# Is it worth it for me to overclock...?



## gillmanjr (Apr 6, 2018)

I wanted to run this by the experts on here because I have very little experience overclocking.  Here is my system:

-ASRock Z97 1150 mobo
-i5 4670k
-MSI R9 390
-8 GB GDDR3

I am currently playing Far Cry 5, which I have been waiting for for years.  Great game by the way.  I've got an older Dell 2k IPS monitor and I'm able to run Far Cry at all high settings pretty easily, it doesn't dip below 50 Hz much (monitor is only 60 Hz).  If I push it to the ultra settings it'll still run but dips down into the 30s so I keep it on high. 

My question for you guys is this: do you think it would make a difference if I OC'd the i5?  I was just thinking about taking it up to 4.0 GHz, is it worth it?  Its only air cooled but I do have a Zalman CPU cooler, one of the solid copper ones with 2 fans and my case is heavily ventilated so it will handle the heat.  The issue is I don't have a lot of experience overclocking and frankly don't really even know how to do it, I would have to read up on it.  But if it isn't going to make a difference with gaming I don't want to risk it.  

There is one other thing too: I am planning on getting an ultrawide monitor very soon (1440p ultrawide), do you think I will HAVE to overclock and possibly even upgrade my GPU for that?

Thanks for any input...


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 6, 2018)

Looking at the specs fot your GPU, I think you should be able to handle that new monitor. Overclocking is not necessary. 

As to whether you'll get better frames with an overclock in your game, I have my doubts. The game may be more GPU dependent than CPU dependent.  It wouldn't hurt to try though. In this day in age it isn't all that hard to overclock. You should be able to simply go into the BIOS and adjust the settings there, but sometimes you have to mess with voltages and that can be risky business. In my motherboard there's just option to increase the clock. You set it and go, that's it. No monkeying around with voltages. If you have to mess with voltages for a stable over clock, I've read you only increase the CPU voltage by .1 to .2 volts at a time. Then you would run something like Prime95 for a while and see if the OC is stable. There is a forum that is dedicated to all this called overclock.net. There is where you'll get better answers. 

My primary game on my desktop is Flight Simulator X and this game is largely CPU dependent, and to make matters worse it's only a single threaded game. So to have the best FPS in this game one needs a fast CPU with as fast a single threaded capability as possible. I did over clock my CPU to around 4.5 GHz, but I didn't see much of an improvement at all in New York where I get lower frames due to all of the buildings. Mexico City is the same way.  I may get an i7 6700k next just for the hell of it. I seen it has about 20% increase in single threaded capability. 

So with that, I think a OC is mostly a brag thing more so than anything. I think the chief variable here on CPU power is the architecture of the CPU.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 7, 2018)

Thanks for the feedback.  My MOBO Bios does offer a single setting for overclocking, its called "Turbo" and I have tried several times to set it at 4.0.  It is supposed to be automatic (it automatically adjusts all the voltages, etc) but every time I have tried it won't load Windows.  I've never tried manually overclocking because there are so many different settings I have no idea what needs to be changed and what doesn't.  Part of the reason for this is that the terminology is different in my BIOS than what you read on overclocking guides.  Those guides talk mainly about increasing "Vcore", which I understand is voltage, but there is NO setting in my BIOS for "Vcore" so I'm not sure which voltage needs to be changed, there are several.  Its annoying.


----------



## Darren (Apr 7, 2018)

gillmanjr said:


> Thanks for the feedback.  My MOBO Bios does offer a single setting for overclocking, its called "Turbo" and I have tried several times to set it at 4.0.  It is supposed to be automatic (it automatically adjusts all the voltages, etc) but every time I have tried it won't load Windows.  I've never tried manually overclocking because there are so many different settings I have no idea what needs to be changed and what doesn't.  Part of the reason for this is that the terminology is different in my BIOS than what you read on overclocking guides.  Those guides talk mainly about increasing "Vcore", which I understand is voltage, but there is NO setting in my BIOS for "Vcore" so I'm not sure which voltage needs to be changed, there are several.  Its annoying.


CPU voltage.


----------



## johnb35 (Apr 7, 2018)

Do you have the extreme 4 or extreme 6 motherboard?  You don't want to mess with turbo.  Change the cpu ratio at the bottom.


----------



## beers (Apr 7, 2018)

Since you have a decent cooler I'd leave everything on Auto, select XMP for your RAM and use a 40x multi for the CPU.  Your BIOS should slightly raise the vcore/"CPU Voltage" to compensate.  If it still hangs add a couple +0.1v clicks.  4.0 is trivial for Haswell/Devil's Canyon CPUs.  I wouldn't go much past 1.15v, also monitor temps once you overclock.  The Intel XTU is useful for stress testing.

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/24075/Intel-Extreme-Tuning-Utility-Intel-XTU-

Auto OC like the 'turbo mode' are notoriously unstable although most boards have a table that will auto pump the relevant voltages anyway.

