(03-17-2014, 03:24 AM)admin89 Wrote: I saw you wasted a lot of money there
ASUS GT 610 is not faster than A6 3670 APU integrated GPU
i7 4771 integrated GPU : Intel HD 4600 <= Nvdia GT 630 . You waste money again
Both i7 4770 and i7 4771 are overpriced CPU and can't be overclocked . So what's the point in buying ASUS Maximus VI Hero which is known for hardcore overclocker ?
i7 4770k and i5 4670k can be clocked . However , i7 4770k is not faster than i5 4670k in Dolphin Benchmark . If you bought i7 4770k , you would waste money again
You should get a Xeon 1230v3 which is i7 4770 on steroids (Almost same performance as i7 but cost only 10$ higher than an i5) . Xeon +B85 combo should save you a lot of money but it's too late now
It's your fault that you did not ask us in the first place
Back to the topic , I vote for 280X because it seems like you really need a card for mining . If you don't , just wait for the latest higher end Nvidia Maxwell GPU (much lower power consumption -> run cooler , faster. Also cheaper : GTX 750 vs GTX 650 at launch day ) . 290 and 290X run really hot . If you do some research , you will see those card can reach 90~95C on full load !
Backtracking a bit...
The GT 610 was given to me with the A6 graphics. The problem with the AMD was that even doing the simplest task would max out the CPU, not the GPU (No matter how powerful the APUs are, with everything I have looked at, having a dedicated graphics card will ALWAYS top out a graphics card on a processor or board (Crossing off the low end of the spectrum of graphics card)). I could barely even open Eclipse and run one instance of Java without using at least 30% just to run one Java console. Taking out the dedicated graphics just slowed the machine down even worse, because it gave more work for the CPU to do.
Me and my coworkers had a good discussion about the differences between the 4770 and 4770k. The 4770k is only good for really overclocking, and at the moment, is a heavily overpriced CPU. Considering 1) I never plan on actually overclocking with this computer, because it will handle everything I need it to, and that I wasn't planning on building a computer that could overclock, 2)I bought the motherboard because of the BIOS and how well it actually worked with the chassis I was considering. I enjoy flashing a modding things and the motherboard had a CMOS flashback button on the back of the MB, allowing me to mod to my hearts desire, and 3) I built it more for virtualization and emulation rather than to have a crap ton of processing power (Because honestly, if that was what I was going for, AMD would be the choice, even with their logic of throwing a large amount of processors onto a chip makes it run faster).
Correct me if I am mistaken though, but the Intel Xeon processors, weren't they more designed for server architecture? I mean, I was talking with my coworkers the other day about turning my machine into a server, but that was halted very quickly since most applications wouldn't even run on a Server OS. It may look better, but going with a Server Processor/Motherboard combo for a Desktop OS I personally think is just asking for trouble.
(03-17-2014, 03:35 AM)kinkinkijkin Wrote: Which is why I suggested the Sapphire Toxic 290, admin89. It tends to load at ~70c. That's REALLY low, almost as low as I've modified my 5770 to load. In fact, it might actually load lower than my 5770 when subjected to the same ambient. (for comparison, my 5770 loads 60c with a room temp of ~16c while as heavily-overclocked as I can get it, while that 290 loads 70c at a room temp of 28-ish at stock)
I think I found the Sapphire GPU that you were talking about. If it's the same one, it's running for $550 right now on Newegg, instead of the $800 you mentioned.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CP75v9TPl70CFewRMwoduQcArg&Item=N82E16814202080&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-Desktop+Graphics+Cards-_-N82E16814202080&ef_id=UyXlEQAABQLNuLhH:20140316175321:s