The computer and electronics super geek thread

[Major Focker]

yeah, that would be overkill for my needs.

[Sildani]

I'll ask here.

I came into possession of an old fat PS3, model CECHG-01, with the yellow light of death. I've seen an iFixit video of how to fix it: basically strip it down to the motherboard and heat the main chips to make their solder remelt and flow true, since it's probably cracked. Many have done this successfully it seems.

The question: how big a deal would it be to not just reflow the solder, but remove the chips completely, clean the chips and board, and solder them down properly? Thanks!

[azrael]

tried to use windows movie maker to edit videos stored on my NAS. it says i have to download it first to my local computer.

anyone know of any video editors that can directly work on files in network shares?

i plan to do just simple trimming but across a lot of videos i'd rather not download to my laptop then re-upload again post edit.

thanks

Avidemux? AVS Video Editor? VirtualDub? However, VirtualDub requires a bit of advance knowledge. Personally, I won't want to re-encode over network. All the layers of transmission (PC->PC NIC->Router->NAS NIC->NAS hardware->NAS HD) would slow down the encoding. Give the free video editors a try.

[Major Focker]

thanks. that makes sense.

honestly, i thought simple trimming would not require a re-encode.

i figured the unwanted parts at the start/end would just be lopped off and the file's internal "partition table" updated.

so i was surprised when all cores fired up to do heavy lifting.

at first i attributed the re-encoding to the format change to wmv, but now i figure it'll likely be the same even if saving to original format.

[JB0]

I'll ask here.

I came into possession of an old fat PS3, model CECHG-01, with the yellow light of death. I've seen an iFixit video of how to fix it: basically strip it down to the motherboard and heat the main chips to make their solder remelt and flow true, since it's probably cracked. Many have done this successfully it seems.

The question: how big a deal would it be to not just reflow the solder, but remove the chips completely, clean the chips and board, and solder them down properly? Thanks!

It'd be a huge deal. Reballing a BGA part requires specialized equipment.

Also, the oven trick is not ACTUALLY a proper reflow, and is only a short-term fix.

If you have a reflow oven, that's one thing. But if you're just using your kitchen oven at PS350, that's somethin' else entirely.

[Sildani]

IFixit used a heat gun and a circular motion, but it might come down to the same thing. Hm. Thanks!

[JB0]

IFixit used a heat gun and a circular motion, but it might come down to the same thing. Hm. Thanks!

Yeah. Actual reflow ovens have a carefully constructed thermal profile, to ensure they get the solder hot enough to melt completely without heating everything else up enough to damage components, and to avoid thermal stresses from components heating up or cooling down too rapidly.

Game machine repair "reflow" does none of this, really. Points for the heatgun, though. It's actually using temperatures adequate to completely melt the solder, and the controlled application of heat reduces the chance of damage in the absence of a proper rampup/rampdown phase.

[Sildani]

Last question. So far. If a proper reflow/reball/rethermalpaste is done, how long should I expect it to last? Remember I came into possession of this thing, and I take care of my stuff. Generally.

[JB0]

Last question. So far. If a proper reflow/reball/rethermalpaste is done, how long should I expect it to last? Remember I came into possession of this thing, and I take care of my stuff. Generally.

That depends on how much of the problem is Sony's reflow oven being misconfigured and how much is just engineering flaws. I don't think anyone outside Sony Computer Entertainment's electrical engineering department can answer that.

I really think a lot of the problem is likely endemic to the design. The PS3 and XBox 360 were some of the first high-performance machines designed to be RoHS-compliant, and no one had any real experience with leadless solder at that point in time. I suspect much of what people happily heap on MS and Sony as incompetent design, defective QA, and poor manufacturing is actually the result of Europe suddenly telling everyone they can't use the good solder anymore and everyone scrambling to figure out alternatives.

