New rig. X99 or Z170? Halp

[bryceedmundo]

Guys and girls, i'm about to eat my own head.
Building a new rig. It will be first. Can't decide between these two chipsets. More cores with the X99, Z170 is a bit cheaper, but at the end of the day I don't think i'll actually save that much money...
Someone just tell me what to do plz

Thanks, testicles <3

 

[Annitias]

Do you care about money? If not, X99. Do you have a reasonable budget and bills? Z170

 

[bryceedmundo]

Do you care about money? If not, X99. Do you have a reasonable budget and bills? Z170

I don't care about money which is probably why I don't have any.
This makes me sad. But I think you're right.
At least i'll be able to get back into SC sooner.

 

[Xist]

It's more a question of what you will do with the computer. There isn't much of a cost difference - X99 is only more expensive if you choose to buy tons of cores (10 core = $1,800 CPU).

If you are mainly playing games, the Z170 has 4-core (with i7, hyperthreaded so 8-vcore) CPUs and they are faster clock speeds. This is actually better for gaming in most cases.

If you are doing something like software development and running VMs on your machine, then you probably need more cores. The X99 will get you 6, 8 or even 10 cores (with i7, 2x that amount of vcores). However X99 runs at slower clock speeds so it's not as good for pure gaming.

Personally I have an X99 with a 6-core i7 (12 threads). Star Citizen never comes close to using all of the vcores. It usually maxes out 1 core and then the others sit mostly idle. I overclocked it to 4.5 GHz so it's comparable to the stock Z170 but then again I'm going to burn up my CPU a lot faster than a Z170.

Anyway. Buy what you need. Do you run huge amounts of highly CPU intensive stuff like a developer? Cores are important. Do you mainly do gaming and not much else but web browsing? Get faster clock speeds, you don't need that many cores.

 

[Blind Owl]

It's more a question of what you will do with the computer. There isn't much of a cost difference - X99 is only more expensive if you choose to buy tons of cores (10 core = $1,800 CPU).

If you are mainly playing games, the Z170 has 4-core (with i7, hyperthreaded so 8-vcore) CPUs and they are faster clock speeds. This is actually better for gaming in most cases.

If you are doing something like software development and running VMs on your machine, then you probably need more cores. The X99 will get you 6, 8 or even 10 cores (with i7, 2x that amount of vcores). However X99 runs at slower clock speeds so it's not as good for pure gaming.

Personally I have an X99 with a 6-core i7 (12 threads). Star Citizen never comes close to using all of the vcores. It usually maxes out 1 core and then the others sit mostly idle. I overclocked it to 4.5 GHz so it's comparable to the stock Z170 but then again I'm going to burn up my CPU a lot faster than a Z170.

Anyway. Buy what you need. Do you run huge amounts of highly CPU intensive stuff like a developer? Cores are important. Do you mainly do gaming and not much else but web browsing? Get faster clock speeds, you don't need that many cores.

Knowledge bomb. I'm coming to this community when it's time to build my next rig.

 

[bryceedmundo]

It's more a question of what you will do with the computer. There isn't much of a cost difference - X99 is only more expensive if you choose to buy tons of cores (10 core = $1,800 CPU).

I hear you man, thanks heaps for the input. The reason I was leaning towards the X99 is for 'future proofing' (as much as I can) and for the power, because I like the idea of having more computer than I need. Further more, with my limited knowledge, I have concerns about the 16 PCIE lanes provided by the 6700K if I want to run SLI in the future. While we're on the topic of multiple graphics cards... a dedicated PhysX card for star citizen? I feel like that would be a great thing considering how the game works... right? So is a PhysX card/my primary GPU going to suffer from from a 16 lane CPU? My plan was to get something like a 960 to get the system up and running, then add a 1080 when the third party models release down here in 'straya and run the 960 as a PhysX card.
All that said, ultimately I think a Z170 build will be better bang for my buck. Do we have an opinion on AMD processors and cards?

Could you suggest for me a ~midrange Z170 motherboard? I'll be overclocking.

 

[Xist]

TL;DR you generally only need 16 PCIe lanes available for 2x SLI. More than that is very likely to be waste.

I read a study recently that said that almost every game only really uses 8 PCIe lanes per card. They literally taped up half the PINs on the GPUs and ran benchmarks to test.

The finding was that, 1 card or 2, there was absolutely no performance difference between 32 PCIe lanes dedicated to the GPUs (16 per card) or only 16 PCIe lanes (8 per card).

