Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

would this gamng pc last 3-4 years ?

deathukdeathuk Member Posts: 38

COOLERMASTER HAF-X FULL TOWER GAMING CASE

Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Processor i7-950 (3.06GHz) 4.8GTs/8MB Cache

ASUS® P6X58D-E: DDR3, USB 3.0, SATA 6.0GB/s, 3-Way SLI

12GB KINGSTON HYPER-X TRI-DDR3 1600MHz, X.M.P (6 x 2GB KIT)

1GB AMD RADEON™ HD 6870 PCI EXPRESS - DirectX® 11, Eyefinity

1TB WD CAVIAR BLACK WD1002FAEX, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE

2TB WD CAVIAR GREEN WD20EARS, SATA 3 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE

24x DUAL LAYER DVD WRITER ±R/±RW/RAM

10x BLU-RAY ROM DRIVE, 16x DVD ±R/±RW

CORSAIR 750W TX SERIES (TX750) 80+ ULTRA QUIET PSU

TITAN FENRIR EVO EXTREME HEATPIPE CPU COOLER

ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL (7.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO

 

 

i want to know if this pc would be able to run games ok for the next 3-4 years or you have ideas for a better build

 

thanks

 

«1

Comments

  • noquarternoquarter Member Posts: 1,170

    I would wait another week or 2 for the Radeon 6950 and 6970 to release. Drop the system down to 6GB of memory instead of 12GB and use the saved cash to get a 6950 or 6970 instead of the 6870.


    Also are you able to do a 128GB SSD + 2 TB hard drive instead of the 1 TB + 2 TB hard drive you have now? Or do you need 3 TB total space?

  • deathukdeathuk Member Posts: 38

    i dont play really demadind games is the 6970 going  to expensive - i am thiking about the 12 ram cos coolemaster half -x  is very easy to open so i can stick the ram later on

    SSD are really expensive  the difference in hard drives between 1t and 2terra is 30 pounts so why not get 2 instaid of 1 ?

    and the defference between 640GB first hard drive to 1terra is 15 pounts ? why not get 1Terra ?

    The only parts that need power supply are the gpu and the cpu?

    i will get the pc mid feb/march

     

    i will see if those 45 pounts are worth it or not

    no need to buy external harddrives for ever

  • JorielJoriel Member UncommonPosts: 177

    overclocking that cpu to 3.6 wouldnt be a bad idea, i got my i7 920 @ 3.6 and its a beast, really worth it.

    image

  • deathukdeathuk Member Posts: 38

    the website i will buy it from oc up to 3.8ghz put oc not proberly major problems i fear a lot

  • ParadoxyParadoxy Member Posts: 786

    12 gb of ram is waste of money no matter how you look at it. I have 8gb of ram and its a waste. I could have saved money and stick to 4 or 6gb of ram. Other then that i agree that you should wait for new ATI cards.

    Who could have thought that WOW could bring super power like USA to its knees?


    Originally posted by Arcken

    To put it in a nutshell, our society is about to hit the fan, grades are dropping, obesity is going up,childhood the USA is going to lose its super power status before too long, but hey, as long as we have a cheap method to babysit our kids, all will be well no?
    Im picking on WoW btw because its the beast that made all of this possible

  • OrthelianOrthelian Member UncommonPosts: 1,032

    The processor is a slightly weird choice if you're just a gamer. An i7 860 would get you through the next four years just as well as an i7 950, for less expense. This isn't, unfortunately, the 1990s, when you could just choose the higher clock rate and be done with it.

    The video card is excellent for at least 3 years. I'd recommend a GTX 480 for more paranoid future-proofing, but for purposes of MMOs alone, I'm sure the 6870 will yawn its way through. On the other hand, waiting for ATI's 6900 series and NVIDIA's 500 series to get into the ring and be sized up is superb advice if you can wait a few weeks and are rich.

