[miceblue]

Typically when you are talking support, its mostly with graphics card drivers and future gaming updates and down the line support. AMD has a record for being very good about supporting their cards for longer than Nvidia has in terms of gaming profiles and general performance updates. But Nvidia is a bit more stable with graphics drivers.

Not really much in terms of 'support' when you get into CPUs unless you talking about future socket support...which AMD will win by a long shot with their AM4. Considering that Intel changes to new sockets almost every generation.

Yeah Intel always changing up the sockets is annoying.

I was more concerned about graphics drivers since I rember seeing stuff about poor AMD drivers some time ago. NVIDIA pretty much has an update even for my 650M like every other week.

 

[UnityIsPower]

Yes. Hopefully Intel and AMD will have lowered the heat production of their recent cpu's. I'm too scared to personally put the fx 9590 or 6700k on air cooling.

Nvidia 10xx gpu's are top notch though, the fans don't start spinning until loads hit 60%.

I have the thermal pad kit on my desk for my 1070, hooray oversight

 

[U-3C]

Yeah Intel always changing up the sockets is annoying.

I was more concerned about graphics drivers since I rember seeing stuff about poor AMD drivers some time ago. NVIDIA pretty much has an update even for my 650M like every other week.

Even the 650M?! :0

 

[miceblue]

Even the 650M?! :0

Yup, surprisingly enough.



Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah dem frames

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3_0C3qpTIM[/video]


RIP my computer when using FRAPS.

Also NVIDIA has Shadowplay; dunno if AMD will have a similar feature. My GPU is like 1 model too old for it. orz



Huh...just realized the video is 1440p 60 FPS on YouTube. Such quality for 14 FPS game.

 

[214324]

Yes. Hopefully Intel and AMD will have lowered the heat production of their recent cpu's. I'm too scared to personally put the fx 9590 or 6700k on air cooling.

Nvidia 10xx gpu's are top notch though, the fans don't start spinning until loads hit 60%.

Huh? What are you talking about.
 
You can do a 4.4GHz OC on a 6700K using a CM Hyper 212 EVO or a Cryorig H7. I don't even know why you would be remotely afraid of running a FX9590 or 6700K on air (9590 I could see more but 6700K...you could get 4GHz+ OC's using air ever since Sandy). The temps aren't even close to ridiculous.
 
As of now Pascal GPU's are pretty disgusting, mostly with respects to efficiency but as an architecture overall it's not one that will age very well since it uses stuff like pre-emption as a stopgap for asynchronous computing. Once NVIDIA moves towards a true async compute architecture I'll have nothing to complain about but as of now Pascal only has power efficiency going for it; long term performance will probably suffer.
 
That and the usual unsavory NVIDIA tactics. At least they do a pretty decent design for the reference blower cooler (in performance, the industrial design isn't for everyone).
 

Yeah Intel always changing up the sockets is annoying.

I was more concerned about graphics drivers since I rember seeing stuff about poor AMD drivers some time ago. NVIDIA pretty much has an update even for my 650M like every other week.

It's better now that Tick-tock is dead, rather it's a 3 stage cycle so we'll have the same socket for 3 generations now instead of just 2.
 
AMD LTS for 7000+ cards (I think 7000+. I don't remember if 6000 series was GCN, if it was, then include that in the range) is pretty decent since one of the draws of GCN (basically async compute) is its good performance in the future as asynchronous compute gets slowly adopted.

 

[miceblue]

It's better now that Tick-tock is dead, rather it's a 3 stage cycle so we'll have the same socket for 3 generations now instead of just 2.

AMD LTS for 7000+ cards (I think 7000+. I don't remember if 6000 series was GCN, if it was, then include that in the range) is pretty decent since one of the draws of GCN (basically async compute) is its good performance in the future as asynchronous compute gets slowly adopted.

Ah mmk. We'll see. I don't intend to get something rigged up in the near future, so I can probably wait until winter next year even. 4K gaming sounds intriguing to me but $$$$$. I could care less about VR. XD

 

[Smugsie]

Huh? What are you talking about.

You can do a 4.4GHz OC on a 6700K using a CM Hyper 212 EVO or a Cryorig H7. I don't even know why you would be remotely afraid of running a FX9590 or 6700K on air (9590 I could see more but 6700K...you could get 4GHz+ OC's using air ever since Sandy). The temps aren't even close to ridiculous.

I won the silicone lottery with the 9590. 65 celsius prime95 at 5.5ghz, 1.52v core. Can't say the same about my 6700k though, 72 celsius 4.2ghz, and 1.34v core also with prime95.

With air coolers they hit 80 to 90 with a Phanteks PH-TC14PEbk. Not a comfy set of temps I like to reside with. I've always used Asus ROG motherboards.

