It is me again..

I thought to make a new thread as it only has sideways to do with GPU's.
It has to do with the new GTX660 not working at maximum load in my PC when I replaced it for the GTX285.
This is the thread where the problems are discused: http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=3373

I found a refurbished T7400 with a PSU of 980 Watt, 2 PCI-x16 G2, 1 PCI-x8, 3 PCI-x64 and 1 PCI 32 bit slots, so room for some GPU's. It has two Xeon processors and 2 years warranty and 2 Quadro FX4600 graphics cards, and Win7 professional. The GTX660 should fit easily.

Or I could build a new one with components. But that will cost a lot more.
What is suggested, an AsusRock, EVGA or Intel MOBO?
I live in the Netherlands and all is not so cheap as in the US. I buy often hardware in Germany.
I am interested in ideas for a system for crunching primarily GPUGRID on the GTX660 (two later) and Rosetta and/or Docking on the CPU.

Thanks.

---

Greetings from TJ

I wouldn't buy that old workstation - the running costs will be far too high! The T7400 can take up to Penryn 45 nm Core 2 Quads (not sure what's inside now, could still be 65 nm C2Qs). The performane and efficiency increases have been massive since then. But maybe worst is the mainboard and chipset: I expect 200 - 300 W power draw at idle.

And the GPUs are basically 8800GTS or 8800GS, based on the old G80 chip with CUDA compute capability 1.0, i.e. the very first CUDA capable chip. They can hardly be used in any project at all.

You might get the system for cheap, but a newer system should pay for itself quickly.

Suggestion: get a small Ivy or Sandy, either 2 cores (Celeron, Pentium) or maybe with HT (i3) for 2 more threads. The smallest ones are dirt-cheap (35€), could be replaced with something faster later on if needed, and might be available used. This gives you 2 8x PCIe 2.0 slots, which are sufficient for GPU-Grid, on readily available mainboards. From Ivy-based i5 upwards it's even PCIe 3.0. This will be a very energy- and cost-effective GPU driver. And with 2 GPUs PSU prices and cooling are still fine. The integrated GPU can crunch Collatz since a few days and would bring in a few more credits, if it's Ivy-based (not totally sure about the smallest models, though).
Alternative: AMD with Trinity or Richland 65 W. Still plenty of performance to drive your GPUs, always with 4 threads, OK power efficiency in the 65 W models and an integrated GPU which can actually get some work done (about HD6650 level).

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

I guess you are very right ETA, but to late I already ordered it.
Well it is a big case with a big PSU and a lot of space and quit fans.
I can put a new MOBO in it with an six core i7.

This are the graphics cards:
6/7/2013 3:11:35 PM | | CUDA: NVIDIA GPU 0: Quadro FX 4600 (driver version 320.00, CUDA version 5.50, compute capability 1.0, 768MB, 633MB available, 346 GFLOPS peak)
6/7/2013 3:11:35 PM | | OpenCL: NVIDIA GPU 0: Quadro FX 4600 (driver version 320.00, device version OpenCL 1.0 CUDA, 768MB, 633MB available, 346 GFLOPS peak)

I am not getting new work for GPUGRID, so you where right with that as well.

---

Greetings from TJ

Well.. then have fun with your new toy :)

I'd see if I could lower the CPU voltages in the BIOS. They should have plenty of headroom and this would help with power consumption. The old GPUs: not sure if you could sell them on Ebay for anything. They might run POEM, and relatively efficiently so, but there's not much work available. Collatz and PG would probably also run, but I'm not sure it would be worth the electricity.

Yes, you could put in some large mainboards. However, I wouldn't touch a 6-core for BOINC. As Intel it's too expensive and not energy-efficient enough (still 32 nm Sandy Bridge) and as AMD.. well, no need to discuss that :p

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Yeah thanks, well it runs quit, 270 Watt when idle, 385 Watt when 8 cores crunching Rosetta. I think the case is nice and big that is usable, the rest is... Well you warn me (either did Beyond) but a little to late, the order was on its way. Never mind it was really cheap so no worries.

I thought a six core and then with HT 12, keep 2 for GPUGRID and then 10 cores for Rosetta or Einstein.

What CPU would you suggest? I like a MOBO with room for two GTX660's, 1 SSD and 1 hard disk for the data (BOINC). Simple DVD player and a gold PSU.
And it would be nice if you could give some info about a good CUP cooler/fan. I like Zalman.