As far as improvements, you might see better minimum framerates but I think the 390 would prevent you from gaining much more.


----------



## Margrave Brandenburg (Apr 7, 2018)

I'll put in a call to your local computer shop ... telling them to expect a visit from you when your computer needs repair after an overclock-gone-wrong.

On a more serious note ...
If your system is adequate, overclocking with not produce measurable benefit. Leave it be.
If your system is inadequate, you just need a new box.
Overclocking won't get you there.


----------



## Darren (Apr 7, 2018)

Margrave Brandenburg said:


> I'll put in a call to your local computer shop ... telling them to expect a visit from you when your computer needs repair after an overclock-gone-wrong.
> 
> On a more serious note ...
> If your system is adequate, overclocking with not produce measurable benefit. Leave it be.
> ...



You uhh, ever overclocked before? Definitely can provide tangible improvements depending on your hardware and uses. And I'm not talking about benchmarks, actually noticeable performance boosts, particularly for CPU bound stuff.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 8, 2018)

johnb35 said:


> Do you have the extreme 4 or extreme 6 motherboard?  You don't want to mess with turbo.  Change the cpu ratio at the bottom



This is the one I have...

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157501

Thats all I need to change is the CPU ratio?  Everything else stays as is or in auto?


----------



## johnb35 (Apr 8, 2018)

Leave everything else on auto. You only want to jump say 50-100 mhz at a time and test for stability.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 9, 2018)

johnb35 said:


> Leave everything else on auto. You only want to jump say 50-100 mhz at a time and test for stability.



Thanks a lot for the help.  I bumped it up to 3.8 today and so far so good.  I didn't run a stress test but I was just playing Far Cry for a while and no issues.  Looks like idle temps went up a couple degrees but still only around 30C.  I think I'll leave it at 3.8 for a few weeks, use it normally and make sure there are no problems.  Then maybe I'll try 4.0.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 11, 2018)

I ran a benchmark in Far Cry 5 yesterday with my CPU OC'd and I don't think it made much of a difference with frames.  The minimum framerate did go up by 1 or 2 Hz but I think the average was the same, if I remember correctly.

I do have to say though, for general use, and particularly for recording (which is one of my main uses for this computer), there is a noticeable difference with it OC'd to 3.8 GHz.  Recording is a CPU intensive activity, in fact there is a CPU usage meter built into the recording software I use (Ableton) and when I am running a lot of plugins I can get the meter up into the 80% range for CPU load.  The extra clock speed helps for sure.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 11, 2018)

I have another question for you guys, figured I would just keep it in this thread:

I am the kind of person who likes to use a computer for as long as I can, provided it will continue doing what I need it to.  I don't see myself building a new system for at least another 2 years, at which point it will be a totally new build, from the ground up, including case.  But for now there is one upgrade I NEED to make to my current build, and that has to do with hard drives:

I currently have a 250 GB Samsung SSD (used for Windows/software), a 500 GB 10k RPM raptor HDD for gaming (which is now completely full), and a 1 TB 7.2k HDD for storage.  I am going to keep the 1 TB storage drive but now that SSD prices have dropped so much I want to replace my current SSD and the 10k drive with two 1 TB SSDs in RAID 0.  I'll then use that 2 TB for all software and gaming installations.  Two questions: does anyone know if my MOBO has built in RAID 0 support?  Also, do you think this upgrade will make a noticeable performance difference?

I will also probably add another 8 GB RAM at some point though RAM hasn't really been an issue for me, I'm not usually doing more than one thing at a time on my home computer.  If there are any other cost effective upgrades you guys think would be worth it for me to make, PLEASE recommend...


----------



## _Kyle_ (Apr 11, 2018)

Yes, it supports RAID 0. 

However, I am not sure if RAID actually is noticeable, I have never used it.

The GPU is pretty good, I would keep it. May wanna check out the GTX 11/20 series when they come out.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 11, 2018)

Deerling7 said:


> Yes, it supports RAID 0.
> 
> However, I am not sure if RAID actually is noticeable, I have never used it.
> 
> The GPU is pretty good, I would keep it. May wanna check out the GTX 11/20 series when they come out.



I just read an article recently about running SSDs in RAID 0.  Their benchmarking showed that running SSDs in RAID offer even more performance gains than running regular HDDs in RAID.  Here is the article...

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2365767/feed-your-greed-for-speed-by-installing-ssds-in-raid-0.html


----------



## _Kyle_ (Apr 11, 2018)

gillmanjr said:


> I just read an article recently about running SSDs in RAID 0.  Their benchmarking showed that running SSDs in RAID offer even more performance gains than running regular HDDs in RAID.  Here is the article...
> 
> https://www.pcworld.com/article/2365767/feed-your-greed-for-speed-by-installing-ssds-in-raid-0.html


Now I'm gonna have to buy another m.2 NVME SSD and run RAID 0 for the ultimate speeds... quit making spend money! 

EDIT: As soon as I get a new MOBO that has 2 m.2 slots...


