Build Your Computer

[Jelle458]

or a bad bios flash =P well anything could go wrong XD


im drooling over this setup atm, no money but who cares, its free to dream on LOL

(click to show/hide)

CPU : [$199.99] Intel Core i5-3450 Ivy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.5GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 77W Quad-Core Desktop Processor
MOBO : [$149.99] ASRock Z77E-ITX LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Mini ITX Intel Motherboard
GPU : [$159.99] ASUS HD7770-2GD5 Radeon HD 7770 GHz Edition 2GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0
RAM : [$109.99] G.SKILL Ares Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory
SSD : [$95.99] Mushkin Enhanced Chronos MKNSSDCR120GB 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC (SSD)
HDD : [$119.99] Western Digital Caviar Black WDBAAZ0010HNC-NRSN 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5"
CASE : [$104.99] SilverStone Sugo SG05-B Black SECC / Plastic Mini-ITX w/ SFX 300W 80Plus PSU
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL : $940.93

Edit: i just noticed that 120gb SSDs seems to be the most cost effective SSD, going 1$/1.25GB ratio.

The BIOS flash went well, it could run on stock, but when using the digi+ engine it went dead instantly..

For what purpose would you need those 16GB of RAM for? It is money out of the window with 8GB blocks. As you have seen, I am only using 4GB of RAM, and it works quite well for me.
Maybe you were just dreaming along?

[kitamesume]

im ram short with my 8GB atm, i could only pop 6apps of mine and it'll hover 65-75% ram usage with that, at best i could pop 8apps in total without freezing my system and it'll top at around 90%. and since the itx board has only two slots of ram i'd need a pair of 8gb sticks to get over 8gb.

(click to show/hide)

edit: oh yea, i've always wanted to get a system with 32gb ram, gonna make a ramdisk of 20gb and do a raid-1 with the ramdisk, theoretically it should be the fastest possible raid there is.

[Jelle458]

im ram short with my 8GB atm, i could only pop 6apps of mine and it'll hover 65-75% ram usage with that, at best i could pop 8apps in total without freezing my system and it'll top at around 90%. and since the itx board has only two slots of ram i'd need a pair of 8gb sticks to get over 8gb.

(click to show/hide)

edit: oh yea, i've always wanted to get a system with 32gb ram, gonna make a ramdisk of 20gb and do a raid-1 with the ramdisk, theoretically it should be the fastest possible raid there is.

Seems to be quite excessive, what are you doing which is eating all of your RAM? Even when running steam, vuze, all canon printer utilities, ASUS AI Suite, AMD OverDrive, Hamachi and extensive load on my FireFox browser I can't consume as much as you do, even if I run a game like Battlefield 3 I just can't get over the 4GB that I have

Honestly, it... can't... be... done

EDIT: It may have been caught in a bad moment. Usually it only takes up to 10% CPU usage, which it doesn't right there on the picture, maybe it was opening something new lol.

Here I am running A LOT of tabs, three games (all connected to servers and running, all with max settings etc.), while seeding, monitoring and even overclocking the system, I even have my coding program open, Foxit reader, viewing an anime in windows media player, Microsoft Word is open, CPU-z, Origin, Steam FTP Client, Canon MyPrinter utility and a whole lot of other stuff. You can see that I am totally running 103 processors, where windows only needs about 35 to run, the remaining processors is just programs and games.

And I STILL can't fill my 4GB, it still feels just as smooth as if there was nothing open, and I am even running on mechanical hard drives in RAID 0.
I'd say it is quite an achievement to fill over 8GB.
I have even tried with Blender too, it still won't fill those damn RAM.

I was thinking of making a very small 300MB ramdisk, maybe, as you say, two with 150MB, then make a RAID array out of them. Just not sure if that is actually possible.
In my experience RAID 0 is faster than RAID 1, you also get more space with RAID 0.

[kitamesume]

what i planned was making a raid-1 of HDD+ramdisk, where the ramdisk has read/write priority and the HDD having copy only priority. making the ram do most of the work.

also, a raid-0 of two ramdisks wont work, the system bus is always at the set frequency, for example 1333mhz would be the limit of access through the bus.
or simply put in equal terms, you can bridge(raid) as many lan connections(HDD/ramdisk) you have but it doesnt change the fact that your ISP(bus/ram connection) can only give you 10mbps(limit).