---

Greetings from TJ

You could just pull the Quadro FX4600's and add two GTX660's (presuming they would work on that motherboard). You would be drawing around 600W though!

My i7-3770K with a GTX660Ti and a GTX660 uses ~375W running GPUGrid WU's and WCG HPFp2 tasks. A stock 3770K and two GTX660's would use ~350W, with a good PSU.

Don't know which Xeons you have, as your systems are hidden again and you didn't say, but some are quite powerful and two such processors might outperform my CPU in terms of crunching - @2.66GHz [stock] my quad LGA775 Xeon can do more than half the work of my 3770K @4.2GHz. If I upped the clocks to 3.1GHz it could do 80% of a stock 3770K (at least at some CPU projects). For you the problem is the high power usage, and the expense of running such a system.

If you just want to concentrate on GPU crunching then two GTX660's in a LGA1155 board with a basic CPU ($50 Intel Celeron G1610 Ivy Bridge) is sufficient.
The purchase price rises sharply when you go to something like an i3-3220 (~£130) and the Haswell's start at ~$190.

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

The Xeons are E5430 @2.66 and not to fast. It seems indeed that old stuff uses more power. The system is from May 2008.

I would like a new system to replace my i7 with the "heater". I want two GPU's and an i7 (or Xeon) again with Win7. It will run GPUGRID and Rosetta on the CPU.
But when the system is up and I have to work at home for a few hours, or even a whole day, then I will use that system as well. So it has to be quite decent.
I have already some parts and don't mind if the total price would be 1500-2000 euro in total. I have several systems more than 6 years and run still fine (but not 24/7), that will the new PC don't either.
I need a MOBO a processor, new memory and a good PSU (gold 80+ I guess are good one's) and a good processor cooler.
Perhaps a new case bit I have a Cooler Master with 5 fans (2 150mm and 3 120mm).

Suggestions are welcome, I will not buy the parts tomorrow and will highly consider your thoughts this time...

---

Greetings from TJ

The Xeons are E5430 @2.66 and not to fast. It seems indeed that old stuff uses more power. The system is from May 2008.

That's better than my Xeon - same frequency, but 45nm, 1333MHz FSB, 12MB Cache, 80W TDP.
http://ark.intel.com/products/33081/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5430-12M-Cache-2_66-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB
Is the system RAM DDR2 or DDR3?

Why not pull the CC1.0 GPU's and test a different GPU?

I would like a new system to replace my i7 with the "heater". I want two GPU's and an i7 (or Xeon) again with Win7. It will run GPUGRID and Rosetta on the CPU.
But when the system is up and I have to work at home for a few hours, or even a whole day, then I will use that system as well. So it has to be quite decent.
I have already some parts and don't mind if the total price would be 1500-2000 euro in total. I have several systems more than 6 years and run still fine (but not 24/7), that will the new PC don't either. I need a MOBO a processor, new memory and a good PSU (gold 80+ I guess are good one's) and a good processor cooler.
Perhaps a new case bit I have a Cooler Master with 5 fans (2 150mm and 3 120mm).

Suggestions are welcome, I will not buy the parts tomorrow and will highly consider your thoughts this time...

What parts do you have?

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

I did Rosetta on the Xeons and saw that they used approx. 600 seconds more than an i7 (960@3.20GHz). I know that is not a good comparison.
I checked Intel indeed before I ordered it and saw that they use 80 Watt, that's less than the i7 (960) 144.33 Watt. How is it than possible that it is drawing almost 300Watt, when idle (doing nothing)? Even with the plug in the mains it draws 3 Watt.
The system has 8 1GB hyundai DDR2.

The only GPU I have that can do BOINC projects are AMD HD 5870 (2) they were in the system where now the GTX660 is running.

The T7400 has a PSU of 1000 Watt but only 2 6 pins power for GPU, so only one AMD can be powered.
There are 4 SATA connectors free and 5 SATA power plugs (small, long, black), and only 1 white (large) 4 pin plug. Weird.

I have an SSD, 2 HD's, several fan's and Win7 professional all new, and a case with 5 fan's.

---

Greetings from TJ

I did Rosetta on the Xeons and saw that they used approx. 600 seconds more than an i7 (960@3.20GHz). I know that is not a good comparison.

