Battlefield 3 Build - $2k

[fire r a g e]

Hey everyone. It has been a long time since I have posted on THG and a lot has changed since then (I have been keeping up with the updates). I have been researching a lot over the past few months, but I still don't think I can come up with a config on my own, so I need help from you all.

1) What will you be doing with this PC? Gaming? Photoshop? Web browsing? etc
Gaming (BF3, Skyrim, GW2), minor video editing, web browsing, watching youtube in 1080p quality.

2) What's your budget? Are tax and shipping included?
$2k, although if REALLY necessary, I can stretch it a bit ($100 to $200 more)
3) Which country do you live in? If the U.S, please tell us the state and city if possible.
U.S. Dallas, TX

4) If reusing any parts, what parts will you be reusing? Please be especially specific about the power supply. List make and model.
None.
5) Will you be overclocking?
Yes.
6) What is the max resolution of your monitor? What size is it?
2560x1440; 27"
7) When do you plan on building/buying the PC?
September 14 when my paycheck comes
8) What features do you need in a motherboard? RAID? Firewire? Crossfire or SLI support? USB 3.0? SATA 6Gb/s? eSATA? Onboard video (as a backup or main GPU)? UEFI? etc.
Maybe CF/SLI support, if I need it, USB 3.0, SATA 6GB/s, UEFI.
9) Do you already have a legit and reusable/transferable OS key/license? If yes, what OS? Is it 32bit or 64bit?
Yes, 64-bit W7 Home Premium.

Thanks!

 

[fire r a g e]

Unless anyone has any objections to the above, I will go with 2 7950s.

This is my parts list so far:
Carbide 500R
2x 7950

 

[blazorthon]

What does that even mean? There is a reason why the UD5H is more, the extreme 4 has vrm overheating issues. If your are going to overclock the cpu heavily than you need more quality phases which equals less ripple. Asrock boards are good but they are for penny pinchers nothing wrong with that though

If you don't overclock a CPU enough for more and better VRM to matter, then it doesn't matter. OP doesn't intend to overclock significantly, so it'd be a waste to buy more than will be used.

 

[redeemer]

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/Z/342503/original/average system load power.png

😱 standard 7970 maybe(still more than both Nvidia), Ghz no way, still a lot more than Kepler.

lol talking about power consumption! This is a desktop not a mobile device who cares about consumption?

 

[jacknhut]

I doubt that he can find much useful and accurate info regarding how GW2 behaves since it is still a brand new game which is not very graphically optimized yet. Many people who actually played GW2 repeatly reported low fps with their high end card for both Nvida and AMD, mine included. My 2 GTX 670 overcloked to 1270 Mhz Core/7 Ghz with i7 3820 @ 4.5 ghz should have obliterated that game a 1920-1200 res but they actually show low GPU utilization and CPU utilization and yet the fps is only around 50-60 fps average, sometimes it dipped to 40ish and sometimes it jumped to 90-120ish...

 

[blazorthon]

lol talking about power consumption! This is a desktop not a mobile device who cares about consumption?

If I was comparing a Radeon 7850 to the similarly priced GTX 480, then I don't care if the computer will never leave where it sits, I'd care about the higher power consumption of the 480 enough to avoid it. More power means higher power bills. It isn't necessarily a huge increase, but it can be noticeable, especially in the yearly bill, if the power consumption difference is significant enough (such as the 7850 versus the 480). This is significant for Radeon 7000 versus GTX 600, especially when overclocking and voltage changing is considered, so it's fairly irrelevant, but power consumption can be relevant in some situations.

 

[sherlockwing]

Regarding the motherboard, I have a Extreme 4 and can't be any more happy about it. Have everything I need and functions just fine plus the Bios is pretty easy to get through. My problem with Gigabyte is that for $15(ud3h) and $45(ud5h) I don't get any more useful features. I can OC to 4.6Ghz on a 3570K just fine and that's all I or the OP who said he is only comfortable with 4.2Ghz need anyway.


Here is comparison I pulled up on Ebay for Extreme 4 vs ud5h

Feel free to look through it.

p.s Power consumption only matters if you are really stingy on the power bill or really close to your PSU power headroom(like 650W-750W on a SLI)

 

[fire r a g e]

These discussions are great. I learn something new.