----------



## beers (Apr 12, 2018)

What budget were you thinking?

Your board has a 2x M.2 slot, you could just throw a NVMe drive in there and bump your sequential read speed to ~1.2 GB/sec.  

RAID0 does a lot for sequential data rates but things like 4k operations will be less drastic.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 12, 2018)

I don't want to spend a ton of money but I NEED more SSD storage space for gaming.  I want to get about 2 TB of SSD storage for as little money as possible and have it be as fast as possible.  Seems to me like 2x 1 TB Samsung 860 SSDs in RAID is the way to go for that.  That would run me about $600.  A lot of money for storage, I know, but if they last I'm sure I'd use them in my next build anyway.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 12, 2018)

You will notice very little difference with a RAID 0 and a normal SATA III SSD unless hard drive speed is a major factor. In games you won't see much of any improvement. Perhaps loading the game, but that's about it. It's not worth it and RAID 0 has no redundancy.



gillmanjr said:


> I ran a benchmark in Far Cry 5 yesterday with my CPU OC'd and I don't think it made much of a difference with frames.




Didn't I tell you this?


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 12, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> You will notice very little difference with a RAID 0 and a normal SATA III SSD unless hard drive speed is a major factor. In games you won't see much of any improvement. Perhaps loading the game, but that's about it. It's not worth it and RAID 0 has no redundancy.



What about load times WITHIN the game?

The only reason I am planning this setup is because the 2 TB samsung SSD is more than three times the price of the 1 TB.  So it is actually significantly cheaper to go with 2x 1 TB drives, rather than a single 2 TB.  And I want 2 TB of storage, that number isn't arbitrary, it is based on the rate at which I filled my 500 GB 10k drive with games.  Then again I could just uninstall the older games that I don't play anymore.  Maybe I'll consider just a single 1 TB drive...


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 13, 2018)

Load times will more than likely be marginal. With a SATA III Samsung SSD your speed is going to be blazing fast. Adding RAID 0 to the mix isn't going to show much more gain IMO. The levels should zip right along with a normal SSD without RAID. RAID 0 with two SSDs is just for bragging rights. Also, you will not have 2 TBs with RAID 0 or RAID 1. They will both act like one drive of 1 TB only. So if you want 2 TBs, buy two 1 TB drives. When one drive fills up use the other as spill over. Just install the game to that second drive. I did this with mods. I had three to four versions of COD Modern Warfare. One version was updated to the latest, the other was a different version and another two had different Mods. All I did was copy the game from programs folder to the second drive in its own folder with its own name. Like; COD 2.0, COD 4.0, COD Zombie mod, etc. 

If you want redundancy to make sure if one drive messes up you have a backup, then by all means use RAID 1. That's a mirrored array and thus you'll have a copy of everything on both drives. If one drive goes you have the other with an exact backup. But like I said, you'll only have 1 TB to play with. 

Now if you bought SATA III platter drives, then perhaps a RAID array would be a little more beneficial for speed. Even then, probably not by much except the drive speed numbers. Hardly noticeable. I mean, I have a Crucial MX300 SSD and it's around 500 MB/s, yet BF2 with my AIX mod doesn't load any faster than a platter would. I even have my doubts if it would load faster in a RAM drive. Yet I'm running a i5 6600K with a GTX 1050TI.


----------



## beers (Apr 13, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> Also, you will not have 2 TBs with RAID 0 or RAID 1. They will both act like one drive of 1 TB only.


True for RAID1, false for RAID0.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 13, 2018)

Doesn't RAID 0 split the files up in parts and spreads them among more than one drive? In which case you'll just have 1 TB of space, not two. Seen as how the file is split between both drives.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 13, 2018)

Back to OCing for a second guys...last night I upped my CPU to 4.0 using the same setting in my BIOS and the idle core temps went up by 10C (to 40C).  As a result my CPU fan starting running at full speed continuously.  Why would it do that going from 3.8 to 4.0?  Vcore according to my BIOS was 1.216 V.


----------



## johnb35 (Apr 13, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> Doesn't RAID 0 split the files up in parts and spreads them among more than one drive? In which case you'll just have 1 TB of space, not two. Seen as how the file is split between both drives.


It does split data to both drives but you still have 2tb of space if you use 2 - 1tb drives.



> RAID 0 consists of striping, but no mirroring or parity. Compared to a spanned volume, the _capacity_ of a RAID 0 volume is the same;* it is sum of the capacities of the disks in the set*. But because striping distributes the contents of _each_ file among _all_ disks in the set, the failure of any disk causes _all_ files, the entire RAID 0 volume, to be lost.





gillmanjr said:


> Back to OCing for a second guys...last night I upped my CPU to 4.0 using the same setting in my BIOS and the idle core temps went up by 10C (to 40C).  As a result my CPU fan starting running at full speed continuously.  Why would it do that going from 3.8 to 4.0?  Vcore according to my BIOS was 1.216 V.



Are you sure you have the cooler attached to the cpu correctly making good contact?