Would be a reasonably good comparison if you mention how long the i7 takes; if it's 30min then the Xeon's are not great, but if it's 10h then the 10min difference is negligible.

I checked Intel indeed before I ordered it and saw that they use 80 Watt, that's less than the i7 (960) 144.33 Watt. How is it than possible that it is drawing almost 300Watt, when idle (doing nothing)? Even with the plug in the mains it draws 3 Watt.
The system has 8 1GB hyundai DDR2.

That's 80W for each CPU. Mainly the motherboard, the two GPU's, eight sticks of DDR2 and the PSU, but also drives. The DDR2 may be forcing the FSB to operate at 800MHz, when it could be 1333MHz. This would make the processors slower for computation. I saw a fairly large difference when I moved my Xeon from a DDR2 board to the DDR3 board (not saying this is the way forward though; I think the E5430 isn't DDR3 compatible).

The only GPU I have that can do BOINC projects are AMD HD 5870 (2) they were in the system where now the GTX660 is running.
The T7400 has a PSU of 1000 Watt but only 2 6 pins power for GPU, so only one AMD can be powered.

I would put one back in then - it could do way more work than both CC1.0 cards combined.

There are 4 SATA connectors free and 5 SATA power plugs (small, long, black), and only 1 white (large) 4 pin plug. Weird.

Yeah, a bit of an odd PSU design; only accommodates one big GPU, but is 1000W and has lots of SATA connectors (newer than the 4-pin IDE power connectors). This also prevents you from using two 4-pin IDE power connectors to hook up another GPU!

I have an SSD, 2 HD's, several fan's and Win7 professional all new, and a case with 5 fan's.

Is that to be used for a new build?

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Careful with run-time comparisons at Rosetta: you decide how long your WUs shall run (approximately) and your hardware decides how much work is being accomplished during this time, which will be reflected in the amount of credit given for the WUs.

There is only really 1 4 pin molex connector for older devices? Seems weird. These could be used to power GPUs, but you need 2 of them for 1 6-pin GPU onnector (ideally originating from different cables).

How efficient is that 1 kW PSU? Chances are it's not all that bad, if it's been in a high end workstation.

And I second crunching on that HD5870. It's still a very decent card for a few projects, as it packs lot's of raw horse power into a moderately efficient 40 nm chip. Examples: Milkyway, POEM, Einstein (not many credits, though) and probably some more.

If I'd buy a new cruncher now I'D go for a Haswell. By now it won't be much faster than Ivy per clock (until AVX2 and FMA are being used somewhere), but even "just" 10% faster per clock would require 300 - 500 MHz more on an Ivy Bridge core.. which makes the Haswell suddenly look rather nice.

Then the question would be "which model"? If you don't want to OC the 4770 would do the trick (all cores @ 3.9 GHz is possible), or a slightly cheaper and a bit lower clocked Xeon V3 with HT. A slight BCLK-OC could take the 4770 even to 4.0 - 4.1 GHz, but will require some testing and fiddling. The 4770K on the other hand can be OC'ed easily, but won't reach much further than 4.3 +/- 0.1 GHz for 24/7 crunching anyway.

Personally I find the 4770R interesting: it's got the biggest "Iris Pro" GPU (can crunch Collatz now) and that 128 MB eDRAM cache, which probably helps BOINC, and should also be able to reach 3.9 GHz on all cores (maximum Turbo) plus the slight bus-OC. However, it's an OEM-only product to be soldered onto mainboards. Not sure if someone's going to put such a CPU onto a regular OC-Mainboard and sell it to retail.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

I did Rosetta on the Xeons and saw that they used approx. 600 seconds more than an i7 (960@3.20GHz). I know that is not a good comparison.

Would be a reasonably good comparison if you mention how long the i7 takes; if it's 30min then the Xeon's are not great, but if it's 10h then the 10min difference is negligible.

The i7:
586361826 532500775 9 Jun 2013 9:20:22 UTC 9 Jun 2013 12:12:14 UTC Over Success Done 10,118.13 59.06 61.76

The Xeon: (same type of job):
586009637 1619478 7 Jun 2013 13:49:39 UTC 7 Jun 2013 16:45:54 UTC Over Success Done 10,100.83 62.60 76.99
586010293 1619478 7 Jun 2013 13:53:43 UTC 7 Jun 2013 17:14:56 UTC Over Success Done 10,696.68 66.29 80.25
Thus one faster and one slower. But yeah Xeon not to bad.