 

[fire r a g e]

The 4.2 GHz is mainly because of its equality to a 4.5 GHz SB, which is the max you should OC a 4.5 GHz before you get diminishing returns, so I'd think logically the 3570k will be the max I should OC before I get diminishing returns.

 

[blazorthon]

I know I have already commented on his post about overclocking, my statements were directed at you. Extreme 4 is a solid solution!

Overall, with many of their more affordable motherboards, Gigabyte seems to have faltered. They still do great with their very high-end offerings, but I'm underwhelmed with their cheaper offerings. The problem with excelling more in the high end with motherboards is that there really isn't always a substantial difference between very good and the best when it comes to overclocking with motherboard quality and such, especially since most overclockers aren't going for the absolute best that the board can do. THat the price between very good and best can vary significantly can leave the very high end with a premium that hurts value mroe than they have an advantage in maximum performance.

However, I admit that I never was one to use very expensive motherboards in my own builds because I like to get the most for my dollar that I can, but I have personal experience with more expensive boards for builds for other people. I'm rarely overly impressed.

 

[fire r a g e]

Hmm, back to the drawing board. This is a lot harder than I thought..

 

[jacknhut]

Unless anyone has any objections to the above, I will go with 2 7950s.

This is my parts list so far:
Carbide 500R
2x 7950

If you go with 7950, make sure it is a non reference board with a non reference cooler. Another thing is that 7950 GPU is not quite the same as 7970 GPU. AMD throw all of the Tahiti XT cores which failed to meet the 7970 clock speed to the 7950 GPU pools to salvage more GPU cores and save money. As a result, most 7950 won't overclock as high as 7970, ie you can overclock 7950 to 1 Ghz or maybe 1.1 ghz max with voltage, but you won't be able to go to 1.2-1.3 ghz as the 7970 GPU can with voltage increase.

 

[blazorthon]

The 4.2 GHz is mainly because of its equality to a 4.5 GHz SB, which is the max you should OC a 4.5 GHz before you get diminishing returns, so I'd think logically the 3570k will be the max I should OC before I get diminishing returns.

You don't get diminishing returns in CPU performance (although you do in performance per watt) from going beyond 4.5GHz and Ivy Bridge at 4.2GHz doesn't behave like Sandy at 4.5GHz, it simply has similar performance. It increases in temperature not because of high power consumption, but because of poor thermal conductivity between the CPU die and the IHS due to the crap paste that is used by Intel. I still don't recommend going too far with an overclock, but keep in mind the actual reasons for why Ivy does what it does. It uses less power than Sandy does and is hotter because the IHS has crap paste between it and the CPU die, so it traps the heat below the CPU cooler worse than Sandy CPUs do.

 

[blazorthon]

If you go with 7950, make sure it is a non reference board with a non reference cooler. Another thing is that 7950 GPU is not quite the same as 7970 GPU. AMD throw all of the Tahiti XT cores which failed to meet the 7970 clock speed to the 7950 GPU pools to salvage more GPU cores and save money. As a result, most 7950 won't overclock as high as 7970, ie you can overclock 7950 to 1 Ghz or maybe 1.1 ghz max with voltage, but you won't be able to go to 1.2-1.3 ghz as the 7970 GPU can with voltage increase.

Not true. The 7950 overclocks just as far as the 7970. The core count difference is not of a significant impact on performance (core count scaling is very poor, especially when you increase it to such high numbers). A 7950 at the same frequency as a 7970 is less than 5% slower and a good 7950 can overclock just as far as a good 7970 in performance because 7950s tend to hit higher frequencies than 7970s do.

 

[fire r a g e]

Not true. The 7950 overclocks just as far as the 7970. The core count difference is not of a significant impact on performance (core count scaling is very poor, especially when you increase it to such high numbers). A 7950 at the same frequency as a 7970 is less than 5% slower and a good 7950 can overclock just as far as a good 7970 in performance because 7950s tend to hit higher frequencies than 7970s do.

Thanks for the explanation.

You don't get diminishing returns in CPU performance (although you do in performance per watt) from going beyond 4.5GHz and Ivy Bridge at 4.2GHz doesn't behave like Sandy at 4.5GHz, it simply has similar performance. It increases in temperature not because of high power consumption, but because of poor thermal conductivity between the CPU die and the IHS due to the crap paste that is used by Intel.

I am talking about in gaming fps.

 

[blazorthon]

Thanks for the explanation.


I am talking about in gaming fps.

