[waldojim]

coastie65, on 27 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 27 April 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that there's any reason for you to get a Z77 motherboard, even if you get a geforce 680 and ivy bridge i7. Man, and I'm still running on ancient 2.25 year old hardware...

I know what you are running and you are fine. I am still going over things and the only thing I am convinced of at thai point is the GTX 680 ( Newegg stays sold out on those things ). I think I can get 3.0 PCIe support with a BiOS upgrade on this MOBO, but not sure as I am still looking into that. With the Z77, you get 4 USB 3.0 ports instead of the 2 that I have with the Z68 board. One upside to the IGP on the Ivy Bridge ( HD4000 for the 3750k ) it supports DX11 whereas the Sandy supported DX10.1.

The other thing, is that the Ivy Bridge supports native OpenCL on the GPU, instead of being hacked up and running on the CPU.

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 27 April 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

coastie65, on 27 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 27 April 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that there's any reason for you to get a Z77 motherboard, even if you get a geforce 680 and ivy bridge i7. Man, and I'm still running on ancient 2.25 year old hardware...

I know what you are running and you are fine. I am still going over things and the only thing I am convinced of at thai point is the GTX 680 ( Newegg stays sold out on those things ). I think I can get 3.0 PCIe support with a BiOS upgrade on this MOBO, but not sure as I am still looking into that. With the Z77, you get 4 USB 3.0 ports instead of the 2 that I have with the Z68 board. One upside to the IGP on the Ivy Bridge ( HD4000 for the 3750k ) it supports DX11 whereas the Sandy supported DX10.1.

The other thing, is that the Ivy Bridge supports native OpenCL on the GPU, instead of being hacked up and running on the CPU.

The Z77 Chipset is the first to provide native 3.0 USB support as well.

[LiveBrianD]

coastie65, on 28 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

The Z77 Chipset is the first to provide native 3.0 USB support as well.

On the other hand, all of us have 3rd party USB 3 controllers on our motherboards anyway, so I doubt that's a big deal. (I was wondering why they were taking so long to implement it though - my motherboard is 2 years old but has a usb 3 and a sata 3 controller on it...)

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 28 April 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

coastie65, on 28 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

The Z77 Chipset is the first to provide native 3.0 USB support as well.

On the other hand, all of us have 3rd party USB 3 controllers on our motherboards anyway, so I doubt that's a big deal. (I was wondering why they were taking so long to implement it though - my motherboard is 2 years old but has a usb 3 and a sata 3 controller on it...)

The native support is much better than the hacked stuff for the most part. I have two USB 3.0 Ports on here as compared to 4 on the Z77 board.

[LiveBrianD]

I don't see why it would make a difference. On the other hand, I don't actually have any USB 3 devices, and thus can't test the ports with them. (they work just as well as the chipset ports with USB 2 devices anyway)

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 28 April 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

I don't see why it would make a difference. On the other hand, I don't actually have any USB 3 devices, and thus can't test the ports with them. (they work just as well as the chipset ports with USB 2 devices anyway)

Two reasons for this.
One: your integrated controller will have drivers native to Windows (Windows 8 for certain, though I suspect MS will drop native drivers for Windows 7 as well), and due to how common they are, they will be the best maintained.
Two: The integrated card has full access to the bandwidth it needs. The dedicated cards have to steal PCI-E lanes from somewhere, and manufacturers usually skimp on the lanes available to them. In this particular case, USB 3.0 really needs 4 PCI-E lanes, yet most motherboard manufacturers only dedicated 2 lanes for the controller.

[LiveBrianD]

On my board, if you use the USB 3 and/or SATA 3 controllers, the first PCIe x16 slot is dropped down to x8. (the second one is always at x4 speed) Granted, that's not a realistic bottleneck, but I can see what you're talking about.

Second, why would USB 3 drivers native to Windows be limited to the chipset USB 3 controller? I mean, the USB 2 drivers that XP came with will work on any USB 2 controller, right?

[coastie65]

At $359.99, the Ivy Bridge 3770k will have to wait. From what I've read, if you run benchies on the same Z77 MOBO with the 2600k and the 3570k there is little to no difference in the numbers. In the single core mode, It is significantly faster than the 2600k. In full quad, not much difference. Just may move to the Z77 board and the GTX 680 Card and leave it at that.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 29 April 2012 - 11:57 AM

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

At $359.99, the Ivy Bridge 3770k will have to wait. From what I've read, if you run benchies on the same Z77 MOBO with the 2600k and the 3570k there is little to no difference in the numbers. In the single core mode, It is significantly faster than the 2600k. In full quad, not much difference. Just may move to the Z77 board and the GTX 680 Card and leave it at that.

If you arent changing cpus, why change boards?

This post has been edited by coastie65: 29 April 2012 - 11:57 AM

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

At $359.99, the Ivy Bridge 3770k will have to wait. From what I've read, if you run benchies on the same Z77 MOBO with the 2600k and the 3570k there is little to no difference in the numbers. In the single core mode, It is significantly faster than the 2600k. In full quad, not much difference. Just may move to the Z77 board and the GTX 680 Card and leave it at that.

If you arent changing cpus, why change boards?

PCIe x16 3.0 on two slots for one thing ( you can opt for x8 as well ). There are some upsides to going from the Z68 to Z77 Chipsets. Need to check BiOS updates for this MOBO first though.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 29 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

At $359.99, the Ivy Bridge 3770k will have to wait. From what I've read, if you run benchies on the same Z77 MOBO with the 2600k and the 3570k there is little to no difference in the numbers. In the single core mode, It is significantly faster than the 2600k. In full quad, not much difference. Just may move to the Z77 board and the GTX 680 Card and leave it at that.