[frothymug]

*Performs thread necromancy*

So, with the upcoming releases of Doom and No Man's Sky, I'm starting to wish I had the money to build a kickass gaming system that will play the new games at top framerates. However, I have a pretty good base upon which I can build a system through a series of upgrades. I wanted to get a discussion going about good deals and upgrades to see what you guys recommend. My current specs are as follows:

Intel Core i5 3570K 3.4 GHz

ASUS P8Z77-V LX motherboard

16 (8x2) GB Corsair Dominator CL9 RAM

EVGA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 3 GB

Western Digital Caviar 150 GB mechanical HDD

H|T Omega Striker 7.1 sound card

Of course, I need to get an SSD to improve loading times and overall sluggishness I'm getting with my system in its current state. I'm looking for something around 250 GB, as the 150 GB drive I have right now is ample space to store my games.

I've been trying to decide if I should spring a few extra bucks for a Core i7 processor. I saw a 6700K for $330, while the alternative Core i5 6600K is about $250. Thoughts? I will probably need to replace the motherboard. While I'd like to have the option to go SLI down the road, I will probably just stick with a single 16x slot. ASUS motherboards ONLY. I'll be using the same memory.

Now, a big decision is which card to go with. I prefer NVIDIA and a GTX 970 appears to have the best bang for your buck. However, I might be willing to spring for a 980. Is there any new series coming out soon that I should know about?

I'm on a tight budget, but I will spend extra money if it's really worth it. What do you guys think?

Edited March 13, 2016 by frothymug

[mikeszekely]

*Performs thread necromancy*

So, with the upcoming releases of Doom and No Man's Sky, I'm starting to wish I had the money to build a kickass gaming system that will play the new games at top framerates. However, I have a pretty good base upon which I can build a system through a series of upgrades. I wanted to get a discussion going about good deals and upgrades to see what you guys recommend. My current specs are as follows:

Intel Core i5 3570K 3.4 GHz

ASUS P8Z77-V LX motherboard

16 (8x2) GB Corsair Dominator CL9 RAM

EVGA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 3 GB

Western Digital Caviar 150 GB mechanical HDD

H|T Omega Striker 7.1 sound card

Of course, I need to get an SSD to improve loading times and overall sluggishness I'm getting with my system in its current state. I'm looking for something around 250 GB, as the 150 GB drive I have right now is ample space to store my games.

I've been trying to decide if I should spring a few extra bucks for a Core i7 processor. I saw a 6700K for $330, while the alternative Core i5 6600K is about $250. Thoughts? I will probably need to replace the motherboard. While I'd like to have the option to go SLI down the road, I will probably just stick with a single 16x slot. ASUS motherboards ONLY. I'll be using the same memory.

Now, a big decision is which card to go with. I prefer NVIDIA and a GTX 970 appears to have the best bang for your buck. However, I might be willing to spring for a 980. Is there any new series coming out soon that I should know about?

I'm on a tight budget, but I will spend extra money if it's really worth it. What do you guys think?

If you upgrade to a sixth-gen Core i anything, you'll need a new mobo. Honestly, I'd pass on upgrading the CPU at all. A Core i5 should be plenty for gaming, as the GPU will do most of the heavy lifting. If you do upgrade the mobo, be advised that you'll probably need new RAM, too, as the boards for 6th-gen Intel CPUs tend to use DDR4, and I'm betting you're using DDR3 in your current box.

(Side note, while I used to really like ASUS mobos I've had enough minor issues with my last two ASUS mobos, not to mention an ASUS DVD burner that died after a year, that I doubt I'll buy another ASUS product for awhile.)

You should have enough RAM. That's how much I'm running. I forget the exact model of my mobo, but it's similar to yours as well, the only difference is I have an i7-3770K in mine.

That being said, absolutely upgrade to the GTX 970. Sure, the 980 will perform better, but not really $150 better IMHO. The general consensus is, as you noted, the GTX 970 is the best bang for your buck. It's what I've got in my system, and there are only a few games I've run into that I can't run at the max settings and reliably get 30fps at 1920x1080. I haven't heard anything about Nvidia's next GPU. It's a given that they'll come out with something bigger and badder, but look at this way... if you save money and go with the GTX 970, you can budget to build a whole new box down the line.