[Jelle458]

what i planned was making a raid-1 of HDD+ramdisk, where the ramdisk has read/write priority and the HDD having copy only priority. making the ram do most of the work.

also, a raid-0 of two ramdisks wont work, the system bus is always at the set frequency, for example 1333mhz would be the limit of access through the bus.
or simply put in equal terms, you can bridge(raid) as many lan connections(HDD/ramdisk) you have but it doesnt change the fact that your ISP(bus/ram connection) can only give you 10mbps(limit).

Oh yeah, like a cache SSD, just having the RAM being an SSD instead of an actual SSD.

Well, you have two RAM channels (usually) on a board. You do not have on your ITX board, but I do on my Crosshair V Formula, where, if it was possible, I could take 150MB from channel A and 150MB from channel B and make a RAID 0. I've been wanting to try it with the X79 and the 16GB Corsair Vengeance RAM that I have, I am just without a motherboard atm. (yeah, still waiting for a new -.-), once I get it, I sure will try it.

[Freedom Kira]

Seems to be quite excessive, what are you doing which is eating all of your RAM? Even when running steam, vuze, all canon printer utilities, ASUS AI Suite, AMD OverDrive, Hamachi and extensive load on my FireFox browser I can't consume as much as you do, even if I run a game like Battlefield 3 I just can't get over the 4GB that I have

Honestly, it... can't... be... done

EDIT: It may have been caught in a bad moment. Usually it only takes up to 10% CPU usage, which it doesn't right there on the picture, maybe it was opening something new lol.

Here I am running A LOT of tabs, three games (all connected to servers and running, all with max settings etc.), while seeding, monitoring and even overclocking the system, I even have my coding program open, Foxit reader, viewing an anime in windows media player, Microsoft Word is open, CPU-z, Origin, Steam FTP Client, Canon MyPrinter utility and a whole lot of other stuff. You can see that I am totally running 103 processors, where windows only needs about 35 to run, the remaining processors is just programs and games.

And I STILL can't fill my 4GB, it still feels just as smooth as if there was nothing open, and I am even running on mechanical hard drives in RAID 0.
I'd say it is quite an achievement to fill over 8GB.
I have even tried with Blender too, it still won't fill those damn RAM.

Windows 7 has a weird kind of optimization feature where the more RAM you have, the more RAM it uses. I've never really understood it. But, if you had as much as 32GB, it would probably use the same percentage of RAM as it does now.

What's with the 103 processors? A glitch?

I like how 90% of the space in your post asks a question that went completely ignored. >.>

[kitamesume]

haha, yea i do think its win7's fault, but then again firefox with over 40tabs doesnt use over 300mb of ram so i can say the app im using really does hog a lot of ram.

he meant task being processed.

two of his lines were completely repetitive.

Seems to be quite excessive, what are you doing which is eating all of your RAM? Even when running steam, vuze, all canon printer utilities, ASUS AI Suite, AMD OverDrive, Hamachi and extensive load on my FireFox browser I can't consume as much as you do, even if I run a game like Battlefield 3 I just can't get over the 4GB that I have

(note: this quote was already answered by the quote he had)

to

Here I am running A LOT of tabs, three games (all connected to servers and running, all with max settings etc.), while seeding, monitoring and even overclocking the system, I even have my coding program open, Foxit reader, viewing an anime in windows media player, Microsoft Word is open, CPU-z, Origin, Steam FTP Client, Canon MyPrinter utility and a whole lot of other stuff. You can see that I am totally running 103 processors, where windows only needs about 35 to run, the remaining processors is just programs and games.

And I STILL can't fill my 4GB, it still feels just as smooth as if there was nothing open, and I am even running on mechanical hard drives in RAID 0.
I'd say it is quite an achievement to fill over 8GB.
I have even tried with Blender too, it still won't fill those damn RAM.

irrelevant
plus none of his apps was really ram intensive, try opening an image over 8K resolution.

(click to show/hide)

note, upscaled picture to 18k, using 3GB of ram.
firefox with 42tabs, using 290MB of ram.

[Jelle458]

Windows 7 has a weird kind of optimization feature where the more RAM you have, the more RAM it uses. I've never really understood it. But, if you had as much as 32GB, it would probably use the same percentage of RAM as it does now.

I have seen that a few times. It seems quite weird.

What's with the 103 processors? A glitch?

I had 103 processors running, so that is no glitch.

I like how 90% of the space in your post asks a question that went completely ignored. >.>

Yeah well...

plus none of his apps was really ram intensive, try opening an image over 8K resolution.

