Final Build Check 2014

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

Daniel Ferguson

Honorable
Sep 14, 2013
55
0
10,630
After all my research,
My final step is to get the experts opinions & advice anyone like to add imput or suggestions would be very much appreciated Note# i bought the case and psu already Thanks


CPU-Intel Core i5-4690K Devil's Canyon Quad-Core 3.5GHz LGA 1150 Desktop Processor BX80646I54690K
GPU-MSI GeForce GTX 970 Video Graphics Card - 4GB GDDR5, 256-bit, PCIe 3.0 x16, DL DVI-I, DisplayPort x3, HDMI, ATX Form Factor, DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.4, Overclocked - GTX 970 4GD5 OC (unless this is not a good card evega isn't in stock anymore )

MOBO-ASUS MAXIMUS VII HERO LGA 1150 Intel Z97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

SSD-SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series MZ-7PD256BW 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

RAM-CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 Desktop Memory Model CMZ16GX3M2A1866C9

COOLER-ZALMAN CNPS9700 LED 110mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler

Antec 1200 full atx tower

PSU-Seasonic SS-760XP2 ATX 12V/EPS 12V, 760W, 80 PLUS PLATINUM Full Modular certified Active PFC Power Supply New 4th Gen CPU Certified Haswell Ready
 
Solution
Darkbreeze
Any of the 970's made by ASUS, MSI, EVGA, Zotac or Gigabyte are fine. They will all have similar performance with the only real difference being this card or that card might have a slightly different core and memory clock and the cooler designs, but it's not significant. Personally, I like EVGA and MSI when it comes to NVidia based cards but the ASUS Strix has very good reviews, which some of their past cards haven't always had.
Sort by date Sort by votes
GPU cards rarely, if ever, actually need what the manufacturer recommends when it comes to a power supply, but you still install a unit that meets spec unless you don't care about your hardware much. The same idea applies to RAM and processing hardware as well. I wasn't trying to indicate it was needed, just trying to point out there are applicatons and games calling for it and some, I'm sure, in the near future, that will want it. Since the GPU does the brunt of the work in most cases it's not needed, but it's likely there may be changes coming that will change our hardware recommendations in the near future.

16GB is not too much to pair with any modern CPU and saying 16GB is too much RAM is like saying you'll never need that much drive storage or your CPU is too fast. There are a slew of games that only recommended 4GB in their previous versions that are recommending 8GB in the most recent versions so I won't be surprised to see more games wanting larger RAM caches in the future.

At the video on this link the founder Chris Roberts clearly states 8GB minimum and 16GB recommended, regardless what the individual modules may list. Honestly, 8GB is probably enough for most everything out there right now but if you're building to last five years it can't hurt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvXLL7e3VYg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
one other question darkbreeze your the gpu master which one of the gtx 970's do you recommend i was going to go with asus strix but it's never in stock so the msi was my next thought whats the difference besides 10-25 dollars
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Those lists don't mean anything and they always throw a little note on them that says basically "We can't test them all, these are just the one's we had time to test." I don't ever, EVER, look at the QVL and have never had an issue on a modern board as long as the modules were of correct specification and type for the board.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Any of the 970's made by ASUS, MSI, EVGA, Zotac or Gigabyte are fine. They will all have similar performance with the only real difference being this card or that card might have a slightly different core and memory clock and the cooler designs, but it's not significant. Personally, I like EVGA and MSI when it comes to NVidia based cards but the ASUS Strix has very good reviews, which some of their past cards haven't always had.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Nah, I'm running Kingston right now, because it was on sale for a great price. It's temporary since it's CL 11 RAM and will be getting used in another rig soon that I'm building as a workstation for my shop to replace the laptop I'm using there now. The laptop doesn't like being there in the cold but I've used desktops in there before and they've been fine.


Anyhow, Mushkin is very good, high quality Made in the USA RAM. A lot of people don't know who they are anymore but they've been making modules longer than just about anybody except a couple of old timers like Crucial (Who is really Micron) and possibly Kingston. Of course IBM has been around since dirt but Mushkin is made in Colorado, still supposedly doing it from start to finish there and not using other folks chips like Corsair to simply assemble modules with.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So are you wanting to go with a single 8GB module now and add a second 8GB module later, or two 4GB modules now and add two more later? I'd recommend a single 8GB module over two 4GB modules, IF you know for certain you'll be adding another module in the near future, as two 8GB modules (For dual channel operation) is less of a strain on the memory controller than four modules, of any size.