I think Amd temperature probes are somewhere else because the 9590 stated 20 degrees celcius on idle, 8350 on the other hand was 8 degrees on idle. idk.

 

[214324]

That 6700K actually sounds pretty below average so not exactly the greatest representation. 4GHz+ on air with core temps below 70 is pretty common for average chips from what I've seen. Albeit the #'s are meaningless without ambient.
 
Meh you're fine OCing on a Z170 UD3 or something. Going for a ROG doesn't net anything worthwhile especially for that price increase considering the power delivery system between the UD3 and ROG is basically same in quality (not even joking; true phase count remains the same since I'm pretty sure the UD3 still uses 8+2 true phase, no doublers).
 
Not that OCing ever gives worthwhile gains unless they're extreme like under L2N, phase change, or a hefty custom loop since you'll probably run into a voltage ceiling before a temp ceiling when not using golden chips that well known OCers can just bin themselves that other people can only dream of doing. Just looking at Anand's #'s for their 6700K OC test, 4.4GHz (since that's what most people will get around with the least expensive setups, 4.6GHz and 4.8GHz seems like semi-golden territory) only nets a 5% increase overall in performance over 4.2GHz (which is stock turbo) which probably isn't all that worthwhile unless you love e-peen.

 

[Smugsie]

 

Spoiler: Snip!

That 6700K actually sounds pretty below average so not exactly the greatest representation. 4GHz+ on air with core temps below 70 is pretty common for average chips from what I've seen. Albeit the #'s are meaningless without ambient.
 
Meh you're fine OCing on a Z170 UD3 or something. Going for a ROG doesn't net anything worthwhile especially for that price increase considering the power delivery system between the UD3 and ROG is basically same in quality (not even joking; true phase count remains the same since I'm pretty sure the UD3 still uses 8+2 true phase, no doublers).
 
Not that OCing ever gives worthwhile gains unless they're extreme like under L2N, phase change, or a hefty custom loop since you'll probably run into a voltage ceiling before a temp ceiling when not using golden chips that well known OCers can just bin themselves that other people can only dream of doing. Just looking at Anand's #'s for their 6700K OC test, 4.4GHz (since that's what most people will get around with the least expensive setups, 4.6GHz and 4.8GHz seems like semi-golden territory) only nets a 5% increase overall in performance which probably isn't all that worthwhile unless you love e-peen.

Yeah, looking up hot 6700k's also blow the hot CPU's out of proportion since I'm sure there are thousand better 6700k's compared to the dozen CPU's that are less efficient. Just kind of sucks to be that small percentage though. 

Also in regards to OC'ing, I've decided to sit with stock clocks of 4ghz since I like a silent PC (lol open back headphones). Some say I should have gotten a 6700 if I didn't plan to overclock but 4ghz from 3.4ghz for stock clocks is a huge difference on an intel cpu IMO.

ROG motherboards have given me the best consistent quality for overclocks when I decide to have fun so I've stuck to them. Along 4 usb 3.0 ports, more usb ports and a ps/2 port (nkro).

 

[Accoun]

I have some time, so I'm watching GSL 2016 VODs. I'm not into Starcraft that much, but it's cool to see Brood War stuff still organized.

 

[214324]

  Yeah, looking up hot 6700k's also blow the hot CPU's out of proportion since I'm sure there are thousand better 6700k's compared to the dozen CPU's that are less efficient. Just kind of sucks to be that small percentage though. 

Also in regards to OC'ing, I've decided to sit with stock clocks of 4ghz since I like a silent PC (lol open back headphones). Some say I should have gotten a 6700 if I didn't plan to overclock but 4ghz from 3.4ghz for stock clocks is a huge difference on an intel cpu IMO.

ROG motherboards have given me the best consistent quality for overclocks when I decide to have fun so I've stuck to them. Along 4 usb 3.0 ports, more usb ports and a ps/2 port (nkro).

Eh that's kind of counterintuitive then; why bother getting a ROG board when you aren't going to OC, even if it's that "oh down the road to make the system a little more viable when it gets outdated" argument since like earlier the gains are more or less negligible. Z170 doesn't give any worthwhile features over H170 and going for ROG is just a huge waste of money in general; it's not like you need anything past a 4+1 or 4+2 phase setup running stock clocks. Lower priced boards offer the same rear I/O port selection (and arguably look better than the tacky garbage ROG boards have become).
 
I'd agree with them; just paying for the increased base clocks isn't worth the extra $50-$70 for an unlocked SKU. Pretty big waste of money for a negligible performance increase. And the 6700 turbos to 4.0 GHz anyways which is a pretty high ceiling increase compared to the base turbo 4.2 GHz over the stock 4.0 on the 6700K. Albeit it's never going to run at those frequencies unless under heavier load and at that point you're basically comparing 4.0 GHz 6700 to 4.2 GHz 6700K.
 