    Favorites: EQEVETOR | Playing: No MMOs since 2014. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CUPantheon
  • gkb3469gkb3469 Member UncommonPosts: 148

    Originally posted by deathuk

    COOLERMASTER HAF-X FULL TOWER GAMING CASE

    Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Processor i7-950 (3.06GHz) 4.8GTs/8MB Cache

    ASUS® P6X58D-E: DDR3, USB 3.0, SATA 6.0GB/s, 3-Way SLI

    12GB KINGSTON HYPER-X TRI-DDR3 1600MHz, X.M.P (6 x 2GB KIT)

    1GB AMD RADEON™ HD 6870 PCI EXPRESS - DirectX® 11, Eyefinity

    1TB WD CAVIAR BLACK WD1002FAEX, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE

    2TB WD CAVIAR GREEN WD20EARS, SATA 3 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE

    24x DUAL LAYER DVD WRITER ±R/±RW/RAM

    10x BLU-RAY ROM DRIVE, 16x DVD ±R/±RW

    CORSAIR 750W TX SERIES (TX750) 80+ ULTRA QUIET PSU

    TITAN FENRIR EVO EXTREME HEATPIPE CPU COOLER

    ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL (7.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO

     

     

    i want to know if this pc would be able to run games ok for the next 3-4 years or you have ideas for a better build

     

    thanks

     

    i need the 2TB hard druve

     From what ive heard AMD+Radeon work better than Intel+radeon. The same goes for Intel+Nvidia working better together than Intel+Radeon.  I would look at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849

     

    I would also wait for the new line of Radeon cards and drop your RAM down to 8G.

    And dont be afraid to go big on your PSU. With that system i would want nothing under 850W.

    If youre really into the Intel i7 setup try Nvidias 460-480 Gfx series.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,642

    If you don't mind having to turn down video settings a ways in some games that launch in 2 or 3 years, then yeah, it will last 3-4 years.

    But you should probably wait for Sandy Bridge to launch in January.  That's a new architecture as well as a die shrink from the two year old processor you've chosen.  Sandy Bridge will offer better performance per clock cycle, will clock higher, and will use less power, too.  A Core i7 2600 that launches in about a year and a half will be faster at stock speeds than the processor you've chosen would even if overclocked to 3.8 GHz.  If you include the cost of the motherboard, Sandy Bridge will be cheaper, too.  Sandy Bridge takes a new processor socket, so it might have a future upgrade path if you need something faster later; the LGA 1366 socket has no such upgrade path, unless you want to count $1000 Gulftown processors that are not going to come down in price.

    Even if you want to buy something now, I'd get a newer LGA 1156/P55 platform instead, with a Core i7 870.  That will give you better performance for cheaper, and use less power, too.  The LGA 1366/X58 platform only makes sense for CrossFire/SLI setups or some very peculiar things that almost certainly wouldn't be relevant to you (e.g., needing more than 16 GB of system memory).

    12 GB of system memory is a waste of money unless you have some unusual needs.  Even if you do really want to get 12 GB of system memory, you should get it as three modules of 4 GB each, not six modules of 2 GB each.  There's no need to get 1600 MHz DDR3 for a memory controller that only supports up to 1066 MHz memory.  Even if you did run it faster than that, it wouldn't offer any performance benefits.  For that system, the appropriate amount of memory would be 6 GB, in a kit with three modules of 2 GB each.

    If you get a Lynnfield (LGA 1156/P55 motherboard with a Core i7 870) instead or wait for Sandy Bridge, then the 1600 MHz memory speed would help a bit.  Both of those have two memory channels, so the appropriate thing to get would be 4 GB of memory in a kit with two modules of 2 GB each.  If you really want more memory than that even though you'd likely replace the system outright before actually using more memory, then the thing to get would be 8 GB, in a kit with two modules of 4 GB each.

    If you're going to watch Blu-Ray movies on your computer, then go ahead and get the Blu-Ray drive.  If you don't have an intended use for the Blu-Ray drive immediately, then it's a waste of money, as you'll probably never use it.  And even if you do need a Blu-Ray drive later, it will probably be considerably cheaper in a year or two.

    On your budget, I'd get a good solid state drive.  Otherwise, you'll end up spending a lot of money on a computer that is painfully slow right from the start.  Well, you might not know that it's slow, if you've never used a computer that is fast.  But if you get a good SSD, you'll be like, whoa, this is really fast.

    Even if you need 2 TB of capacity, you don't need a 2 TB SSD.  What you can do is to get a small SSD (say 60 or 120 GB) and a large hard drive.  Put the OS and some main applications on the SSD (basically, whatever programs you want to run faster), and everything else on the hard drive.  Any programs that run off of the SSD will be fast and responsive, as they won't have to constantly sit and wait for tens of millions of CPU clock cycles at a time to get a little bit of data off of the hard drive.

