The computer and electronics super geek thread

[azrael]

Ok so I've been considering possible choices for my secondary drive. I figure a 7200 rpm, 1TB unit with at least 16mb of cache would be great 'specs, but the wierd thing is there aren't very many drives to choose from with those numbers; at least not around the $100 price range. Am I looking at secondary drives the wrong way? Are things like drive speed and cache not as important as they are with the primary drive? There are many more drives to choose from if I go with less than 1 TB and a 5400 rpm drive speed...

?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145881

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145875

or a SSHD

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178340 (this one has a promo code on it)

The drawback on using 7200RPM drives in a laptop is heat and battery usage. Spins faster = uses more battery power/generates more heat. Battery consumption will be marginal but it will still drain the battery faster than a 5400-RPM drive.

[myk]

How much faster would the 7200rpm drive be? If there's no significant performance edge I'll just go with a 5400 rpm. By the way I thought about that Hgct or whatever drive but their reliability seems spotty....

[Archer]

Do any of you guys use external hard drives for storing games? I would imagine the biggest cap to be the UBS 3.0 transfer rate, but I want to see if it's feasible.

In other news, my GS60 is yet to show up (GentechPC took their sweet time shipping it), but I purchased myself a gaming mouse in preparation for it. I found this: http://steelseries.com/us/products/mice/steelseries-sensei on amazon for 40 bucks, so I pulled the trigger.

I've never used a gaming mouse before in my life (I've always been a console guy, just now getting into PCs). The SteelSeries Sensei seemed to have gotten rave reviews, so I thought it would be a good place to start (and it matches the steel series keyboard of the laptop).

How does one micromanage DPI, and how does DPI relate to in-game mouse sensitivity options? For example, I know BF4 has a built in mouse sensitivity controller, but I know that this mouse also has the option to customize DPI settings on the fly as well.

[azrael]

How much faster would the 7200rpm drive be? If there's no significant performance edge I'll just go with a 5400 rpm. By the way I thought about that Hgct or whatever drive but their reliability seems spotty....

It would be about 33% faster. But then we start getting into specifics. Does the 5400-rpm drive have more platters, thereby making each platter less dense with data, meaning searching the drive is faster. And the list goes on. If the drive is just storing data, then a 5400-rpm drive would be fine. If you have programs or are booting from it, then you would benefit from a 7200-rpm drive. Which is why I threw in the SSHD from Seagate. Yes, it's a 5400-rpm drive. But the SSD-part of it stores or caches the most frequently used programs making those programs load faster. And yes, there are other manufacturers of SSHDs from Western Digital and Toshiba.

Do any of you guys use external hard drives for storing games? I would imagine the biggest cap to be the UBS 3.0 transfer rate, but I want to see if it's feasible.

Usually? No. And yes, the USB 3 would be the biggest disadvantages. I don't install games on a USB drive since there's a chance the USB might unmount due to a loose plug which would crash my system.

I've never used a gaming mouse before in my life (I've always been a console guy, just now getting into PCs). The SteelSeries Sensei seemed to have gotten rave reviews, so I thought it would be a good place to start (and it matches the steel series keyboard of the laptop).

I'm going to say this about mice and keyboards (gaming or regular), in general. Be prepared to send it back if your hands do not like it. And this means trying it for a week. In fact, it would be better to try it in-store for a 1st impression if you can. If you're going to play for hours, then the mouse better be comfortable for that long duration.

How does one micromanage DPI, and how does DPI relate to in-game mouse sensitivity options? For example, I know BF4 has a built in mouse sensitivity controller, but I know that this mouse also has the option to customize DPI settings on the fly as well.

Ideally, you'll want to leave the Windows settings and in-game settings at default and let the mouse handle the speed. Higher DPI means the mouse cursor moves faster (or you move much quicker). You'll be more twitchy at higher DPI, but since the sensitivity is higher, it will be harder to steady your aim as minor mouse movements will make you move a greater area. That's when you lower the DPI so that your movements are smaller. The trade-off at lower DPI is that you are less twitchy, meaning you can't rotate or adjust your angle as you would at higher DPI. Mice that allow you to adjust the DPI on-the-fly, usually have dedicated buttons to adjust the sensitivity.

[Archer]

It would be about 33% faster. But then we start getting into specifics. Does the 5400-rpm drive have more platters, thereby making each platter less dense with data, meaning searching the drive is faster. And the list goes on. If the drive is just storing data, then a 5400-rpm drive would be fine. If you have programs or are booting from it, then you would benefit from a 7200-rpm drive. Which is why I threw in the SSHD from Seagate. Yes, it's a 5400-rpm drive. But the SSD-part of it stores or caches the most frequently used programs making those programs load faster. And yes, there are other manufacturers of SSHDs from Western Digital and Toshiba.

