Sherdog PC Build/Buy Thread, v5: Stop Thinking of Your Router as a Peripheral

[GhostZ06]

Gentlemen, i need good portble speakers for a laptop. any good ideas?

Also bonus, any good andriod dock with speakers?


Or if i can find a set of blue tooth speakers that do both.

 

[Madmick]

Thanks for the advice gents!

EDIT: Thanks to Madmick as well

Oh, don't forget that RAM performance also depends on the frequency your motherboard natively supports. Some motherboards are verified to certain overclocks. Generally speaking, though, I believe the higher you overclock above the native frequency supported that there is a diminishing return in effective performance increase. Mainly, don't spend too much of a premium per GB on "enhancements" that will yield modest benefits for gaming. RAM is where computer builders continue to be mostly lost, and that's why you see outrageous markups on sticks of RAM that are no better than those literally 1/4 their price (here's looking at your Corsair Dominator Platinums). Dr. Dre should get in on the RAM game. That might wake some gamers up. For example:

DDR4
2x8GB, G. Skill Ripjaw V DDR4-3200 CAS15 ($100) / DDR4-3000 CAS14 ($95)
DDR3
2x8GB, G. Skill Ripjaw X DDR3-1866 CAS9 ($72)
2x8GB, G. Skill Ares Series DDR3-2400 CAS11 ($67)
2x8GB, Patriot Extreme Performance DDR3-2400 CAS10 ($90)


No reason you should be spending more than $100. You might see like a 1%-2% performance benefit no matter how high above that you go.

 

[Madmick]

Gentlemen, i need good portble speakers for a laptop. any good ideas?

Also bonus, any good andriod dock with speakers?


Or if i can find a set of blue tooth speakers that do both.

Well, the portability of Bluetooth is just so nice even though you end up sacrificing sound quality with wireless speakers (of any kind) not due to the signal or bandwidth not being up to snuff, but just because there isn't sufficient power to drive any sort of proper volume & amplification in the speakers. So long as your laptop is bluetooth capable, Windows should automatically find and install your drivers for these devices. They always have drivers. Android is less universal in its support, but Amazon is already on the Fire OS, so it should be compatible with Amazon products. Anything that's currently out there though tends to have Android support. It's pretty golden there, too, today, at least as far as bluetooth audio devices.

Wirecutter did a huge roundup with 78 total models tested (48 launched in 2015 and 30 launched in 2016 so far)/ Easily the most comprehensive I've ever seen on the subject:
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-bluetooth-speaker/

• They recommend the UE Roll for $70 as their top all-around bluetooth speakers, but that recommendation seems solely aimed at the phone market (with an emphasis on things like a tiny size and waterproofing).
• The Amazon Echo for $180 is all the new rage due to the incredible software driving the speakers. The noise cancellation technology is supposedly insane; possibly better than Bose which is just nuts considering this is the one department where Bose is legit and how long they've historically dominated the market in terms of technological sophistication. But it has all the other features that manage your home appliances and crap.
  
• Amazon does a much cheaper AmazonBasics Portable Bluetooth Speaker for $40. Then the AmazonBasics Large Portable Bluetooth Speakers for $70. Doubt you'll beat the sound quality of either at those price points. AmazonBasics is working towards joining Monoprice as a sort of "Kirkland" brand within the electronics world. No bullshit wasted on advertising or other markups. Just a focus on quality control.
  
• The UE Boom 2 for $160-190 (depending on color) is supposed to be a great all-around bluetooth speaker set with a bit better sound quality than the Echo, but not the bells and whistle features like Alexa.
  
• They recommend the Riva Turbo X for $300 as the best all-around set of bluetooth speakers you could buy in terms of sound quality. Another they tested I would mention that probably rivaled it is the JBL Extreme for $260-$300 (depending on color). JBL are renowned for this, and one of the only companies that does bluetooth audio that is really trying to achieve closer to a home theater class of performance. In fact, you can use their JBL Connect App to connect multiple bluetooth speakers this way (Extreme/Pulse2/Flip3 models) and create a wireless surround-sound audio environment. These guys were a bit mean to the Extreme in the review, though, so take that into consideration. They said it was loud but the sound sucked. *Shrug*
  
• Edit Correction: These DKnight MagicBox Portable Bluetooth Speakers for $25 appear to the be the bestselling bluetooth speakers ever. Can't be good.
  
• Fuck Bose & Beats. I don't care if Bose is supposed to be pretty good here. I don't trust any positive reviews, anyway. Bose is notorious for dirty play, and they have the cash to really mud things up.