    Do note that there are some really good SSDs, but also some very bad ones.  The best SSDs on the market now are based on the SandForce or Marvell controllers.  The latter is only branded as Crucial RealSSD C300.  SandForce drives get sold by a lot of companies, most notably as the OCZ Vertex 2 and Agility 2, Mushkin Callisto and Callisto Deluxe, G.Skill Phoenix and Phoenix Pro, and some others.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,642

    Originally posted by Saerain

    The video card is excellent for at least 3 years. I'd recommend a GTX 480 for more paranoid future-proofing, but for purposes of MMOs alone, I'm sure the 6870 will yawn its way through. On the other hand, waiting for ATI's 6900 series and NVIDIA's 500 series to get into the ring and be sized up is superb advice if you can wait a few weeks and are rich.

    A GeForce GTX 480 for future-proofing?  That's completely nuts.  A GTX 480 runs dangerously hot under realistic gaming loads, which makes it more likely to be dead in 3-4 years than any other card on the market, save its little brother, the GTX 470, which violates the PCI Express specifications with its power draw, in addition to running dangerously hot.

    Even if you want that level of performance and are willing to pay for it, the GeForce GTX 580 is a much better option.  It is significantly faster, uses less power, and runs much cooler--and therefore, is far less likely to die on you.

    Though if you do want a GeForce GTX 580, I'd recommend waiting for AMD to launch the Radeon HD 6950 and 6970.  The 6970 will almost certainly be considerably cheaper to build than a GTX 580, and probably about as fast--and possibly faster.  If AMD launches an equivalent card for $400, then what do you think happens to the $500 price tag on the GTX 580?

    -----

    "From what ive heard AMD+Radeon work better than Intel+radeon. The same goes for Intel+Nvidia working better together than Intel+Radeon."

    That's not true.  You can get both a processor and a video card from AMD, and AMD will give it an official platform name if you do, but that's pure marketing hype.  Things like PCI Express, DirectX, and so forth are all standardized so that any processor works with any video card.  Besides, Intel and Nvidia really hate each other, more so than either of them hates AMD or vice versa.

    Now, going with an AMD processor and an AMD video card would work better if you got an APU from AMD.  But AMD doesn't have any APUs out yet, and they're not going to be appropriate for high end gaming machines, anyway.

    "And dont be afraid to go big on your PSU. With that system i would want nothing under 850W."

    At stock speeds, the system in the original post may never draw 300 W from the power supply.  It will surely never draw 400 W.  A 750 W power supply is already overkill, and you want it to go more wattage yet?

    The quality of the power supply is the critical thing, once you have enough nominal wattage.  (And anything rated at 500 W or more has more than enough wattage if it's good quality.)  Corsair's TX series isn't great, but it is pretty good, and that's good enough.

  • DreamionDreamion Member UncommonPosts: 287

    Technology is going very fast forward, I would say any PC today is going to be most likely unplayable after 4 years imo.

  • deathukdeathuk Member Posts: 38

    Originally posted by Quizzical

    If you don't mind having to turn down video settings a ways in some games that launch in 2 or 3 years, then yeah, it will last 3-4 years.

    But you should probably wait for Sandy Bridge to launch in January.  That's a new architecture as well as a die shrink from the two year old processor you've chosen.  Sandy Bridge will offer better performance per clock cycle, will clock higher, and will use less power, too.  A Core i7 2600 that launches in about a year and a half will be faster at stock speeds than the processor you've chosen would even if overclocked to 3.8 GHz.  If you include the cost of the motherboard, Sandy Bridge will be cheaper, too.  Sandy Bridge takes a new processor socket, so it might have a future upgrade path if you need something faster later; the LGA 1366 socket has no such upgrade path, unless you want to count $1000 Gulftown processors that are not going to come down in price.

    Even if you want to buy something now, I'd get a newer LGA 1156/P55 platform instead, with a Core i7 870.  That will give you better performance for cheaper, and use less power, too.  The LGA 1366/X58 platform only makes sense for CrossFire/SLI setups or some very peculiar things that almost certainly wouldn't be relevant to you (e.g., needing more than 16 GB of system memory).

    12 GB of system memory is a waste of money unless you have some unusual needs.  Even if you do really want to get 12 GB of system memory, you should get it as three modules of 4 GB each, not six modules of 2 GB each.  There's no need to get 1600 MHz DDR3 for a memory controller that only supports up to 1066 MHz memory.  Even if you did run it faster than that, it wouldn't offer any performance benefits.  For that system, the appropriate amount of memory would be 6 GB, in a kit with three modules of 2 GB each.