Usually? No. And yes, the USB 3 would be the biggest disadvantages. I don't install games on a USB drive since there's a chance the USB might unmount due to a loose plug which would crash my system.

I'm going to say this about mice and keyboards (gaming or regular), in general. Be prepared to send it back if your hands do not like it. And this means trying it for a week. In fact, it would be better to try it in-store for a 1st impression if you can. If you're going to play for hours, then the mouse better be comfortable for that long duration.

Ideally, you'll want to leave the Windows settings and in-game settings at default and let the mouse handle the speed. Higher DPI means the mouse cursor moves faster (or you move much quicker). You'll be more twitchy at higher DPI, but since the sensitivity is higher, it will be harder to steady your aim as minor mouse movements will make you move a greater area. That's when you lower the DPI so that your movements are smaller. The trade-off at lower DPI is that you are less twitchy, meaning you can't rotate or adjust your angle as you would at higher DPI. Mice that allow you to adjust the DPI on-the-fly, usually have dedicated buttons to adjust the sensitivity.

Awesome, thanks! And yeah, I realize that there are downfalls to an external hard drive set-up for gaming. The rMBP that I've used for PC games the last 2 years has been limited with only about 90 GB in windows [bootcamp], so I've always had to delete a game before I download another. Now, with file sizes upwards of 30 GB, it's getting more and more unfeasible.

Obviously the MSI laptop has a 1 TB secondary storage, so space is no longer a paramount issue, but I'd rather not just shelve the Mac if at all possible. This is why external hard drives seemed to have some potential.

And thanks for the simple mouse explanation. I'll be sure to screw around with DPI settings. Hopefully, I can set it up so that I have a "standard" DPI and a "sniping/precision" DPI. As for mouse comfort, I had a magic mouse before this that I really liked, and the sensei is about the same size, so I think it will be fine. With that said, obviously I've never done too much gaming with an apple magic mouse, so I don't know how my claw grip will translate to intense gaming.

[mikeszekely]

Ok so I've been considering possible choices for my secondary drive. I figure a 7200 rpm, 1TB unit with at least 16mb of cache would be great 'specs, but the wierd thing is there aren't very many drives to choose from with those numbers; at least not around the $100 price range. Am I looking at secondary drives the wrong way? Are things like drive speed and cache not as important as they are with the primary drive? There are many more drives to choose from if I go with less than 1 TB and a 5400 rpm drive speed...

It's not exactly common in laptop drives, no. They mostly pop up in gaming laptops, and yeah, you pay a premium for them.

How much faster would the 7200rpm drive be?

It would be about 33% faster.

More accurately, the platters spin about 33% faster. What that means, in terms of actual performance, is a lot more complicated, as Az goes on to explain. It's not just the number of platters, but how fragmented the drive is as well, and for programs how much can be cached in RAM once it's in use.

If there's no significant performance edge I'll just go with a 5400 rpm.

Take it from someone with four laptops currently laying around the house... I won't go so far as to say that the difference isn't noticeable, but I will say it's not something you pay attention to. If I were in your shoes, I'd just buy a 5400rpm drive and save myself what I'd guess to be around $30.

Do any of you guys use external hard drives for storing games? I would imagine the biggest cap to be the UBS 3.0 transfer rate, but I want to see if it's feasible.

No chance. Oh, it's feasible. Once the drive is mounted, Windows doesn't care weather it's USB, SATA, PCIe, or whatever. But yeah, IIRC USB 3.0 is still maybe a third the data speed of SATA II (which itself is half of SATA III). And as Az mentioned, you'll have issues if the drive is disconnected.

but I'd rather not just shelve the Mac if at all possible.

Just because you won't need it for gaming doesn't mean you have to shelve it. For one thing, Macs hold their value pretty well, so you can always sell it. But if you're kind of attached to it (hey, you don't get to have four laptops laying around by getting rid of stuff), you can always find other uses for it. Like for me, I have my gaming laptop that I take to friends' houses or when I got on vacation. It's in my backpack when I'm not using it. But my gaming laptop was kind of big, so I've got a 11" little guy with amazing battery life that I took to coffee shops when I felt like a change of scenery when I was doing my grad school work. Now, I leave it laying around in the living room for those surprisingly frequent occasions when an iPad won't cut it, but I don't feel like going to the man cave to get on my desktop or dragging my good laptop out. The third laptop serves kind of the same purpose as the little one, except it's a 17" Dell, so I'm not lugging it to coffee shops. I keep that one in my bedroom, and I mostly use it when I'm sick and don't feel like getting out of bed or looking for my good laptop.

