Description

CAD/Gaming Machine

Update: Thanks for all of the feedback. Shortly I plan on upgrading to 32GB of RAM to utilize the quad channel. As far as the processor goes, I felt that this one offered the best performance for the money. In addition to the RAM, I will be buying 2 more hard drives and set them up mostly likely in raid 5.

As for the concerns about the carpet, the case has some nice legs which promote great airflow (one of the reasons I picked it, along with its hotswap slot) especially with the 240 mm case fan I added to the side panel. There is an additional fan slot on top that I have not used yet.

Log in to rate comments or to post a comment.

Comments

  • 82 months ago
  • 2 points

Are you planning to upgrade to even more memory soon? The X79 chipset on your motherboard is only using half of its memory controller channels. I might have chosen to use 4x4GB memory rather than 2x8GB to get better performance with 16GB total memory.

I second the request for more photos of the inside.

Overall, I still like the direction you are headed for a CAD capable system.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Thank you for your recommendation, eventually I plan on maxing out to 64 GB of memory but not for a bit. I will be posting some pictures of the inside shortly.

  • 82 months ago
  • 0 points

Yes indeed this chipset is Quad channel which means to fully take advantage of its memory lane and speed you need 4 sticks of memory ;) good call!

  • 82 months ago
  • 0 points

I was looking into this a little earlier since I noticed the same thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, unless the memory itself is slow and is a bottleneck in itself than there is little to no actual gain from running RAM quad-channel, similar to the PCI-E cards in 16x vs 8x thing.

  • 82 months ago
  • 4 points

Tell me you didn't just directly quote IamApropos and mention there is no need to put your PCI-E card in the 16x slot :) Oh you got it coming when he reads that... :)

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

You're hilarious though I don't fully disagree with what saw1833 is pointing out. There is not a significant benefit from putting a single card in the top most slot but logically it makes no sense to not run your system as optimal and as best as possible. Even if the gain is not significant. That goes for the memory as well as the pci-e lanes. We currently aren't even fully utilizing all of the bandwidth in PCI-E lanes but we can see with limited memory bus on some cards cough 660 tier that builders who choose such routes really shouldn't push the boundaries if they want to fully utilize their machines.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Not my intention no, simply stating that 16x shows no notable gains over 8x. :P

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

(not meaning to seem condescending but in case anyone else reads this and doesn't know)

You are correct if you mean that there is no significant noticeable difference. However it is more optimal to use the quad channel as intended. With it installed like it is its only utilizing Dual channel and as you pointed out its not a noticeable improvement and it does not harm anything but why use new tech if thats the case? Its only a % difference and not notceable, that logic fails on me. If we were to go by that reasoning then we'd all still be using Z68 Boards and Sandy Bridge processors or even older with X4 PCI-E 2.0 Slots because there is little to no "actual gain" and no real reason to ever upgrade ;)

Does Quad Channel give better performance over Dual Channel? With some software / programs yes but in most cases it doesn't provide a gigantic improvement if any at all. Does X16 Give better performance over X8 PCI-E? Not a significant amount but it is optimal and seems counter productive to not utilize the optimal installation if you've chosen the technology otherwise a builder is just proving he doesn't really need it and wasted money for no performance gain.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

That was my main point, really. While quad-channel shows very little gain over dual-channel, any gain that it DOES have wasn't being capitalized on as at this time the user is only using 2x8GB of RAM. Same with the PCI-E thing, at the moment he only has one card installed, the prime benefit of this socket being support for 3-4 cards and 16x/16x instead of 8x/8x.

I apologize to anyone if I wasn't clear in my meaning.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Dont suffocate your power supply!

  • 82 months ago
  • 2 points

The raised feet work very well, thanks for your concern though.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes, I agree. This case that he has does have raised feet though, so it's probably fine.

[comment deleted]
  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Definitely make sure you had clearance off that carpet! Would love to see some inside the case pics, if you wouldn't mind adding them.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

pics of the inside are up

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Just curious, why the 3820 instead of the 3770k?

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah, s/he's spending more on the motherboard because of that.

  • 82 months ago
  • 2 points

He!

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Right. The 3820 made sense a year or so ago, before Ivy Bridge, but now I can barely see it being justified.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

(S)He said that it was for CAD...

  • 82 months ago
  • 2 points

While the 3820 is better for CAD for by a bit, the 3770k will be better in gaming application with its overclockability (is that a word?). The net gain in light cad work is going to be minimal.

Truthfully, after the small gains in the CPU performance itself, the only real gains are that platforms ability to support 3 or 4 GPUs, quad-channel RAM, and 64GB of ram, none of which he's making use of. And if he was, and therefore need that power, a 3930k or 3970x would be a better choice.

That's my opinion on it, I don't think there will be any noticeable difference in CAD work.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks saw1833, I do plan on upgrading the many RAM slots shortly. That was my main purpose for selecting this mobo.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

That's good to hear. My main point with the RAM was not so that quad-channel doesn't show much improvement over dual-channel, but that it wasn't being used. All in all, I still think it's a solid build.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

After doing some research, I decided on this one because it seemed like it had great preformance at a great price.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

quad channel ram. better crossfire/sli capabilities. also socket 2011 is amazing at overclocking

  • 82 months ago
  • 0 points

sorry but if you were doing CAD why use Nvidia, AMD is a much better option for it

  • 82 months ago
  • -1 points

"Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600" Glad you said CAD... (lol that rhymed)

  • 82 months ago
  • 5 points

Because using more RAM than you need for future-proofing is a horrible idea, right?

  • 82 months ago
  • 0 points

Most people who do and say "future-proofing" usually skimp on the GPU or something else that adds to performance to get that extra useless ram that doesn't benefit performance at all:P Most, not all but most.

  • 82 months ago
  • 2 points

True, but unless someone explicitly states their usage, even if other parts are adequate, many people on this site will instantly criticize the build for having anything more than 8GB of RAM.

It's a historical trend, I'm sure you remember times when people were criticized for putting more than 4GB, 1GB, or even 256MB of ram in their builds.

That said, a 660 w/ 16GB of RAM, this user would have definitely received flak for it.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes, but RAM usage isn't going to climb to much, and by the time it does, DDR4 or DDR5 will become standard. Vista required more RAM than 7 to run smoothly (I know because win 7 is faster in my older computers than vista) and windows 8 requires no more RAM than 7 did. So by the time 16 GB is necessary in, for example, a typical gaming build, the 16 GB of RAM that someone buys now, would not be standard anyway. That's my reasoning for most people not getting 16 GB unless they need it now.

  • 82 months ago
  • 1 point

Windows 8 "requires" (not sure if it's true, haven't tested it) 2 GB compared to Windows 7's 1 GB requirement.

[comment deleted]