Spoiler

UE Boom 2

Amazon Echo

Riva Turbo X

 

[Brampton_Boy]

Oh, don't forget that RAM performance also depends on the frequency your motherboard natively supports. Some motherboards are verified to certain overclocks. Generally speaking, though, I believe the higher you overclock above the native frequency supported that there is a diminishing return in effective performance increase. Mainly, don't spend too much of a premium per GB on "enhancements" that will yield modest benefits for gaming. RAM is where computer builders continue to be mostly lost, and that's why you see outrageous markups on sticks of RAM that are no better than those literally 1/4 their price (here's looking at your Corsair Dominator Platinums). Dr. Dre should get in on the RAM game. That might wake some gamers up. For example:

DDR4
2x8GB, G. Skill Ripjaw V DDR4-3200 CAS15 ($100) / DDR4-3000 CAS14 ($95)
DDR3
2x8GB, G. Skill Ripjaw X DDR3-1866 CAS9 ($72)
2x8GB, G. Skill Ares Series DDR3-2400 CAS11 ($67)
2x8GB, Patriot Extreme Performance DDR3-2400 CAS10 ($90)


No reason you should be spending more than $100. You might see like a 1%-2% performance benefit no matter how high above that you go.

In my experience, tighter timings yield better performance gains than higher clocks for Ram - and even in those instances, there is no real world performance increases outside of benchmarks.

Heck, I run my ram and lower than spec because it helps me achieve a higher overclock.

 

[Madmick]

In my experience, tighter timings yield better performance gains than higher clocks for Ram - and even in those instances, there is no real world performance increases outside of benchmarks.

Heck, I run my ram and lower than spec because it helps me achieve a higher overclock.

Yes, you're not the only one who I've heard say this. I do believe it has to do with the native supported frequencies on the motherboards. In my experience it's easier to overclock the frequency than it is to tighten the timings, so maybe that is telling me something. In either case, there are some $90 G. Skill TridentZ 1600MHz CAS7 sticks and some $100 G. Skill TridentX 1866Mhz CAS8 sticks.

I'm with you. In his situation I think looking for bigger sticks that allow for (more economical) later expansion is ideal. I think the focus should be on the lowest $$ per GB of RAM with the strategy to prefer RAM sticks with the lowest latency that run on the maximum natively (not overclocked) supported frequency by one's motherboard/chipset:

Legitreviews did a nice piece comparing all G. Skill DDR4 at different frequencies. As you can see in gaming-- about a 1% different between the cheapest and most expensive sticks in framerate:
http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...nding-the-best-ddr4-memory-kit-speed_170340/6
Unsurprisingly, there's very little difference even in benchmarks between 2133 & 3000 sticks (the ceiling native frequency supported by Skylake).

There's a 2x8GB pair of Corsair's low-profile LPX sticks @2133-13 for $70 if you go the low latency route on DDR4. That spares you $25-$30 vs the G. Skill 3000-14 & 3200-15 sticks.

 

[Madmick]

Ha, so I was updating my knowledge of some of the more recent models of G-Sync and Freesync compatible monitors released. I had hoped there would be some 30"+ 4K models to ogle, but no dice. However, in learning this, I discovered the Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide Curved 34" 1440p 75Hz G-Sync monitor. Looks like it's between this, the Acer Z35 Ultrawide 35" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync, and the Acer 27" 4K 60Hz G-Sync monitor for top dog among G-sync displays. I'm not really a fan of the curved screens, but that's because with a single screen if you stand at the correct viewing distance the optical effect provided by the curvature is minimalized. Realizing that some crazy affluent overclocker out there probably coupled an i7-extreme processor with a quad sli Titan setup trying to discover if it could run 7680x1440 at a reliable framerate (and I was right...and the answer is "yes, it can"), naturally I then wondered, "What would a tri-monitor setup of these look like?"

Spoiler

 

[Count Zero]

With the typical generational improvements I don't see a single GPU (like the hypothetical GTX 1080 Ti) being able to handle 4K as a single card.

Looks like this was more advertising talk than tech talk, but even still it looks like the next Nvidia series is going to sharply increase their general upward slope of improvement:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...u-pascal-will-be-10-times-faster-than-maxwell

If these claims are like half true, we might see the damn 1070 straight up able to handle 4K as a single card.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091.html

I think it's safe to say the 1070 is going to be more powerful than the Titan X, considering it'll be based on the new architecture. And the Titan X looks like it gets playable framerates at 4k on some pretty high-end games.

Although honestly, even if the rate of improvement were just similar as that between 7 series and 9 series, I think folks would have been getting playable (however nebulous a term) framerates out of the 1080ti equivalent. But now - again, if the claims are at least half true - I think we'll actually be getting a pretty smooth 4K experience out of the 1080ti.