    If you get a Lynnfield (LGA 1156/P55 motherboard with a Core i7 870) instead or wait for Sandy Bridge, then the 1600 MHz memory speed would help a bit.  Both of those have two memory channels, so the appropriate thing to get would be 4 GB of memory in a kit with two modules of 2 GB each.  If you really want more memory than that even though you'd likely replace the system outright before actually using more memory, then the thing to get would be 8 GB, in a kit with two modules of 4 GB each.

    If you're going to watch Blu-Ray movies on your computer, then go ahead and get the Blu-Ray drive.  If you don't have an intended use for the Blu-Ray drive immediately, then it's a waste of money, as you'll probably never use it.  And even if you do need a Blu-Ray drive later, it will probably be considerably cheaper in a year or two.

    On your budget, I'd get a good solid state drive.  Otherwise, you'll end up spending a lot of money on a computer that is painfully slow right from the start.  Well, you might not know that it's slow, if you've never used a computer that is fast.  But if you get a good SSD, you'll be like, whoa, this is really fast.

    Even if you need 2 TB of capacity, you don't need a 2 TB SSD.  What you can do is to get a small SSD (say 60 or 120 GB) and a large hard drive.  Put the OS and some main applications on the SSD (basically, whatever programs you want to run faster), and everything else on the hard drive.  Any programs that run off of the SSD will be fast and responsive, as they won't have to constantly sit and wait for tens of millions of CPU clock cycles at a time to get a little bit of data off of the hard drive.

    Do note that there are some really good SSDs, but also some very bad ones.  The best SSDs on the market now are based on the SandForce or Marvell controllers.  The latter is only branded as Crucial RealSSD C300.  SandForce drives get sold by a lot of companies, most notably as the OCZ Vertex 2 and Agility 2, Mushkin Callisto and Callisto Deluxe, G.Skill Phoenix and Phoenix Pro, and some others.

    nice info

    the 2TB will be hard drive not ssd

    what do you say about 


    SSDSA2MH080G2C1 Intel 9.5mm Int X25M Gen2 80G SSD 2.5MCL Solid State Drive P/N: SSDSA2MH080G2C1 - Intel ORIGINALS

    thanks man  i prefer to build my own system cos it will be better and cheaper  than ordering

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,642

    The only real performance flaw in the Intel SSDs is that sequential writes aren't really any better than a hard drive.  But that doesn't matter much, as even hard drives are good enough at sequential writes.  Intel SSDs are plenty good enough at sequential read speeds, and especially the random reads and writes that are the real bottleneck for hard drives.

    I had typed something up saying that Intel SSDs aren't as good of a value in $/GB as SandForce SSDs.  But it looks like Intel has just slashed prices to compete--and a lot more than they said they would in their recent press release announcing price cuts.  So long as the 80 GB Intel X25-M is closer in price to a 60 GB SandForce drive than a 120 GB SandForce drive, it's a decent value for the money.

    Do note that an Intel SSD shouldn't be filled up all the way, so you only get maybe 65-70 GB of usable capacity before you start losing significant performance.  One of the nifty things about SandForce drives is that they can be filled up all the way, as they compress the data, so even if you think you've written 50 GB, it might only use 30 GB of NAND flash.  Thus, even if you think it's completely full, it might have 1/3 or 1/2 of the physical NAND flash memory empty, so that you don't lose performance.

  • deathukdeathuk Member Posts: 38

    new build based on the website i want to buy



    COOLERMASTER HAF-X FULL TOWER GAMING CASE

    OverClocked Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Processor i7-950 (3.06GHz @ max 3.8GHz)

    ASUS® P6X58D-E: DDR3, USB 3.0, SATA 6.0GB/s, 3-Way SLI

    6GB KINGSTON HYPER-X TRI-DDR3 1600MHz, X.M.P (3 x 2GB KIT)

    1GB AMD RADEON™ HD 6870 PCI EXPRESS - DirectX® 11, Eyefinity 4 Capable

    80GB Intel® X25-M 2.5" SSD (34nm / upto 250MB/sR | 70MB/sW

    2TB WD CAVIAR GREEN WD20EARS, SATA 3 Gb/s, 64MB CACHE

    24x DUAL LAYER DVD WRITER ±R/±RW/RAM

    CORSAIR 650W TX SERIES (TX650) 80+ ULTRA QUIET PSU

    COOLIT ECO A.L.C (ADVANCED LIQUID COOLER)

    CPU COOLER

    ARCTIC COOLING MX-3 HIGH THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY COMPOUND

    ONBOARD 8 CHANNEL (7.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)

    ONBOARD 10/100/1000 GIGABIT LAN PORT







    Price: £1,223.00 including VAT and delivery.