It can be run either way, I run four modules in my Sabertooth, but it's a known fact that four modules uses double the operating voltage, which can stress the controller, of two modules. Probably not as big of an issue with that motherboard and cpu but in this scenario, maybe is less is more. Plus you can then always add further modules later to increase your RAM if you ever feel it's necessary, which I doubt unless you're running serious VM's or really high end applications.


There is of course the consideration of whether or not adding an identical module will have the same compatibility as using a matched set, but I've had no problems with dual channel compatibility when using identical modules that did NOT come in a matched set, so that's your call.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Probably one of these two if the Mushkin isn't an option:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($57.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $57.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-30 20:01 EST-0500



PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: Kingston Fury Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($64.15 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $64.15
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-30 20:07 EST-0500
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You listed 1866mhz modules in your initial build outline, so I assumed that was what you wanted to go with. Additionally, the higher the speed of the module, the more expensive it is. And some memory controllers, whether onboard the MB or the CPU, don't always handle faster RAM well or in some cases, at all. In this case though, if you want to go with faster memory, I wouldn't go past 2133mhz as you are likely to over stress the memory controller. Plus, the performance difference between 1866mhz and 2133mhz modules isn't massive anyhow. It won't hurt to have faster modules, but you probably won't see a wondrous difference in real world applications or gaming regardless that they score higher in synthetic benchmarks.

The latency on those modules you have listed above is extremely high, effectively negating most if not all of the performance advantage, regardless how minimal, you might have expected from them being faster modules. If you want something faster than the 1866mhz modules you need to also have a module with as low a latency as possible or you're just trading clock speed for slow response times. The CAS 8 latency Redline modules I listed above are probably faster than those CAS 11 latency 2400mhz modules in actual performance. I can't verify that with a proven comparison but I'd be willing to pit them against one another.

Here's a decent 2133mhz module option. I'm not sure why you are against the Mushkin modules but regardless, Kingston makes good RAM as well. They are extremely high quality modules, but most major brands are similarly reliable these days even if the quality isn't all equal.

It really is simply a matter of how much you want to pay for higher performance (Theoretical or otherwise) and higher quality versus keeping to a budget. Both scenarios have their own merits.


Either of these modules below would be fine, as would any of those we've discussed above:



PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: Mushkin Redline 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($84.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $84.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-01 13:43 EST-0500


PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($86.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $86.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-01 13:43 EST-0500



 
Upvote 0 Downvote
not against mushkin i just find one person on any forum who has any review for them i am glad they are made in the states and the rog forums specficially state i will have trouble if it's not a qvl listed item. and so thats why i am being so wishywashing 1600 pc i have been trying to build i am trying to do everything right

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You do realize that at least half, if not more, of those folks posting on the ROG forums are 14yr old gamers with minimal hardware experience, right? Regardless, go with what you feel is best for you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1713993/manufacturer-motherboard-sites-pdf-memory-qvl-lists.html


http://forums.hexus.net/corsair-memory/264537-my-memory-isnt-qualified-vendor-list-qvl-i-may-have-rma-back-scan.html


And most importantly:


Misconceptions about the vaunted Motherboard QVL List

Many motherboard makers would like you to believe that this is Holy Grail, of what DRAM to buy to run with your mobo, and nothing could be further from the truth. A few things to know first, when you look at a mobo’s specs people look at DRAM freqs the mobo can handle, let’s say on mobo brand ACME XXX, it is advertised as running 1333, 1600 OC, 1866 OC, 2133 OC, and 2400 OC frequencies, so make note of the ‘OC’, this implies that an OverClock of the system will be required to achieve said freq/speed. Another thing they advertise is the Maximum Amount of DRAM the mobo can handle, these days on newer mobos it generally ranges from 16 (2 8GB sticks) to 64GB (8 8GB sticks) (there are some X79 that state support for 128GB 8-16GB sticks) of DRAM. So, let’s next say you bought an ACME XXX mobo and it’s advertised for up to 32GB and 2133 DRAM. This is where it can get interesting for a number of reasons.

1. They never mention what CPU was used for testing, which normally is the most powerful available for the mobo. So YOU NEED TO DO SOME RESEARCH to ensure your CPU is capable of running the DRAM, particularly with AMD CPUs, many have an extremely hard time running even 2 sticks of 1600, the newer FX CPUs are supposed to be able to run 1866 (they advertise 1 stick per channel) and while the 8150 can run that and possibly even faster, going to 4 sticks can be troublesome. Also not all CPUs are equal, have seen plenty of 8120 that can run 1866, and even more that can't, unless you want to cook things in your case..