Some other ideas... you could keep it in the kitchen, and use it for calling up recipes or watching Netflix while you're cooking.

And of course, there's always the ol' look up stuff on Gamefaqs on one computer for the game you're playing on the other computer...

I purchased myself a gaming mouse in preparation for it. I found this: http://steelseries.c...elseries-sensei on amazon for 40 bucks, so I pulled the trigger.

I've never used a gaming mouse before in my life (I've always been a console guy, just now getting into PCs). The SteelSeries Sensei seemed to have gotten rave reviews, so I thought it would be a good place to start (and it matches the steel series keyboard of the laptop).

How does one micromanage DPI, and how does DPI relate to in-game mouse sensitivity options? For example, I know BF4 has a built in mouse sensitivity controller, but I know that this mouse also has the option to customize DPI settings on the fly as well.

I'm sure that there are hardcore gamers out there who care about that stuff very much. All I can say there is that fussing with DPI settings has never made much difference to me, and I've used pretty much everything from el-cheapo mice to a Logitech G700. I've come to the conclusion that the only two things that really matter to me are that the mouse must have at least two buttons I can hit with my thumb (I map them to G and V keystrokes, then use G for grenades and V for melee in shooters), and I prefer that the mouse wheel can be set to clicky when I'm in game, but free rolling when I'm not. Aside from the piss-poor battery life, I've liked my G700, but I've got Logitech Marathon Mice I use with the bigger laptops (including the gaming one). It's all good.

Side note, I use a small Microsoft mouse on the little laptop... I can't remember the model. Wouldn't use it for gaming, because it's only got one thumb button, but it's smaller than the Marathon Mice, so it goes with the smaller computer.

Edited May 11, 2014 by mikeszekely

[Archer]

I'm sure that there are hardcore gamers out there who care about that stuff very much. All I can say there is that fussing with DPI settings has never made much difference to me, and I've used pretty much everything from el-cheapo mice to a Logitech G700. I've come to the conclusion that the only two things that really matter to me are that the mouse must have at least two buttons I can hit with my thumb (I map them to G and V keystrokes, then use G for grenades and V for melee in shooters), and I prefer that the mouse wheel can be set to clicky when I'm in game, but free rolling when I'm not. Aside from the piss-poor battery life, I've liked my G700, but I've got Logitech Marathon Mice I use with the bigger laptops (including the gaming one). It's all good.

Side note, I use a small Microsoft mouse on the little laptop... I can't remember the model. Wouldn't use it for gaming, because it's only got one thumb button, but it's smaller than the Marathon Mice, so it goes with the smaller computer.

I'm pretty soft core when it comes to gaming. The most "competitive" fps I play is BF4, and that's for casual play only, not really competitive. Most of my friends have a PS4, and not a gaming PC, so I'll be reserving my multiplayer heavy games for the PS4.

What's a 'good' or 'common' DPI that most people use for 1080p screens? I know it's user preference, but I'd like to set the mouse to one well adjusted DPI and call it good. I highly doubt I'll be taking advantage of the competition features like different profiles, polling rates, etc. Plug and play is more my sort of thing.

[mikeszekely]

I'm pretty soft core when it comes to gaming. The most "competitive" fps I play is BF4, and that's for casual play only, not really competitive. Most of my friends have a PS4, and not a gaming PC, so I'll be reserving my multiplayer heavy games for the PS4.

What's a 'good' or 'common' DPI that most people use for 1080p screens? I know it's user preference, but I'd like to set the mouse to one well adjusted DPI and call it good. I highly doubt I'll be taking advantage of the competition features like different profiles, polling rates, etc. Plug and play is more my sort of thing.

Unless you find that it feels "off", the default settings are probably fine. But if it helps, I looked at my G700's settings, and I have it to 1600dpi and 200 reports per second. That's the second lowest polling setting, and a DPI that's probably double a generic mouse, but much lower than than the 5700dpi setting that the mouse maxes on.

[azrael]

Unless you find that it feels "off", the default settings are probably fine. But if it helps, I looked at my G700's settings, and I have it to 1600dpi and 200 reports per second. That's the second lowest polling setting, and a DPI that's probably double a generic mouse, but much lower than than the 5700dpi setting that the mouse maxes on.

