Help Me Build My PC Catch-All

Alright guys, you think you've bought everything you need for you shiny new PC, but did you remember to upgrade your jeans?

IMAGE(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1546190_726646484027084_2125084187_n.jpg)

...... uhm

nevermind, this wasn't particularly funny.

Remember how I keep talking up those little $70 Pentium G3220s? I did an accidental benchmark that I thought some folks might find interesting.

The Linux kernel has a RAID layer, and as part of that, has to implement RAID5 and RAID6 algorithms. At least with RAID6, it doesn't seem to always know which version will be faster, so it tests a few different options to see which one it should use... and records those numbers in the kernel log.

So, this is what the relevant log entries look like on my Sandy Bridge 2600K, from two generations back. It has hyperthreading on, and is overclocked to 4.4GHz from the 3.8GHz it's supposed to be turboed at:

xor: automatically using best checksumming function: avx : 12291.000 MB/sec raid6: sse2x1 11943 MB/s raid6: sse2x2 14833 MB/s raid6: sse2x4 17013 MB/s raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (17013 MB/s)

So the 2600K is coming up at 12.2 gigs per second with the avx algorithm in RAID5, and 17 gigs per second with four-way sse2.

So how does the $70 G3220 measure up? Well, I'm running a slightly newer kernel on that one, and it's actually testing different algorithms in the RAID5 part, but the RAID6 part is directly comparable:

xor: measuring software checksum speed prefetch64-sse: 20962.000 MB/sec generic_sse: 18820.000 MB/sec xor: using function: prefetch64-sse (20962.000 MB/sec) raid6: sse2x1 9489 MB/s raid6: sse2x2 12381 MB/s raid6: sse2x4 14352 MB/s raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (14352 MB/s)

So that's just a little dual core proc, at 3GHZ with no turbo, running on RAM at 1333Mhz, because that's all the B85 chipset officially supports. (you can OC it a little, up to 1400, but I don't think I'm doing that.) And it has about 80% of the grunt of my $325 quadcore 2600K on a $300 motherboard. (In RAID5, it's actually a bunch faster, but I think that's because it's using new algorithms.)

Compare that with the 1.66GHz Atom D510 in my firewall:

xor: measuring software checksum speed prefetch64-sse: 5600.000 MB/sec generic_sse: 5075.000 MB/sec xor: using function: prefetch64-sse (5600.000 MB/sec) raid6: sse2x1 173 MB/s raid6: sse2x2 337 MB/s raid6: sse2x4 652 MB/s raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (652 MB/s)

The RAID 5 is kinda okay, at about a quarter the speed of the Haswell, but the RAID6 algorithms are laughably slow.

Now, that's a couple Atom generations back, but I don't think they've changed that much since. If you're looking for a lot of grunt for not much money, the G3220 is $70, takes 54 watts under load, and kicks serious butt. It takes more power than the Atom, but not a ton, and it's likely to chew through a workload much faster: it may actually be more efficient in terms of power expended per work unit done. At least for RAID6, it's clocking in at more than twenty times the speed of the Atom.

If I were building that firewall today, I would definitely go that way. If the 3220 had the AES new instructions, it would be even better for running a perimeter firewall, but it's still amazingly fast for the price.

I think I mentioned having some freezes/failures to wake up lately on Win 8.1. Well, event viewer was showing an error with drivers/Windows drive management services. And I realized what had happened. When I pulled my second SSD out of this box to put it in my HTPC after an OS drive failure there, I had put the OS SSD in my main box on the Marvell controller instead of the chipset controller. Apparently it's kind of crappy for system drives. Now I'm back to my normal P67 problem of sometimes not waking out of sleep states.

Also explains why the Win 7 install on the same box was perfectly fine.

Moral for people building: always use the Intel SATA ports on your MB for system drives.