[technoblue]

^This.

New CPUs do not yet offer a big enough performance boost for me. I have an i5-3570 in my main desktop and I am waiting until there is more news on CannonLake, even though Intel's Kaby Lake architecture made a splash in the news last year. Things that you can expect from a new CPU are better efficiency, support for newer instruction sets, better support for low power states, and possibly higher thermal margins. But pay attention to reviews because the real hardware sometimes doesn't match the marketing.

For a gaming system, the best single upgrade is the GPU. I also recommend the 970 (or a similarly capable Radeon GPU) depending on your display. I'm not someone who uses SLI/Crossfire, so I cannot comment on how that adds to performance. Unlike Mike, though, I do think the 980 is worth it for certain configurations. A GTX 970 may be good enough for a 2560x1440 display and high settings. For anything above that, you might need to look at the 980.

For example, I have a QHD display (3440x1440) and the GTX 980 is able to eek out more performance in that resolution than the 970. I also have a 970 that feeds a 1920x1080 display. It works exceptionally well for that. For QHD or 4K displays, the 970 will work, but you will have to compromise some of those graphics settings.

For SSDs, I recommend the Samsung 850 EVO drives. They have been mentioned in this thread before, and they are also wallet friendly. I think amazon has them listed with a sweet discount right now.

Edited March 13, 2016 by technoblue

[azrael]

I'm gonna second mikeszekely on the ASUS boards. My experience with them lately hasn't been good. I do some minor overclocking and my ASUS boards would occasionally freak out on me. Nothing bad, but annoying. I'll be steering away from ASUS boards on my next upgrade.

I also will back the 970 GPU upgrade. But at the same time, I'm not running a 4k monitor or a command center of monitors, just a simple 2-monitor setup. The 970 more than meets my needs.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I'm also going to recommend avoiding ASUS mobos. They've gone a bit junk lately. MSi and Gigabyte have been good to me.

On the topic of your CPU, Skylake isn't quite the upgrade from Haswell/Broadwell/Devil's Canyon some people might expect. Skylake CPUs are about as good at processing as Haswell procs, but they do use considerably less power doing it. I'd wait for the next revision of the 14nm process architecture if I had the patience, as that's where the performance bump will come from. Unfortunately, Intel has a nasty tendency of changing sockets every time they revise their CPU designs, so it's hard to futureproof. That said, Haswell has dead-ended. Even avoiding the fact that the selection of boards for that architecture has dried up, it all uses DDR3 and doesn't support USB3.x, SATA-III, or M.2/MSATA nearly as elegantly as the 170 chipset. And while DDR4 couldn't nearly match the bang-for-buck of DDR3 when Skylake came out a few months ago, the gap is quickly shrinking.

All of that is, to say, if you're going for an i5 build, consider Skylake. If your gaming experience isn't proc-bound, you'll be able to use a lot more of the nifty features of the 170-series chipsets, and be able to carry more of your stuff over to your next build. If you need CPU performance though, you might think strongly about looking back to a Devil's Canyon i7. (ie: 4790k) The price-performance chart still favors the 4790k to the 6700k and their respective mobos/RAM. You won't be able to move any of it over to your next build, which is something that matters to me, but may not be important to you, but it's hard to beat it now.

And why would you want CPU performance? Unless No Man's Sky is programmed a lot more elegantly than most of the other procedural games that exist, it's going to ask the CPU for a lot of calculations. While framerates will remain stable as a function of the GPU, the game may slow down if the CPU can't keep up. I can't speak to No Man's Sky specifically, since it hasn't really interested me, but in a similar vein, Space Engineers simply drags on lower-end CPUs. Or older really-high-end CPUs. My 975 just dies. Just to demonstrate the point that not all games are GPU-bound. There's also a fair few titles that aren't written well enough to load graphical junk into the VRAM, which has made my 8GB R9 390 a bit redundant in a few situations.