And just as another example, my G500s default is 1100 dpi at 1000 reports/second polling rate.

[Archer]

Does the cpu take a performance hit at high polling rates?

[azrael]

Does the cpu take a performance hit at high polling rates?

Yes. But if the hardware can support it, then you won't notice it. At 500-1000 Hz, most people will not notice the difference. You will probably notice it more going from 125Hz to 500Hz. It depends how sensitive you want it.

[myk]

Alright I figured out the drive re-naming thing for my new secondary drive; pretty convenient of Windows 7. Meanwhile, it seems that my laptop already HAD a 7200 rpm secondary drive with a 32mb cache, so any hope of gaining a substantial performance increase is replaced with knowing that I have enough storage space instead.

Do you guys put a lot of stock in the Windows Experience Index?

Edited May 14, 2014 by myk

[Gakken85]

I'm happy. I finally nailed down a 5 month problem where my computer would crash and reboot randomly.

My 650w psu that I'd had for 3 year was dying... or at least with my new 3TB internal it didn't have the juice. Any time I taxed the video card it would crap out and reboot my system

I tested my ram, my Hd's, re-installed windows 7, checked my MOBO, my cable management.... I played with software forever. Flash drivers. Nvidia drivers.

Switched out video cards.

Finally figured out that when I unplugged some power drains I got the crash less often. Took the plunge and got a 750w XFX and haven't had any issues since.

Troubleshooting hardware is balls

I don't think the Windows experience index is even a little legit. I always looked at it as a marketing gimmick to get you to buy things you probably don't need haha.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Gakken85

[mikeszekely]

Do you guys put a lot of stock in the Windows Experience Index?

Not particularly.

Take my box, for example. The Windows Experience Index rates my graphics at a 7.9, which is the maximum value allowed in Windows 7. I have a GTX 660 ti. If I get Watch Dogs for PC, it'll certainly be playable, but if I want to stay at or above 30fps I probably won't be able to use Ultra graphics settings.

Now, supposed I upgraded my GPU to a GTX 790. I'm going to have a much easier time getting that game to look good on my system, right? But as long as I'm using Windows 7, WEI is still going to rate my graphics at a 7.9.

Another thing about WEI is that your overall score is the lowest value. In that case, it's my CPU and RAM, which are tied at 7.7. Now suppose that instead of upgrading my rig with a GTX 790, it was a buddy of mine who did. To afford such a powerful GPU, he skimped a little on the CPU and went with a mid-range Core i5. Let's say Windows scored that CPU a 6.5. So, if we both just opened up our system properties, without expanding our WEI scores, my box is a 7.7, and his box is a 6.5. Based on a single number showing on system properties, a layperson might assume that my computer is better, but I'm the one who'd actually be more in need of an upgrade.

The expanded numbers are sometimes a fun way to see that, yes, your computer really did get a boost from an upgrade (assuming you weren't already at the max on that number). But they're not a substitute for benchmarking tools to measure actual performance.

[Archer]

So, as an update, I received my MSI GS60 Ghost Pro today (it has an 870m). I didn't get a chance to do too much with it (mostly, I left it alone while installing games), but I did notice some things.

First and foremost, SteelSeries Engine immediately picked up on my Sensei mouse and added it to the software (which was already added since the keyboard of the laptop is made by SteelSeries as well). All was well and fine as I messed around with the program. Unfortunately, I tried to add profiles to the mouse, and after it hung up, I tried to close and restart the program. I don't really know what happened, but the SteelSeries engine refused to open after that. I had to uninstall it and get a fresh download of the program from the MSI website. After that, it doesn't seem to show any issues. Needless to say, I'm not gonna try and mess around too much with this software, as even others have noted that its a bit touchy, unreliable, and the most recent version direct from SteelSeries (Engine 3) won't work on windows 8.1 (so MSI use an older version).

I only tried one game so far, and that was Skyrim with the HD textures pack. I didn't jump into ultra settings (as I was worried about the 870m throttling in such a small chassis), but the game ran beautifully on high settings.....for about 3 minutes. After that, I don't know why, but the game crashed, and crashed hard. Couldn't even crtl/alt/del my way out of it, and had to restart the computer. Upon logging back in, it appeared that steam was performing some update in the background.

I don't know if that is what caused the crash, but after trying the game again, I experienced no such further crashes (I think it was a random one time deal, it's happened before to me on my mac, so I don't think it's a big deal).