Their assessment was that, though the cards are capable of handling more throughout, games simply are not able to use it.

Note: this study did not include Star Citizen, however I found the results very interesting. It is unclear whether SC will follow this trend or not.

RE a dedicated PhysX card, I tried that myself and haven't really noticed a difference in performance. I think the main reason is the SC server limits FPS to 20 atm, and my hardware is way more than enough to generate 4K @ 20 fps. (2x 980 To + 6-core 4th gen i7 overclocked to 4.5 GHz). No other game comes close to requiring this much power, even at 4K.

Will check on a mobo for you and post again later with thoughts.

 

[Xist]

Regarding Z170 motherboards, I was actually pricing some out myself just to see. I like to do that from time to time. :)

TL;DR the more expensive one has a lot of features you're paying for that you may not need. If you don't need them, then why buy them? Here again, both are great boards. Buy what you need, not just what is expensive.

Here are 2 options - a budget one and an upper-mid-range one. They are very similar in feature set.

I have not read reviews on either one, you should do that before you buy anything. But again, buy what you need and not just whatever is expensive. This should help explain why, I have highlighted the things the expensive one has that the cheaper one doesn't.

I'm assuming you're looking at an i7 CPU like the 6700-K to put in this.

These are both ATX form factor. If you want extra PCIe cards in addition to 2x GPUs then you may need a Full Tower case, in which case you can get a bigger motherboard too if you like. ATX will fit inside Mid Tower cases or Full Tower.

MSI Z170A SLI Plus - $109.99 (on sale, usually $140)

- No onboard graphics (doesn't matter if you will have dedicated GPUs)

- It DOES have an HDMI slot so maybe it does have onboard graphics ??? Confused.​

- Supports DDR4 RAM Speeds up to 3600
- Supports M.2 SSD
- 7.1 channel onboard audio (Realtek ALC1150)
- Fewer USB ports (5 total)

- 1x 3.1 Type-C
- 2x 3.1 Type-A
- 2x 2.0
- Supports up to 8 more USB ports (4x 3.1 Type-A, 4x 2.0)​

ASUS ROG MAXIMUS VIII HERO ALPHA - $278.99 (on sale)

- Has onboard graphics (won't be used)
- Has Turbo Boost 2.0 (not sure if you need it if you overclock your CPU)
- Supports DDR4 RAM Speeds up to 3866
- Supports M.2 SSD (shares bandwidth with PCIEX4_3)
- 8 channel onboard audio (ROG SupremeFX 2015)
- More USB ports (6 total)

- 1x 3.1 Type-C
- 1x 3.1 Type-A
- 2x 3.0
- 2x 2.0
- Supports up to 8 more USB ports (4x 3.0, 4x 2.0)​

- Built-in Wi-Fi (2GHz + 5GHz)
- Bluetooth V4.1

The orange highlights are things that probably don't matter at all.

Onboard graphics? Who cares, you will have dedicated GPUs.

Turbu Boost? Who cares, you are overclocking higher than the stock turbo boost would ever allow you to go anyway.

The difference in maximum RAM speed is negligible, I don't consider that a real difference.

I also don't really notice the difference between 7.1 surround and 8 channel sound. But who knows, if you're a real audiophile then maybe you know the difference. (But if you're a real audiophile, you probably want a dedicated sound card rather than this onboard shit, so again, probably doesn't make a difference).

RE the on-board USB ports, the ASUS does have a total of 6, compared to 5 on the MSI. However, the MSI has 2x 3.1 slots compared to only 1x on the ASUS, so you could easily plug in an external hub to one of those 3.1s and end up with more overall ports on the MSI. Both boards have extra connectors on the motherboards to connect even more USB ports if you want, so IMO this is like 6 in one, 1/2 dozen in the other.

Built-in WiFi - Here is a significant difference. The expensive one can connect to WiFi. If you don't need that, then who cares. (I have WiFi on my mobo, but I never use it. In fact, I had to disable it, because the computer would sometimes switch to it and fuck up all my networking).

Bluetooth - Here again, significant difference. If you have bluetooth devices that you want to connect, you need bluetooth. Personally I hate bluetooth devices, the input lag is terrible on them, so to me this is a useless feature, but make your own decision.

 

[Xist]

BTW here is a guy who overclocked his i7 6700-K to 5.2 GHz with a custom cooling system.

