[SOLVED] Power without the light show?

[ultrarunner100]

Hey guys;
I want to build a powerful system for gaming and other intensive work, but I don't need or want a light show in the box.
The box will sit beside my workstation, between it and another piece of furniture, so no one (including me) is going to see or care what the inside of the box looks like.

I assume I can still buy a tower case that doesn't have a glass or acrylic side panel, but what about the components?
Do all graphics cards, memory modules, motherboards, fans, and cases come with lights?
While I will assume that either I can turn off the lighting, or, with an opaque case won't see it. But could I get components that don't have the lighting effects in the first place?

Thanks for your help
Ultrarunner

 

[ultrarunner100]

Yea; I'm using the stock cooler that came with the i5 2500 in my current build. While the fan has worked fine for the 8 years, it can get quite loud at times. I always know when the CPU is being maxed out, even before I check task manager.
I had intended to go with a better cooler, but was talked out of it by someone on one of the forums (might have been here). Since the 2500 is locked, I wasn't going to overclock, so the stock cooler was enough.

 

[MadsModsat]

If you have been able to get by with the Intel stock cooler so far, although I haven't heard the AMD Wraith Prism, or what it is called, in person - I'm under the impression that the AMD X series stock cooler will be a pleasant upgrade in comparison.

If not, there are a lot of good aftermarket air coolers available, both within different price ranges, and also diffrent ones suitbale for lots of different requirements, some focusing on noise, others focusing on performance - and everything in between.

Eventhough you have been fine so far and had few complaints, in my personal experience, when you upgrade CPU cooling and often case fans as well, and install more quiet options - you'll quickly discover, that even if you didn't have any complaints to begin with, a PC operating at a lower sound level, is a huge relief physically and even mentally - if that makes sense.

I don't always remember how much strain the noise of a high RPM, small diameter fan can be on your ears and how much it can drain your energy, until I'm reminded of it by listening to someone else's computer.

I'm not even particularly demanding with regards to noise levels, unlike other people I know, I just aim for something decent but not perfect.

But I've learned that personally I shouldn't underestimate how much of a relief even light noise reduction can result in. The noise does put added stress on the ears and how tired one can feel after a day using the computer - at leat I feel it makes a difference which is worth taking into account when building a PC.

So I hope you are in for a pleasent surprise, even if you never had any major complaints so far.

 

[ultrarunner100]

My current build is much quieter than the one before that. On the older build, I used an after-market air cooler, which was quite noisy. I needed to replace the fan at least once during the life (about 8 years as well) of that system. With all of the fans revving up, as I was playing MS Flight Simulator, it really felt as though I were in an airplane!
The new (my current) build was a nice surprise compared to that. Much quieter, and much less power draw, despite its having more computing power.

Thinking back on that old build, it was probably a Pentium CPU. The cooler was really large, and I even lapped the base of it so it would make better contact with the CPU.
I used Arctic Silver compound on the older build. I don't suppose the stock cooler comes with that. The Intel I'm now running came with a self-stick pad on the base of the cooler, but I seem to recall having removed it a few years ago, cleaned it all up, and applied the Arctic Silver before re-assembling. Somehow, I don't quite trust those self-stick heat transfer pads.

 

[ultrarunner100]

Another question:
Should I still use a hard drive for general storage, or just another (or partitioned) SSD.
My current build has the Samsung 850 EVO 512GB for the OS and programs, but several hard drives for storage.
I have read that constantly writing to an SSD shortens its life significantly. That is the reason I relocated my Firefox profile to the hdd.

 

[MadsModsat]

Nice to see someone else also playing MS Flightsimulator. I'm having a temporary setback in the flightsim peripheral department, so to speak, so it has been a while since I've been playing it.

But I can definately understand why the CPU cooler fan would kick into high gear under those circumstances, since MS Flightsimulator (and most other flightsimulators so far) has benefitted more from a powerful CPU than even an average graphics card.

I began with MS flightsimulator 5 (or 5.1, I can't remember exactly). Oh well, sorry for going of topic. With the new setup you are building, you should also be well prepared once MS Flightsimulator 2020 is released

I apologize for cluttering yout thread, I didn't plan on that

EDIT :

More on topic.

I still prefer having a high capacity HDD for storage, mostly files I don't access frequently, but take up a lot of storage space and needs to be readily available, on the ocations when the data is actually needed.

Operating system and games, I prefer to have on an SSD. Game performance is not really improved, but loading times are.

Most current SSDs, both NVMe and SATA3 SSDs has a fairlyhigh upper limit for total data written to the drive before it is expected to become "worn out" , and under normal use won't wear out for a good few years.

Both mechanical drives and SSDs fail ocasionally, some before their estimated life expectancy, some keep working perfectly fine for longer than expected. I know you are fully aware of this, but it is mostly meant as a way of saying that SSD quality has come a long way, and are not something to be too nervous about. Quality drives usually do well when it comes to reliability

Like i said, I like to use SSDs for Windows, programs and games. And in addition to that, I have two 6 TB mechanical drives for storage of files I need to acces for different purporses. One of the 6TB drives is just a mirror of the other for backup.

I've used that setup for all my systems for a lot of years, and I feel like that is what works best for me - I never run into trouble with SSDs failing prematurely or reliability issues in general.

As long as you don't defragment an SSD, and don't fill them to the limit with data, and perhaps even disable Windows indexing for relevant drives, I haven't run into any downsides of using SSDs for general daily use

If your requirements are higher for your intended use, some manufacturers offer SSD drives meant for that purpose. Samsung for example, has their Pro drives.
They are usually a bit more expensive, but are produced for more heavy use and longevity than most people generally need for daily use - but could be something to chose for work related situations or if unusually large amounts of data will be written to the drive during its lifetime.

Those are just my personal experiences of course, so other people may disagree.

 

[WildCard999]

Wait a minute... you're saying the Ryzen X comes with the cooler? So I don't need to buy a CPU cooler separately?

Correct and as long as you don't have some insanely high room temp they are plenty good enough to keep the CPU well within safe limits. The non X versions also come with a cooler but it's not as good but still keeps the CPU within safe limits.

 

[ultrarunner100]

I think I'm going to try a little experiment:
For my new build, instead of purchasing a 1TB or larger HDD for storage (I will be using an SSD for the OS and programs), I will instead purchase a second SSD , most likely 1TB to run on a SATA channel. My primary SSD will be an M.2 type.
Since I have read that improvements in SSD technology are allowing for longer life, and the fact that prices have dropped low enough that even if the SSD I choose for storage lasts only 3 years, I will still be happy with it.
While there really isn't a practical reason I would want to use an SSD for storage in a non-critical application, I would like to find out just how much faster the SDD will be than a HDD for file storage.
Of course I will keep a good backup (on either a USB connected SSD or HDD), so either way, I don't lose anything.

While I understand that there are more robust SSD's on the market aimed at server operation, I don't really want to pay a premium for one, unless it's a relatively small difference.

 

[ultrarunner100]

Interesting tidbit I just found while looking at the MSI B450 Tomahawk spec sheet.
It supports Windows 10 without issues, but for Windows 7 x64, there is this note:

>To support Windows® 7 64-bit, you must install an AMD Pinnacle Ridge & Summit Ridge CPU <<

It won't be an issue for me, as I have a licensed copy of Windows 10 Pro x64 which I will be transferring to the new build. Just an interesting piece of info.