GPU Boost

[thalastwon]

I just recently upgraded to a GTX 670 superclocked and I read that it has a GPU Boost functionality.

 

Does anyone know how it works? and Is it worth using for a modded Skyrim?

[Neovalen]

Boost happens automatically with 600 series cards. Its basically automatic minor over clocking.

[Besidilo]

Wow, your new rig really bothers me.

 

Sandy Bridge EX

GTX 670 4GB

16GB RAM

1.5 TB HDD

No SSD

 

I really hope that's not a gaming PC.

 

And btw, GPU Boost is almost as useless Turbo Boost on Intel CPUs. :D

[thalastwon]

I got it to be a bit future proofed. I'm going to Digipen for Digital Art and Animation, so I needed a good CPU for rendering tasks, but I'm also going to be using it for gaming. The Sandy Bridge-E was the best compromise I could find. The original plan had an SSD, but due to money constraints I had to take it off. I hope to grab one in the next coming months.

 

Is the config really that bad? :confused:

[Besidilo]

Well, unless you're going to be working with software that doesn't support GPU acceleration and needs tons of VRAM or RAM it's a huge waste of money IMHO.

 

Radeon 7970 is probably the fastest single-GPU card available on the market and you even paid a hefty premium for the advantages of having slightly more VRAM and NVIDIA exclusive features that are not used by 90% of gamers.

 

Not having an SSD in such a rig cries for mercy. How can you even use a modern system running on a normal HDD? It's so apparently sluggish compared to one run purely on the SSD. With the savings on stuff you overpaid for, you'd get a decent 256GB for your system, applications and selected dozen or so games.

 

EVGA Superclocked is a marketing gimmick, unless you got an excellent deal on one, it's a waste of money. I know they come with backplates, so I guess that's a bonus if you watercool.

 

16GB RAM is useless for pretty much everyone, future proofing in this area is counter productive, because you will either upgrade by the time it becomes mainstream, much faster DDR4 will be out, or RAM prices will drop by a half again. 8GB RAM is more than enough, unless you have more money than common sense.

 

Last, but not least, Sandy Bridge Extreme. Whilst an excellent brand for computing and very specific rendering task, absolutely useless and a huge waste of money to most users. I really hope you had something that supports 12 threads in mind when you were buying it, because as of now, we're living in an extremely inefficient multithreaded world of IT that's changing at a very slow rate (as in, read my point above about RAM use).

 

There's no such thing as future proofing with desktops. You can future proof a server, not a workstation that you intend to keep at the top for a long time.

[TechAngel85]

Well, unless you're going to be working with software that doesn't support GPU acceleration and needs tons of VRAM or RAM it's a huge waste of money IMHO.

 

Radeon 7970 is probably the fastest single-GPU card available on the market and you even paid a hefty premium for the advantages of having slightly more VRAM and NVIDIA exclusive features that are not used by 90% of gamers.

 

Not having an SSD in such a rig cries for mercy. How can you even use a modern system running on a normal HDD? It's so apparently sluggish compared to one run purely on the SSD. With the savings on stuff you overpaid for, you'd get a decent 256GB for your system, applications and selected dozen or so games.

 

EVGA Superclocked is a marketing gimmick, unless you got an excellent deal on one, it's a waste of money. I know they come with backplates, so I guess that's a bonus if you watercool.

 

16GB RAM is useless for pretty much everyone, future proofing in this area is counter productive, because you will either upgrade by the time it becomes mainstream, much faster DDR4 will be out, or RAM prices will drop by a half again. 8GB RAM is more than enough, unless you have more money than common sense.

 

Last, but not least, Sandy Bridge Extreme. Whilst an excellent brand for computing and very specific rendering task, absolutely useless and a huge waste of money to most users. I really hope you had something that supports 12 threads in mind when you were buying it, because as of now, we're living in an extremely inefficient multithreaded world of IT that's changing at a very slow rate (as in, read my point above about RAM use).

 

There's no such thing as future proofing with desktops. You can future proof a server, not a workstation that you intend to keep at the top for a long time.

 

I as usual with hardware, would have to disagree with some points. You're a bit of an extremist because I think the system is perfectly fine.

 

Radeon 7970 is probably the fastest on the market but having using both in the past, through my personal experience, NVIDIA has always been more reliable and a better quality product for me. NVIDIA drivers have also been better than AMD drivers in my experience. Others may have had different experiences.

