Help me build my PC 2017 Catch All

That’s right, I recall you discussing the reason you chose that CPU. Thanks!

In case you didn't see the follow-up posts, I bought a MSI B450 Tomahawk instead of the original Gigabyte Aorus that was on the original parts list I have no complaints on the MSI board and it seems good quality.

muraii wrote:

LeapingGnome, how's your recent build working out? I grabbed that parts list, through a Sapphire Nitro+ RX580 and a 2TB 7200 RPM hard drive, and am thinking of pulling the trigger soon. The GPUs are going on and off sale, so I'm waiting for a nice deal. Are there any compromises on the motherboard or chipset from your perspective?

There shouldn't be really. Though as I understand it MSI did a better job with their VRM design on their B450 boards than basically all the other board makers, so if you're going that route they're kind of the one clear winner. Standouts are the B450 Tomahawk and B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC. Both are good to go with basically any Ryzen series CPU, all the way up to the 2700X.

LeapingGnome wrote:

In case you didn't see the follow-up posts, I bought a MSI B450 Tomahawk instead of the original Gigabyte Aorus that was on the original parts list I have no complaints on the MSI board and it seems good quality.

Good choice

A fair number of other B450 boards will likely choke on the more power hungry 8 core chips because the VRM's will overheat.

If you have no plans to ever upgrade the processor, no big deal, buy the board of your choice as they're all generally fine all the way up through the six core R5 chips. But if you want the system to be somewhat more expandable in the future and provide more options, a few bucks more on the motherboard could make a difference.

The Tomahawk board should only run ~$10-$15 more than the Gigabyte that's in the parts list.

Steve Walton over at Techspot actually did a fairly decent Top 5 B450 boards writeup back in August. Pricing will have shifted some depending, so that's something to take into consideration, but featuresets haven't changed so the details of what he says still stand.

Yeah I guess one caveat on the Tomahawk would be if you need built-in wifi/bluetooth then step up to the Carbon one on ThinJ's link.

Who here can offer me good overclocking advice?

After my misadventure with the 6700k from Hardwareswap, I actually found a guy selling an unused 7700k locally for only a little more, and I had no trouble at all getting it to work in my system since the bios on my Z170 board was already updated. Now I'm trying to see how far I can push the overclock.

I have an Asus motherboard and I'm following this guide from Asus for Kaby Lake OC'ing. I'm using a 240mm radiator liquid cooler (NZXT Kraken X61), so I'm targeting 4.8ghz.

The system boots and appears stable in stress tests. However, in spite of hitting 100% load on all cores in Cinebench, AIDA64, etc., the clock speed never goes above 4.4ghz. It's not a temperature issue, as no core ever goes above 60 degrees C and AIDA64 shows no throttling occurring. Shouldn't there be something I can do to make it actually hit 4.8ghz? I've never known a CPU to be unable to hit its maximum speed at maximum load without a thermal barrier.

It sounds like there has to be a step missing somewhere, but I'm not sure exactly what it might be based on that guide.

I had no trouble making my 6700k go to 4.8 when I had it on that exact same Kraken X61 cooler, and I did a lot of what's in that guide, though I avoided messing with BCLK. The 7700k shouldn't have any issues at all hitting 4.8ghz. I backed my 6700k back down to 4.7 because the temperatures settled noticeably cooler and I prefer that vs whatever tiny bit of performance I might have been gaining at 4.8, but still, the 7700k should be better.

Have you gone through that entire guide? There's some valuable bits in the later pages of it.

Thin_J wrote:

It sounds like there has to be a step missing somewhere, but I'm not sure exactly what it might be based on that guide.

I had no trouble making my 6700k go to 4.8 when I had it on that exact same Kraken X61 cooler, and I did a lot of what's in that guide, though I avoided messing with BCLK. The 7700k shouldn't have any issues at all hitting 4.8ghz. I backed my 6700k back down to 4.7 because the temperatures settled noticeably cooler and I prefer that vs whatever tiny bit of performance I might have been gaining at 4.8, but still, the 7700k should be better.