---

 
Speaking of tacky boards, most of the boards have been release (ASUS announced all of theirs minus the mITX ROG which is usual) or leaked (MSi, Gigabyte, AsRock). The ASUS Strix mITX and mATX boards look decent w/ the right hand side RGB lighting turned off.
 

 
 
I love how ASUS started including M.2 heatsinks. Pretty laughable but sure whatever. Apparently you only need a thin copper sticker to help relieve most of the throttling issues on M.2 SSDs (like Samsung showed on the 960 Pro).
 
Anyways not sure what went wrong in the motherboard industry. Tacky RGB lighting, ugly I/O or motherboard shields, and new for this generation in the expensive motherboard segment (high end isn't appropriate to describe it anymore) silkscreen printing on PCBs or something like that.

 

[Smugsie]

  Eh that's kind of counterintuitive then; why bother getting a ROG board when you aren't going to OC, even if it's that "oh down the road to make the system a little more viable when it gets outdated" argument since like earlier the gains are more or less negligible. Z170 doesn't give any worthwhile features over H170 and going for ROG is just a huge waste of money in general; it's not like you need anything past a 4+1 or 4+2 phase setup running stock clocks. Lower priced boards offer the same rear I/O port selection (and arguably look better than the tacky garbage ROG boards have become).
 
I'd agree with them; just paying for the increased base clocks isn't worth the extra $50-$70 for an unlocked SKU. Pretty big waste of money for a negligible performance increase. And the 6700 turbos to 4.0 GHz anyways which is a pretty high ceiling increase compared to the base turbo 4.2 GHz over the stock 4.0 on the 6700K. Albeit it's never going to run at those frequencies unless under heavier load and at that point you're basically comparing 4.0 GHz 6700 to 4.2 GHz 6700K.
 

Well these are the reasons I went with ROG:

1. It looks nice (fancy LED's are cool and I have a black/red theme)
2. Initially I went in with an AMD mindset thinking it needs to be overclocked
3. MMORPG's and Battlefield games benefitted from the extra 0.7ghz overclock
4. Pre-installed waterblock for the extra looks nice
    

Reasons why I went back to stock

1. I play counterstrike more and indie games so I have no need to overclock anymore
2. HD600 less noise isolation (I used a q701 that muffled fans better)
3. 3 months ago it was 30 degrees celsius, hot pc = louder fans

 
Regardless I'll still go with ROG because I only upgrade every 3 generations. Might as well fish out the best within a reasonable budget.

 

[214324]

 
Well these are the reasons I went with ROG:

1. It looks nice (fancy LED's are cool and I have a black/red theme)
2. Initially I went in with an AMD mindset thinking it needs to be overclocked
3. MMORPG's and Battlefield games benefitted from the extra 0.7ghz overclock
4. Pre-installed waterblock for the extra looks nice
    

Reasons why I went back to stock

1. I play counterstrike more and indie games so I have no need to overclock anymore
2. HD600 less noise isolation (I used a q701 that muffled fans better)
3. 3 months ago it was 30 degrees celsius, hot pc = louder fans

 
Regardless I'll still go with ROG because I only upgrade every 3 generations. Might as well fish out the best within a reasonable budget.

But it's only a 0.2 GHz overclock since the chip runs near max turbo frequencies under high load and it's not like any game needs overclocking with an i7; that's just GPU bottleneck at that point.
 
I won't argue looks since that's a personal thing but it seems like a pretty hefty price you're paying for a lot of stuff you don't use but it's your money.

 

[akiroz]

 

---

 
Speaking of tacky boards, most of the boards have been release (ASUS announced all of theirs minus the mITX ROG which is usual) or leaked (MSi, Gigabyte, AsRock). The ASUS Strix mITX and mATX boards look decent w/ the right hand side RGB lighting turned off.
 
 
I love how ASUS started including M.2 heatsinks. Pretty laughable but sure whatever. Apparently you only need a thin copper sticker to help relieve most of the throttling issues on M.2 SSDs (like Samsung showed on the 960 Pro).
 
Anyways not sure what went wrong in the motherboard industry. Tacky RGB lighting, ugly I/O or motherboard shields, and new for this generation in the expensive motherboard segment (high end isn't appropriate to describe it anymore) silkscreen printing on PCBs or something like that.

 
maybe you're suppose to program the LEDs to match whatever case you're using? iono....

 

[214324]

   
maybe you're suppose to program the LEDs to match whatever case you're using? iono....

I mean it's probably less painful to find the closest if not exact hex value the case lighting is using. I don't remember most RGB lighting included with cases linking up with computers; only a few.