If you arent changing cpus, why change boards?

PCIe x16 3.0 on two slots for one thing ( you can opt for x8 as well ). There are some upsides to going from the Z68 to Z77 Chipsets. Need to check BiOS updates for this MOBO first though.

The CPU still won't support it, no matter what board you use. In order to gain from PCI-E 3.0, you have to buy both a CPU and Motherboard.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 29 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

At $359.99, the Ivy Bridge 3770k will have to wait. From what I've read, if you run benchies on the same Z77 MOBO with the 2600k and the 3570k there is little to no difference in the numbers. In the single core mode, It is significantly faster than the 2600k. In full quad, not much difference. Just may move to the Z77 board and the GTX 680 Card and leave it at that.

If you arent changing cpus, why change boards?

PCIe x16 3.0 on two slots for one thing ( you can opt for x8 as well ). There are some upsides to going from the Z68 to Z77 Chipsets. Need to check BiOS updates for this MOBO first though.

The CPU still won't support it, no matter what board you use. In order to gain from PCI-E 3.0, you have to buy both a CPU and Motherboard.

Well, the i5 3570k ( 3.4 Ghz ) is $249.99 ( $110 difference with the 3770k ), which isn't too bad. Lose a little on the cache. TigerDrect has the i7 3770k for $319.99 after using a $40 coupon ( same as I paid for the 2600k ).

This post has been edited by coastie65: 29 April 2012 - 12:01 PM

[coastie65]

Found this one review on the EVGA GTX Suoer Clocked Card: " Such a great card for the cost. Low power usage. Very cool running card usually around 65°C.
Easily overclocked with the extra power this version of the 680 has.
I've got mine OC'd to 1.276 GHz core clock using the precision X tool " I have one question, 65c is cool running ?????? I guess it mi8ght with that OC though.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 29 April 2012 - 12:33 PM

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Found this one review on the EVGA GTX Suoer Clocked Card: " Such a great card for the cost. Low power usage. Very cool running card usually around 65°C.
Easily overclocked with the extra power this version of the 680 has.
I've got mine OC'd to 1.276 GHz core clock using the precision X tool " I have one question, 65c is cool running ?????? I guess it mi8ght with that OC though.

It depends on how you look at things. Within the last few years, I would say that 68 is relatively cool. If you will recall with the 8800GTX, average was around 80C, and many cards climbed right up to 100C. It wasn't until people started using aftermarket coolers that they got the 8800GTX down to 65-70C. My 8800GT wasn't far off. With the stock cooler, 85C was common. It wasn't until I got my Thermaltake duo orb on it that it dropped to the 50's. That also goes a long way to show the difference between stock cooling and aftermarket cooling on the GPU.

[waldojim]

Hey Coastie: seeing as you are bound and determined to waste money on a needless upgrade I think you should go for this card instead:
GTX 690

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Hey Coastie: seeing as you are bound and determined to waste money on a needless upgrade I think you should go for this card instead:
GTX 690

I had just come back here after running across that thing. http://news.softpedi...ed-266971.shtml As far as the upgrade goes, nothing is set in stone. If I go for the 680, I do want to get the maximum I can get out of it without being bottlenecked in some way. Arrrrggghhh, I just checked your link, $1000 ?. No thanks. I passed on the Mars II, although the $1500 price tag was doable. Damn, the only GTX 680 I can find is a Galaxy over at TigerDirect.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 29 April 2012 - 01:31 PM

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Hey Coastie: seeing as you are bound and determined to waste money on a needless upgrade I think you should go for this card instead:
GTX 690

I had just come back here after running across that thing. http://news.softpedi...ed-266971.shtml As far as the upgrade goes, nothing is set in stone. If I go for the 680, I do want to get the maximum I can get out of it without being bottlenecked in some way. Arrrrggghhh, I just checked your link, $1000 ?. No thanks. I passed on the Mars II, although the $1500 price tag was doable. Damn, the only GTX 680 I can find is a Galaxy over at TigerDirect.

After spending $700 on a mainboard and cpu, what is another $1000 on a video card?

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Hey Coastie: seeing as you are bound and determined to waste money on a needless upgrade I think you should go for this card instead:
GTX 690

Just one SLI card? Why not 2? (then you can put that power supply to use! )

[waldojim]

It is a little harder to justify two of them, when one is not only so stinking powerful, but also $1,000. Shoot I would have a terrible time justifying one to the wife... and would quite likely fail.

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

coastie65, on 29 April 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

waldojim, on 29 April 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Hey Coastie: seeing as you are bound and determined to waste money on a needless upgrade I think you should go for this card instead:
GTX 690

I had just come back here after running across that thing. http://news.softpedi...ed-266971.shtml As far as the upgrade goes, nothing is set in stone. If I go for the 680, I do want to get the maximum I can get out of it without being bottlenecked in some way. Arrrrggghhh, I just checked your link, $1000 ?. No thanks. I passed on the Mars II, although the $1500 price tag was doable. Damn, the only GTX 680 I can find is a Galaxy over at TigerDirect.

After spending $700 on a mainboard and cpu, what is another $1000 on a video card?

$ 220 for the CPU if I get it from Tiger Direct and $235 for the Mainboard ( The Z77 version of the one I have in here now ). So about $455. Not much more than I paid for the SSD.