The only GPU I have that can do BOINC projects are AMD HD 5870 (2) they were in the system where now the GTX660 is running.
The T7400 has a PSU of 1000 Watt but only 2 6 pins power for GPU, so only one AMD can be powered.

I would put one back in then - it could do way more work than both CC1.0 cards combined.

Will do, but this system will only run when cheaper power rate is active and not very often. The i7 with teh GTX285 at 90% load and 6 Rosies running is only using 315 Watt! I could almost run two of these, I should have listen to you all.

This also prevents you from using two 4-pin IDE power connectors to hook up another GPU!

Indeed that was my plan, but nope.

I have an SSD, 2 HD's, several fan's and Win7 professional all new, and a case with 5 fan's.

Is that to be used for a new build?

Yes, all new I will not use it for an old system.

---

Greetings from TJ

Thanks ETA.

There is only really 1 4 pin molex connector for older devices? Seems weird. These could be used to power GPUs, but you need 2 of them for 1 6-pin GPU onnector (ideally originating from different cables).

Two, one is in the DVD-drive

How efficient is that 1 kW PSU? Chances are it's not all that bad, if it's been in a high end workstation.

I don't know. Can I find that out?

And I second crunching on that HD5870. It's still a very decent card for a few projects, as it packs lot's of raw horse power into a moderately efficient 40 nm chip. Examples: Milkyway, POEM, Einstein (not many credits, though) and probably some more.

Yes the two of them did Einstein, Albert and Milkyway nicely. I don't care about the credits that much. The science I find useful/important is what I crunch for.

I will not OC things. I like EVGA and saw nice new MOBO's of them. Would be nice to have a MOBO, PSU and 2 GPU's from EVGA. Would work good together. However not easy to find in the Netherlands.
Zalman has nice cases, not to find here. And the nVidia Tesla case seems very nice, but I can't find that thing even in the US.
However I now from Beyond (cruncher) that a good case with good airflow is important as well.

---

Greetings from TJ

Screw that DVD drive, you can access another one over the network ;)
To find out about the efficiency: look for the model number and ask Big G for some review / test or at least specifications. THe 80+ label should already be a rough guideline.

Are you still looking for a case? I thought you'd use the one of the "big box". anyway, for 2 GPUs you really want some airflow!

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Yes, you could put in some large mainboards. However, I wouldn't touch a 6-core for BOINC. As Intel it's too expensive and not energy-efficient enough (still 32 nm Sandy Bridge) and as AMD.. well, no need to discuss that :p MrS

Why are you always making AMD snipes? The X6 processors are decent and still offer good crunching bang for the buck. At one project I run they are faster than even the fastest Intels that are MUCH more expensive. We all better hope AMD sticks around or we'll be mortgaging our houses to buy CPUs.

Intel on the desktop: ivy bride runs hotter than sandy bride, the new haswell runs hotter and uses more energy than ivy bridge. Aren't they going in the wrong direction?

Here's part of the review from Xbit Labs:

"The Haswell CPU core temperatures are seriously higher than those of the previous generation processors. And although most every-day tasks do not cause the CPU to heat up so dramatically, we should base our conclusions primarily on specialized stability tests, which create heavy but nevertheless quite realistic load.
So, it turns out that overclocking the new CPUs calls for much better coolers than those we could use for Ivy Bridge processors. In other words, it is harder to reach the same results when overclocking Core i7-4770K as we did with the overclocker-friendly Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge products in LGA1155 form-factor."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4770k_12.html

"And frankly speaking, this product is not that impressive at all, especially in the eyes of computer enthusiasts. We tested the top of the line desktop Haswell, Core i7-4770K, and drew a number of bitter conclusions. First, Core i7-4770K is just a little bit faster than the flagship Ivy Bridge processor. Microarchitectural improvements only provide a 5-15 % performance boost, and the clock frequency hasn’t changed at all. Second, Core i7-4770K processor turned out a significantly hotter processor than the CPUs based on previous microarchitecture. Even though Haswell allows engineering energy-efficient processors with impressively low heat dissipation, its performance-per-watt has worsened a lot when they adjusted its characteristics to meet the desktop requirements. This resulted into the third item on this list: without extreme cooling Core i7-4770K overclocks less effectively than the previous generation overclocker processors. The specific CPU sample we tested this time allows us to conclude that these processors may get overheated at 4.4-4.5 GHz clock speeds even with high-performance air coolers. And fourth: Haswell processors require new LGA 1150 platform, which doesn’t boast any unique advantages, but merely offers more USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps ports. But currently this platform seems quite raw and awaits a new chipset stepping, which will fix some issues with the USB 3.0 controller."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4770k_13.html

Intel on the desktop: ivy bride runs hotter than sandy bride, the new haswell runs hotter and uses more energy than ivy bridge. Aren't they going in the wrong direction?