     

    echange that 6870 with 6900 series it will be around 1350

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,642

    If you're not willing to wait a month and a half for Sandy Bridge, I'd at least switch to a P55/LGA 1156 platform.  Get a motherboard with a P55 chipset and a Core i7 870 processor.  That will get you better performance for less money than what you've picked.  That may require swapping out the CPU heatsink, depending on socket compatibility.  If you do go for a Core i7 870, then I'd make it 4 GB of system memory rather than 6.

    I'd also check the voltage on the memory.  By now, it's probably better to get 1.5 V system memory, rather than higher voltages.  Intel says that above 1.65 V can damage the processor.  1.5 V seems to be pretty standard.  What you picked might already be 1.5 V, but some Kingston HyperX memory is set to a higher stock voltage.

    You don't really need a full tower case, and could save quite a bit of money by getting something smaller that still has 4 case fans or so.  But if you really like the particular case you've picked out, go ahead and get it.  Cooler Master's HAF cases are pretty nice, though other than the 912, they're really built for higher end gaming systems than what you're getting.  A HAF X case would be appropriate for, say, someone getting multiple high end video cards in CrossFire or SLI, which would need more airflow than your system will.

  • deathukdeathuk Member Posts: 38

    i will buy the pc  mid feb/march

     

    i really like the case  its  has usb 3.0 witch is new tech   and its really easy to open and modify

    also if i buy gaming pc is it better to buy oc or not  and the particular website oc until 3.8

      but i will make the changes you told me

     

    thanks for the info

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,642

    USB 3.0 is either on the motherboard or not.  It's not a case thing.  A case will have a hole in the back panel where various ports as part of the motherboard stick out, and that's where USB 3.0 ports would usually go if the motherboard has them.  A cardboard box with a hole in it could accommodate USB 3.0, though that would be a bad idea for other reasons.

    A handful of motherboards have USB 3.0 headers on the motherboard, so that you could run a cable and have USB 3.0 on the front of the case.  It might be necessary for a case to accommodate that in order for that to work, but very few motherboards do that--even among motherboards that do support USB 3.0.

    Whether you should overclock a system depends on your preferences.  Personally, I value stability and reliability highly, and therefore do not overclock.  Most (desktop) Core i7s should overclock to 3.8 GHz without incident.  If they have to bump the voltage significantly to get it there, that will risk frying the processor eventually, though.  If you're not doing the overclock yourself, then you don't know what they're doing to the voltage.  Any clock speed that you can hit at the stock voltage is pretty safe if you've got a good motherboard that can handle it, but if you're adding 0.2 V, you're probably going to fry the processor.

    If you get a Core i7 870, then Intel guarantees that it can overclock a single core to 3.6 GHz at stock settings (turbo boost).  If any of the four cores can easily go to 3.6 GHz with the reference cooler, it's a near lock that you can push all four cores to 3.6 GHz simultaneously with a better cooler, and without having to overvolt it.  And if all of the dies can hit 3.6 GHz, then probably some of them can go significantly higher without having to overvolt.  For comparison, a Core i7 950 has a less aggressive turbo boost that won't push a single core past 3.33 GHz at the stock settings.

  • noquarternoquarter Member Posts: 1,170


    Originally posted by gkb3469
     From what ive heard AMD+Radeon work better than Intel+radeon. The same goes for Intel+Nvidia working better together than Intel+Radeon.  I would look at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849

    Yea that's just a myth. In fact tom's hardware kept hitting a wall on Intel's p55 chipset when combined with Geforce cards that shouldn't have been happening, there is/was some system bug stopping the card from getting full performance on Intel platform. Still any card will be better on a i7 than a Phenom II, the i7's are just ridiculously fast.
     


    I would also wait for the new line of Radeon cards and drop your RAM down to 8G.
    And dont be afraid to go big on your PSU. With that system i would want nothing under 850W.
    If youre really into the Intel i7 setup try Nvidias 460-480 Gfx series.