The rate of change in the resolution market seems to have suddenly hit a big upswing after stalling out for a while there, in general. Or at least it seems like to me. With tvs / monitors / gaming / etc, etc, everything.

 

[Madmick]

Looks like this was more advertising talk than tech talk, but even still it looks like the next Nvidia series is going to sharply increase their general upward slope of improvement:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...u-pascal-will-be-10-times-faster-than-maxwell

If these claims are like half true, we might see the damn 1070 straight up able to handle 4K as a single card.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091.html

I think it's safe to say the 1070 is going to be more powerful than the Titan X, considering it'll be based on the new architecture. And the Titan X looks like it gets playable framerates at 4k on some pretty high-end games.

Although honestly, even if the rate of improvement were just similar as that between 7 series and 9 series, I think folks would have been getting playable (however nebulous a term) framerates out of the 1080ti equivalent. But now - again, if the claims are at least half true - I think we'll actually be getting a pretty smooth 4K experience out of the 1080ti.

The rate of change in the resolution market seems to have suddenly hit a big upswing after stalling out for a while there, in general. Or at least it seems like to me. With tvs / monitors / gaming / etc, etc, everything.

Nah, don't believe all that hype. They always roll out figures like that spliced out of context when they're hyping upcoming shit. Meanwhile, hardware advancements have marched forward at a tremendously linear pace. The GTX 970 eclipsed the GTX 780. On UserBenchmark, in terms of how these cards actually perform across thousands of real-world user setups:

• 130% -- GTX 980 Ti
  
• 89.9% -- GTX 780 Ti
  
• 84.6% -- GTX 970
• 77.1% -- GTX 780
• 60.8% -- GTX 770

The average user's OC'd 780 Ti is only 4% faster than the average OC'd GTX 970. There's a gradient downturn in exaggeration that their press announcements follow leading into a new architectural launch. At some point when they start to detail more specifics it will be downgraded to 200%-300%. When they have a physical product that is about to be launched with its specifications published, then they'll start making more realistic-- but still exaggerated-- claims about its probable performance: down to they're chirping 50%-70%. Then it will launch and everyone will discover it's 25%-35% just like it's been nearly every time before.

 

[Count Zero]

Nah, don't believe all that hype.

 

[Cygnus A]

Ha, so I was updating my knowledge of some of the more recent models of G-Sync and Freesync compatible monitors released. I had hoped there would be some 30"+ 4K models to ogle, but no dice. However, in learning this, I discovered the Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide Curved 34" 1440p 75Hz G-Sync monitor. Looks like it's between this, the Acer Z35 Ultrawide 35" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync, and the Acer 27" 4K 60Hz G-Sync monitor for top dog among G-sync displays. I'm not really a fan of the curved screens, but that's because with a single screen if you stand at the correct viewing distance the optical effect provided by the curvature is minimalized. Realizing that some crazy affluent overclocker out there probably coupled an i7-extreme processor with a quad sli Titan setup trying to discover if it could run 7680x1440 at a reliable framerate (and I was right...and the answer is "yes, it can"), naturally I then wondered, "What would a tri-monitor setup of these look like?"

Where were you when I posted about it LAST YEAR. I picked this up before Christmas and it is simply awesome. 3 of these together is really just stupid. 1 of them is almost too wide if you are sitting in front of it.

Edit: You need to check you facts. The Acer X34 is 75hz base with 100hz overclock capability. The Acer Z35 is only 1080 (not 1440).

 

[Madmick]

Where were you when I posted about it LAST YEAR. I picked this up before Christmas and it is simply awesome. 3 of these together is really just stupid. 1 of them is almost too wide if you are sitting in front of it.

Edit: You need to check you facts. The Acer X34 is 75hz base with 100hz overclock capability. The Acer Z35 is only 1080 (not 1440).

Damn, missed it! I didn't realize this monitor was that old. I've been checking in intermittently waiting for the 30"+ models of G-Sync/Freesync monitors to crop up.

My bad on the Acer Z35. Was just reading off this website which has become my new favorite reference on gaming monitors:
http://www.144hzmonitors.com/gaming-monitors-buyers-guide-february-2016/
Maybe that's why the Amazon link is broken. It says customers had reported something was listed wrong about the model's specifications. Never seen an Amazon notice like it.


*Edit* Damn, the Acer link to the "Tech Specs" for that model and it doesn't list the refresh rate (I cannot possibly emphasize how bizarre this is on the website of a manufacturer who sells computer monitors):
http://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/predator-model/UM.CZ0AA.001
I Google revealed an old launch CNN announcement article from 2015 that quoted 144Hz as the refresh rate:
http://www.cnet.com/products/acer-predator-z35/

WTF happened here? What's going on- what is all this? Did Acer claim a false refresh rate? Now they're trying to quietly hope nobody notices?