The touchpad isn't nearly as good as the one on my macbook, but truly, I've yet to find a touchpad as good as the one apple makes. That said, I actually REALLY like the steel series keyboard that MSI packages. It's "firmer" than a standard macbook/ultrabook chiclet keyboard, and feels heavy duty in a way. Haven't tried any fps yet, but when I get bf4 running, I'll report back about temperatures on the keyboard when gaming.

With all this said and done, the laptop is pretty light, and games BEAUTIFULLY. I know you guys with actual desktops may think light of this, but I've never actually had the chance to game with such "high" specs. My only experience with PC gaming has been with the 2012 retina mac's GT 650m, and the jump to an 870m has been glorious. I was playing skyrim before (with HD textures) at 1680 x 1050 on low settings, and barely managing 45 fps. Now, 1080p at high settings, with a full 60 fps, is jaw dropping, and that's on a game as old as skryim. I look forward to how battlefield 4 and Metro LL play on this card. Overall, money well spent! (obviously a desktop is more economical, but as a college student, it's not really plausible since I move around so much).

[myk]

Not particularly.

Take my box, for example. The Windows Experience Index rates my graphics at a 7.9, which is the maximum value allowed in Windows 7. I have a GTX 660 ti. If I get Watch Dogs for PC, it'll certainly be playable, but if I want to stay at or above 30fps I probably won't be able to use Ultra graphics settings.

Now, supposed I upgraded my GPU to a GTX 790. I'm going to have a much easier time getting that game to look good on my system, right? But as long as I'm using Windows 7, WEI is still going to rate my graphics at a 7.9.

Another thing about WEI is that your overall score is the lowest value. In that case, it's my CPU and RAM, which are tied at 7.7. Now suppose that instead of upgrading my rig with a GTX 790, it was a buddy of mine who did. To afford such a powerful GPU, he skimped a little on the CPU and went with a mid-range Core i5. Let's say Windows scored that CPU a 6.5. So, if we both just opened up our system properties, without expanding our WEI scores, my box is a 7.7, and his box is a 6.5. Based on a single number showing on system properties, a layperson might assume that my computer is better, but I'm the one who'd actually be more in need of an upgrade.

The expanded numbers are sometimes a fun way to see that, yes, your computer really did get a boost from an upgrade (assuming you weren't already at the max on that number). But they're not a substitute for benchmarking tools to measure actual performance.

Yeah I figured as much. In any case, I went from a 6.8 to a 7.1 just with the SSD replacement, for what it's worth. Not bad for a 2011 laptop, I guess.

Should I have gone with an SSHD drive as a secondary instead of a regular mechanical drive, or would it have mattered any?

[mikeszekely]

Yeah I figured as much. In any case, I went from a 6.8 to a 7.1 just with the SSD replacement, for what it's worth. Not bad for a 2011 laptop, I guess.

Should I have gone with an SSHD drive as a secondary instead of a regular mechanical drive, or would it have mattered any?

Is that 6.8 overall to 7.1 overall? What was the actual change in hard drive? I've never had a mechanical drive score higher than 5.9 on WEI. Both the computers I use an SSD in have 7.9s for the hard drive, and it's something else that drags them down. In my desktop, it's the CPU and RAM (7.7). In my laptop, the GTX 660M only managed a 7.2.

In any case, using an SSD for the secondary drive wouldn't affect WEI, as it only measures the performance of the primary drive.

Personally, 120GB SSDs had to come down under $100 before I advocated their use at all. Now, since using an SSD for a primary drive can really make a computer seem fast by cutting boot times to a quarter of a mechanical drive's, I like to use them as boot drives. But I still think their too expensive for mass storage. I'm too lazy to go to Newegg, check prices, and do math, but I'd ballpark the cost per GB on an SSD to be around 10x the cost on a mechanical drive. It's been years since I started hearing that SSDs would replace mechanical drives, but until that cost difference is no more than 1.5-2x/GB, it's just not worth it. The performance gains you get loading one file one program you'd install on the secondary drive aren't as dramatic as the boost loading all the crap Windows does.

[azrael]

Yeah I figured as much. In any case, I went from a 6.8 to a 7.1 just with the SSD replacement, for what it's worth. Not bad for a 2011 laptop, I guess.

Should I have gone with an SSHD drive as a secondary instead of a regular mechanical drive, or would it have mattered any?

