+1, I would always choose nVidia over ATI given the choice.
Also would go with Intel over AMD, but that's just me. It seems like AMD fans are also ATI fans and Intel fans are also nVidia fans, so your thoughts may vary.
+1, I would always choose nVidia over ATI given the choice.
Also would go with Intel over AMD, but that's just me. It seems like AMD fans are also ATI fans and Intel fans are also nVidia fans, so your thoughts may vary.
The only reason i chose that AMD chip over an i5 is simply for the amount of cores, and as for the video card, a GTX 970 is overkill. An R7 260 is practically a steal for $86, let alone an overclocked version.
The only reason i chose that AMD chip over an i5 is simply for the amount of cores
In spite of the fact that multicore processors have been around for eons, a lot of software still isn't optimized to take advantage of more than 1 core. :?
Multicore systems help a ton with multitasking, like on my setup with 3 monitors I could run a program on each screen utilizing a core per program and that would be very useful for me.
When you're gaming, I think you'd see much more benefit from extra speed per core than from having many more cores, especially over the quad core threshold.
I am not advocating buying single core systems, but I think at this stage anything more than a quad core will go to waste unless you are doing a huge amount of multitasking.
Of course, the bottlenecks on modern PCs are rarely CPU, it's usually GPU (gaming) or Disk I\O (anything else) that is your biggest bottleneck on the experience.
The only reason i chose that AMD chip over an i5 is simply for the amount of cores
In spite of the fact that multicore processors have been around for eons, a lot of software still isn't optimized to take advantage of more than 1 core. :?
Multicore systems help a ton with multitasking, like on my setup with 3 monitors I could run a program on each screen utilizing a core per program and that would be very useful for me.
When you're gaming, I think you'd see much more benefit from extra speed per core than from having many more cores, especially over the quad core threshold.
I am not advocating buying single core systems, but I think at this stage anything more than a quad core will go to waste unless you are doing a huge amount of multitasking.
Of course, the bottlenecks on modern PCs are rarely CPU, it's usually GPU (gaming) or Disk I\O (anything else) that is your biggest bottleneck on the experience.
The main reason why i feel that i need 8 cores is for virtual machines, as that will most likely utilize them best, however, everything that i said i will be doing on this machine, will be all at once. I plan on producing music, while running virtual machines, while gaming a bit, while using the system casually, and as a result, i don't believe a quad-core would be able to keep up.
I plan on producing music, while running virtual machines, while gaming a bit, while using the system casually
How? I have tons of monitors and multiple computers and I don't think I could produce music while gaming while using my computer casually. How do you have so much attention to divide up?
I plan on producing music, while running virtual machines, while gaming a bit, while using the system casually
How? I have tons of monitors and multiple computers and I don't think I could produce music while gaming while using my computer casually. How do you have so much attention to divide up?
The music production software that i use, FL Studio 11, has a setting built in that intentionally limits the amount of CPU and RAM for other applications, i'll leave this windowed.
As for virtual machines, i won't run many, but i'll allocate 2 cores per machine, let's say i'll run 2 VM's at most for example, with 4 gigs of RAM allocated to each VM. The VM's will be windowed.
Now for gaming, i won't try to max anything out, but i plan on playing Wolfenstein: The New Order, and Skyrim, with normal settings, in windowed mode.
As for casual usage, i'll use whatever resources i have left, which obviously, won't be much.
Now i'm not sure if you're aware, but Microsoft released a free beta of Windows 10 called the "Technical Preview", that introduces "Multiple Desktops", which is essentially a desktop for each monitor, and four-way "App-Snapping", where you can snap four windowed apps to each corner of the screen, for each desktop, which would be on each monitor.
I don't plan on installing the beta, i plan waiting until Windows 10 is officially released, and that's when i plan on building this machine.
+1, I would always choose nVidia over ATI given the choice.
Also would go with Intel over AMD, but that's just me. It seems like AMD fans are also ATI fans and Intel fans are also nVidia fans, so your thoughts may vary.
The only reason i chose that AMD chip over an i5 is simply for the amount of cores, and as for the video card, a GTX 970 is overkill. An R7 260 is practically a steal for $86, let alone an overclocked version.
No such thing as overkill. Don't have to worry about upgrading a few months to a year down the road.
To me AMD and nVidia is like a wet dream. Been using that mix since nVidia came out with the nForce chipset.
I myself prefer AMD because its cheaper. Don't really need anything more then 4 cores, even for VM use. Spend less on the CPU and more on the GPU is what I always say. Some games that are about to come out call for atlest 4 cores, such as the new Dragon Age game. Although its odd they recomend 6 cores for AMD.
+1, I would always choose nVidia over ATI given the choice.
Also would go with Intel over AMD, but that's just me. It seems like AMD fans are also ATI fans and Intel fans are also nVidia fans, so your thoughts may vary.
The only reason i chose that AMD chip over an i5 is simply for the amount of cores, and as for the video card, a GTX 970 is overkill. An R7 260 is practically a steal for $86, let alone an overclocked version.
No such thing as overkill. Don't have to worry about upgrading a few months to a year down the road.
To me AMD and nVidia is like a wet dream. Been using that mix since nVidia came out with the nForce chipset.
I myself prefer AMD because its cheaper. Don't really need anything more then 4 cores, even for VM use. Spend less on the CPU and more on the GPU is what I always say. Some games that are about to come out call for atlest 4 cores, such as the new Dragon Age game. Although its odd they recomend 6 cores for AMD.
I honestly don't think i'll ever use the full abilities of a GTX 970, for any reason. Ever.
Also, this is not a gaming rig, i'll do mild gaming from time to time, but otherwise i'll be making music.
Is there a special reason you buy SIX ( :shock: ) extra casefans?!?
Not really. I'm surprised nobody suggested overclocking, which i won't be doing. The main reason for the amount of fans is simple, i don't want this computer to overheat, which really should be obvious, although i am considering getting a fan controller to keep the noise level down.
Is there a special reason you buy SIX ( :shock: ) extra casefans?!?
Not really. I'm surprised nobody suggested overclocking, which i won't be doing. The main reason for the amount of fans is simple, i don't want this computer to overheat, which really should be obvious, although i am considering getting a fan controller to keep the noise level down.
I didn't see this on the original order.
Dude don't buy those Rosewill fans. I did the same thing when I built my file server many years ago, bought a bunch of $5 Rosewill fans and guess what, in less than 2 years all 4 of them had failed and needed to be replaced.
I replaced the Rosewill fans with these, and they're still running. In fact they have been turned on and spinning for around 4 years now. I highly advise spending the few extra bucks to save yourself from having to rebuy all these fans in 1-2 years.
Is there a special reason you buy SIX ( :shock: ) extra casefans?!?
Not really. I'm surprised nobody suggested overclocking, which i won't be doing. The main reason for the amount of fans is simple, i don't want this computer to overheat, which really should be obvious, although i am considering getting a fan controller to keep the noise level down.
I didn't see this on the original order.
Dude don't buy those Rosewill fans. I did the same thing when I built my file server many years ago, bought a bunch of $5 Rosewill fans and guess what, in less than 2 years all 4 of them had failed and needed to be replaced.
I replaced the Rosewill fans with these, and they're still running. In fact they have been turned on and spinning for around 4 years now. I highly advise spending the few extra bucks to save yourself from having to rebuy all these fans in 1-2 years.
Well then if its mostly for music then I wouldnt bother with the Behringer UM2 Audio. If you play Guitar or Bass I would go with the Line 6 POD UX2, Or if you sing/rap or whatever I would go with the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2.
Best fans I have ever used were some cheapy off brand fans brushess fans that are rated for 24votts. They're kinda hard to find in 80mm. They mostly come in 60mm. Also you have to replace the power connector.
I got a nifty 172mm fan in my home server. Its a ball bearing fan but it pushes 235CFM.
Well then if its mostly for music then I wouldnt bother with the Behringer UM2 Audio. If you play Guitar or Bass I would go with the Line 6 POD UX2, Or if you sing/rap or whatever I would go with the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2.
Best fans I have ever used were some cheapy off brand fans brushess fans that are rated for 24votts. They're kinda hard to find in 80mm. They mostly come in 60mm. Also you have to replace the power connector.
I got a nifty 172mm fan in my home server. Its a ball bearing fan but it pushes 235CFM.
I plan on doing collaborations with people who sing/rap, however, that isn't going to be a priority. I'm looking an interface that is for electronic music production first, but could be used with real instruments, and for rappers and singers occasionally, i guess you could say i'm looking for a middle-ground. What would you recommend?
Fans depend very much on whether you want silent or cool. Silent it's gotta be Noctua or Scythe, for cool. Buy some delta fans. Although in that case you might want to strap your system down, those things are capable of lift.
Fans depend very much on whether you want silent or cool. Silent it's gotta be Noctua or Scythe, for cool. Buy some delta fans. Although in that case you might want to strap your system down, those things are capable of lift.
I'm afraid i can't do either. Delta charges a bit too much for my liking, and i really don't care much for silence, so no to the Noctua. Also i updated the build listing: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kXDTjX
I changed the Motherboard, CPU Cooler, SSD, Video Card, PSU, and the fans, i also added an HDMI to DVI cable, and three monitors, a 24" BenQ GL2460HM, and two 20" HP W2072a monitors. The HP's will be used, well, as monitors, and the BenQ 24" will used as a TV.
I plan on pairing the two HP's with the 17" Dell E170SB monitor that i'm using right now, for a tri-monitor setup.
Comments
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814487071
Most games want a high end video card and doesn't call much for CPU.
Also would go with Intel over AMD, but that's just me. It seems like AMD fans are also ATI fans and Intel fans are also nVidia fans, so your thoughts may vary.
The only reason i chose that AMD chip over an i5 is simply for the amount of cores, and as for the video card, a GTX 970 is overkill. An R7 260 is practically a steal for $86, let alone an overclocked version.
Multicore systems help a ton with multitasking, like on my setup with 3 monitors I could run a program on each screen utilizing a core per program and that would be very useful for me.
When you're gaming, I think you'd see much more benefit from extra speed per core than from having many more cores, especially over the quad core threshold.
I am not advocating buying single core systems, but I think at this stage anything more than a quad core will go to waste unless you are doing a huge amount of multitasking.
Of course, the bottlenecks on modern PCs are rarely CPU, it's usually GPU (gaming) or Disk I\O (anything else) that is your biggest bottleneck on the experience.
The main reason why i feel that i need 8 cores is for virtual machines, as that will most likely utilize them best, however, everything that i said i will be doing on this machine, will be all at once. I plan on producing music, while running virtual machines, while gaming a bit, while using the system casually, and as a result, i don't believe a quad-core would be able to keep up.
The music production software that i use, FL Studio 11, has a setting built in that intentionally limits the amount of CPU and RAM for other applications, i'll leave this windowed.
As for virtual machines, i won't run many, but i'll allocate 2 cores per machine, let's say i'll run 2 VM's at most for example, with 4 gigs of RAM allocated to each VM. The VM's will be windowed.
Now for gaming, i won't try to max anything out, but i plan on playing Wolfenstein: The New Order, and Skyrim, with normal settings, in windowed mode.
As for casual usage, i'll use whatever resources i have left, which obviously, won't be much.
Now i'm not sure if you're aware, but Microsoft released a free beta of Windows 10 called the "Technical Preview", that introduces "Multiple Desktops", which is essentially a desktop for each monitor, and four-way "App-Snapping", where you can snap four windowed apps to each corner of the screen, for each desktop, which would be on each monitor.
I don't plan on installing the beta, i plan waiting until Windows 10 is officially released, and that's when i plan on building this machine.
No such thing as overkill. Don't have to worry about upgrading a few months to a year down the road.
To me AMD and nVidia is like a wet dream. Been using that mix since nVidia came out with the nForce chipset.
I myself prefer AMD because its cheaper. Don't really need anything more then 4 cores, even for VM use. Spend less on the CPU and more on the GPU is what I always say. Some games that are about to come out call for atlest 4 cores, such as the new Dragon Age game. Although its odd they recomend 6 cores for AMD.
I honestly don't think i'll ever use the full abilities of a GTX 970, for any reason. Ever.
Also, this is not a gaming rig, i'll do mild gaming from time to time, but otherwise i'll be making music.
Not really. I'm surprised nobody suggested overclocking, which i won't be doing. The main reason for the amount of fans is simple, i don't want this computer to overheat, which really should be obvious, although i am considering getting a fan controller to keep the noise level down.
Dude don't buy those Rosewill fans. I did the same thing when I built my file server many years ago, bought a bunch of $5 Rosewill fans and guess what, in less than 2 years all 4 of them had failed and needed to be replaced.
I replaced the Rosewill fans with these, and they're still running. In fact they have been turned on and spinning for around 4 years now. I highly advise spending the few extra bucks to save yourself from having to rebuy all these fans in 1-2 years.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6835103060
Alright, thanks for the info, changing the build list now. Is there anything else that you'd recommend i change?
Best fans I have ever used were some cheapy off brand fans brushess fans that are rated for 24votts. They're kinda hard to find in 80mm. They mostly come in 60mm. Also you have to replace the power connector.
I got a nifty 172mm fan in my home server. Its a ball bearing fan but it pushes 235CFM.
I plan on doing collaborations with people who sing/rap, however, that isn't going to be a priority. I'm looking an interface that is for electronic music production first, but could be used with real instruments, and for rappers and singers occasionally, i guess you could say i'm looking for a middle-ground. What would you recommend?
I'm afraid i can't do either. Delta charges a bit too much for my liking, and i really don't care much for silence, so no to the Noctua. Also i updated the build listing:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kXDTjX
I changed the Motherboard, CPU Cooler, SSD, Video Card, PSU, and the fans, i also added an HDMI to DVI cable, and three monitors, a 24" BenQ GL2460HM, and two 20" HP W2072a monitors. The HP's will be used, well, as monitors, and the BenQ 24" will used as a TV.
I plan on pairing the two HP's with the 17" Dell E170SB monitor that i'm using right now, for a tri-monitor setup.