Of note, this motherboard is going on three years old and has no official Windows 8 or 8.1 drivers for that Marvell controller, so that might have something to do with it. I wasn't able to find stand alone drivers that I trusted, so I am still sticking with the Win 8.1 MS included drivers (dated 2010).

Just got a pretty little CPU waterblock in the mail.

IMAGE(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Ge4faRD9y4k/UuhE76wZ4-I/AAAAAAAAAUY/KiD4c_AUr_c/w1022-h766-no/photo+1.JPG)

Malor wrote:

Remember how I keep talking up those little $70 Pentium G3220s? I did an accidental benchmark that I thought some folks might find interesting.

The Linux kernel has a RAID layer, and as part of that, has to implement RAID5 and RAID6 algorithms. At least with RAID6, it doesn't seem to always know which version will be faster, so it tests a few different options to see which one it should use... and records those numbers in the kernel log.

So, this is what the relevant log entries look like on my Sandy Bridge 2600K, from two generations back. It has hyperthreading on, and is overclocked to 4.4GHz from the 3.8GHz it's supposed to be turboed at:

xor: automatically using best checksumming function: avx : 12291.000 MB/sec raid6: sse2x1 11943 MB/s raid6: sse2x2 14833 MB/s raid6: sse2x4 17013 MB/s raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (17013 MB/s)

So the 2600K is coming up at 12.2 gigs per second with the avx algorithm in RAID5, and 17 gigs per second with four-way sse2.

So how does the $70 G3220 measure up? Well, I'm running a slightly newer kernel on that one, and it's actually testing different algorithms in the RAID5 part, but the RAID6 part is directly comparable:

xor: measuring software checksum speed prefetch64-sse: 20962.000 MB/sec generic_sse: 18820.000 MB/sec xor: using function: prefetch64-sse (20962.000 MB/sec) raid6: sse2x1 9489 MB/s raid6: sse2x2 12381 MB/s raid6: sse2x4 14352 MB/s raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (14352 MB/s)

So that's just a little dual core proc, at 3GHZ with no turbo, running on RAM at 1333Mhz, because that's all the B85 chipset officially supports. (you can OC it a little, up to 1400, but I don't think I'm doing that.) And it has about 80% of the grunt of my $325 quadcore 2600K on a $300 motherboard. (In RAID5, it's actually a bunch faster, but I think that's because it's using new algorithms.)

Compare that with the 1.66GHz Atom D510 in my firewall:

xor: measuring software checksum speed prefetch64-sse: 5600.000 MB/sec generic_sse: 5075.000 MB/sec xor: using function: prefetch64-sse (5600.000 MB/sec) raid6: sse2x1 173 MB/s raid6: sse2x2 337 MB/s raid6: sse2x4 652 MB/s raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (652 MB/s)

The RAID 5 is kinda okay, at about a quarter the speed of the Haswell, but the RAID6 algorithms are laughably slow.

Now, that's a couple Atom generations back, but I don't think they've changed that much since. If you're looking for a lot of grunt for not much money, the G3220 is $70, takes 54 watts under load, and kicks serious butt. It takes more power than the Atom, but not a ton, and it's likely to chew through a workload much faster: it may actually be more efficient in terms of power expended per work unit done. At least for RAID6, it's clocking in at more than twenty times the speed of the Atom.

If I were building that firewall today, I would definitely go that way. If the 3220 had the AES new instructions, it would be even better for running a perimeter firewall, but it's still amazingly fast for the price.

G3220 for $50 @ Frys. I am almost tempted to rebuild my server. That an a 6 port SATA motherboard if I could find it would make a nice cheap upgrade.

Well, it's not on sale, but the ASRock B85 Pro4 is what I used as an emergency replacement in my server, and it seems to be working fine. It comes with the Intel i217V networking chip, which seems to be a new variant of the, um, I think it's the 82559, last-gen's low-cost option from them. Linux has no trouble recognizing it with the e1000 driver. The board has a couple of PCIe slots, 1 x16 and 1x4, and even PCI. And it's got four memory sockets.