As a storage drive, it won't have mattered. SSHDs work better as a boot/OS drive where you're accessing certain files on a consistent basis. A SSHD caches the frequently used files in the flash memory for quicker access. If it's random reads, then a SSHD would be no better than a regular HD (this can vary however). Which is why I recommend a SSHD if you are limited in storage space or where space is a premium like when you only have room for 1 HD and a SSD is not an option due to storage size (like some power users I know who live from their laptop and must have EVERYTHING on their laptop).

[myk]

Is that 6.8 overall to 7.1 overall? What was the actual change in hard drive? I've never had a mechanical drive score higher than 5.9 on WEI. Both the computers I use an SSD in have 7.9s for the hard drive, and it's something else that drags them down. In my desktop, it's the CPU and RAM (7.7). In my laptop, the GTX 660M only managed a 7.2.

In any case, using an SSD for the secondary drive wouldn't affect WEI, as it only measures the performance of the primary drive.

Personally, 120GB SSDs had to come down under $100 before I advocated their use at all. Now, since using an SSD for a primary drive can really make a computer seem fast by cutting boot times to a quarter of a mechanical drive's, I like to use them as boot drives. But I still think their too expensive for mass storage. I'm too lazy to go to Newegg, check prices, and do math, but I'd ballpark the cost per GB on an SSD to be around 10x the cost on a mechanical drive. It's been years since I started hearing that SSDs would replace mechanical drives, but until that cost difference is no more than 1.5-2x/GB, it's just not worth it. The performance gains you get loading one file one program you'd install on the secondary drive aren't as dramatic as the boost loading all the crap Windows does.

It was a 6.8 overall, with the 6.8 score coming from the hard drive access speed that somehow shot up to 7.6 with the new drive. Now, my lowest values come from the RAM, CPU and the video card. Looks like I've 'maxed this laptop out for all its worth...

As a storage drive, it won't have mattered. SSHDs work better as a boot/OS drive where you're accessing certain files on a consistent basis. A SSHD caches the frequently used files in the flash memory for quicker access. If it's random reads, then a SSHD would be no better than a regular HD (this can vary however). Which is why I recommend a SSHD if you are limited in storage space or where space is a premium like when you only have room for 1 HD and a SSD is not an option due to storage size (like some power users I know who live from their laptop and must have EVERYTHING on their laptop).

Ok, then I'll just stick with this Hitachi drive. I still think my boot time is very slow though, coming in at 40 seconds or so, and that's with everything turned off in the start up menu off of msconfig.exe....

[mikeszekely]

It was a 6.8 overall, with the 6.8 score coming from the hard drive access speed that somehow shot up to 7.6 with the new drive. Now, my lowest values come from the RAM, CPU and the video card. Looks like I've 'maxed this laptop out for all its worth...

Ok, then I'll just stick with this Hitachi drive. I still think my boot time is very slow though, coming in at 40 seconds or so, and that's with everything turned off in the start up menu off of msconfig.exe....

40 seconds isn't too bad. Granted, I suppose it's on the slow side for an SSD, but sometimes the motherboard's POST plays an issue. My previous desktop takes over two minutes to boot, and I blame the fact that it takes 10-15 seconds just to get to the screen that says to hit DEL to go to the BIOS.

I'd estimate my computers with SSDs to clock in around 20-30 seconds.

[azrael]

Anyone have experience with AIO-closed loop liquid coolers? I'm looking at rebuilding my testing box as a mini-ITX system and was wondering about those. Research seems to indicate pumps making strange noises after a certain time or earlier and fans making more noise than usually for a liquid cooling system. And yes, I'm aware of potential coolant leaks and such. Those could be lemons but I'm wondering about those. Some AIOs seem to be no better at cooling than a regular HSF in some cost/cooling-performance charts as well.

[myk]

I always thought that the liquid cooling was just a cool-factor/gimmick thing; that's what I was told anyway...

[azrael]

I always thought that the liquid cooling was just a cool-factor/gimmick thing; that's what I was told anyway...

I only ask because I've been seeing a number of ITX-builds using a liquid cooler due to the lack of space, hence lack of air flow. And AIOs are small enough to fit into a lot of ITX cases these days. I'm leaning on just a slim & quiet HSF but wanted to see if anyone has tried a AIO liquid cooler.

[Chewie]

Haven't used AIOs or LC personally yet, but from my research for my next desktop sidestep, there are really only a few things you need to worry about, and they are things that could be causing the worries from pump and fan noise.

You need to keep the water clean or it'll eat up a pump from the inside out. Distilled water with some silver in it fixes this. Lasts far longer than just water inbetween refilling and the silver acts as a biocide.