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-overclocked-52-ghz-air-cooling-135v/

Pretty awesome. That's going to way out-perform the higher core-count CPUs for gaming purposes.

The 8-core and 10-core CPUs for example, start out at only 3.0 GHz. Max overclock on those is closer to 3.8 GHz before they start to melt.

 

[JackAvalon]

@Xist you are the man! Also @bryceedmundo be careful with SLI. The 1080 has a brand new re-designed SLI connection and SLI Bridge. To SLI this bad boy ur gonna need a second or third 1080. As far as I know it is not backwards compatible with older model cards

 

[Annitias]

6700k at 5.2 is not easy to do for daily usage. Most chips will not let you run that. Silicone lotto there. I run my 4770k at 5.28 and my 4790k at 5. I also have a full custom loop on those. Most people are not going to spend the time tinkering and the extra cash on cooling.

As far as running x8/x8 pcie for SLI, starting this gen it WILL bottleneck the cards. Our testing so far has shown that. Sli is limited for the 10x cards to just two, unless you get a special license. They will not give it to pretty much anyone except the pro builders and overclocking crowd at this point.

As much as I love my ROG boards, they may be overkill for the more reasonable builds. That's cash that could be put to something else, such as part of a m2 drive. Unless you plan on going 1080/70/Polaris sli/cf you really don't need the ROG. The MSI boards are really solid this round. Giga has some good offerings too.

The recent boards do have greatly improved audio built in. With some decent headphones, you will be able to tell the difference.

 

[Xian-Luc Picard]

When in doubt, spend more money. That is the TEST credo.

 

[BUTUZ]

I agree with the above. In most games clock speed is king, number of cores not so important (though you can never have too many, right?)

 

[Xist]

6700k at 5.2 is not easy to do for daily usage.

Agreed. Actual mileage may vary. It's not uncommon for 1 chip to be able to overclock better than another; such is the nature of CPUs.

As far as running x8/x8 pcie for SLI, starting this gen it WILL bottleneck the cards.

That very well could be the case. The study I read didn't test the 1080s (they weren't available yet).

This also has a lot to do with what game you're playing. If the game is sending tons and tons of very high resolution data to the cards, they need more bandwidth.

If it's not very high polygon counts then there is a lot less information, and the bandwidth isn't needed/used.

At the moment, SC is the game with the highest visual fidelity that I'm aware of, and it would seem logical that IF a game is going to run up against the 8x vs 16x bandwidth problem, SC will probably be that game.

However I don't have 2x 1080s and 32 lanes of PCIe to test with, so I can't tell you for sure. :)

FWIW both of the motherboards I posted support either 16x/0x/4x or 8x/8x/4x PCIe lanes. So 1x 1080 with 16 lanes, or 2x 1080s with 8 lanes each. And in either case, 4x PCIe for a sound card if you want/need one.

 

[bryceedmundo]

Thanks again boys. I've actually been looking at the MSI boards, thinking about going with the Krait Edition for a black and white build.
Just so i'm clear, a 6700K (that has 16 PCIE lanes) with (for example) a 1080 on it, can run the card at 16x and still run a sound card at 4x? How does that work?
For streaming, are capture cards still a thing?
While I wouldn't consider myself and audiophile, I do like the finer things, and good sound can make a huge difference. I've got a good pair of headphones as well, so i'll probably opt for a sound card.
I got myself a Corsair 750D to build it all in so I have no shortage of space and expandability. Everything i'm reading here is pushing me towards waiting a bit longer due to cost but getting a X99 board with a entry level Broadwell-E cpu which are about ~680AUD.

 

[Xist]

Just so i'm clear, a 6700K (that has 16 PCIE lanes) with (for example) a 1080 on it, can run the card at 16x and still run a sound card at 4x? How does that work?

The motherboard specs will tell you its possible PCIe configurations.

Usually 16x/0x/4x or 8x/8x/4x

Make sure you install the source card into the appropriate PCIe slot so you don't gimp your GPU. It's usually clearly spelled out in the manual of the motherboard.

For streaming, are capture cards still a thing?

No. Modern GPUs can encode on the fly. For nVidia cards just use the NVENC encoder. AMD's Polaris cards will support hardware encodes as well (not sure if the old ones do, or if so, what it is called).

 

[Annitias]

Quite a few streamers, myself included use capture cards still. It is for added stability, should SC cause a system crash, the stream will not crash. Plus it is more GPU power we can use for the game, and use a side rig to encode.