(click to show/hide)

note, upscaled picture to 18k, using 3GB of ram.
firefox with 42tabs, using 290MB of ram.

Could you share such picture, or do you know somewhere where I can download one, then I will open it, see what happens. Opening it together with 3 games should then eat it all right?

I have disabled page file, and I have 1.5GB left of space on my hard drive, so it should not be able to store stuff there. Wonder what happens.

[Saras]

I had 103 processors running, so that is no glitch.

You had 103 processes running. Not 103 processors. Unless of course, they sent you a supercomputer to review alongside the bulldozer.

[Freedom Kira]

I like how 90% of the space in your post asks a question that went completely ignored. >.>

Yeah well...

Don't worry, it's nothing new. It's often hard to get a straight answer out of him because he likes to talk about things that have no relation at all to what he is being asked. You'll get used to it. =P

I had 103 processors running, so that is no glitch.

You had 103 processes running. Not 103 processors. Unless of course, they sent you a supercomputer to review alongside the bulldozer.

That definitely sounds more accurate. Besides, 103 is a very strange number for processor count.

[kitamesume]

...

the quote he had already answered the questions he posted.

he asked what did you do to reach that much ram usage = quote says : "i could only pop 6apps of mine and it'll hover 65-75% ram usage with that, at best i could pop 8apps in total without freezing my system and it'll top at around 90%." plus screeny tells which apps i had up.

and the rest are identical to that question, saying "i have these and that and it still cant reach that much ram usage, how the heck are you doing it?" and such.

[Jelle458]

I had 103 processors running, so that is no glitch.

You had 103 processes running. Not 103 processors. Unless of course, they sent you a supercomputer to review alongside the bulldozer.

Tomato tamato....

...

the quote he had already answered the questions he posted.

he asked what did you do to reach that much ram usage = quote says : "i could only pop 6apps of mine and it'll hover 65-75% ram usage with that, at best i could pop 8apps in total without freezing my system and it'll top at around 90%." plus screeny tells which apps i had up.

and the rest are identical to that question, saying "i have these and that and it still cant reach that much ram usage, how the heck are you doing it?" and such.

I do not know what program you are running from seeing it's icon, so you did not answer my question on how you did that.

[Freedom Kira]

I had 103 processors running, so that is no glitch.

You had 103 processes running. Not 103 processors. Unless of course, they sent you a supercomputer to review alongside the bulldozer.

Tomato tamato....

Not quite. That's like saying a farmer and a cabbage are the same thing. A processor is what performs the work, and a process is the work. While any old computer could handle 103 processes, a computer with 103 processors would cost several thousand dollars to build.

v As long as we're straight on that, no problem.

[Jelle458]

I had 103 processors running, so that is no glitch.

You had 103 processes running. Not 103 processors. Unless of course, they sent you a supercomputer to review alongside the bulldozer.

Tomato tamato....

Not quite. That's like saying a farmer and a cabbage are the same thing. A processor is what performs the work, and a process is the work. While any old computer could handle 103 processes, a computer with 103 processors would cost several thousand dollars to build.

Well, it was actually a typo from my side. Can we cast that aside and stop this nitpicking?

This was also meant, more or less, as a minor joke, I guess it is hard to get such thing out on the internet using a forum.

[Pagonis]

Seems to be quite excessive, what are you doing which is eating all of your RAM? Even when running steam, vuze, all canon printer utilities, ASUS AI Suite, AMD OverDrive, Hamachi and extensive load on my FireFox browser I can't consume as much as you do, even if I run a game like Battlefield 3 I just can't get over the 4GB that I have

Honestly, it... can't... be... done

EDIT: It may have been caught in a bad moment. Usually it only takes up to 10% CPU usage, which it doesn't right there on the picture, maybe it was opening something new lol.

Here I am running A LOT of tabs, three games (all connected to servers and running, all with max settings etc.), while seeding, monitoring and even overclocking the system, I even have my coding program open, Foxit reader, viewing an anime in windows media player, Microsoft Word is open, CPU-z, Origin, Steam FTP Client, Canon MyPrinter utility and a whole lot of other stuff. You can see that I am totally running 103 processors, where windows only needs about 35 to run, the remaining processors is just programs and games.

And I STILL can't fill my 4GB, it still feels just as smooth as if there was nothing open, and I am even running on mechanical hard drives in RAID 0.
I'd say it is quite an achievement to fill over 8GB.
I have even tried with Blender too, it still won't fill those damn RAM.