 

[Cygnus A]

Damn, missed it! I didn't realize this monitor was that old. I've been checking in intermittently waiting for the 30"+ models of G-Sync/Freesync monitors to crop up.

My bad on the Acer Z35. Was just reading off this website which has become my new favorite reference on gaming monitors:
http://www.144hzmonitors.com/gaming-monitors-buyers-guide-february-2016/
Maybe that's why the Amazon link is broken. It says customers had reported something was listed wrong about the model's specifications. Never seen an Amazon notice like it.


*Edit* Damn, the Acer link to the "Tech Specs" for that model and it doesn't list the refresh rate (I cannot possibly emphasize how bizarre this is on the website of a manufacturer who sells computer monitors):
http://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/predator-model/UM.CZ0AA.001
I Google revealed an old launch CNN announcement article from 2015 that quoted 144Hz as the refresh rate:
http://www.cnet.com/products/acer-predator-z35/

WTF happened here? What's going on- what is all this? Did Acer claim a false refresh rate? Now they're trying to quietly hope nobody notices?

Well technically you still cant get them which is why you dont realize they came out already. They have been out of stock since release with Newegg only getting small batches every few weeks/ months. I got very luck early with mine.

The Acer monitor release has been a fiasco. They announced all kinds of things and changed them quietly upon release. The Freesync x34 only does 75hz but the Gsync version does 100hz. Original claims were something like 120hz. 144hz is not possible with ultrawide 1440 due to bandwidth limitations of current displayport/HDMI specifications. I am not sure if 144hz is doable on 1080 ultrawide.

People say the z35 has terrible ghosting but I had no interest in a monitor that size @1080 anyways.

If you have any questions about it let me know. But IMO it is hands down the best monitor out right now.

 

[Naramie]

Gentlemen, i need good portble speakers for a laptop. any good ideas?

Also bonus, any good andriod dock with speakers?


Or if i can find a set of blue tooth speakers that do both.

Check the Klipsch KMC line, the larger model is seen on Woot every now and then for about $130. Good size Bluetooth speakers that can easily fill a room and somewhat portable. Mick posted a few options but those tend to favor portability over sound quality. You can't really sacrifice either one without sacrificing the other. Small speakers are portable but have tinny and limited sound range. Big speakers offer more clarity but sacrifice portability. Figure out the main purpose you're using it for and make a fair compromise, work from there. If you are not going to be carrying it around all the time no point sacrificing sound quality.

 

[hughesfan20]

Oh, don't forget that RAM performance also depends on the frequency your motherboard natively supports. Some motherboards are verified to certain overclocks. Generally speaking, though, I believe the higher you overclock above the native frequency supported that there is a diminishing return in effective performance increase. Mainly, don't spend too much of a premium per GB on "enhancements" that will yield modest benefits for gaming. RAM is where computer builders continue to be mostly lost, and that's why you see outrageous markups on sticks of RAM that are no better than those literally 1/4 their price (here's looking at your Corsair Dominator Platinums). Dr. Dre should get in on the RAM game. That might wake some gamers up. For example:

DDR4
2x8GB, G. Skill Ripjaw V DDR4-3200 CAS15 ($100) / DDR4-3000 CAS14 ($95)
DDR3
2x8GB, G. Skill Ripjaw X DDR3-1866 CAS9 ($72)
2x8GB, G. Skill Ares Series DDR3-2400 CAS11 ($67)
2x8GB, Patriot Extreme Performance DDR3-2400 CAS10 ($90)


No reason you should be spending more than $100. You might see like a 1%-2% performance benefit no matter how high above that you go.

Currently I'm rocking G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231428 and definitely have no complaints, thanks for the G.Skill recommendations I definitely am a fan.

 

[Brampton_Boy]

Anyone have any experience using Xeon server CPUs?

I'm looking to update our workstation in the lab, and there are so many tasty deals on e5 and e7 xeons on ebay (they all appear to be engineering samples though). As an example, you can get a 15 core Ivybridge Xeon for $199.

Now, the tricky part is what motherboards actually support these CPUs. While I know they are all LGA2011, I haven't been able to confirm that I can just stick one of these CPUs in a regular desktop board. There are some "relatively" cheap dual LGA2011 server boards, but they don't explicitly say that they support e7 CPUs.

I emailed the seller and he says he has no clue. Intel's website wasn't much help either.

Somebody school me on Xeons.

