AVS Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well... I got almost all the parts in, and looks like everything might be in tip-top shape. Time'll tell on that one. For now, this should be a rather complete build, might make a few minor additions in time:

CPU: Intel Core i7 4790K LGA1150
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
Motherboard: ASUS Z97 RoG Maximus VII Hero
RAM: Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB DDR3-2400 (2 x 8GB)
GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 SuperClocked ACX 2.0
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 850 G2 850W
Case: Cooler Master CM Storm Trooper Full ATX (possibly the Windowd Edition)
SSD: Intel 730 Series 480GB
HDD: Seagate Desktop 4TB HDD Kit 7200RPM
ODD1: Pioneer BDR-2209 16x BD-RE
ODD2: LG 12x BD-ROM
Wi-Fi: ASUS PCE-N15 Wireless-N Card
Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2250 TV Card

Monitor: ASUS VG278HE 27" 144Hz 3D Ready Monitor
Speakers: Logitech Z506 5.1 Speakers
Keyboard: Logitech G710 Mechanical Gaming Keyboard Cherry MX Blue
Mouse: Logitech G502 Proteus Core Tunable Mouse
Wired Xbox 360 Controller
Logitech 9000 Webcam

All in all, looks like it should be a rather complete build. Could eventually add a second SSD and add the ROG Front Base control panel, but those are certainly addons, and not really going to affect the build too much. For now, I'll get in touch with my next door neighbor (who happens to be in the IT field), and see what his analysis of this build would be like, and see what he might plan on doing for building this.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: barrelbelly

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,714 Posts
No use harping on it, but the PSU is total overkill for that build

On a different note with upgrade paths, something that I do that is maybe unconventional lately with the rise of high capacity SSDs . . . I use three 2TB drives in RAID0 (Windows fake-raid version) for my game installs/saves and download / scratch area for other stuff (it's a media server/gaming server). This had a two-fold use for me. I didn't have any use for the 2TB drives anymore, and I didn't have enough SSD space for my game library.

The performance even on 3 green 2TB drives in windows raid is quite good. Better drives would be greater performance. Much cheaper than considering a 1TB SSD for me, because so many can be had second hand these days anyway. Recall that disk performance still only helps map loads and local autosaves anyway, no real-time improvements. That being said, I have really good disk performance with this, and it's useful to me to have a download staging area that can r/w at or above 300MB/s with more than one disk operation occurring at a time. I don't have any redundancy on these, it's performance only. However, with cloud saves on almost all my games and the ability to redownload game installers if needed . . . I don't have any qualms about the lack of redundancy. Obviously you don't get any redundancy on a single SSD either, but it's only one point of failure rather than two (or three in my case)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
No use harping on it, but the PSU is total overkill for that build

On a different note with upgrade paths, something that I do that is maybe unconventional lately with the rise of high capacity SSDs . . . I use three 2TB drives in RAID0 (Windows fake-raid version) for my game installs/saves and download / scratch area for other stuff (it's a media server/gaming server). This had a two-fold use for me. I didn't have any use for the 2TB drives anymore, and I didn't have enough SSD space for my game library.

The performance even on 3 green 2TB drives in windows raid is quite good. Better drives would be greater performance. Much cheaper than considering a 1TB SSD for me, because so many can be had second hand these days anyway. Recall that disk performance still only helps map loads and local autosaves anyway, no real-time improvements. That being said, I have really good disk performance with this, and it's useful to me to have a download staging area that can r/w at or above 300MB/s with more than one disk operation occurring at a time. I don't have any redundancy on these, it's performance only. However, with cloud saves on almost all my games and the ability to redownload game installers if needed . . . I don't have any qualms about the lack of redundancy. Obviously you don't get any redundancy on a single SSD either, but it's only one point of failure rather than two (or three in my case)
He's better off with that PSU if he decides to add more later. But honestly, you reach a price point where going for a lower power PSU doesn't save you much money, if anything. I run a 1000w in mine and my comp maybe draws half that under full 100% unrealistic load. But going smaller wouldn't have saved me more than like $10-$20 since I got a good deal on this one. Besides I want to throw a second 970 in there in a couple months so the extra headroom is nice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,639 Posts
No use harping on it, but the PSU is total overkill for that build

On a different note with upgrade paths, something that I do that is maybe unconventional lately with the rise of high capacity SSDs . . . I use three 2TB drives in RAID0 (Windows fake-raid version) for my game installs/saves and download / scratch area for other stuff (it's a media server/gaming server). This had a two-fold use for me. I didn't have any use for the 2TB drives anymore, and I didn't have enough SSD space for my game library.