Ahh, Yes, that can be said, but that's only because the ratio of CPU to graphics performance is increased in favor of the CPU. If you increase the graphics and the CPU in performance similarly, then there is no such diminishing returns. I'm not suggesting that you change your plans, just saying.

 

[jacknhut]

Not true. The 7950 overclocks just as far as the 7970. The core count difference is not of a significant impact on performance (core count scaling is very poor, especially when you increase it to such high numbers). A 7950 at the same frequency as a 7970 is less than 5% slower and a good 7950 can overclock just as far as a good 7970 in performance because 7950s tend to hit higher frequencies than 7970s do.

I'm not talking about some "rare" good 7950 that can hit 1.2 Ghz or 1.3 Ghz, i'm talking about the majority of 7950 GPU, if you look at the statistics, they don't clock to 1.2-1.3 ghz (without some crazy voltage of course) as frequently as the 7970 GPUs. A 7950 GPu that can hit 1.2 ghz core is as rare as a 7970 that can hit 1.3 ghz core.

 

[blazorthon]

I'm not talking about some "rare" good 7950 that can hit 1.2 Ghz or 1.3 Ghz, i'm talking about the majority of 7950 GPU, if you look at the statistics, they don't clock to 1.2-1.3 ghz as frequently as the 7970 GPUs. A 7950 GPu that can hit 1.2 ghz core is as rare as a 7970 that can hit 1.3 ghz core.

That's not my experience nor is it what I've read nor the experience of other people who I know. Whether or not the 7950 can clock as high is more dependent on how far someone pushes the voltage, what model (there are more bad 7950 models than there are bad 7970 models) you're using, and the ratio of GPU to memory overclock. A great example is the Sapphire 7950 that has a 7970 PCB and cooler and it generally beats the Sapphire 7970 with the same PCB and cooler when pushed similarly.

 

[sherlockwing]

Thanks for the explanation.


I am talking about in gaming fps.

Battlefield 3 Multiplayer is more CPU bottlenecked than most people think, with 64 player running around there is a lot of calculation for your CPU to do, Hyper 212 Evo can handle 4.5-4.6 but if you want the temp to be in the 60s instead of mid-high 70s maybe you need a high end cooler.



The Q3 Alt PC is 3570K with Hyper 212 Evo & 2 EVGA 670 in a Antec 1100(Corsair 500R have more fans and should cool better), the Q3 PC is SB-E with a Scythe Mugen 3 with and a Single EVGA 670.

 

[blazorthon]

Battlefield 3 Multiplayer is more CPU bottlenecked than most people think, with 64 player running around there is a lot of calculation for your CPU to do, Hyper 212 can handle 4.5-4.6 but if you want the temp to be in the 60s instead of mid-high 70s maybe you need a high end cooler.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/8/349568/original/image024.png

I have to be honest, with Sandy and Ivy Bridge CPUs, mid 70s doesn't worry me, although going lower in temps wouldn't be unreasonable. If it broke 80, then I'd be worried, but still.

Also, keep in mind the differences between the Hyper 212 and the Hyper 212 Plus and Evo. The Hyper 212 has significantly inferior cooling to the Plus and Evo.

 

[jacknhut]

That's not my experience nor is it what I've read nor the experience of other people who I know. Whether or not the 7950 can clock as high is more dependent on how far someone pushes the voltage, what model (there are more bad 7950 models than there are bad 7970 models) you're using, and the ratio of GPU to memory overclock. A great example is the Sapphire 7950 that has a 7970 PCB and cooler and it generally beats the Sapphire 7970 with the same PCB and cooler when pushed similarly.

There are always exceptions, not all Sapphire 7950 beats the 7970 if they have the same PCB and cooler, it all depends on how good the GPU is, in this case the 7950 just happens to be able to clock higher and the 7970 GPU doesn't clock as high. Just because some Sapphire 7950 can beat the 7970 couterpart doesn't mean all 7950 GPU can. There are a lot more 7970 GPUs out there that are binned and can be pushed a lot higher than the 7950 counterparts, MSI Lightning 7970, Sapphire Toxic 7970, HIS 7970 Turbo etc can push their GPU higher than the 7950 version.