2. They are getting better in the advertising and some provide a disclaimer that the QVL is only a sampling of the DRAM that can run on the mobo as they can’t test all the available DRAM (I’ve often asked most all the manufacturers why they don’t provide a list of incompatible DRAM, since generally there won’t be any, unless the DRAM doesn’t fall into the specs of the chipset i.e. some chipsets won’t run 8 or 16 GB sticks).

3. They also are getting better in that some are starting to advertise (to a degree) how they test the DRAM and this may surprise you – Say you want to build a superfast rig, so you buy the ACME XXX mobo that runs up to 2400 sticks and can handle 32 GB….and you buy a set that’s on their QVL……did you realize it was probably ‘TESTED’ at the mobos default boot freq/speed (See notes on CPU-Z Maximum Bandwidth above under CPU-Z), using the info from the SPD, that it wasn’t tested at the actual speed/freq of the DRAM itself. Some are actually putting it on their list that they test using the MOBO’s default boot speed.

So. It’s up to you to do a little research, both on the mobo and CPU to find the capabilities of each before you decide on a set of DRAM and do not solely trust reviews at reseller sites. Once you get familiar with DRAM and capabilities of various CPUs and chipsets, you can often get a few laughs from reading these reviews. I’ve seen reviews from people claiming to have a high level of technical expertise making outlandish claims of running say 16GB of 2133 DRAM using an AMD 965 at the CPUs stock speed and everything at default, when they are probably running the sticks at 1333 and a high CL like 11. I’d suggest looking for reviews from actual sites that test the items in question and/or coming here to ask before purchasing.

You also might take note that the mobo manufacturers do what ‘testing’ they do, with whatever DRAM is on hand, a good example is the newer X79 chipset/2011 socket mobos, which are made utilizing XMP 1.3, and again, generally speaking most of the sticks tested go back to XMP 1.2, and in fact a number of the QVLs include DRAM sets that aren’t even made anymore, and in some cases haven’t been for a very long time – but…they had them, stuck them in and the system booted under defaults…so they went onto their QVL.

At this point in time you will also see few mobos being tested with multiple sets of 32GB sets and even less of 64GB sets, which IMO is based on the costs of the sets and also they don’t want to have to try and provide support for sets like these.

So, when you get DRAM and go to the mobo manufacturer and get a response like ‘If it’s not on our QVL we don’t support it’ or if it’s on the QVL they tell you to check with the DRAM manufacturer, you’ll have a better idea of why….they know you bought the 1866, 2133 or better set to run at the speed it’s advertised for, but they don’t test for it……….this is also why you often see them showing two sets of the same model to ‘test’ 4 stick combos, when GSkill and I (and others) strongly recommend get a single set that’s been tested to work together, it’s often cheaper to buy two 2 stick sets than a single 4 stick set, and those two sets (say 1866 or better) were tested at the mobos default of 1333 or 1600

Bottom line is Motherboard RAM QVLs are useless.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nothing wrong with those modules. I always pass them over when I'm making recommendations because every time I recommend them I get a response like " Nay, I don't like the guns on there. It looks cheesy.", so I quite recommending them. If you like the "gun" heatsinks it's fine, or, you can actually remove the heatsinks if you don't plan to overclock the modules. Either way they're fine.

As far as Newegg reviews go, they're worthless. Same goes for TigerDirect. They only allow a few negative reviews for most given products, regardless what they or anybody else says. I've had conversations with a previous Newegg customer agent after they were no longer with the Egg and had this confirmed. Regardless that 90% of those reviews are by people who can fit their tech knowledge in a thimble, the reviews by people who DO know what they are talking about are about 95% censored as these sites want to sell products, whether they are good or bad. They realize they will get some RMA's but they also realize that the majority of people just won't go through the hassle of returning a crappy product and instead will just eat the cost and rebuy. Clearly your best bet for product evaluations are the professional review sites or the forums like Tom's, Overclockers, Etc., and even then you have to pay attention to a lot of the opinions as they're not always made by people who have any idea what they're talking about. Talking out their arse so to speak. You can generally tell which reviewers are knowledgeable and which one's are either newbs or trolls though.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/400950-Are-Newegg-customer-reviews-worthless-!-!-!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom