Overclock.net banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #21 (Edited)
If you can change it, then indeed change it.

As far as wattage goes You likely will want to double the wattage of your GPU and increase the peak wattage of the PSU. I typically calculate what my components run and then double the GPU draw and get a PSU with pretty sizeable headroom for overall. It let's your PSU run at a constant while not spooling up the fan to cool the unit as much as that Rosewill PSU will no doubt have been doing. I suggest a 750 or 850. I usually look at Corsair, Seasonic or EVGA for PSU options over anybody else.

I'm currently running an EVGA 850w G3 on Black Snow. Should I wish to xFire I will have more than enough headroom and the PSU won't be spooling up all the time. :D

Edit: The PSU had completely slipped my mind the last time I posted. My soon to be 4 y/o son was bouncing off the walls. :lachen:

~Ceadder :drink:
i tried but it was too late to change the psu. i don't mind the noise or that it will spin up. the 1080ti from what i gather, has microstuttering introduced when overclocked anymore than it already is (i will keep msi gaming x in its "gaming mode". there is an "OC mode" but frame time variance happens which produces stuttering). "gaming mode" seems optimal, according to tomshardware, max OC = 2050mhz tortured = 333.7watts. typical power consumption under "torture" conditions is 288watts. the cpu will be maxed to however far i can push it though with no consequence to frame time variance. (we're talking about quick minimum fps drops that appear as stuttering)
i realize now that i'm cutting it close. is this going to work? recommended psu is 600w, this is 550w


edit to add quote
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts
i tried but it was too late to change the psu. i don't mind the noise or that it will spin up. the 1080ti from what i gather, has microstuttering introduced when overclocked anymore than it already is (i will keep msi gaming x in its "gaming mode". there is an "OC mode" but frame time variance happens which produces stuttering). "gaming mode" seems optimal, according to tomshardware, max OC = 2050mhz tortured = 333.7watts. typical power consumption under "torture" conditions is 288watts. the cpu will be maxed to however far i can push it though with no consequence to frame time variance. (we're talking about quick minimum fps drops that appear as stuttering)
i realize now that i'm cutting it close. is this going to work? recommended psu is 600w, this is 550w


edit to add quote
No, the PSU will be fine. It may not be a high-end unit, but for a single GPU system, even this 550W continuous rated unit is enough. I say again, continuous rated. 550W isn't this PSU's peak. It's what it should be able to deliver 24/7 if it were ever needed. It has a +12V capacity of 540W. If this PSU's peak capacity were 550W, then its +12V would be much lower, more like 396W.

The recommended PSU spec you see for video cards is for peak-rated PSUs. A typical 600W peak-rated PSU would have a +12V capacity of no more than 432W.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
No, the PSU will be fine. It may not be a high-end unit, but for a single GPU system, even this 550W continuous rated unit is enough. I say again, continuous rated. 550W isn't this PSU's peak. It's what it should be able to deliver 24/7 if it were ever needed. It has a +12V capacity of 540W. If this PSU's peak capacity were 550W, then its +12V would be much lower, more like 396W.

The recommended PSU spec you see for video cards is for peak-rated PSUs. A typical 600W peak-rated PSU would have a +12V capacity of no more than 432W.

wew neat i'm happy to hear this


i've narrowed down the ram choices:
patriot 2x8gb (not b-die)
MHz:3733CL:17 (actual: 3466 cl:16 = Calculated nanoseconds: 9.23254472)
Calculated nanoseconds:
9.10795606
$95
vs
corsair dominator 2x4gb (8gb version moduals are b-die. can't find info on these)
MHz:3733 CL: 18
Calculated nanoseconds:
9.64371818
$97
vs
gskill tridentz 2x4gb (yes b-die)
MHz:3600 CL: 17
Calculated nanoseconds:
9.44444444
$89
vs
gskill ripjaws 2x8gb (unknown)
MHz: 3466 CL: 16
Calculated nanoseconds:
9.23254472
$141
vs
gskill ripjaws 2x8gb (yes b-die)
MHz: 3200 CL: 14
Calculated nanoseconds:
8.75
$156

seems the patriot is still optimal
 

·
The last VRM burner
Joined
·
2,590 Posts
Try finding HyperX Predator 3600 CL17, these are B-Dies too.
 

·
Overclocker in training
Joined
·
12,850 Posts
Hi,
Dark team are reasonably priced use the b-die finder app.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
i changed the 8700k for 9700k for the boost in minimums although i'm afraid that it may have higher frame time variance which produces stuttering
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts
i changed the 8700k for 9700k for the boost in minimums although i'm afraid that it may have higher frame time variance which produces stuttering
Yes, that's what I found in my research when I was trying to decide between the 9600K, 8600K, 8700K, and 9700K. I haven't made any purchases yet (it's looking like I won't have enough money for several months now), but all my research points me to one inescapable conclusion: the 8700K should provide the best gaming performance and overclocking, and the price is much more reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
i need criticism


Yes, that's what I found in my research when I was trying to decide between the 9600K, 8600K, 8700K, and 9700K. I haven't made any purchases yet (it's looking like I won't have enough money for several months now), but all my research points me to one inescapable conclusion: the 8700K should provide the best gaming performance and overclocking, and the price is much more reasonable.
i actually bought the 8700k and its still here in its box untouched but i changed my mind and i'm sending it back to amazon. the 9700k will be here tomorrow. my goal is for highest fps minimums possible while considering price/performance and i concluded that 9700k was worth it. its the slightly higher clock speed that does it for me + the fact that it will get better thermals being soldered which saves me from buying the deliding tool + liquid metal for eliminating the potential thermal bottleneck that the 9700k will already have removed (for the most part, this is my understanding) i need higher minimums because i intend to cap frame rate across the board with RTSS in order to eliminate frame time variance stuttering with a frame rate cap of like 100fps. if i'm ensuring that my minimums are kept as close as possible to this then i suppose thats the best i can do while using gsync so that i can get the smoothest gameplay at the lowest latency for my price/performance level.
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts
i need criticism



i actually bought the 8700k and its still here in its box untouched but i changed my mind and i'm sending it back to amazon. the 9700k will be here tomorrow. my goal is for highest fps minimums possible while considering price/performance and i concluded that 9700k was worth it. its the slightly higher clock speed that does it for me + the fact that it will get better thermals being soldered which saves me from buying the deliding tool + liquid metal for eliminating the potential thermal bottleneck that the 9700k will already have removed (for the most part, this is my understanding) i need higher minimums because i intend to cap frame rate across the board with RTSS in order to eliminate frame time variance stuttering with a frame rate cap of like 100fps. if i'm ensuring that my minimums are kept as close as possible to this then i suppose thats the best i can do while using gsync so that i can get the smoothest gameplay at the lowest latency for my price/performance level.
k. It's your money. I think you should stay with the 8700K though. It has a lower price, it provides lower and more consistent frametimes, and it really doesn't even need to be overclocked. Then if you DO overclock it, you likely won't ever need to overclock it so high that you have to delid just to improve thermals.

Everything you just got done saying you want will be delivered by the 8700K, and then some.

What are your system's specs right now?
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
i have everything on that list besides 9700k but i can return any of it for refund and get something else
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts
i have everything on that list besides 9700k but i can return any of it for refund and get something else
I think the 9700K is a waste of money. I really, really, really urge you to consider keeping the 8700K. Ask around if you don't want to only take my word for it (but you would be benefiting from the weeks of daily research I did on this).

Here's why I think you shouldn't buy the 9700K:


  • It doesn't have Hyper Threading (yet Intel calls it an i7?!). The 8700K has HT, and yes, some games do benefit from it.
  • It will result in having inconsistent frametimes (noticeable frametime spikes, resulting in gameplay that isn't always butter-smooth). In all the tests I have seen, the 8700K gives better frametime consistency. Frametime consistency is what makes games seem smoother.
  • For gaming, its performance is usually identical to the 8700K, and sometimes it's inferior due to the lack of Hyper Threading. The 9700K is never better by enough of a margin to even begin to justify the higher price.
  • It is much more expensive (I know I'm being redundant here, but this is something I feel is worth stressing)
Also consider what you're upgrading from.

Seriously, with how expensive the 9700K is, this wouldn't be a wise purchase. It doesn't offer anything over the 8700K to justify the much higher price.
 

·
Senior Overclocker
Joined
·
4,992 Posts
I think the 9700K is a waste of money. I really, really, really urge you to consider keeping the 8700K. Ask around if you don't want to only take my word for it (but you would be benefiting from the weeks of daily research I did on this).

Here's why I think you shouldn't buy the 9700K:


  • It doesn't have Hyper Threading (yet Intel calls it an i7?!). The 8700K has HT, and yes, some games do benefit from it.
  • It will result in having inconsistent frametimes (noticeable frametime spikes, resulting in gameplay that isn't always butter-smooth). In all the tests I have seen, the 8700K gives better frametime consistency. Frametime consistency is what makes games seem smoother.
  • For gaming, its performance is usually identical to the 8700K, and sometimes it's inferior due to the lack of Hyper Threading. The 9700K is never better by enough of a margin to even begin to justify the higher price.
  • It is much more expensive (I know I'm being redundant here, but this is something I feel is worth stressing)
Also consider what you're upgrading from.

Seriously, with how expensive the 9700K is, this wouldn't be a wise purchase. It doesn't offer anything over the 8700K to justify the much higher price.
I think TwoCables are making a good point here (intentional bad grammar XD), but regarding frametime, it's not as if a 9700k is gonna give you choppy gameplay. In some situations where the CPU is heavily utilized (say, AC Origins for instance) you may get slightly worse frametimes but not to the point where it would stress you out or you would actually notice it. The 9700k is a very strong CPU and overall, slightly better than the 8700k but it does not warrant the price difference, I agree. In some situations where multi threading is involved, the 8700k would be better. Say you have a bunch of tabs open in Chrome, straming active and you're playing AC Origins and you would notice the CPU hitting 100% and frametimes being a little inconsistent but I doubt you would actually notice choppy gameplay.

Say you were severely CPU bottlenecked, like running a 7600k with a 1080ti or 2080 or even 2070, then you would see what bad frametime due to CPU bottleneck looks like.

All in all, I also urge you to keep the 8700k. The only sane upgrade from that is the 9900k.
 

·
Master of Black Snow
Joined
·
19,338 Posts
"it really doesn't even need to be overclocked" lol your opinions are disregarded now but these are the current specs:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/dFsqtg
:headscrat

I get the idea of asking for feedback. What I don't get is the above attitude regarding the resulting feedback.

I's your dime, but I have to say I side in @TwoCables camp here. i7 9700k is a good CPU. But why spend that kind of money when i7 8700k will give you similar performance for less. Money that you could throw at your build elsewhere. Say @ the MB or the PSU?

Biostar has been out of the game for so long I won't even contemplate it. Sure it's probably a solid board but why? What features about that board cry out begging for purchase?

We had this talk about PSU. Rosewill is a respected brand for budget consumers but that Monitor you have in the list doesn't suggest "Budget".

Get what you want , it's your monies after all. But $45 could be better spent elsewhere for the ~15% gain you're getting from the i7-9700k.

~Ceadder :drink:
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top