I am going to recommend the R9 390 though. My Sapphire R9 390 8GB cost about what a 4GB GTX-970 does, with the same kind of performance level from the GPU, but with a bit more VRAM to play with where that matters. Power consumption is probably slightly higher, but I've got enough PSU for it.

I'm personally probably going to take on a Skylake i7 build later this year, unless news of the next revision comes before then. I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with Bloomfield and its triple-channel quirks.

[frothymug]

Good advice, everyone. I will, however, continue using ASUS motherboards, as they have been flawless for me for the past 15 years.

You may have convinced me to stick with my i5 3570K. I do play World of Warcraft, though, and I know that game is very CPU dependent. Given this, and that the Legion expansion is coming out in a few months, would you still recommend staying with my current processor? I get about 35 FPS in raids, but I would love it if I could get 60+ consistently.

As far as the GPU goes... I will probably spring for a 980 if I only end up upgrading that part only. I'll go with a 970 if I also upgrade the mobo and processor. My rule of thumb is that, using the Tom's Hardware GPU Hierarchy, I don't consider it worth the upgrade if I don't jump 3 tiers. The 980 is a 3-tier jump from my 660 Ti. I'll continue to think about it.

Question about the RAM and DDR modes... I'm not at home, so I can't check, but is it possible to run two sticks on DDR3, or are they going dual-channel right now (I have 8x2 GB)? If DDR3 requires 3 sticks, would you need 4 sticks for DDR4?

My overall objective is to be as "future-proof" as possible without breaking the bank. I would like to have smooth 60-ish FPS on the upcoming AAA games I'm interested in. Maybe if I can land a juicy internship over the summer, I can afford to buy a whole new system. Until then, I am on a meager college student budget.

[technoblue]

I have two ASUS motherboards that I use here at home. One is the Maximus V GENE (Intel Z77) and the other is the Gryphon Z78. I've been pleased with both (the two machines have different uses), and I know that puts me in the minority here. I think if you have a motherboard that works, then don't bother trying to fix it. It will save you money now. If your goal is to future proof yourself as much as possible, get other components that are not as critical first but that will give your current system a performance boost. Then, look at what is available later in the year and how Intel is supporting its new micro-architecture. You may find a better motherboard to buy at this time and you can also get the memory and CPU to go with it.

This assumes, of course, that Intel plans to stick with the tick-tock release model that it began when introducing the 65nm Core and Core 2 CPUs ten years ago.

On memory: Yes it is possible. In fact, you can use one, two, or four sticks of DDR3. If your motherboard supports DDR4 with a four-slot layout, then it should work the same way. Using a single memory stick will enable the motherboard to support a single-channel memory configuration. Using two or four memory sticks will enable the motherboard to support dual-channel memory configuration.

You may be thinking of the lineage of the LGA-2011 i7 motherboards. The latest ones use the X99 chipset and have a 4+4 slot layout for memory. But back in 2010, LGA-1366 and the X58 chipset was a big deal, and these i7 motherboards had 6 slots for DDR3. Today, these are outdated.

Edited March 13, 2016 by technoblue

[SchizophrenicMC]

There isn't an inherent minimum interleaving requirement with any kind of DDR RAM, the numbers just specify the standard revisions to Double Data Rate Synchronous Dynamic RAM. DDR was introduced ages ago, DDR2 replaced it and was used until around 8 or 10 years ago, when DDR3 took over as the mainstream, and now new stuff uses DDR4 RAM. Notably, none of it is cross-compatible.

When I refer to channel count, I'm talking about a technique used to increase effective data transfer rate by interleaving RAM in such a way that multiple modules (sticks) communicate across separate channels, taking advantage of processing capacity while one module is refreshing. (Something that has to be done every few cycles to keep bits in volatile memory, which takes up a clock cycle and slows down any RAM) Most modern machines are designed to use dual-channel memory, whereby RAM is dedicated to two separate channels for interleaving purposes. You may notice your DIMM Slots are two different colors. That designates the channels. Intel's Bloomfield architecture used triple-channel memory access, which was neat in theory, but in practice I've found much the same thing that other manufacturers did: it's not really worth it. Which is why you don't see too many 6-slot boards anymore. Some high-end machines use quad-channel now, which is also fine. It acts like dual channel memory if you only install two sticks, which was something triple-channel always gave me trouble with. (I solved that by cramming a stick into all 6 slots) Though honestly, you can run most anything on one stick and it'll do stuff, though it'll be slower than having the same amount of RAM spread across two sticks because of that whole interleaving thing.