 

SSDs, though they've been out a while, are still a fair young technology on the mainstream market and is still very expensive compared to HDDs. At the current growth rate, SSDs aren't expected to own the market for several more years. I've read many reviews, one being Tom's Hardware, stating that SSDs should own ~40% of the market by 2016. That's not even half and that's still several years away. HDDs are still going to be around for a long time. But with that said, yes, the performance over HDDs is great.

 

I'll agree that 16GB of system RAM is excessive for anyone unless they're running some type of server that needs that RAM (encoding/processing servers). 8GB is the most that anyone should install. (that common sense remark was rude, Besidilo)

 

The processor though an extreme choice can be considered future proof to a degree. It'll could last you 2-3 years at least.

 

I disagree and say there is such a thing as future proofing a desktop, because I've done it myself. Future proof meaning "upgradability" for the future. It's main dependent is the choice of motherboard. If you choose the right motherboard you'll be able to upgrade components from time to time and the system could last your four or five years. New standards don't pop out very often so if your motherboard supports the latest standards you'll be future proof and able to upgrade for several years to come.

[thalastwon]

I'll be honest, I don't have a lot of experience building PCs or getting parts for them. This is actually the first PC I've built by myself. I had asked for feedback from friends and family that have built their own computers before and was told that it was a solid build that would last me a few years. I'm hoping to have this computer last at least 5 years, while being able to upgrade it in the future. I do agree that cutting the SSD really sucked to have to do, but I felt that being able to get the other parts (especially the CPU) was worth waiting a bit to add an SSD to. I have yet to see how fast speeds are on an SSD compared to an HDD, but I've heard about it. Ignorance will have to be bliss for now, as I'll have to save up for an SSD first.

 

I don't have any experience with Radeon, but Nvidia has yet to let me down, so I figure it is worth continuing to get their graphics cards as I'm more familiar with them, and as such can take better advantage of what they have to offer.

 

Overall I still feel that for what I will be using it for, I have not made any bad choices.

 

 

Also thanks Neovalen, for explaining it to me.

[MontyMM]

Not a bad rig by any means. I'd love to have it! If you're going to be doing some hardcore rendering, then that CPU will certainly do the job. 16gb RAM or more can be very handy if you're a "power user". I'm always running VMs for various reasons, and you can never have enough. But if it were just for gaming, or future proofing, I would scale it down, include an SSD, and stuff the money saved under my mattress to buy complete upgrades the CPU and GPUs in a couple of years.

[TechAngel85]

I do agree that cutting the SSD really sucked to have to do' date=' but I felt that being able to get the other parts (especially the CPU) was worth waiting a bit to add an SSD to. I have yet to see how fast speeds are on an SSD compared to an HDD, but I've heard about it. Ignorance will have to be bliss for now, as I'll have to save up for an SSD first.[/quote']

 

Just a quick compare:

 

[video=youtube]https-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=j84eEjP-RL4

[thalastwon]

Well damn. I think I'll be putting an SSD on my next need list for my budget.

[Besidilo]

I as usual with hardware' date=' would have to disagree with some points. You're a bit of an extremist because I think the system is perfectly fine.[/quote']

That doesn't render any of my points less valid. You can disagree all you want, but unless you can provide a counter argument that has any bearing on what I said there, what's the point in commenting on my views, when yours are ill-advised?

Radeon 7970 is probably the fastest on the market but having using both in the past, through my personal experience, NVIDIA has always been more reliable and a better quality product for me. NVIDIA drivers have also been better than AMD drivers in my experience. Others may have had different experiences.

Anecdotal evidence. You have little to no experience with testing high-end graphics cards (from what you have said in the past), where telling the difference can only be done in repetitive benchmarking. Don't you, like, game on a laptop?

SSDs, though they've been out a while, are still a fair young technology on the mainstream market and is still very expensive compared to HDDs. At the current growth rate, SSDs aren't expected to own the market for several more years. I've read many reviews, one being Tom's Hardware, stating that SSDs should own ~40% of the market by 2016. That's not even half and that's still several years away. HDDs are still going to be around for a long time. But with that said, yes, the performance over HDDs is great.

A good 128 GB SSD is now cheaper than a standard 1TB HDD. Investing in one is one of the wisest choices any PC user can make and it's been the ideal time for a good few months now, as NAND prices aren't dropping. Never have I said HDDs have no place, just that the lack of an SSD in his objectively high-end rig doesn't make much sense. It's one of the most positive upgrades one can make.