As for a fan or fans, stock is alright at best(assuming we're talking about some cheap Corsair kit or something similar), but you want something with a high static pressure and high cfm. They can get noisy, but good fans will provide both of these without being too much louder or more expensive than a stock fan. With a stock fan, "alright" is the key term. They are generally crap regardless of placement or use. 120MM fans are usually the best for this and there is a very large selection of them.

Leaks are still something that could be an issue, but most systems are pretty solid in that regard nowadays. If done patiently and properly, I doubt there'd be any issue with most AIO systems.

Using a small AIO system for a build like that is pretty ideal to be honest. Depending on the radiator/kit you go with, you could always upgrade other parts as well. The real money sink is LC capable parts for other components.


Liquid cooling may not be overwhelmingly better than fans in a lot of scenarios, but I also look at the heat everything outputs overall. A large system like mine pumps out a LOT of hot air under load. With it in a smaller room like mine, it heats up in here pretty quickly. A LC system will all but negate this even under the heaviest of loads. Now if I could just LC my TV.....

Edited May 22, 2014 by Chewie

[azrael]

You need to keep the water clean or it'll eat up a pump from the inside out. Distilled water with some silver in it fixes this. Lasts far longer than just water inbetween refilling and the silver acts as a biocide.

As I understand it, almost all AIOs are closed loops and have their own coolant. So I don't think I can refill it without prying the thing open with a crowbar.

As for a fan or fans, stock is alright at best(assuming we're talking about some cheap Corsair kit or something similar), but you want something with a high static pressure and high cfm. They can get noisy, but good fans will provide both of these without being too much louder or more expensive than a stock fan. With a stock fan, "alright" is the key term. They are generally crap regardless of placement or use. 120MM fans are usually the best for this and there is a very large selection of them.

After doing air cooling for so long, I'm not worried about this issue. I have enough high CFM fans on backup to last me a few lifetimes.

Using a small AIO system for a build like that is pretty ideal to be honest. Depending on the radiator/kit you go with, you could always upgrade other parts as well. The real money sink is LC capable parts for other components.

If I decide with a AiO LC setup for this ITX setup, I'm limited to the Corsair H50-H80 or Cooler Master Seidon 120s or any other AiO in the 120mm range and no upgrades because it's an AiO.

[Archer]

Another update, and a change of heart one:

I returned the MSI GS60 Ghost Pro that I recently bought. Unfortunately, not only was the GTD 870m not giving me the performance I wanted at this price-point, but it was consistently hitting 92 - 93 degrees Celsius in temperatures.

It started to crash from time to time, and even I could see that it wouldn't last. Going to invest the 1800 dollars in a proper desktop, throwing mobility to the wind.

With that in mind, does anyone actually recommend an i7 over an i5? A lot of games are recently starting to throw in i7 requirements for ultra settings, and that's worrying me a little (since I'd prefer to spring for the cheaper i5 instead).

[mikeszekely]

With that in mind, does anyone actually recommend an i7 over an i5? A lot of games are recently starting to throw in i7 requirements for ultra settings, and that's worrying me a little (since I'd prefer to spring for the cheaper i5 instead).

Sorry to hear about your laptop, but it's been my experience that there are always sacrifices for gaming on a laptop. Won't do you much good for traveling, but if you really want to game in another room, Steam just launched a feature where you can run your game on desktop hardware and stream it to a laptop, so there's that at least...

Anyway, take this with a grain of salt, because I bought i7s for my last two rigs but have never spent more than $300 on a graphics card... but for 90% of the games out there, your GPU counts for a lot more than your CPU. I mean, Battlefield 4 lists a Core i5 as the minimum requirement, but I've seen people run it just fine on a Core i3 and a solid GPU. That's not to say that a processor-intensive game can't or won't be made, but the GPU handles most of the heavy lifting, including physics, in most games. If you're working with a budget, you're going to get more bang for your buck with a Core i5 and a GeForce 770 than you will with a Core i7 and a GeForce 760.

Are you planning on building it yourself? I always think it's fun to order a bunch of parts I picked out on Newegg, then spend an evening putting it together and most of the next day setting up the software, but I'm probably a minority. If you don't have the time/knowledge to build one yourself, a friend of mine ordered a custom built computer from Digital Storm, and he was extremely satisfied with both the computer and their service.

[Chewie]

azrael: I think you might be able replace "missing" liquid in the Corsairs. I'd have to look into it, but could be more of a pain in the ass than it's worth.