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 13, 2018)

johnb35 said:


> Are you sure you have the cooler attached to the cpu correctly making good contact?



I think so but how can I be sure?  I built this system almost 5 years ago and its not the first time I've done it.  I have to assume I would have had more serious temperature problems if the cooler wasn't seated properly.  Like I said earlier I use this computer for recording and it puts a large load on the CPU for long periods of time.  I've never seen temperatures much over 60C during recording or gaming.


----------



## johnb35 (Apr 13, 2018)

It shouldn't be running at high speed at 40 degrees.  But I assuming that you have an older cooler and possible that the paste could be drying up.


----------



## beers (Apr 13, 2018)

What's the load temps?  Idle doesn't really say much but those spike up pretty fast.  1.2v is pretty high especially for those clocks.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 14, 2018)

johnb35 said:


> It shouldn't be running at high speed at 40 degrees.  But I assuming that you have an older cooler and possible that the paste could be drying up.



Well I think the fan running at high speed is explainable...I think I may have changed the fan profile years ago to ramp that quickly.  I think I did it when I originally setup the BIOS.  I can fix that.  But I still don't like the fact that the idle temps went up that high between 3.8 and 4.0 GHz.  For now I'm just going to leave it at 3.8.  I am considering also buying a new case as part of these upgrades (going to a full tower from mid) and maybe I'll change the thermal paste when I move everything over to the new case.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 14, 2018)

So here is the upgrade list for this year, the only other upgrade I see myself POSSIBLY making to this build in the next year is getting a GTX 1080, if the prices drop.  For now I'm doing this...

CASE upgrade (currently Rosewill mid tower): Phanteks Enthoo Pro ATX full ($99)

Monitor upgrade (from old Dell 2k): Dell U3415W ($615 on Newegg now)

Memory: GSkill Ripjaws 16GB DDR3 1600 ($143); will have 24GB in the machine

Storage: 2x Samsung 860 EVO 1TB (~$580)

I'm also going to get a new fan controller, I currently have a cheap little 3.5" thing with knobs, I'm going to get an NZXT Sentry 5.25" touch screen

Anything else I should add to the list???  I looked at the i7 but I don't think the performance increase I'll actually get is worth the price they are going for.


----------



## Darren (Apr 14, 2018)

You only gaming? 16GB to 24GB is pretty pointles usually.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 14, 2018)

johnb35 said:


> It does split data to both drives but you still have 2tb of space if you use 2 - 1tb drives.




I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm having a hard time understanding this. 

You have two drives in RAID 0, the data is split into multiple parts on both drives. How are you maintaining 2 TBs when in theory it should be only 1 TB? I mean, just splitting the file in half between the two drives means you have one half the capacity.


----------



## Darren (Apr 14, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm having a hard time understanding this.
> 
> You have two drives in RAID 0, the data is split into multiple parts on both drives. How are you maintaining 2 TBs when in theory it should be only 1 TB? I mean, just splitting the file in half between the two drives means you have one half the capacity.


A 4MB file takes up 2MB on each drive...? What's not to get? Your primary reason for doing this is increase in speed since you can write to 2 drives simultaneously, not any kind of data redundancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_0


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 14, 2018)

Darren said:


> You only gaming? 16GB to 24GB is pretty pointles usually.



No I record too, thats my primary use for it.  There are only select games that I play but there are a few good games coming out in the near future or out already.  I know I don't really need that RAM but some newer games are recommending 16GB, so I figure I'll do it.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 15, 2018)

Darren said:


> A 4MB file takes up 2MB on each drive...?




Okay, I guess I can see now how this works. My thinking was taking into consideration that a program for instance is a unit of representation on the HDD and since it's split in two you would have cut the space of two HDDs down to one. Using this "unit" idea I was thinking of.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 15, 2018)

Guys, can you put two drives of different capacities in RAID 0?  For example can a 250GB SSD and a 1TB SSD be put in RAID 0 or do they have to be the same size?


----------



## beers (Apr 15, 2018)

They'd have to be the same size, or you get a stripe array of the smallest capacity such as 250 GB x2.

If you do software RAID you can add another partition on the larger drive, but if you add them to the motherboard's controller then you lose that ability as well.

Personally I'd just buy one drive and roll the rest into a newer build.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 15, 2018)

beers said:


> They'd have to be the same size, or you get a stripe array of the smallest capacity such as 250 GB x2.
> 
> If you do software RAID you can add another partition on the larger drive, but if you add them to the motherboard's controller then you lose that ability as well.
> 
> Personally I'd just buy one drive and roll the rest into a newer build.