Have you gone through that entire guide? There's some valuable bits in the later pages of it.

Yes, I've gone through all of it. The first few pages (before the step-by-step UEFI instructions I linked to) seemed to be mostly academic, and the pages after seemed to be info on managing temperatures and a glossary of the various BIOS settings. But I've double-checked I've done everything they said to do (except uncore overclocking).

Super weird.

What software are you using to check the core speeds? Maybe it's a thing where it's just being misreported?

Thin_J wrote:

Super weird.

What software are you using to check the core speeds? Maybe it's a thing where it's just being misreported?

HWinfo64, and Asus AI Suite shows the same thing.

Also, if I use the automatic overclock tool included in the BIOS, which I think put the CPU at 4.5ghz, I got better Cinebench scores than I do now when I'm supposed to be at 4.8, which confirms to me it really is only running at 4.4.

What happens if you manually overclock to 4.5? 4.6? 4.3?

*Legion* wrote:

What happens if you manually overclock to 4.5? 4.6? 4.3?

Good question! Just tried 4.6 and 4.5 both produce the same result of the CPU pegging to 4.4 at 100% load and not going a hair over.

There is something overriding the BIOS settings I am using telling it its limit is 4.4 (I know it's capable of doing at least a little more because the "EZ Tuning Wizard" in the BIOS gets it to 4.5) but I am at a loss for what.

Middcore wrote:

Who here can offer me good overclocking advice?

After my misadventure with the 6700k from Hardwareswap, I actually found a guy selling an unused 7700k locally for only a little more, and I had no trouble at all getting it to work in my system since the bios on my Z170 board was already updated. Now I'm trying to see how far I can push the overclock.

I have an Asus motherboard and I'm following this guide from Asus for Kaby Lake OC'ing. I'm using a 240mm radiator liquid cooler (NZXT Kraken X61), so I'm targeting 4.8ghz.

The system boots and appears stable in stress tests. However, in spite of hitting 100% load on all cores in Cinebench, AIDA64, etc., the clock speed never goes above 4.4ghz. It's not a temperature issue, as no core ever goes above 60 degrees C and AIDA64 shows no throttling occurring. Shouldn't there be something I can do to make it actually hit 4.8ghz? I've never known a CPU to be unable to hit its maximum speed at maximum load without a thermal barrier.

Were you able to overclock the 6700K above 4.4?

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Middcore wrote:

Who here can offer me good overclocking advice?

After my misadventure with the 6700k from Hardwareswap, I actually found a guy selling an unused 7700k locally for only a little more, and I had no trouble at all getting it to work in my system since the bios on my Z170 board was already updated. Now I'm trying to see how far I can push the overclock.

I have an Asus motherboard and I'm following this guide from Asus for Kaby Lake OC'ing. I'm using a 240mm radiator liquid cooler (NZXT Kraken X61), so I'm targeting 4.8ghz.

The system boots and appears stable in stress tests. However, in spite of hitting 100% load on all cores in Cinebench, AIDA64, etc., the clock speed never goes above 4.4ghz. It's not a temperature issue, as no core ever goes above 60 degrees C and AIDA64 shows no throttling occurring. Shouldn't there be something I can do to make it actually hit 4.8ghz? I've never known a CPU to be unable to hit its maximum speed at maximum load without a thermal barrier.

We're you able to overclock the 6700K above 4.4?

I don't think I ever tried manually OC'ing the 6600k, I let the automatic tuning wizard in the BIOS do its thing and unfortunately I don't remember where it settled. Looking at some old saved 3dmark results it looks like 4.3?

Is there a good Windows alternative to spending ~$100 on an OEM license? I think I’ve exhausted my education licenses (one for each of me and my partner) and I’m not going to use warez. I also don’t know anyone I’m aware of that has licenses to share. I’ve already been the benefactor of a GWJer once in that department.