Archer: If you are primarily going to be playing games, you could get a K series i5 and a good GPU, you'll save some money and won't look back. If you want a more robust multitasking, editing, do anything under the sun machine with some gaming tossed in, go with a K series i7. You're looking at a $90 difference in chips and that's it. Make sure you get a good motherboard and you're golden.

The 5th generation Core series is just around the corner, if you can wait a bit, the previous generation usually drops a little in price when the new one comes out. But even if you don't wait, the 4th gen processors are amazing.

I have an i7 4770k that's been sitting in a drawer waiting patiently for me to buy the Asus Maximus VI Formula. Sooon.......

[azrael]

azrael: I think you might be able replace "missing" liquid in the Corsairs. I'd have to look into it, but could be more of a pain in the ass than it's worth.

Looking around seems to indicate that it's not worth extracting the coolant and then mod-repairing an AiO-cooler back together. Again, I'm still thinking about this or risk looking for a low-profile cooler. As I mentioned, I'm am looking at an ITX setup so small (and preferably silent) is what I'm looking at.

[Chewie]

Honestly then maybe look for a nice case built for cramming things into. A lot of the newer ones are really nice in the way of how they are set up to accommodate components while running on air. Most of the time the only issues I hear about in small builds like that are GPU heating issues because the card can't breathe very well. The Corsair H50/80 are pretty decent coolers in the bang for buck regard. They are decently quiet too.

[azrael]

Honestly then maybe look for a nice case built for cramming things into. A lot of the newer ones are really nice in the way of how they are set up to accommodate components while running on air. Most of the time the only issues I hear about in small builds like that are GPU heating issues because the card can't breathe very well. The Corsair H50/80 are pretty decent coolers in the bang for buck regard. They are decently quiet too.

I was looking at the Corsair H60 for a AiO cooler. I'm still looking for a comparable air cooler. Right now I'm not planning on using a discrete graphics but I have a spare previous generation Nvidia card so that might end up in the package, but not right now. ITX builds seem to be getting popular for LAN parties, portable power computing, and thanks to Steam Box, a popular choice for a HTPC.

[Chewie]

I was looking at the Corsair H60 for a AiO cooler. I'm still looking for a comparable air cooler. Right now I'm not planning on using a discrete graphics but I have a spare previous generation Nvidia card so that might end up in the package, but not right now. ITX builds seem to be getting popular for LAN parties, portable power computing, and thanks to Steam Box, a popular choice for a HTPC.

Yeah. My next build after the upgrade for this one will be something small and portable. I currently drab around my full size tower and it's not a good thing or handy. I've seen a few micro ATX builds that are fantastic and powerful while remaining cheap.

[Archer]

Thanks for the tips guys. I'm looking at an i5 4670k, with an AiO liquid cooling solution, coupled with a GTX 780.

This will most likely be packaged into a mid-tower PC case, so cooling will be decent.

Hopefully, it should keep me relevant for a few years.

[azrael]

Thanks for the tips guys. I'm looking at an i5 4670k, with an AiO liquid cooling solution, coupled with a GTX 780.

This will most likely be packaged into a mid-tower PC case, so cooling will be decent.

Something to consider. In a mid-tower with good airflow, a good HSF will probably do as well the AiO cooling solution (depending on the cooler). It may even provide better bang for buck. The liquid cooler will give you better cooling but a good HSF could do the job at 1/2 the price. If you're planning on overclocking, then the AiO LC would work better then an aftermarket HSF. If not, it might be cheaper to go with a HSF.

I'm only looking at an AiO cooling solution because the build I'm doing is so small that airflow would be restricted. Because of that, a regular HSF, even a low-profile one, may not provide the best bang-for-buck.

[Archer]

Thanks for the heads up azreal. I was planning on my own build, but sadly, my lack of time, inexperience, and desire for a very small PC (I'm not a fan of large towers, especially when the same components can be stuffed in a smaller chassis) lead me to making an order on OriginPC.

I went with their Hadron Air chassis (which is water-cooled as standard), and decided to go with a stock Haswell i7 (not the -K model), alongside an over clocked GTX 780.

Hopefully this desktop (I'm shocked at how small an EVGA Hadron Air is, it's about the same dimensions as an Xbox 360, albeit slightly bigger on all three axes) will give me the performance I've been looking for. I'd like to avoid upgrading for at least a few years, and hopefully a GTX 780 will help with that at 1080p gaming.

I went with a 27 inch HP Pavilion 27xi IPS monitor to round things out. I like large monitors, and abhor TN panels, and HP had this monitor for a very fair $260 price tag (and it looks nice as well!).