On the topic of your proc, I might consider moving from Ivy Bridge. It's just a die shrink of Sandy Bridge, which has been in production for about 5 years now. I'm not saying go full i7, but the real benefits to the newer Core-series procs come with their respective chipsets and support for all kinds of fun modern computing tricks. That's why I'm considering going from an 8 year old i7 to a new i5. Even as nice as a hyperthreading 4 core CPU is, being limited to 24GB of RAM, and only supporting SATA II and USB2.0 sucks. Having a bunch of SATA-III channels would be great, and some USB3.0 support would be nice too. (Especially if I had room on top of my desk for my desktop) Plus M.2 support and so on. There was an awesome Black Friday deal I missed for a 4790k with a late-model transitional MSi board that had a lot of the features of the newer chipsets, for $350. I'm still burned up about that.

Finally, on the ASUS note, they were good to me and my friends for years, and then a bunch of us bought various new ASUS boards and they all proved one thing: ASUS has gone to hell in a hamster bowl. Reliability? Performance? No, no. Name value.

[azrael]

Finally, on the ASUS note, they were good to me and my friends for years, and then a bunch of us bought various new ASUS boards and they all proved one thing: ASUS has gone to hell in a hamster bowl. Reliability? Performance? No, no. Name value.

I have two ASUS motherboards that I use here at home. One is the Maximus V GENE (Intel Z77) and the other is the Gryphon Z78. I've been pleased with both (the two machines have different uses), and I know that puts me in the minority here.

I'm also going to recommend avoiding ASUS mobos. They've gone a bit junk lately. MSi and Gigabyte have been good to me.

frothymug, as the saying goes, your mileage may vary. You may get an ASUS board that exhibits no problems. You may get one that causes nothing but heart ache.

[David Hingtgen]

My current mobo is my first ASUS, and likely my last. It sure doesn't seem to like detecting SSD's, and/or re-assigning SATA ports randomly.

[technoblue]

Good advice, everyone. I will, however, continue using ASUS motherboards, as they have been flawless for me for the past 15 years.

frothymug, as the saying goes, your mileage may vary. You may get an ASUS board that exhibits no problems. You may get one that causes nothing but heart ache.

That advice is good for any purchase. And with computers, it is good to keep in mind when buying any component. That's why I think it is best not to upset the core of a working system if a person is just looking for better gaming performance or snappier load times. There are too many variables introduced by a complete overhaul that will upset PC harmony.

The one reason that I can think of where a person would need to upgrade from IvyBridge today would be if they were locked into the Intel IGP solution and wanted something that supports DirectX 12 compatibility. For any other purpose, it isn't really necessary because there is no killer app that is forcing a CPU upgrade for performance reasons. But if you want to try out the new features/gadgets that come with the new chipsets, like M.2 and USB 3.1, then that's a different story. If those things are not a priority, then I think Ivy still has two years left before it starts to show its age. Some may even be able to push that out to three. It really depends on your needs and how you use your computer.

Edited March 14, 2016 by technoblue

[SchizophrenicMC]

I'll agree with that evaluation. The problem isn't so much with Ivy Bridge itself, but rather the chipsets that support it. Even those aren't really problematic, per se, but they don't offer the featureset I'm looking for today, personally. And, in my opinion, it's that 170-series chipset and all its fun new features that make a scratchbuild worth it. Of course, like technoblue said, if you don't care for the new features, IvyBridge will probably tide you over for awhile yet. Probably until Kaby Lake or whatever they're calling it is out and depreciating. Tick-tock, my friends.