I'll agree that 16GB of system RAM is excessive for anyone unless they're running some type of server that needs that RAM (encoding/processing servers). 8GB is the most that anyone should install. (that common sense remark was rude, Besidilo)

It wasn't personal, I assume that TLW either had some use for that RAM (which I explicitly stated in my previous post) or didn't realise that future proof with excessive RAM amounts is the old school mistake that has been around novice PC builders forever now. Either way, I know enough people who have almost unlimited budgets for their gaming rigs, who would gladly invest in anything that's over their needs, just to cover all the imaginative bases and make sure they're above the common folk. Hence more money than common sense. Let's be honest, RAM is cheap, and that $50-60 extra won't be anything to talk about in the long run.

The processor though an extreme choice can be considered future proof to a degree. It'll could last you 2-3 years at least.

So would any Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge i5 CPU. The current issue is that most games (and by that I mean like 90%+, including some stupidly power hungry titles) don't use HyperThreading and in some it even hurts the performance. Unless he has another use for it, it's a waste of money. So is getting Sandy Bridge Ex, because that's a very professional grade and overpriced CPU if I ever saw one.

I disagree and say there is such a thing as future proofing a desktop, because I've done it myself. Future proof meaning "upgradability" for the future. It's main dependent is the choice of motherboard. If you choose the right motherboard you'll be able to upgrade components from time to time and the system could last your four or five years. New standards don't pop out very often so if your motherboard supports the latest standards you'll be future proof and able to upgrade for several years to come.

Getting a Top-End CPU and excessive amount of RAM isn't future-proofing - it's making sure that you spend all the money that you have budgeted to keep the rig on top for as long as possible. What TLW didn't realise is that by cutting down on this stuff and investing in an SSD + cheaper graphics card and putting the change away for another graphics card would be much more beneficial in the long term. That's real future-proofing.

 

It all breaks down to the performance over the useful economic life of your rig, and TLW could do much better at that budget for a gaming rig, by doing a few adjustments. Whilst his PC is by no means bad, I see common mistakes made by amateur PC builders ALL the time, and I always try to educate them on the subject in hope they won't make the same mistake in the future.

 

 

Monty, I'd really like to know what "hardcore rendering" you had on mind. Most guys who build very expensive PCs with one of their uses stated as "rendering" don't realise that it's a very broad term and the results will vary a lot between different users and the software of choice. In the end, a lot of them throw a few hundred bucks at something that isn't beneficial at all, considering. I'm glad that you see the whole picture, though, it would be nice knowing what TLW uses had in mind so we could help him out tailoring the build for his specific needs. I'm quite certain that it's an overkill in certain areas, and underperformer in others.

[Besidilo]

I'll be honest, I don't have a lot of experience building PCs or getting parts for them. This is actually the first PC I've built by myself. I had asked for feedback from friends and family that have built their own computers before and was told that it was a solid build that would last me a few years. I'm hoping to have this computer last at least 5 years, while being able to upgrade it in the future. I do agree that cutting the SSD really sucked to have to do, but I felt that being able to get the other parts (especially the CPU) was worth waiting a bit to add an SSD to. I have yet to see how fast speeds are on an SSD compared to an HDD, but I've heard about it. Ignorance will have to be bliss for now, as I'll have to save up for an SSD first.

 

That's all good mate, trust me on this one though, the almost instant access times on and SSD are just a great experience for most users and are noticeable to pretty much anyone who spends a few hours a day with their PCs.

I don't have any experience with Radeon, but Nvidia has yet to let me down, so I figure it is worth continuing to get their graphics cards as I'm more familiar with them, and as such can take better advantage of what they have to offer.

Brand loyalty is not the best way to conduct your business in the technology industry as it's fast evolving and affected by a lot of factors. NVIDIA cards are by no means bad, but they systematically lost their battle towards the end of last year, and it's mostly hardcore fans that get their graphics cards these days. For most users, AMD Radeons from the top shelf are a better value for money, and considering that you might be switching cards every 1-2 years, it's really worth going with what's best for your money now, not wondering what's gonna happen in a year or two.

Overall I still feel that for what I will be using it for, I have not made any bad choices.

Fair enough, it's your money and PC after all, I do hope you enjoy it for as long as possible. :)

[TechAngel85]

I as usual with hardware' date=' would have to disagree with some points. You're a bit of an extremist because I think the system is perfectly fine.[/quote']

That doesn't render any of my points less valid. You can disagree all you want' date=' but unless you can provide a counter argument that has any bearing on what I said there, what's the point in commenting on my views, when yours are ill-advised?

[/quote']

 

 

Ill-advised according to whom? I have years of experience in building PC. Here's my company Web site. Constructive feedback is appriecated but my company is my lively hood at the moment so I'd appreciate you not ripping it apart. PS: I only work locally so no trolls!

