rate this performance rig - sticky questions now answered

[Turbonium]

Okay, fair enough. I never realized you had such strong case opinions! I'll leave you to your own decisions. I personally only care about what the front looks like since I never see the top or sides of mine.

I'd still look for mATX only because the shipping is much cheaper for a smaller case, but I don't know if you'll find that "perfect" design. Maybe something like this? It's pretty much all hard edges and black except for a side vent.

That case can be had for 25 bucks at NCIX actually, but I still turned it down because of the lower build quality and the floppy drive bay, which I would never use. But other than that, the case looks very good (aside from the grey thing where the power button and stuff is clustered - that just ruins it IMO).

If I was making a budget build or something though, there's a very good chance I'd go with it (especially at 25 bucks).

All that being said, there are two things I don't like about the Sonata SOLO II: piano black finish (matte would look MUCH better), and ATX (I'd rather mATX).

It's hard to find perfection though. But I'm still holding off on the SOLO II for those two reasons.

 

[Turbonium]

On that note, do you think I can somehow mod the piano black finish to be more matte? Maybe spray it with something or use an abrasive solution on it? Or perhaps use 400+ grit sandpaper.

Keep in mind I'd only have to do it to the side and top panels, as the front of the case looks to be a preferable finish.

 

[Turbonium]

I think I'm going to go with the DH77KC (ATX) over the DH77EB (mATX). I might as well, given I'm likely going an ATX case in that Antec. Having that extra expansion capability (just in case) for an extra 20 bucks won't hurt. It also might mean the GPU will be a bit farther from the CPU, right? That would be a good thing.

 

[Turbonium]

Parts have been ordered, including a monitor from Dell.

 

[Raincity]

Parts have been ordered, including a monitor from Dell.

What monitor did you order.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Alright, here's hoping everything goes well. Enjoy it!

On the issue of the case: use sandpaper to rough it up (400 grit should be fine). Make sure you alternate stroke directions, if doing it by hand, every so often to avoid creating grooves. Then repaint a base layer of black (and then some more layers if desired, to get an even color) and finish with a clear matte coat.

 

[Turbonium]

What monitor did you order.

Dell U2412M.

Also: I ended up getting a GTX 670. The fact that the Dell monitor went on sale meant I could do this and still stay within budget.

 

[Sleepingforest]

That's a great monitor. I think you'll like your computer a lot--boot times will be shockingly fast.

 

[Raincity]

Dell U2412M.

Also: I ended up getting a GTX 670. The fact that the Dell monitor went on sale meant I could do this and still stay within budget.

Seems like we have pretty similar builds. I use two 2412M as a dual monitor setup and been happy with them.

 

[Turbonium]

There is Ivy Bridge Xeon support on the DH77KC (H77 chipset), right?

I'm considering making a change to my system: swapping the i5 3570 with a Xeon E3-1230V2 instead, and getting ECC memory.

It will cost slightly more, but really, I'm paranoid. And I doubt a ~5% performance hit with the memory will be noticed.

Thoughts? Basically, I'm interested in ECC memory.

Is a Xeon E3-1230V2 slower than a 3570 in anything? And can Hyper-threading be disabled in BIOS like with the Pentium 4? The reason I ask is that I'd rather run 4 logical cores, for gaming purposes.

 

[Sleepingforest]

If you don't want hyper-threading, you should be able to disable it in the BIOS, as you suspected.

As for ECC memory: H77 does support unbuffered ECC; however, unless you run something where errors and crashes absolutely cannot be allowed (simulations for science, file servers, and so on) it's simply not enough of a difference to matter.

 

[Turbonium]

If you don't want hyper-threading, you should be able to disable it in the BIOS, as you suspected.

As for ECC memory: H77 does support unbuffered ECC; however, unless you run something where errors and crashes absolutely cannot be allowed (simulations for science, file servers, and so on) it's simply not enough of a difference to matter.

That page says it doesn't support it.

Seems like it's not worth it then, even for someone arguably paranoid like me. I'd have to get a whole new motherboard and everything (server grade).

 

[Sleepingforest]

That page says it doesn't support it.

Seems like it's not worth it then, even for someone arguably paranoid like me. I'd have to get a whole new motherboard and everything (server grade).