I’m not opposed to paying but I’d prefer not to overpay.

Middcore, I found two other instances of people who seemed to have followed overclocking guides and according to those should have been running at least at 4.5ghz on all cores, but instead were running 4.4 or in the other case 4.2ghz.

Look through the BIOS somewhere for a setting labeled "Maximum Processor Speed" or something similar. In both cases they found it set to lower numbers. 4400 and 4200, respectively. The 4200 guy set it to 5000 and was immediately able to stable OC to 5ghz.

muraii wrote:

Is there a good Windows alternative to spending ~$100 on an OEM license? I think I’ve exhausted my education licenses (one for each of me and my partner) and I’m not going to use warez. I also don’t know anyone I’m aware of that has licenses to share. I’ve already been the benefactor of a GWJer once in that department.

I’m not opposed to paying but I’d prefer not to overpay.

If someone has a good answer to this I'm looking too. About to give a PC to a friend tomorrow afternoon but I couldn't get windows registered because apparently at some point I registered my last spare key to my own MS account. Didn't want to leave him stuck with my account settings messing with his PC, but also don't have $100 for a new license.

Thin_J wrote:

I found two other instances of people who seemed to have followed overclocking guides and according to those should have been running at least at 4.5ghz on all cores, but instead were running 4.4 or in the other case 4.2ghz.

Look through the BIOS somewhere for a setting labeled "Maximum Processor Speed" or something similar. In both cases they found it set to lower numbers. 4400 and 4200, respectively. The 4200 guy set it to 5000 and was immediately able to stable OC to 5ghz.

I think I found one of those forum threads myself. It sounded like the "maximum processor speed" setting that guy was referring to was in the Windows power management settings rather than the BIOS, and I don't have any such option... most other references I found to it were on laptops?

Nevertheless I'll go through the BIOS with a fine-tooth comb once more.

Edit: You can add this option to the advance power settings in Windows through an elevated command prompt. It was set to 0mhz, which from what I can tell is functionally supposed to mean "no limit." Experimentally I put it at 5000mhz but it makes no difference.

Middcore wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

I found two other instances of people who seemed to have followed overclocking guides and according to those should have been running at least at 4.5ghz on all cores, but instead were running 4.4 or in the other case 4.2ghz.

Look through the BIOS somewhere for a setting labeled "Maximum Processor Speed" or something similar. In both cases they found it set to lower numbers. 4400 and 4200, respectively. The 4200 guy set it to 5000 and was immediately able to stable OC to 5ghz.

I think I found one of those forum threads myself. It sounded like the "maximum processor speed" setting that guy was referring to was in the Windows power management settings rather than the BIOS, and I don't have any such option... most other references I found to it were on laptops?

Nevertheless I'll go through the BIOS with a fine-tooth comb once more.

Edit: You can add this option to the advance power settings in Windows through an elevated command prompt. It was set to 0mhz, which from what I can tell is functionally supposed to mean "no limit." Experimentally I put it at 5000mhz but it makes no difference.

If nothing else works, you can try throttlestop.

Best Buy deal: Corsair Platinum K95 Cherry MX Brown keyboard for $139.99. I see the same 30% discount on Amazon right now, too.

Wondering how long the deal will last and whether I should jump on it. My son has the K70 and likes it.

There was some talk here about Corsair keyboards misbehaving in some way, but I don't remember details. Thin_J might.

I've got an older K70 and have liked it very much. I tried a Ducky before that, but while the feel of that board was excellent, it didn't like my motherboard BIOS, and I couldn't use it there. So I ended up returning that and getting the substantially more expensive Corsair, which worked fine. This board came with MX Reds, which weren't my first choice, but I've ended up quite liking them. They're relatively light touch, and they activate very close to the top of the keystroke, so they feel extremely responsive. And, of course. Corsair supports a fairly ridiculous number of simultaneous keys if you set the board to multiple-device mode. (Each USB keyboard can only drive 6 or 8 keys at once, forget which, so they use several devices to let you press way more.) It can be set back to single-device mode to talk to dumb OSes and motherboard BIOSes, as well, so it kind of covers all bases.