 

[Cygnus A]

Anyone have any experience using Xeon server CPUs?

I'm looking to update our workstation in the lab, and there are so many tasty deals on e5 and e7 xeons on ebay (they all appear to be engineering samples though). As an example, you can get a 15 core Ivybridge Xeon for $199.

Now, the tricky part is what motherboards actually support these CPUs. While I know they are all LGA2011, I haven't been able to confirm that I can just stick one of these CPUs in a regular desktop board. There are some "relatively" cheap dual LGA2011 server boards, but they don't explicitly say that they support e7 CPUs.

I emailed the seller and he says he has no clue. Intel's website wasn't much help either.

Somebody school me on Xeons.

So.. CPU compatibility comes down to BIOS support. I wouldn't buy a CPU that is not listed on a boards compatibility list unless others have proven it works.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Damn, missed it! I didn't realize this monitor was that old. I've been checking in intermittently waiting for the 30"+ models of G-Sync/Freesync monitors to crop up.

My bad on the Acer Z35. Was just reading off this website which has become my new favorite reference on gaming monitors:
http://www.144hzmonitors.com/gaming-monitors-buyers-guide-february-2016/
Maybe that's why the Amazon link is broken. It says customers had reported something was listed wrong about the model's specifications. Never seen an Amazon notice like it.


*Edit* Damn, the Acer link to the "Tech Specs" for that model and it doesn't list the refresh rate (I cannot possibly emphasize how bizarre this is on the website of a manufacturer who sells computer monitors):
http://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/predator-model/UM.CZ0AA.001
I Google revealed an old launch CNN announcement article from 2015 that quoted 144Hz as the refresh rate:
http://www.cnet.com/products/acer-predator-z35/

WTF happened here? What's going on- what is all this? Did Acer claim a false refresh rate? Now they're trying to quietly hope nobody notices?

Asus is releasing one with the same panel I'm thinking about getting, I love the design

http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/asus-pg348q-34-inch-ultrawide-1440p-ips-gaming-monitor/

 

[jefferz]

Here's my first crude attempt with the new cooler.

 

[Brampton_Boy]

Thought I would post some "interesting" findings comparing my old Xeon x5660 (Overclocked to 4.6Ghz) with the latest 5820k.

I have been wanting to upgrade my workstation to one of the newer v3 xeons, or alternatively, a 5820k. Before taking the jump, I wanted to see how the x5660 (clocked at 4.6Ghz) stacks up:

I had to use largely synthetic benchmarks, as it allowed for the easiest "apples to apples" comparison:

Cinebench 15 Multi Thread score: 1037
Cinebench 15 Single Thread score: 138
PC Mark 8v2 Work Open CL: 5321
Firestrike (1080p) Physics Score: 15234
Dolphin Emulation Benchmark (lower is better): 9.01

So how does this compare to a stock 5820k? (Using Anandtech, HardOCP and others as reference)

Cinebench 15 Multi Thread score: 1025
Cinebench 15 Single Thread score: 140
PC Mark 8v2 Work Open CL: 5248
Firestrike (1080p) Physics Score: 15100
Dolphin Emulation Benchmark (lower is better): 9.58

So there you have it ladies and gentleman, a 6 year old CPU/platform can stil cut with the latest CPUs (when overclocked). Now yes, you can also overclock the 5820k, but considering a transition to the x99 platform is at least $600, a $100 Xeon doesn't look like such a bad option.

I actually use my Xeon more than my 4770k, as it is just so much fun to overclock (The Haswell was literally two steps - set multi to 45x and vcore to 1.25).

This has given me a little more breathing room to see what Broadwell Xeon brings to the table (and how much that pushes down prices of other chips).

For any lga 1366 owners out there, do yourself a favor and buy a 6 core Xeon on ebay.

Edit: Given that the x58 platform is really dated, I decided to "refresh" it by buying a bluetooth usb adapter ($10), a PCI-E 4 Port USB 3.0 card ($15) and a PCI-E 2 Sata 6.0 card ($15). For a minimal investment, it has really breathed new life into the platform

 

[Strychnine]

I want to get the HTC Vive but I'm gonna upgrade my rig instead... Eventually..

"After months of speculation from both fans and press, HTC has announced pricing details for the Vive, the VR platform that the company has been co-developing with Valve. Available for pre-order on February 29, the Vive will be sold for $799, and will come with the VR headset, two wireless controllers, wall-mounted movement sensors, and two games: Job Simulator and Fantastic Contraption. The Vive is scheduled to ship in April."


http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/htc-priced-at-799-pre-orders-begin-february-29/1100-5402/

At that price?!?!? HNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!