All that said, Bloomfield is about 8 years old now and it is getting to be its own problem. (As well as having a weird triple channel IMC that doesn't support anything faster than 1333MHz stably, and absolutely no support for the speed my SSD can make happen) Oh if I'd only gotten fed up with it in November. I could have had beautiful transitional Devil's Canyon fun. Now I'm stuck eyeing Skylake, and it's not quite the amount of money I was hoping to spend. Still, native support for USB 3.1, SATA III, and Skylake's versatile onboard IMC are all attractive features. If Intel would just stick to a socket for more than one generation, I wouldn't feel so bad about dropping the cash on a Skylake build right now. I can afford a $300 incremental upgrade to a new proc down the line, but it's tough to justify $500 for a proc and mobo- more if they change the socket style enough to necessitate changing coolers. Curse my habit for only playing CPU-bound games.

[azrael]

I will say most computers have an average shelf-life of 3 years, depending on usage. After 3 years, the update-itch comes. Obviously it comes faster for laptops, but desktops can go on for about 5 years before things really catch up.

With that in mind, Ivy Bridge still has a lot of power to it and will likely hold out for another year, maybe more, depending on use. But as SchizophrenicMC and technoblue mentioned, everything around it is moving on. And if you want to future-proof, it's best to look at the rest of the organs, not just the brain. USB 3.1 support, for starters, is definitely something I would look at if future-proofing.

[JB0]

Meh, expansion cards can get you that sweet 3.1 lovin'.

I mean, my best system's socket 775(weep for me!(or not, I got an upgrade planned)), but I still got USB3 ports through the magic of PCIe. Added more SATA ports that way, too.

Use the slots, they make life complete.

[mikeszekely]

I will say most computers have an average shelf-life of 3 years, depending on usage. After 3 years, the update-itch comes. Obviously it comes faster for laptops, but desktops can go on for about 5 years before things really catch up.

With that in mind, Ivy Bridge still has a lot of power to it and will likely hold out for another year, maybe more, depending on use. But as SchizophrenicMC and technoblue mentioned, everything around it is moving on. And if you want to future-proof, it's best to look at the rest of the organs, not just the brain. USB 3.1 support, for starters, is definitely something I would look at if future-proofing.

But that's the thing, in the process of future-proofing, you're basically talking about replacing the whole computer, when everything in frothymug's box is essentially still good and he's working on a budget.

That's why it's my advice to upgrade the video card (and SSD) and call it a day for now. He can always wait another tick/tock cycle on the CPU, then worry about upgrading the CPU/motherboard/RAM/etc later when he's got more money for it. Especially if he goes with the GTX 980, because it'll likely still be good for most games when he does eventually upgrade.

[barurutor]

You may have convinced me to stick with my i5 3570K. I do play World of Warcraft, though, and I know that game is very CPU dependent. Given this, and that the Legion expansion is coming out in a few months, would you still recommend staying with my current processor? I get about 35 FPS in raids, but I would love it if I could get 60+ consistently.

During raids does your CPU get pegged at 100%? If not then it's not your CPU limiting your FPS, it's your graphics card.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Meh, expansion cards can get you that sweet 3.1 lovin'.

I mean, my best system's socket 775(weep for me!(or not, I got an upgrade planned)), but I still got USB3 ports through the magic of PCIe. Added more SATA ports that way, too.

Use the slots, they make life complete.

I tried to use expansion cards, but it turned out my workstation-based rig wasn't really made to handle double-width GPUs. Since I have a gaming GPU, I don't have enough room to install PCIe peripherals like wireless cards, USB3 cards, or even SATA III controllers. Not to mention I don't have enough available PCIe lanes to have the number of sockets I'd need to do everything I want with expansion capability. Manufacturers are putting more stuff onboard, which is fine I guess. I'd rather all the neat features be expansion features on a board with tons and tons of open PCIe lanes, so I can get all that fancy stuff without having to shell out for that Skylake proc I don't strictly want. But manufacturers aren't going that route.