Windows 7 has a weird kind of optimization feature where the more RAM you have, the more RAM it uses. I've never really understood it. But, if you had as much as 32GB, it would probably use the same percentage of RAM as it does now.

What's with the 103 processors? A glitch?

I like how 90% of the space in your post asks a question that went completely ignored. >.>

Yeah it's caching. Unused RAM = wasted RAM. Ofcourse it's better to always be at 75% or 50% usage than at 10%. *nix OSes worked that way for ages.

Personally, anything over 8 gB is an overkill if you do not render a lot or compile a lot (and by compiling I mean compiling clean project, who does that?! you edit one thing, recompile, add one thing, recomplie) or use a lot of virtual machines.

Ofcourse, if you have hundreds of applications and you open at the same time because you never know when you'll need one and hate to wait for them to load... Well, get an SSD.

[kitamesume]

^when i work on complex SIGs/AVAs i end up having multiple images opened, and they sum up to around 1.5-2.0GB ram usage just with paint.net alone XD thats leaving me with 2-3GB of free ram. so yea the 8GB i have is pretty well used and its starting to feel crowded even, i might buy a 2x8GB kit later but will wait for it to drop price first.

[Pagonis]

^when i work on complex SIGs/AVAs i end up having multiple images opened, and they sum up to around 1.5-2.0GB ram usage just with paint.net alone XD thats leaving me with 2-3GB of free ram. so yea the 8GB i have is pretty well used and its starting to feel crowded even, i might buy a 2x8GB kit later but will wait for it to drop price first.

..or you work with PSDs that go on billboards.

[kitamesume]

revamped builds, me like.

(click to show/hide)

CPU : [$199.99] Intel Core i5-3450 Ivy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.5GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 77W Quad-Core Desktop Processor
MOBO : [$139.99] Intel BOXDH77DF LGA 1155 Intel H77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Mini ITX Intel Motherboard
GPU : [$119.99] PowerColor HD7750 1GB GDDR5 LP(Low Profile)
RAM : [$109.99] G.SKILL Ares Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory
SSD(mSATA) : [$139.99] Mushkin Enhanced Atlas Series MKNSSDAT120GB-DX mSATA 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
HDD : [$119.99] Western Digital Caviar Black WDBAAZ0010HNC-NRSN 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5"
CASE : [$49.99] IN WIN BP-Series BP671.200BL Black Steel Mini-ITX Tower S.F.F Slim Chassis
PSU : [$39.99] SeaSonic SS-300TFX Bronze 300W TFX12V v2.3 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC Power Supply
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL : $919.92

(click to show/hide)

CPU : [$199.99] Intel Core i5-3450 Ivy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.5GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 77W Quad-Core Desktop Processor
MOBO : [$89.99] ASRock H77 Pro4/MVP Intel Motherboard
SoundCard : [$73.99] ASUS Xonar D1 7.1 Channels 24-bit 192KHz PCI Interface Sound Card
GPU : [$159.99] ASUS HD7770-2GD5 Radeon HD 7770 GHz Edition 2GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0
RAM : [$109.99] G.SKILL Ares Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory
SSD : [$95.99] Mushkin Enhanced Chronos MKNSSDCR120GB 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC (SSD)
HDD : [$119.99] Western Digital Caviar Black WDBAAZ0010HNC-NRSN 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5"
CASE : [$49.99] COOLER MASTER Elite 361 RC-361-KKR350
PSU : [$89.99] SeaSonic M12II 620 Bronze 620W 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active PFC Power Supply
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL : $989.91

edit: anyone know if theres any other difference between xonar d1 and dx other than their interface? and if the PCI-e to PCI bridge would introduce latency delays or some sort.

[megido-rev.M]

edit: anyone know if theres any other difference between xonar d1 and dx other than their interface? and if the PCI-e to PCI bridge would introduce latency delays or some sort.

It might be just me, but I figure the PCI interface has little future left, and a bridge would have some latency just that I don't know whether it would affect sound quality.

Also, doesn't the 1TB Black have 64MB cache and SATA III?

[kitamesume]

PCI being no future or not doesn't really matter if the board im getting has a PCI slot doesnt it?
the latency wouldnt affect the sound quality but it makes the sound delayed, maybe 10ms or so, in a fast phased game thats dangerous.

that i dunno, i found the WD black and it was cheap, not much bad reputation either so why not?
edit: anyway locally i could pick one of those WD 1TB blacks for roughly 140$.