Thats what I thought.  I think I am just going to buy one 1TB drive for now.  That makes more sense to me.  I'll add the second when I need it but hopefully that won't be until I'm ready for a new build.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 17, 2018)

I've watched some youtube reviews of the case that I selected (the Phanteks Enthoo Pro full tower), it looks like one hell of an awesome case for $100.  I'm actually really excited to get it now.  If any of you haven't seen that case you should check it out.  My current case is REALLY OLD guys, about 10 years now.  I've had my last two builds in it.  My biggest problems with it are it doesn't have USB 3.0 in the front panel and the headphone jack in the front is AWFUL.  The sound quality is so bad from it that I can't even use it anymore, especially for recording/mixing.  I just hope that its the jack itself that is bad and not the connection on my motherboard.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 18, 2018)

beers said:


> What's the load temps?  Idle doesn't really say much but those spike up pretty fast.  1.2v is pretty high especially for those clocks.



OK so I checked my load temps last night while gaming, CPU was clocked to 3.8 GHz and the voltage is running 1.19V.  The highest CPU core temp after an hour of Far Cry 5 was 66C.  I will do this again with the chip at 4.0 GHz.

When I transplant my system into the new case I am going to replace the thermal paste.  The tube of Arctic Silver I have is many years old so I need to buy a new tube...is there anything new on the market better than Arctic Silver that you guys recommend?  I'm kind of out of the loop on new stuff like that.


----------



## Darren (Apr 18, 2018)

Thermal paste is thermal paste really. Arctic Silver is what I usually use but as long as you're not using like toothpaste or really really low quality stuff you're only going to be talking about a 1-3 degrees difference at the most. You're better served tweaking voltages or throwing an extra fan for how much impact it would have. Yes the higher dollar stuff will do a slightly better job, but I would just get what you're familiar with.

That said, Arctic Silver really doesn't age in my experience. It might settle a bit so squeeze out the first bit on a paper towel but I've reused the same tube several times over a few years with zero problems.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 18, 2018)

gillmanjr said:


> is there anything new on the market better than Arctic Silver that you guys recommend? I'm kind of out of the loop on new stuff like that.




You're not going to see a significant difference between name brand stuff and other cheaper stuff. Maybe a few degrees and that''s about it. In fact, if the thermal grease comes with a CPU cooler you should use it as the manufacturer  has used that with their product. That's exactly what I did with my Evo 212. I placed a drop on the CPU and spread it all over the CPU with an index card making a fine layer. You can also use a razor blade. My temps are pretty damn good and I only have the one fan in the cooler. I really don't need a push/pull config at this point.

Edit- And I missed page 3. LOL


----------



## Darren (Apr 18, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> You're not going to see a significant difference between name brand stuff and other cheaper stuff. Maybe a few degrees and that''s about it. In fact, if the thermal grease comes with a CPU cooler you should use it as the manufacturer  has used that with their product. That's exactly what I did with my Evo 212. I placed a drop on the CPU and spread it all over the CPU with an index card making a fine layer. You can also use a razor blade. My temps are pretty damn good and I only have the one fan in the cooler. I really don't need a push/pull config as this point.


Spreading is completely unnecessary. The pressure of the cooler on the CPU will spread it out anyway, you pretty much never see thermal paste residue only in the middle of a CPU unless they used way too little. It's pretty much always squeezed flat and to the edges. You're more liable to just make a mess trying to flatten it, although it won't hurt temps. 

FWIW I had a 212 and used the stock paste for several months and then redid it with Arctic Silver and tested as long. Idle temps were 3ish degrees cooler with Arctic Silver but load temps were 1-2 at most during benchmarking and pretty much the same in gaming and the like.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 18, 2018)

I've seen many CPU's that only shown the dab in the middle after use, so to make sure I don't do that I spread a fine layer. It's just how I roll. Everyone is different.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 18, 2018)

I also spread it out just for piece of mind.  If you only put a dab in the middle it is impossible to know for sure if it spreads out evenly and completely after you install the cooler.  There could be gaps or you could have used too little and you wouldn't know.  When you spread it out you know for sure its covered properly, I've done it a bunch of times and I've never had a problem.  I was just wondering if any newer paste would make any difference.  I did read some Newegg reviews about Arctic MX-2 and now MX-4, which is the newer version, and the reviewers swear the stuff is an improvement over Silver.  Given the fact its only 2 bucks more I'll try it...


----------



## beers (Apr 18, 2018)

66C isn't bad at 1.2v full load, different paste isn't going to do too much for you.

If you lock the voltage there you could probably take it up to 4.4-4.6, just be familiar with how to clear CMOS in case you click frequency too far.  I wouldn't bump voltage much more if at all though.


----------



## Shlouski (Apr 19, 2018)

Darren said:


> Spreading is completely unnecessary. The pressure of the cooler on the CPU will spread it out anyway, you pretty much never see thermal paste residue only in the middle of a CPU unless they used way too little. It's pretty much always squeezed flat and to the edges



This is spot on most of the time, but I have experienced times when enough paste has been applied to create excess spilling over the side of the cpu, but for whatever reason the paste hasn't quite got into all the corners fully, which triggers me even though I'm sure it makes almost no difference temperature wise


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 21, 2018)

Another question for you guys: I just got my new case and I'm going to do the transplant pretty soon.  I've actually never done a transplant, my only question is do I need to have the hard drives (and my blu ray player) plugged back into the same SATA ports on the motherboard?  I ask because the BIOS is setup to detect windows on a particular drive, I don't want that to get messed up.