Plus you get all these cooling issues, which gets noisy if you're used to a quiet rig. Rather get some Z170 loving.

[NZEOD]

I'm running an i5-4690, 16Gb Ripjaws gaming Ram, 2 SSDs, Gigabyte GTX970 4GB, Gigabyte Z97X board (I think) and its a beast for the little it cost. Runs Warthunder on Maximum/Movie settings at 145fps. About to test it out on Battle Fleet Gothic: Armada... that should tax it.

[JB0]

I tried to use expansion cards, but it turned out my workstation-based rig wasn't really made to handle double-width GPUs. Since I have a gaming GPU, I don't have enough room to install PCIe peripherals like wireless cards, USB3 cards, or even SATA III controllers.

Ah, the board shorted you on slots? Sucks. I've got an oversized vidcard and four expansion cards.

I thought workstation boards tended to have more expandability instead of less.

Not to mention I don't have enough available PCIe lanes to have the number of sockets I'd need to do everything I want with expansion capability. Manufacturers are putting more stuff onboard, which is fine I guess. I'd rather all the neat features be expansion features on a board with tons and tons of open PCIe lanes, so I can get all that fancy stuff without having to shell out for that Skylake proc I don't strictly want. But manufacturers aren't going that route.

Plus you get all these cooling issues, which gets noisy if you're used to a quiet rig. Rather get some Z170 loving.

I don't have much against onboard peripherals, aside from them being seen as an excuse to limit expandability.

Cooling's not a big deal, though. Very few expansion cards draw enough power to be an issue(pretty much just the graphics adapter).

I DID have to sort mine to ensure the tiny one that didn't block my video card fan was by my video card, though. Because video cards continue to be insanely designed.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I work with servers. Effectively any capacity to do anything with servers is handled via expansion. Drive controllers- specifically RAID controllers- are very common and have incredible cooling demands. Our higher-end cards run at 55C despite having their own airflow channels through the chassis, as well as sizable onboard heatsinks. Though, mind you, these are 16-drive SAS3 controllers with dedicated (off-board) supercapacitor backups and 1GB of cache memory, and they cost more than some gamers' whole builds. That said, even those will occasionally log thermal faults in our datacenter environment.

Actually, my craziest expansion card scenario deals with a particular 4u server motherboard/chassis combo that supports up to 3TB of RAM, which is all installed via 8 expansion cards. These particular chassis, as well as their internal fans, run a set of very high output rear-mount fans, which move so much air, I'm not exaggerating when I say you can feel it strongly from the workstation 10 feet away. It's even more than you get from servers running twin GPUs. (GRID and TESLA GPUs, too. Fancy stuff) We also use IPMI and TPM, both of which are handled via expansion components, and all of our >1Gbps NICs are expansion cards. (You better believe the 10G cards get HOT) All of this fun stuff means when something breaks, we don't have to fail out the whole chassis, and we can get our customers back online a lot faster. It's great. Also, when implemented properly, it's just as fast as onboard. Sometimes faster, especially in the case of hard drives with dedicated controllers.

Oh and, yes, I did get boned on expansion capacity on this mobo:

Literally only 1 x16 slot. By the by, this is a full tower case, that GPU just makes everything look small. (Don't mind my cable management too closely. It's functional, not pretty. Again: I work with servers. Serviceability is key)

[frothymug]

During raids does your CPU get pegged at 100%? If not then it's not your CPU limiting your FPS, it's your graphics card.

I haven't actually looked to see. I'll find out sometime this week.

[CrusherJ]

Hey guys, been researching a build to replace my old computer for a couple of months now and wanted to run the parts by you to some feedback. I'll be using the pc for video/photo editing, storing/streaming my media collection and general office work. I wanted it to be fairly high end as I want to be able to run it for the next five years or so without having to make any major upgrades. I'll give a rational for why I choose each part. This will be my first build so any feedback is appreciated. I plan to start buying parts (case, PSU) in May and begin the build in August/September. Thanks again for your feedback!