The performance even on 3 green 2TB drives in windows raid is quite good. Better drives would be greater performance. Much cheaper than considering a 1TB SSD for me, because so many can be had second hand these days anyway. Recall that disk performance still only helps map loads and local autosaves anyway, no real-time improvements. That being said, I have really good disk performance with this, and it's useful to me to have a download staging area that can r/w at or above 300MB/s with more than one disk operation occurring at a time. I don't have any redundancy on these, it's performance only. However, with cloud saves on almost all my games and the ability to redownload game installers if needed . . . I don't have any qualms about the lack of redundancy. Obviously you don't get any redundancy on a single SSD either, but it's only one point of failure rather than two (or three in my case)

I still notice games loading significantly faster on a SSD vs my 3x RAID0 3TB drives. Both can sequentially read at 600mb/s, but the access time on the SSD is still way ahead and RAID actually makes that worse.

It's still nice though, the ridiculous seq. transfer means I can shift any game over to the SSD in a matter of seconds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,714 Posts
He's better off with that PSU if he decides to add more later. But honestly, you reach a price point where going for a lower power PSU doesn't save you much money, if anything. I run a 1000w in mine and my comp maybe draws half that under full 100% unrealistic load. But going smaller wouldn't have saved me more than like $10-$20 since I got a good deal on this one. Besides I want to throw a second 970 in there in a couple months so the extra headroom is nice
We can agree to disagree. With the combination of already having a media server, nvidia gamestream, and the low idle power draw of current nvidia cards I consider PSU from the standpoint of running a gamestream server or a media server that occasionally runs games. From that standpoint it's a horrible idea adding a 1 kW PSU because it's only $10-20 more (which is only if you compare an extreme sale on the 1kW vs the retail pricing of 500-600W). Running at an idle usage of less than ten percent is bad for efficiency. You get into the 35-40% loss area down that low. The OPs PSU isn't as far off the mark, but 1kW with a single 970 is in the hyperbole range. 3x 970s would be fine on a 1kW. 2x of the OPs GPU would be no problem with 600W, but you could easily get away with 500W or less with a single card and pull better efficiency at the wall. Different strokes for different folks, I know a lot of gaming machines sleep unless they are running games then resume sleep afterwards making the whole discussion moot

I still notice games loading significantly faster on a SSD vs my 3x RAID0 3TB drives. Both can sequentially read at 600mb/s, but the access time on the SSD is still way ahead and RAID actually makes that worse.

It's still nice though, the ridiculous seq. transfer means I can shift any game over to the SSD in a matter of seconds.
I have varying performance with different SSDs so far. For example, my striped disk was better performing than the arc100 ssd I tried for a short time as an extra "scratch" disk for a few tasks. I didn't run any benchmarks to look at access times, but I was doing copy paste comparisons with a variety of an 840 evo, arc 100, vector, and striped disk as targets/sources. My large file transfers were faster with the striped disk as the source rather than the arc100. However, the 840 evo was faster. The vector was the destination for those three comparisons, but essentially I'm just saying I didn't end up seeing better performance for all SSDs. I think that can extend to most "non" high-end model SSDs, especially since the 840 evo was never a high end model anyway. Surprising it did better than the arc100 (for me at least), but that's what led me to using the arc as a C: replacement for my wife's laptop instead

Game loads are a topic I don't really know much about. I am not sure where the balance is between access time and what I'm guessing is 512MB random read performance? This is the time it takes the app to pull data from storage to RAM, but I'm not sure which benchmarks on the storage disk are the most pertinent to that task
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,639 Posts
Depends on how the game implements the load. The ones that load sequentially do just as well with striped HDDs, the ones that read randomly at do much better with SSDs. But once you factor out the access time bottleneck it's almost always a CPU bottleneck, so which SSD you use doesn't matter at all. Like even the fastest PCI-E loads as fast as 4 year old SSDs. And the worst POS SSD you can buy today will still be faster than any RAID HDDs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moej

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
We can agree to disagree. With the combination of already having a media server, nvidia gamestream, and the low idle power draw of current nvidia cards I consider PSU from the standpoint of running a gamestream server or a media server that occasionally runs games. From that standpoint it's a horrible idea adding a 1 kW PSU because it's only $10-20 more (which is only if you compare an extreme sale on the 1kW vs the retail pricing of 500-600W). Running at an idle usage of less than ten percent is bad for efficiency. You get into the 35-40% loss area down that low. The OPs PSU isn't as far off the mark, but 1kW with a single 970 is in the hyperbole range. 3x 970s would be fine on a 1kW. 2x of the OPs GPU would be no problem with 600W, but you could easily get away with 500W or less with a single card and pull better efficiency at the wall. Different strokes for different folks, I know a lot of gaming machines sleep unless they are running games then resume sleep afterwards making the whole discussion moot
I wouldn't recommend below a 500w for a single 980. That's the minimum they recommend. But yes, you want a PSU as close to your actual usage, for best efficiency.

Just to give a data point - I'm running a 970 FTW + 750Ti SSC (for PhysX, seeing as it doesn't need an external power source) off a 550w PSU (along with 1xSSD 3xHDDs and my CPU and RAM).
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top