    Good sentiment on the RAM but there's no combination of 3 sticks or 6 sticks to reach 8 GB and i7 uses triple channel memory so you want some combo of 3's. 6GB is the way to go for him.
  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188

    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Originally posted by Saerain

    The video card is excellent for at least 3 years. I'd recommend a GTX 480 for more paranoid future-proofing, but for purposes of MMOs alone, I'm sure the 6870 will yawn its way through. On the other hand, waiting for ATI's 6900 series and NVIDIA's 500 series to get into the ring and be sized up is superb advice if you can wait a few weeks and are rich.

    A GeForce GTX 480 for future-proofing?  That's completely nuts.  A GTX 480 runs dangerously hot under realistic gaming loads, which makes it more likely to be dead in 3-4 years than any other card on the market, save its little brother, the GTX 470, which violates the PCI Express specifications with its power draw, in addition to running dangerously hot.

    Even if you want that level of performance and are willing to pay for it, the GeForce GTX 580 is a much better option.  It is significantly faster, uses less power, and runs much cooler--and therefore, is far less likely to die on you.

    Though if you do want a GeForce GTX 580, I'd recommend waiting for AMD to launch the Radeon HD 6950 and 6970.  The 6970 will almost certainly be considerably cheaper to build than a GTX 580, and probably about as fast--and possibly faster.  If AMD launches an equivalent card for $400, then what do you think happens to the $500 price tag on the GTX 580?

    -----

    I dunno where people get off as they keep stating a 480 is dangerously hot all the time kinda annoying when I can visually see it is not true AT ALL.

    All I know is I have 50+ games and owned a 480 since day one and never had a heat issue. FPS, hard core graphics, all games maxed out. As much load as possible to pile on it...

    I have been running it overclocked 195 GB/s Bandwidth, (more than a stock 580) all these months in an air cooled full tower without NO issues with heat. Idles at less than 50c and no game out there that I own will under full load put it past 85c ish which is where my old 285 got to.

    Overclock like a champ, never ran it at stock levels. All of this is user experience and not conjecture or 3rd party info. All real life.

    Black Friday deal and you can pick one up for $349.

     

    ----------

    DeathUK, I would look at the 2TB WD "black" HD and not the green ones.

     

    Some more user experience, the 80GB SSD Intel SSD will get you 74.5GB available after a windows 7 install. You want to also sort out and read up on TRIM.

    I have 2 x 1 TB HD's each after formatted get 931GB free space. A whole 2TB standalone drive will get you more space, but if you can put the 1 TB's in raid for decent performance. Something to consider.



  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,642

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4008/nvidias-geforce-gtx-580/17

    With everything else in the system the same, the GTX 480 and 470 run a lot hotter than any other cards tested in Crysis.  That test is as of earlier this month.  It's consistent with what other review sites have found, too.

    Note also that TSMC's 40 nm bulk silicon process doesn't handle high temperatures nearly as well as their 55 nm process did.  That's why AMD put better reference coolers on all of their 40 nm cards, and Nvidia did likewise for all but the GTX 470 and 480.  My guess is that Nvidia tried to do so for the 470 and 480 as well, but then had to bump the clock speeds and voltages after they had designed the cards in order to avoid having the cards be slower than a Radeon HD 5850 and 5870, respectively.  That would explain why they lied about the cards' TDP.

    GDDR5 memory is harder to overclock than you might think, so unless you've got some memory benchmark verifying that you're really getting the bandwidth you think you are, it might not be clocked as high as you think.  The GDDR5 memory standard include error detection, and part of the standard is that if there are too many errors, it will underclock the memory automatically--and without telling you.  This explains results where games could be video card bound, but overclocking the core and shaders didn't help that much and overclocking the memory didn't help at all.  Faster memory would have helped, but there's no functional difference between GDDR5 memory at 1 GHz and GDDR5 memory nominally at 1.1 GHz but actually running at 1 GHz.

    -----

    If you're putting all of the programs on an SSD, then the speed of the hard drive doesn't matter.  If getting only an SSD and not a hard drive, then yeah, a faster hard drive would be better.

  • CatamountCatamount Member Posts: 773

    Originally posted by AmazingAvery

    Originally posted by Quizzical


    Originally posted by Saerain

    The video card is excellent for at least 3 years. I'd recommend a GTX 480 for more paranoid future-proofing, but for purposes of MMOs alone, I'm sure the 6870 will yawn its way through. On the other hand, waiting for ATI's 6900 series and NVIDIA's 500 series to get into the ring and be sized up is superb advice if you can wait a few weeks and are rich.