Statistically speaking, the pools of 7950 Gpu cores is not as good as the pool of 7970 cores because AMD throw all of the GPU which failed to meet the clock of 7970 into the 7950 GPU pool (This is actually a fact which is stated by AMD btw, not just rumors). Granted that there are also 7950 GPU cores which are perfectly fine and AMD just disable the clusters/core counts inside that 7970 GPU to make it 7950 (perhaps the Saphire 7950 Gpu in your example is one of these), but the overall 7950 pool of GPU is not as good as the 7970 pool of GPU.

That is why I suggested the OP that if he choose the 7950, make sure it is a non reference board with a non reference cooler and if hes lucky enough, he would be able to get a good 7950 GPU that clocks really high.

 

[sherlockwing]

I have to be honest, with Sandy and Ivy Bridge CPUs, mid 70s doesn't worry me, although going lower in temps wouldn't be unreasonable. If it broke 80, then I'd be worried, but still.

Also, keep in mind the differences between the Hyper 212 and the Hyper 212 Plus and Evo. The Hyper 212 has significantly inferior cooling to the Plus and Evo.

I meant to type 212 Evo, which is what Tom used for the 2000 Gaming PC which I posted temp benchmark.



The Q3 Alt PC is 3570K with Hyper 212 Evo & 2 EVGA 670 in a Antec 1100(Corsair 500R have more fans and should cool better), the Q3 PC is SB-E with a Scythe Mugen 3 with and a Single EVGA 670.

 

[blazorthon]

There are always exceptions, not all Sapphire 7950 beats the 7970 if they have the same PCB and cooler, it all depends on how good the GPU is, in this case the 7950 just happens to be able to clock higher and the 7970 GPU doesn't clock as high. Just because some Sapphire 7950 can beat the 7970 couterpart doesn't mean all 7950 GPU can. There are a lot more 7970 GPUs out there that are binned and can be pushed a lot higher than the 7950 counterparts, MSI Lightning 7970, Sapphire Toxic 7970, HIS 7970 Turbo etc can push their GPU higher than the 7950 version.

Statistically speaking, the pools of 7950 Gpu cores is not as good as the pool of 7970 cores because AMD throw all of the GPU which failed to meet the clock of 7970 into the 7950 GPU pool. Granted that there are also 7950 GPU cores which are perfectly fine and AMD just disable the clusters/core counts inside that 7970 GPU to make it 7950 (perhaps the Saphire 7950 Gpu in your example is one of these), but the overall 7950 pool of GPU is not as good as the 7970 pool of GPU.

I wasn't speaking just of my own experiences, I was speaking statistically when I said that. Even if the 7950's GPU is inferior, it also has about 15% of its die area disabled compared to the full Tahiti. That cuts power consumption and lets it hit similar frequencies even to the technically superior-binned full Tahiti GPUs used in the 7970s. That performance is so similar at the same frequency despite the more significant difference in specification is what lets the 7950s then overclock to similar or even slightly superior performance. So long as you avoid merely average quality 7950 models, you should be able to go about as far as a 7970. The 7970 GHz Edition's binning difference is significant to keep the 7950s from encroaching on it, but the standard 7970s are not. Of the standard 7970 models, only the models with extremely good coolers that the 7950s lack can stay ahead of the good 7950 models. Even then, these and the 7970 GHz Edition models can't go substantially higher, most certainly not enough for the price difference to keep the 7950 from getting the value win.

 

[sherlockwing]

For temp without ambient(I assume it is the cross comparable to all other Tom PC benchmarks since all Tom PC are assembled in their A/C controlled labs), here is the $1000 PC this month with a 3570K @4.6Ghz cooled by a 92mm Xigmatek Loki(212 Evo should have no problem beating this). Inside a Rosewill Redbone

71C for a 4.6Ghz 3570K with inside a 2X120mm fan case in what I assume is a 15-22 Ambient A/C controlled lab, if that temp is good for you then a 212 Evo is all the cooling you will need.

 

[Flare01]

I would go with the Gigabyte 7970 OC Windforce 3 if I were you. 7950 is more of a lottery, if you are lucky, you would get a good chip that clocks well, if you are unlucky you end up with an average chip. With a 7970 OC card with custom cooling like the Gigabyte, its almost a guarantee that you can hit 1200-1300 mhz with a slight voltage incrase. I personally didnt see any overclocking record with a 7950 ever, only 7970 that hits 1.2 to 1.3 ghz with some voltage increase.

 

[blazorthon]

7950s aren't the flagship card of the series, so they get far less coverage and high overclockers don't use them as much strictly because of that. That's to be expected.