For $70, it's a good board. It even OCs a little bit, though nothing like the Z chipsets do. But the 3220 doesn't do any of that anyway.

Add another $85 for 8 gigs of solid RAM, and you're cooking.... $205 for the guts of a really solid little server.

Wow, RAM is sure pricey. Ouch. I think that's more than it was last month, and it was high then.

So one random note. I picked a beloved game that I had already put tons of time in on another system, Dishonored. I bought it again on PC because it was cheap and I had some credit. I was just curious how much better it would look. I was shocked. I didn't hate Dishonored on the 360. I loved it. But I can now see how basically every game gets purchased on the PC unless there's some reason to buy it on a console. If there's a sale and I can lock down all of the games I own on 360, but haven't finished yet it's going to be really tempting to buy them on the PC and basically play everything on that.

But I can now see how basically every game gets purchased on the PC unless there's some reason to buy it on a console.

Yep, pretty much.

This, by the way, is much of why everyone was trying to get you up into a solid card for 1080p... because, with a good card, many games look glorious, where they may only be passable with a weak one.

If you're looking for suggestions, Skyrim is another game that benefits a very great deal from the PC's horsepower. And it's not even pushing the PC that hard, it's just that the last-gen consoles were very weak in comparison.

edit: and, of course, the current poster child for graphics splendor is probably Bioshock Infinite.

Malor wrote:
But I can now see how basically every game gets purchased on the PC unless there's some reason to buy it on a console.

Yep, pretty much.

This, by the way, is much of why everyone was trying to get you up into a solid card for 1080p... because, with a good card, many games look glorious, where they may only be passable with a weak one.

Sure. And I listened. So all is well.

Actually I think my biggest challenge at this point is going to be to replace the functionality of iPhoto and make sure iTunes runs well enough that my wife doesn't hate me the first time she tries to do something with the PC. Assuming we sell the Mac.

Malor wrote:

If you're looking for suggestions, Skyrim is another game that benefits a very great deal from the PC's horsepower. And it's not even pushing the PC that hard, it's just that the last-gen consoles were very weak in comparison.

I am looking for suggestions, sure. I wasn't going to ask here, but I'd happily take them. Here, in another thread or in a PM. Mostly, though, I think I'm literally going to put my list of unfinished 360 games in a list (pile to be) and upgrade them as I see them on sale.

If you wishlist them on Steam, you can have Valve send you email when they go on sale.

DSGamer wrote:

So one random note. I picked a beloved game that I had already put tons of time in on another system, Dishonored. I bought it again on PC because it was cheap and I had some credit. I was just curious how much better it would look. I was shocked. I didn't hate Dishonored on the 360. I loved it. But I can now see how basically every game gets purchased on the PC unless there's some reason to buy it on a console. If there's a sale and I can lock down all of the games I own on 360, but haven't finished yet it's going to be really tempting to buy them on the PC and basically play everything on that.

now you see why people go all 'master race.'

Malor wrote:

edit: and, of course, the current poster child for graphics splendor is probably Bioshock Infinite.

Really? I have to say I was more impressed with Dark Souls (w/ DSfix) and I only started playing that a few months ago. I guess it depends on your personal definition of splendor. BF4 is purty.

Funny enough, I think Hellgate London is a great test. The environments are still endless derivative corridors but the player models look absolutely amazing with maxed out textures, shaders and polycounts.

I have to say I was more impressed with Dark Souls

I haven't played that one, so I'll have to defer to your judgement. And I haven't played BF4 either. Or Hellgate.

Hmm, I probably should stop opining about what looks best, huh?

Here are a few games that'll blow your mind with a new PC: Max Payne 3, the new Batman series, Far Cry 3, the Crysis series, Sleeping Dogs, and the Metro series.

All great suggestions. Oh and assassins creed 4 but I think you have it already.