Oh, yup, I misread it as "non-buffered ECC DIMMS" rather than unbuffered non-ECC DIMMs." Good thing I linked it!

 

[Turbonium]

Meh, my purchase should be fine. I'm just overly paranoid and really value stability.

That being said, f*** it. I'm going to go non-ECC and RAID 0 with my Raptors, lol.

Perhaps one day, I may even try overclocking...

 

[crashtech]

The E3-12x0V2 Xeons are essentially IB i7s with disabled integrated graphics and locked multipliers. Make you decision accordingly.

 

[Turbonium]

The E3-12x0V2 Xeons are essentially IB i7s with disabled integrated graphics and locked multipliers. Make you decision accordingly.

If I could find a budget, Intel-made Xeon/ECC board, I would consider it. But as it stands, they're a full $100 more than the board I already purchased, give or take.

Add to that another $30 or so for the Xeon CPU, and another $20 or so for the ECC RAM. That amounts to essentially $200 or more, just to gain ECC. I'm not sure that makes sense for my purposes.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Something you might also want to take into account: Xeons aren't really inherently more stable than an i7 or i5--they are basically, as mentioned by someone else, i7s with overclocking and the iGPU locked away. They are the top-bin (I believe), but the standard clockspeed is low enough that binning doesn't really matter. It's more cost effective (for gaming) to get an i5.

 

[Turbonium]

Something you might also want to take into account: Xeons aren't really inherently more stable than an i7 or i5--they are basically, as mentioned by someone else, i7s with overclocking and the iGPU locked away. They are the top-bin (I believe), but the standard clockspeed is low enough that binning doesn't really matter. It's more cost effective (for gaming) to get an i5.

I consider all CPUs run at stock to be stable. It's the memory I'm worried about.

I'm paranoid about things like a random pixel or two in an image I'm editing changing colours on save. Or perhaps more seriously: a game crashing, file corruption, system restarts, or even RAID errors.

Gaming isn't all I do btw. It's just something I want to be able to do comfortably. I think of my computer as a machine; a tool. Gaming is just one of the things it does. Ultimately, I want it to be stable above all else, hence why I'm considering ECC.

If the i5 supported ECC, I'd just get ECC and be done with it. Too bad Intel decided to artificially segment the market and not offer it in their i5 line (and it's offered in the i3 line, which I find annoying).

 

[Sleepingforest]

I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth much but: I'd say the vast majority of forum goers here don't use ECC RAM on their primary computer and a vast majority of them have absolutely no RAM issues that cause a bad pixel or game crash. The things you listed are more likely from a bad combination of programs running, odd drivers, or hard drive failure--none of which can be dealt with via RAM.

It's probably not enough to make you feel better (in fact, you may feel worse!), but I hope you do anyway.

 

[Turbonium]

Have you read this thread?

Check out the second half of my post on it here.

Let me know if you have anything to say about the situation. Some users on this forum actually feel very strongly about ECC memory.

 

[crashtech]

If I could find a budget, Intel-made Xeon/ECC board, I would consider it. But as it stands, they're a full $100 more than the board I already purchased, give or take.

Add to that another $30 or so for the Xeon CPU, and another $20 or so for the ECC RAM. That amounts to essentially $200 or more, just to gain ECC. I'm not sure that makes sense for my purposes.

Don't think you have to run a server board to run the Xeon. That's not the case. I've not seen an 1155 board that supports Ivy Bridge fail to boot with an E3, and many explicitly support them in their CPU list. You don't have to run ECC unless you want to, but then you need a board that supports it.

 

[Turbonium]

I can't seem to find a reasonably priced, quality Xeon board that supports PCIe 3.0. That's the problem at the moment.

Let me know if you know of any boards.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Hey, if it helps, you only need PCIe 2.0. The difference for modern graphics cards between 2.0 and 3.0 is like 5 percent at most.

 

[crashtech]

This, maybe? Supports E3 Xeons.

 

[Turbonium]

Hey, if it helps, you only need PCIe 2.0. The difference for modern graphics cards between 2.0 and 3.0 is like 5 percent at most.

I'm planning on keeping this system for quite a while, so a couple GPU generations from now, PCIe 3.0 might be more relevant. :/

This, maybe? Supports E3 Xeons.

Thnx, but that has no ECC support. It's basically just like my current motherboard.