    A GeForce GTX 480 for future-proofing?  That's completely nuts.  A GTX 480 runs dangerously hot under realistic gaming loads, which makes it more likely to be dead in 3-4 years than any other card on the market, save its little brother, the GTX 470, which violates the PCI Express specifications with its power draw, in addition to running dangerously hot.

    Even if you want that level of performance and are willing to pay for it, the GeForce GTX 580 is a much better option.  It is significantly faster, uses less power, and runs much cooler--and therefore, is far less likely to die on you.

    Though if you do want a GeForce GTX 580, I'd recommend waiting for AMD to launch the Radeon HD 6950 and 6970.  The 6970 will almost certainly be considerably cheaper to build than a GTX 580, and probably about as fast--and possibly faster.  If AMD launches an equivalent card for $400, then what do you think happens to the $500 price tag on the GTX 580?

    -----

    I dunno where people get off as they keep stating a 480 is dangerously hot all the time kinda annoying when I can visually see it is not true AT ALL.

    All I know is I have 50+ games and owned a 480 since day one and never had a heat issue. FPS, hard core graphics, all games maxed out. As much load as possible to pile on it...

    I have been running it overclocked 195 GB/s Bandwidth, (more than a stock 580) all these months in an air cooled full tower without NO issues with heat. Idles at less than 50c and no game out there that I own will under full load put it past 85c ish which is where my old 285 got to.

    Overclock like a champ, never ran it at stock levels.

    Black Friday deal and you can pick one up for $349.

     

    ----------

    DeathUK, I would look at the 2TB WD "black" HD and not the green ones.

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-480-review/13

    The comments about dangerous temperatures are absolutely true. Sure, beefy aftermarket coolers in the more expensive variants of the card keep it cool just fine, but the reference cooler clearly does not.

     

     

    Here's Hardware Canucks getting the same 95C result: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/30297-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480-review-29.html

     

    Techspot got it up to 97C: http://www.techspot.com/review/263-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480/page13.html

    I will grant that Furmark is a bit of an unfair test, however, Hardware Canucks came within 2 degrees of that with nothing but 3dmark.

     

    Tom's Hardware gets the same result: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585-15.html

     

     

    Need I go on there? 480s with the reference cooler simply fails.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,642

    Actually, I should back off a bit and say it's only the reference GTX 480 and GTX 470 that are a problem.  A few board partners released non-reference models with better coolers, and those can handle the cards just fine.  Those tend to be more expensive, though.

  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan AdvocateMember UncommonPosts: 7,188

    Originally posted by Catamount

    Originally posted by AmazingAvery


    Originally posted by Quizzical


    Originally posted by Saerain

    The video card is excellent for at least 3 years. I'd recommend a GTX 480 for more paranoid future-proofing, but for purposes of MMOs alone, I'm sure the 6870 will yawn its way through. On the other hand, waiting for ATI's 6900 series and NVIDIA's 500 series to get into the ring and be sized up is superb advice if you can wait a few weeks and are rich.

    A GeForce GTX 480 for future-proofing?  That's completely nuts.  A GTX 480 runs dangerously hot under realistic gaming loads, which makes it more likely to be dead in 3-4 years than any other card on the market, save its little brother, the GTX 470, which violates the PCI Express specifications with its power draw, in addition to running dangerously hot.

    Even if you want that level of performance and are willing to pay for it, the GeForce GTX 580 is a much better option.  It is significantly faster, uses less power, and runs much cooler--and therefore, is far less likely to die on you.

    Though if you do want a GeForce GTX 580, I'd recommend waiting for AMD to launch the Radeon HD 6950 and 6970.  The 6970 will almost certainly be considerably cheaper to build than a GTX 580, and probably about as fast--and possibly faster.  If AMD launches an equivalent card for $400, then what do you think happens to the $500 price tag on the GTX 580?

    -----

    I dunno where people get off as they keep stating a 480 is dangerously hot all the time kinda annoying when I can visually see it is not true AT ALL.

    All I know is I have 50+ games and owned a 480 since day one and never had a heat issue. FPS, hard core graphics, all games maxed out. As much load as possible to pile on it...

    I have been running it overclocked 195 GB/s Bandwidth, (more than a stock 580) all these months in an air cooled full tower without NO issues with heat. Idles at less than 50c and no game out there that I own will under full load put it past 85c ish which is where my old 285 got to.

    Overclock like a champ, never ran it at stock levels.

    Black Friday deal and you can pick one up for $349.