----------



## WeatherMan (Apr 21, 2018)

It will not make a difference where you plug the drives in, the BIOS will still boot from the drive specified as it's not port specific but drive specific. As long as the bios sees the boot drive after the transplant then it will try and boot from it


----------



## beers (Apr 21, 2018)

gillmanjr said:


> I ask because the BIOS is setup to detect windows on a particular drive, I don't want that to get messed up.


You can always just change the boot priority if it doesn't match.


----------



## Shlouski (Apr 22, 2018)

You could use a permanent marker to mark the sata port that the hdd was plugged into, but its really easy to change in the bios and it would be useful if you learned how to do it.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 23, 2018)

Transplant in progress.  Everything is out of my old case and I pulled the cooler off my CPU.  Now I am waiting for my new thermal paste, which is supposed to be delivered today...


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 23, 2018)

btw, what do you guys think about re-applying thermal paste to a GPU?  I was thinking about doing it to my R9 390 tonight while I have everything out.  While playing Far Cry 5 I am getting GPU temps around 82C (it is also OC'd mildly to 1125 and 1650).  My new case may help a little with all the additional airflow but from what I've read a good application of aftermarket paste can drop those temps by 10C.  True?


----------



## Darren (Apr 23, 2018)

gillmanjr said:


> btw, what do you guys think about re-applying thermal paste to a GPU?  I was thinking about doing it to my R9 390 tonight while I have everything out.  While playing Far Cry 5 I am getting GPU temps around 82C (it is also OC'd mildly to 1125 and 1650).  My new case may help a little with all the additional airflow but from what I've read a good application of aftermarket paste can drop those temps by 10C.  True?


Ehh that's probably fine still.

Protip, with the 390's they gain pretty much zero performance increase by increasing memory clock, in fact mine dropped benchmark scores when I overclocked as it reduced overall stability. If I were you I'd just knock it down to stock memory clock and leave it to help with temps. You can benchmark this to confirm but I pretty heavily tested and overclocked my 390 so pretty familiar with how they work.

80's is on the higher side but not unreasonable. I'd see what it's like in the new case and if you want to mess with it after that knock yourself out. Mine would hit 82ish at full load benchmark with my overclock but gaming was usually low to mid 70's. The MSI ones I know run hotter than the Sappphire (which I had). A friend of mine had the MSI variant and I always gave him crap since mine ran cooler.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 23, 2018)

Darren said:


> Ehh that's probably fine still.
> 
> Protip, with the 390's they gain pretty much zero performance increase by increasing memory clock, in fact mine dropped benchmark scores when I overclocked as it reduced overall stability. If I were you I'd just knock it down to stock memory clock and leave it to help with temps. You can benchmark this to confirm but I pretty heavily tested and overclocked my 390 so pretty familiar with how they work.
> 
> 80's is on the higher side but not unreasonable. I'd see what it's like in the new case and if you want to mess with it after that knock yourself out. Mine would hit 82ish at full load benchmark with my overclock but gaming was usually low to mid 70's. The MSI ones I know run hotter than the Sappphire (which I had). A friend of mine had the MSI variant and I always gave him crap since mine ran cooler.



I read that too, basically that the 390s just don't overclock well.  And I did actually notice some degradation in game, I was getting more studdering after I overclocked it.  What about core clock?


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 23, 2018)

Guys, I have a general question about something that I just noticed, maybe someone can briefly explain to me:  Why in the world are Haswell chips selling for more money than Coffee Lake chips right now?????  Is this typical or is it an outlier?


----------



## Darren (Apr 23, 2018)

gillmanjr said:


> I read that too, basically that the 390s just don't overclock well.  And I did actually notice some degradation in game, I was getting more studdering after I overclocked it.  What about core clock?


1125 on core is a pretty decent core overclock. I could get mine up to 1150ish with a voltage bump but even on stock voltage 1125 was stable. My friend with the MSI version couldn't get his above 1115ish even with voltage bumps.


----------



## beers (Apr 23, 2018)

gillmanjr said:


> Guys, I have a general question about something that I just noticed, maybe someone can briefly explain to me:  Why in the world are Haswell chips selling for more money than Coffee Lake chips right now?????  Is this typical or is it an outlier?


What's your source or where do you see this?  A lot of times crap like Amazon, people will gouge old hardware.  I had a buddy try to argue with me that a geforce 660 was as good as a 1060 since some Amazon listers had them up for ~200.

I snagged a new 4690K in box like 6-9 months ago for  about $80-90 so they are definitely going down in general.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 24, 2018)

Back up and running.  I reapplied thermal paste (Arctic MX-4) to my CPU and my idle temps dropped by 5C!  I think this also has something to do with the new case, however, because the temps of my GPU dropped by 4C as well (both idle and gaming).  I didn't expect that big of a difference.