I've been real happy with mine, but someone implied that Corsair boards had some kind of problem right now, so I'd wait a bit to see if anyone chimes in before buying one.

Oh, and from the sound of it, Corsair's software team is really bad, so if you need any kind of driver to fully use the keyboard, you might want to look for a different brand. (This K70 doesn't need anything, it's totally self-contained.)

I do recall there being something up with their keyboards at some point, but I can't even find anything about whatever it was with Google. I would wager it's long resolved.

I despise iCue as a software package though. The one Corsair AIO cooler I'm still using routinely disappears and becomes inaccessible in it. Rebooting fixes it about a third of the time. It's bad. The older Corsair LINK software wasn't any better. It was just awful in different ways.

I may never buy another Corsair product that requires using their software.

Never had any issues with my K90 and the software.

I love the K70 as well. I just wish I had bought the brown instead of the red. After using both for over a year I just prefer the little more resistance provided by the brown.

Edit: I just checked their website and it looks like the MX Brown key versions are no longer available. Damn, I guess they weren't that popular? They have some other ones I'm not familiar with "speed" and "silent".

Thanks for the replies.

I may actually consider the K70 instead. It has an even larger discount (40%). I doubt I'd use the extra programmable keys on the K95.

One other minor drawback to Corsairs that I forgot to mention: they use slightly nonstandard keycap sizes, so you can't as easily buy replacements. Many boards using Cherry MX switches use a standard layout, so that you can buy new keycaps relatively cheaply. This is kind of a thing for some people ,there are those that strongly prefer PBT plastic to the ABS plastic that's normally used. With a Corsair board, you have to buy keycaps explicitly FOR a Corsair board, so they tend to be harder to find and more expensive when you do.

I do like the feel of PBT caps better, but I haven't bothered spending any money chasing them. I've got a lot of miles on this K70, and I don't see any sign of wear. The key legends go all the way through the cap (so they can glow from the backlighting), and the only way they'd ever be really damaged is by wearing all the way through the top of the key. The mechanisms will die long, long before that happens.

LeapingGnome wrote:

In case you didn't see the follow-up posts, I bought a MSI B450 Tomahawk instead of the original Gigabyte Aorus that was on the original parts list I have no complaints on the MSI board and it seems good quality.

Good to know- I have reason to believe that Santa has a Tomahawk along with a 2600X coming for me. Now I have to decide whether to put it into an old Antec mid-tower I have floating around, or buy a new case and use that. I don't need to keep the old system running in the short term, though I may eventually use the parts to upgrade the kids' PC. I'll see if I can buy a good solid quiet case that doesn't have glass and LEDs and all that shiny cruft I don't need.

I love my Logitech G810.

Gaald wrote:

I love my Logitech G810.

Yeah, I use the G Pro. Same basic board just with the entire numpad chunk cut off.

It's been flawless.

Does anyone here have experience with Noctua's "redux" line?

I'm getting/building a Frankenputer for Christmas (new Ryzen 2 2600, Gigabyte B450M DS3H motherboard, and RAM, and hand-me-down everything else from my father-in-law who has a much bigger gadget budget than I do).

For my last build I did a lot of research into fans, fan controllers, etc., then just got a case that came with fans and used those. Now I'm in the research phase again, trying to find the perfect balance between quiet, durable, and inexpensive.

So what's the current recommendation on a decent 4K monitor? Right now, as a baseline, I have an LG IPS 235V-BN, which is a workhorse. What's the price/performance equivalent to that in the 4K world? I'll drive it with an nVidia 1080, I think.