     

    ----------

    DeathUK, I would look at the 2TB WD "black" HD and not the green ones.

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-480-review/13

    The comments about dangerous temperatures are absolutely true. Sure, beefy aftermarket coolers in the more expensive variants of the card keep it cool just fine, but the reference cooler clearly does not.

     

     

    Here's Hardware Canucks getting the same 95C result: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/30297-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480-review-29.html

     

    Techspot got it up to 97C: http://www.techspot.com/review/263-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480/page13.html

    I will grant that Furmark is a bit of an unfair test, however, Hardware Canucks came within 2 degrees of that with nothing but 3dmark.

     

    Tom's Hardware gets the same result: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585-15.html

     

     

    Need I go on there? 480s with the reference cooler simply fails.

     Couple of things you forget here:

    All those test were done


    • On the drivers available at the time

    • On open test benches, not in enclosed cases for TRUE realworld performances

    • Furmark is not and never will be a fair comparison of in game testing (both ATI & Nvidia limiters)

    • None of them talk about what speed the reference fan is running at ;) I do not do stock if you can tell.

    I have over 300 hours logged on Crysis with my 480 running full pelt at 195GB/s bandwidth. I often play 6 hrs at a time multiplayer.

    My stats come from GPU-Z / Real Temp and EVGAs own tools.

    Room temperature is 22c for me and only in the summer did my card get to 92c under full Crysis load on a 34c day. On average it is quite content from 80-88c just like 2 x 285's before it, or the 2x 8800GT's before that or even the 4870x2 that I have.

    Significantly OC'd, air cooled case, vast OC CPU, I even have 4 individual temp monitors and have stuck 2 thermals on the actual PCB of the 480.

    All I am saying is I have never had an issue, I have no reason to lie. Inside case temps are never higher than 35c.

    It is all about the case, the fans, ambient temperatures and air flow through the case.


    Can anyone link to a huge amount of " OMG my 480 has blown up posts" ? I think not, never seen 1 and to be honest I ain't bothered.


     


    All I have is my own experience. That one review about the desk shaking is pure BS. I am very happy with my purchase.


     


    I dunno what else to say apart from I can do live game stream and people can see for themselves. I also have no doubt I would see higher temps in testing if my system was not even it's case...



  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,642

    Originally posted by AmazingAvery

    Can anyone link to a huge amount of " OMG my 480 has blown up posts" ? I think not, never seen 1 and to be honest I ain't bothered.

    Can you find a huge amount of "my VIA Nano processor died!" posts?  If a bunch of them were dying (which probably isn't the case; I'm just grabbing an obscure part), would you be able to find lots of posts about it?  If very few of a given part are built, then very few end up dead, even if it's a high percentage.

    Even with Nvidia's bumpgate issues, in which large numbers of chips did die, there wasn't a massive flood of forum posts about it.  And, of course, let's not forget that this long after the parts launched, there wasn't yet a big rash of failed parts.  That's also true of the defective capacitors on motherboards several years ago.

    Even if you want to dismiss that as unrepresentative because those aren't enthusiast parts, then what about the Radeon HD 4870 X2?  Those ran hot, and a lot of them did fail.  One retailer counted over 10% of them dying within six months.  Did you see a flood of forum posts about it?

    I'm not saying that a large fraction of the GeForce GTX 480s will die.  But it's a much bigger risk than for most other cards.  It's a question of what you value, really.

  • CastillleCastillle Member UncommonPosts: 2,679

    6GB is a good sweet spot for gaming.

     

    More is better with 3d/2d/auio/video editing though! 16 gb is a great sweet spot for high res  3d modelling

    ''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
    ( o.o)
    (")(")
    **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**

  • ianicusianicus Member UncommonPosts: 665

    keeping a gaming PC for more than 12-18 months honetly is not a great idea if yoy dont absolutily have to.  I purchase a new rig every year for the most part and sell my previous one, due to it only being a year old I can typically still get a good price for it and recoup a good 2/3rds of the cost of the new pc, on average I put out about $500-$600 a year after the sale of my old PC.  on  a monthy basis I only have to put away about $50 to cover the cost of the new pc at years end, barely anything at all. MUCH better than saddleing yourself with a WAY obsolete gameing pc, and in 3 years having to trash it because it isnt work a dime.

    "Well let me just quote the late-great Colonel Sanders, who said…’I’m too drunk to taste this chicken." - Ricky Bobby
Sign In or Register to comment.