----------



## Darren (Apr 24, 2018)

More than likely the case having an effect, particularly since your GPU did the same.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 24, 2018)

I can vouch to a case making a difference. With the way I have my case fans, air is sucked in on top over the CPU cooler and my temps stay pretty damn cool. I have to wonder if it would be even more cooler with the heat sink using a push/pull config.

Looking at your case you do have fans on top. So that's probably why. Tell you the truth, that may be a bear to install the 12v 8 pin MOBO connector if it's like mine on top there with those fans.

Here's where mine is located.


----------



## Darren (Apr 24, 2018)

Having intake fans on top is completely counter intuitive since heat rises and you want the fans on top as exhaust. Your images aren't working either.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 24, 2018)

Darren said:


> Having intake fans on top is completely counter intuitive since heat rises and you want the fans on top as exhaust. Your images aren't working either.



I was going to say that but he said its working for him.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 24, 2018)

Darren said:


> Having intake fans on top is completely counter intuitive since heat rises and you want the fans on top as exhaust. Your images aren't working either.




I don't have intake fans on top. Never said that. He does. I said air is suck in on top. I have negative pressure in the case and air is drown in on top that pours over the CPU heat sink. 

Images work for me. They are hosted from imgur.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 24, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> I don't have intake fans on top. Never said that. He does. I said air is suck in on top. I have negative pressure in the case and air is drown in on top that pours over the CPU heat sink.
> 
> Images work for me. They are hosted from imgur.



I do?  The fans on the top of my case are exhaust fans.  I installed them.  All three 140mm Phanteks fans in that photo are exhaust.  The only intake is the 200mm in the front of my case.  

It is still strange to draw air in at the top of your case.  Ideally you want airflow to be drawn in at the bottom/front and flow towards the back/top.  Simply because hot air rises and typically CPU coolers blow towards the back.  But if it works for you, whatever.

BTW, I just did a stress test run on my CPU in Prime95.  I have a stable OC at 4.0 GHz and 1.2V fixed.  I tried the run at 1.18V but I got blue screen even though my computer was running fine for 24 hours like that.  I'm going to see if I can get 1.19V at 4.0.  Max temp was 82C during the run.


----------



## Darren (Apr 25, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> I don't have intake fans on top.





Agent Smith said:


> I said air is suck in on top. air is drown in on top that pours over the CPU heat sink.



Pick one. Your second statement is by definition intake on the top. You're pulling air in the top of the case. That or you can't communicate what you're trying to say.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 25, 2018)

Let me try again. And don't knock my setup.

All of my case fans draw air out of the case. At the top is a grid with holes and air is sucked from the top. I do not have fans at the top. The air comes down from all the fans and rushes over the CPU heat sink. I wanted hot air to be drawn out of the case. So what I have is negative pressure. I have read you want to have fans blow air in the case, but I'm not doing that. To me, it makes more sense to blow the hot air out. The only cool at that gets added to the inside is drawn from the top and I can feel it. I have a total of four fans. One at the back, one at the front and two on the side. I control the two on the side with a fan controller.  If I don't they are very loud. They are red LED Cooler Master fans and I think they are rated at at least 2000 RPMs. Can't remmeber the CFM. But they work great. I have the fans set at 1300 RPM.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 25, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> Let me try again. And don't knock my setup.
> 
> All of my case fans draw air out of the case. At the top is a grid with holes and air is sucked from the top. I do not have fans at the top. The air comes down from all the fans and rushes over the CPU heat sink. I wanted hot air to be drawn out of the case. So what I have is negative pressure. I have read you want to have fans blow air in the case, but I'm not doing that. To me, it makes more sense to blow the hot air out. The only cool at that gets added to the inside is drawn from the top and I can feel it. I have a total of four fans. One at the back, one at the front and two on the side. I control the two on the side with a fan controller.  If I don't they are very loud. They are red LED Cooler Master fans and I think they are rated at at least 2000 RPMs. Can't remmeber the CFM. But they work great. I have the fans set at 1300 RPM.



Move the two side fans to the top blowing out and turn the front around to make it an intake fan.  I guarantee your temps drop across the board.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 25, 2018)

No.

My temp sensors say the case is around 68F and the temp sensor near the CPU says about 77F


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 25, 2018)

Your CPU, GPU and RAM would run cooler if you re arrange those fans.  Cooling the components is not just about removing as high a volume as possible from your case.  Its about getting airflow MOVEMENT across those components/heatsinks.  When you have a fan in the back and in the front blowing in opposite directions, they are fighting each other.  You will end up with areas of stagnation in the middle.


----------



## Agent Smith (Apr 25, 2018)

Hmm. I guess that does make sense. But my thinking is that they are not fighting each other sense the fans are drawing air from the top at the same time.

And the air from the CPU heat sink blows towards the back fan to suck out.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 25, 2018)

Agent Smith said:


> Hmm. I guess that does make sense. But my thinking is that they are not fighting each other sense the fans are drawing air from the top at the same time.
> 
> And the air from the CPU heat sink blows towards the back fan to suck out.