Most are on steam so you're now going to have to deal with the heroin that is steam sales...

Current prices

Batman origins is: 40
Sleeping dogs: 25 (really great game)
Max Payne 3: 20
Far cry 3: 30

I do have Assassin's Creed 4. Maybe I'll pick up Dark Souls (because you can never have enough Dark Souls). I love that game. Anyway, sorry for the derail. Just wanted to express my glee at how crazy different the graphics were between PC and XBox. Probably should give Far Cry 3 a look again. I found it unplayable on the 360 visually. I'm sure that would be different now.

If you pick up Sleepy Dogs, don't forget (like I did) to download the hi res pack.

I can also vouch for Far Cry 3 as a game that looks great at max settings. I haven't fired up Max Payne 3 yet though... I'll have to see how that one runs.

Probably should give Far Cry 3 a look again. I found it unplayable on the 360 visually. I'm sure that would be different now.

On a strong computer, it's one of the most beautiful games I've ever seen.

Malor wrote:
Probably should give Far Cry 3 a look again. I found it unplayable on the 360 visually. I'm sure that would be different now.

On a strong computer, it's one of the most beautiful games I've ever seen.

I will not disagree, but I did get some z-fighting whenever there were transparent elements on the screen - like looking out the windshield of a jeep as it starts to take damage.

I never spent much time in the vehicles, so it was something I could live with and I didn't want to mess around to figure out how to get it to stop.

But yes, other than that, very gorgeous game. I think I took over 100 screenshots during my playthough, and 40+ in Blood Dragon.

JC wrote:

All great suggestions. Oh and assassins creed 4 but I think you have it already.

Most are on steam so you're now going to have to deal with the heroin that is steam sales...

Current prices

Batman origins is: 40
Sleeping dogs: 25 (really great game)
Max Payne 3: 20
Far cry 3: 30

I picked up Crysis 3 on Amazon for $5 last week. I had a coupon for $5 off from the stuff I bought and it was on sale for $10. I think it's crept back up to $19.99 now though.

It's the first time I've ever run a graphically intense game with absolutely every setting maxed out. It's not an understatement to say it looked incredible. The grass in that game is the best I've ever seen and walking through the shoulder level grass while sh*t was hunting you was intense!

BTW, did I mention that I absolutely LOVE my new pc?

Is there something I am missing about this Newegg deal, or is it completely nonsensical? Maybe it's for some GPU intensive purpose, but I can't really imagine what.

Render farm? That's about all I can think of.

See the bitcoin thread. That system is far from the most unusual one I have seen. I believe there was a 6x gpu bundle for bitcoin mining.

fangblackbone wrote:

See the bitcoin thread. That system is far from the most unusual one I have seen. I believe there was a 6x gpu bundle for bitcoin mining.

ah right, Bit coin. Totally forgot about that.

I guess Newegg has decided that selling hardware to Bitcoin miners is still a surer bet than mining Bitcoins oneself.

Just for a small bit of clarification, most of those bundles aren't used for bitcoin mining anymore due to the fact that the difficulty for bitcoin mining has got to a point where mining them with standard GPUs is no longer profitable. That space has been taken up be highly specialized ASIC machines that are levels of magnitude faster at mining.

Those bundles are probably used to mine any variety of altcoins such as Litecoins, Feathercoins, Dogecoins, etc. etc. etc., there are literally hundreds if not thousands of options.

For some sort of idea about why people would buy that bundle, it would mine about a litecoin a day which sells for about $23 right now. So the bundle could get you $23 a day while using 1200Wish of power. Decent profitability but it would certainly take a long time to earn back the $2000.

I guess Newegg has decided that selling hardware to Bitcoin miners is still a surer bet than mining Bitcoins oneself.

Louis L'Amour liked to point out that many of the biggest fortunes made in the West were by people selling to the gold miners, rather than by the gold miners themselves.