Radeon 7970 is probably the fastest on the market but having using both in the past' date=' through my personal experience, NVIDIA has always been more reliable and a better quality product for me. NVIDIA drivers have also been better than AMD drivers in my experience. Others may have had different experiences.[/quote']

Anecdotal evidence. You have little to no experience with testing high-end graphics cards (from what you have said in the past), where telling the difference can only be done in repetitive benchmarking. Don't you, like, game on a laptop?

False. Currently yes, I'm on a laptop but that doesn't mean I haven't had high-end systems and experience in the past. :P I moved to a laptop for convenience sake. However, true that I have not tested the most recent card. As I said, I speak from my own experience with the brands.

 

SSDs' date=' though they've been out a while, are still a fair young technology on the mainstream market and is still very expensive compared to HDDs. At the current growth rate, SSDs aren't expected to own the market for several more years. I've read many reviews, one being Tom's Hardware, stating that SSDs should own ~40% of the market by 2016. That's not even half and that's still several years away. HDDs are still going to be around for a long time. But with that said, yes, the performance over HDDs is great.[/quote']

A good 128 GB SSD is now cheaper than a standard 1TB HDD. Investing in one is one of the wisest choices any PC user can make and it's been the ideal time for a good few months now, as NAND prices aren't dropping. Never have I said HDDs have no place, just that the lack of an SSD in his objectively high-end rig doesn't make much sense. It's one of the most positive upgrades one can make.

Agreed.

The processor though an extreme choice can be considered future proof to a degree. It'll could last you 2-3 years at least.

So would any Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge i5 CPU. The current issue is that most games (and by that I mean like 90%+' date=' including some stupidly power hungry titles) don't use HyperThreading and in some it even hurts the performance. Unless he has another use for it, it's a waste of money. So is getting Sandy Bridge Ex, because that's a very professional grade and overpriced CPU if I ever saw one.

[/quote']

Most game don't which is udderly stupid if you ask me since the HT has been around for years. However, many programs do make use of it. Especially photo and video editing programs.

 

It all breaks down to the performance over the useful economic life of your rig' date=' and TLW could do much better at that budget for a gaming rig, by doing a few adjustments. Whilst his PC is by no means bad, I see common mistakes made by amateur PC builders ALL the time, and I always try to educate them on the subject in hope they won't make the same mistake in the future.

 

 

Monty, I'd really like to know what "hardcore rendering" you had on mind. Most guys who build very expensive PCs with one of their uses stated as "rendering" don't realise that it's a very broad term and the results will vary a lot between different users and the software of choice. In the end, a lot of them throw a few hundred bucks at something that isn't beneficial at all, considering. I'm glad that you see the whole picture, though, it would be nice knowing what TLW uses had in mind so we could help him out tailoring the build for his specific needs. I'm quite certain that it's an overkill in certain areas, and underperformer in others.

[/quote']

Fair enough.

 

[MontyMM]

Monty, I'd really like to know what "hardcore rendering" you had on mind. Most guys who build very expensive PCs with one of their uses stated as "rendering" don't realise that it's a very broad term and the results will vary a lot between different users and the software of choice. In the end, a lot of them throw a few hundred bucks at something that isn't beneficial at all, considering. I'm glad that you see the whole picture, though, it would be nice knowing what TLW uses had in mind so we could help him out tailoring the build for his specific needs. I'm quite certain that it's an overkill in certain areas, and underperformer in others.

 

Well, he said he's doing a professional course in 3d art and animation at an industry level school.  I'm no expert, but I imagine that means things like Keyshot and Messiah Studio, which to my knowledge use CPU processing exclusively (tens of them at a time if available) for Pixar style animation.  I think hardcore rendering is a fair description.  It doesn't strike me a great calamity that he's chosen the rig he has for tasks like that.

[Roogal]

While I do think some of Besidilo's comments were maybe a little harsh, I do agree with everything he says, even though I myself have got the exact same graphics card as thalastwon. As I stated I got my graphics card for just above the equivalent price of a 7970 and this was before the new amd drivers. Though now I'd defiantly get a 7970.

 

I don't understand your argument though techangel85 about how market growth for SSD's affects the decision making process of whether to buy something. It has nothing to do with anything really. A user doesn't have to consider getting a piece of technology once it becomes common place, though it does help in some aspects to a very minor degree. Yes there were issues with the initial ssds (itgc) and now trim has solved most of the those issues so there is really no reason to not get a ssd. Also, ssds have been around for consumer usage since 2007 and flash based ssds have been used in corporations since 1995 so I wouldn't call it a new technology.

 

About the only thing I think you should future proof is the motherboard which you also stated and I'd think most people would agree upon.