavy load it reached a max of 78c. Is that normal? Wondering if I should consider the Hyper 212 now or if it's not really worth the risk.
I used the program "CPUID".

[zburns]

Your temps sound high but most of 'our reading' or actual use on coolers does not include the stock cooler. I assume that you will see a big difference if you replace the stock cooler with a known 'performance cooler' such as Hyper 212 or this one from an xbitlab review: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/coolers/display/thermaltake-frio-extreme.html.

Also, remember that Ivy Bridge is a smaller package with 20% (to 40%) or more transistors (not sure exact number) than Sandy Bridge. Ivy Bridge has more executions per second than any Sandy Bridge because Ivy Bridge has more transistors than SB. So IB can run about 20% (plus) slower and still match Sandy Bridge for executions/second.

Back to the main point -- your cpu is best protected when running at the lowest possible temperature. I would recommend that you go to a higher performance cooler. Also, you might check out Intel's various stock coolers for there cpus; I think they have several models, some more efficient than others -- you may not have Intel's best performing stock cooler -- no way to know without reviewing their line of stock coolers. --- What I am getting at here, is trying to figure out just why the temps are high; is the stock cooler a 'Intel mid range stock cooler' and reads high because of this, etc.. -- Best way to find out is to get a 'known performance cooler' that has reviews that you can match up with'.

-----------------
Later post regards cpu cooling: For protection of your cpu, you need to know that even tho the temps are high, that 'things with the cpu' are ok. This means that you must find a review for your cpu with the stock cooler that matches what you are seeing in order to get a definite 'feeling' or 'conclusion' that there is no problem. If you cannot find such a review, and are inclined to replace the cooler, then do so immediately, and then make a comparison to a current review using the new cooler on your cpu, etc..

[charliechip95]

Hi! It's been a little while, but I've been busy with summer stuff. :) But to give an update, the computer's still running fine! I was going to return the Caviar Black, but taking it out did not fix the noise I was hearing, so I kept it. I think it's probably the CPU fan that is making the noise. It's not that bad though, really, so I'm not going to worry about it.

How much longer does a CPU normally last with 3rd party air cooling in comparison with the stock cooler? I'm asking mostly out of curiosity, because I doubt I would want to replace it at this point; the computer is running fine and I don't want to risk changing things if I can help it.

I'll post some pictures soon! :cool:

[zburns]

Hey charliechip, good to hear from you and that things are running well!

Take a look inside your case. With the removable side off, see if noise is less (due to reverberation by sound bouncing between the two side panels. The removable panel if all metal is a somewhat perfect reflector for sound. I have a Antec Sonata III case. Panel on, noise at a certain level; panel off noise 1/2 to 1/3 of noise w/ panel on!! If the noise has any 'rattle' to it, that would prob be vibration. If noise is a high pitch 'whirring' sound', very smooth, very fast motor or a high speed fan.

Cooling question. The cpu internal insulation board material that the transistors and circuit traces lay on 'may' break down in proportion to increase in cpu temperature. Higher the temperature, the faster the speed of degradation, probably. But it takes a long time, years, for the process to cause problems. Consider your motherboard fiberglass board that the components and all traces 'lay' on. Same 'heat degradation process' but over a very long period -- unless a component really heats up beyond the 'usable' temp range of the fiberglass.

Back to cpu: As long as the temps are within a range defined by intel, you should be ok. If you have high temps that approach Intel's max temp, and these high temps are there for long periods, I would be concerned unless there was an obvious explanation.

The stock coolers are built too cool the cpu in an 'adequate' manner. Intel probably has some tech spec that describes the stock cooler capability. 3rd party coolers intentionally designed to outperform the stock cooler would in fact cost more to manufacture but would perform (cool) better, all other things equal!!