CPU: i7-5830k- picked a six core chip since I'll be editing and rendering. Choose to go with this over the 5820 since I'll get 40 pcie lanes as opposed to 28. Figured this would be better for future expansion.

Cooler: be quiet Dark Rock Pro 3- don't really want to go with watercooling as I fear leakage. Saw very good reviews for this cooler with the only negative being the installation. Linus from linus tech tips made it look easy so I decided to go with it.

Motherboard: At first was considering the Gigabyte ga-x99p-sli, but am thinking the Asus Deluxe or Asus x99e-ws would give me more options for future expansion (more storage, sound cards, etc.). I'll likely go with one of the Asus boards as of now.

Memory: Cosair Vengence LPX 32gb (4x8gb)- guess ram doesn't really matter as long as it's from a major brand. Decided to go with 32gb over 16gb since some of the projects I'll be working on will involve 4k video and the extra ram will help.

Storage: Samsung 850 evo 250gb, Samsung 950 pro 512, WD Red 4tb(x3)- the 850 will be the os drive and store the programs (adobe, office, etc.); the 950 will house my project work; the WD drives will be used to store my media collection and I'll stream it to my tv using plex. I was going to either build or buy a nas to do this, but figured I might as well use my main rig to do it since it'll be on must of the time anyway giving me access to the files for streaming.

GPU: EVGA gtx 980 Ti- using the rig for editing and wanted a good card to help with that. Don't plan on gaming, but again trying to be future minded.

PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA P2 750W 80+ Platinum- wanted a good psu to power everything. Don't think I'll need a 1000w one even considering future expansion, but maybe I should get an 850w just to be sure?

Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro- really like the looks of the case and it'll fit the Asus x99e-ws if I decide to get that board. Either way it should fit my needs.

Monitor: Definitely want to go ultrawide 3440x1440. Will probably get the Dell U3415 or LG 34uc87.

[technoblue]

That looks like a major upgrade!

I have the Dell U3415 paired with my desktop system in a single monitor setup. It's very nice and I don't mind the subtle curve at all.

One comment: You might do better decoupling the WD Reds from the main system and adding them to a NAS for media storage, but I don't know how that would affect your current desktop budget. A good SOHO NAS from Synology or QNAP will add around $300 in addition to what you have listed.

[CrusherJ]

I was considering a qnap when I was thinking about getting a nas. I don't mind going that route. I can hold that part of the build back a month, so it's not a big deal. What's the reason that a dedicated nas would be better?

[frothymug]

I would like to get an SSD very soon, as prices are probably as low as they're going to get. I currently have Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, but it's OEM. Will it copy over to the new hard drive without any problems? What about investing in Windows 10 as an alternative fix?

[technoblue]

I was considering a qnap when I was thinking about getting a nas. I don't mind going that route. I can hold that part of the build back a month, so it's not a big deal. What's the reason that a dedicated nas would be better?

A NAS device is basically a mini low power computer whose one purpose in life is to serve files.

I think it adds convenience, but it really depends on what you want to do with your system. You mentioned that you are building a desktop that is dedicated to photo/video editing. That kind of system probably should have a decent data drive on its own, but you also mentioned streaming content. With a NAS device you could stream content to your TV, to your computer, and to other connected devices in your home. A NAS device may be easier to maintain in the unfortunate event that a drive installed within it went down and needed replacement. As a side note, since you mentioned Plex, I think that rules a few Synology devices out.

I would like to get an SSD very soon, as prices are probably as low as they're going to get. I currently have Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, but it's OEM. Will it copy over to the new hard drive without any problems? What about investing in Windows 10 as an alternative fix?

frothymug: Look into the free version of Macrium Reflect. If you are moving a Windows partition that is smaller than the SSD that you are looking to buy, this tool should help you to move those files and you can wait a little longer before reinstalling Windows (or diving into Win10). I haven't used the OEM version of Windows since WinXP, so I don't recall if a drive replacement will trigger reactivation.

http://www.macrium.com/reflectfree.aspx

Edited March 17, 2016 by technoblue