Think about the airflow patterns that are setup in your case right now.  Yes, they are both drawing air from the top, your back fan is drawing air from the top back and your front fan is drawing air from the top front.  In the middle you have stagnant areas where there isn't much movement.  The fact that you have two side fans blowing out as well minimizes this but still, its not ideal.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 25, 2018)

Hey, I want your guys opinion on what you would chose for a monitor upgrade and why:  Its between a 27" 1440p 144 Hz 16:9 IPS or an ultrawide 34" 1440p 75-100 Hz VA panel monitor.  Which one?  And which one do you think would require more GPU power to drive at its full potential?


----------



## _Kyle_ (Apr 25, 2018)

gillmanjr said:


> Hey, I want your guys opinion on what you would chose for a monitor upgrade and why:  Its between a 27" 1440p 144 Hz 16:9 IPS or an ultrawide 34" 1440p 75-100 Hz VA panel monitor.  Which one?  And which one do you think would require more GPU power to drive at its full potential?



I would get the 27". They both would probably be about equal strain on a GPU.


----------



## Intel_man (Apr 25, 2018)

If you plan on playing games at max settings, your R9 390 will struggle on the 34" ultrawide. Especially if you want to reach the 75-100hz range.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 25, 2018)

Intel_man said:


> If you plan on playing games at max settings, your R9 390 will struggle on the 34" ultrawide. Especially if you want to reach the 75-100hz range.



Yes I'm aware of that.  It already struggles to drive my 60Hz 1440p Dell.  I'm planning a GPU upgrade as well, not right away, but probably in a year or so.  I'm not sure what card I'm going to get yet, but I think I'm going to switch back to Nvidia, which is why I think I also want a G-sync monitor.


----------



## Intel_man (Apr 26, 2018)

Ah I see. If you're really interested in ultrawide, LG is making a G-Sync one in 1440p that's IPS. Not sure if it's out yet, but if you play games that benefit from the extra width, ultrawide is pretty epic.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 26, 2018)

Intel_man said:


> Ah I see. If you're really interested in ultrawide, LG is making a G-Sync one in 1440p that's IPS. Not sure if it's out yet, but if you play games that benefit from the extra width, ultrawide is pretty epic.



yea I am definitely leaning towards ultrawide, they do look pretty epic, and not just for gaming.  I also record a lot, its my primary use for my PC.  I have a small Samsung TV (24" 1080p) that is normally in our guest bedroom but I will occasionally use it as a second monitor and its a HUGE help for recording.  

The reason for my question is I am having a hard time determining from online reviews whether it would be a bigger upgrade going from 60 Hz to 144 Hz or from 16:9 to ultrawide.


----------



## Intel_man (Apr 26, 2018)

Depends on what you play. If you primarily play FPS games, 144hz will be noticeable. If you record a lot, ultrawide maybe very beneficial to you. Keep in mind, g-sync + high Hz rate + ultrawide = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


----------



## beers (Apr 26, 2018)

I think you left out a few dollar signs there.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 26, 2018)

LOL I know it won't be cheap guys, luckily I'm a 36 year old professional, not a teenager.  My current 27" Dell 1440p is the original model that came out a while ago.  It was serious money when I bought it.  But its lasted me 5+ years now and is still a good monitor.  Well worth it.


----------



## Intel_man (Apr 27, 2018)

Was that 27" 1440p $1500?


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 27, 2018)

Intel_man said:


> Was that 27" 1440p $1500?



No it wasn't that much.  I think I paid $800 at the time.  Its the U2713HM.  They are still going for upper $400s though, which frankly is shocking to me.  I might be able to sell it and get half the money I would need to buy a good ultrawide.


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 28, 2018)

I did the thermal paste change on my GPU last night and holy crap...what a difference.  It is running 10C cooler under load!


----------



## gillmanjr (Apr 30, 2018)

I have another question guys.  Can someone help me to understand what my motherboard is compatible with in terms of NVMe M.2 drives?  I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between SATA vs PCIe NVMe drives and what I'm able to get for my current MOBO.  It says in the description for my MOBO that it accepts M.2 PCIe Gen2 x2, but when I search for that I can't find any (they are all PCIe Gen3).  The link to my board is below, could someone provide a link to either a compatible Samsung or Crucial M.2 NVMe SSD that I could get (the fastest one that I can get)?  Thanks in advance.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157501


----------



## johnb35 (Apr 30, 2018)

I don't think your board supports nvme drives so you would need something like this.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147675


----------



## gillmanjr (May 1, 2018)

johnb35 said:


> I don't think your board supports nvme drives so you would need something like this.
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147675



Yea and those are the same speeds as standard 2.5" SATA SSDs, right?  I'd rather have 2.5" drives.

Would something like this work to convert a PCIe NVMe?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N78XZC...olid=12WMCO9VL08UE&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it


----------