The chip of the CPU series prior to Ivy Bridge (namely Sandy Bridge, Sandy Bridge-E, Gulftown, Bloomfield) were actually soldered to the IHS (Integrated Heat Spreader, the metal housing of the chip) resulting in good thermal transfer to the IHS, and low CPU temperatures. But Intel using some "cheap" thermal interface material (TIM) on the new series, so if you want lower CPU temperatures to overclock more, you should remove the IHS (voiding warranty), and put the CPU cooler directly onto the chip (very risky), and/or use better and/or thinner TIM. See this video.

Two more questions.
1. I read that GTX660 is not very good at double precision. Suppose GPUGRID has no work for some days or other issues, then I would like to crunch for MilkyWay or Einstein. For MW we need DP, so which cards are good with DP. In other words, which specs I have to look for?

2. Heat. I have RealTemp 3.70 and CPUID Hardware Monitor running and the temperatures RealTemp shows, are 10 degrees lower (colder) of the CPU; 59 57 58 57 to 69 67 68 67. All in Celsius. The CPU is doing Rosetta 1 for GPUGRID and 1 idle.
I also have an Alienware with liquid cooling and temperatures here are even worse, 72 70 71 69. RealTemp and CPUID have the same values though.
This liquid cooling thing is making a lot of noise by the way, a big fan for the radiator. And not cool. Six cores running Rosetta and the GTX660 is doing GPUGRID with 1 core and 1 idle.
The question: what are acceptable CPU temperatures?

I have also good experience with AMD CPU.

@ETA: A brand new computer in a brand new case (if not to expensive), otherwise I have two, a Cooler Master, and the "Big box" indeed.

---

Greetings from TJ

Two more questions.
1. I read that GTX660 is not very good at double precision. Suppose GPUGRID has no work for some days or other issues, then I would like to crunch for MilkyWay or Einstein. For MW we need DP, so which cards are good with DP. In other words, which specs I have to look for?

Only GTX Titan, and GTX 780 is good at DP.

2. Heat. I have RealTemp 3.70 and CPUID Hardware Monitor running and the temperatures RealTemp shows, are 10 degrees lower (colder) of the CPU; 59 57 58 57 to 69 67 68 67. All in Celsius. The CPU is doing Rosetta 1 for GPUGRID and 1 idle.

This is very strange. You should try your motherboard's original monitoring software. (or coretemp 32bit or 64bit)

I also have an Alienware with liquid cooling and temperatures here are even worse, 72 70 71 69. RealTemp and CPUID have the same values though.
This liquid cooling thing is making a lot of noise by the way, a big fan for the radiator. And not cool. Six cores running Rosetta and the GTX660 is doing GPUGRID with 1 core and 1 idle.

This is 10-15 degrees higher than a liquid cooler should be able to provide. If it's noisy, perhaps its pump is about to fail, or the level of its coolant is low, these are the worse could happen to a liquid cooler, and to the part which is cooled by it.

The question: what are acceptable CPU temperatures?

Around 70°C is acceptable with air cooling. The lower the better, even more for overclocking.
There are a coulpe of ways lowering the CPU temperature, some of them voids its warranty (removing, or polishing the IHS)

@Beyond: because even if you can find a project where AMD CPU provide good performance (you can, as you said), the energy efficiency is far too bad for general 24/7 crunching, compared to Intel. I know there are places where electricity is much cheaper than where I live, but I don't think the Netherlands belong to these. Otherwise I like some of what AMD is doing and whish they could do it even better (sore points: single threaded integer performance of Bulldozer and children, power efficiency, smarter turbo modes to be more specific).

Generally I respect XBit Labs as one of the better review sites. But their Haswell test just left me shaking my head. They're using LinX-AVX to test power consumption and load temperatures. But this is the perfect showcase of AVX2 performance enhancements. Here Haswell was shown to be ~70% faster then Ivy per clock. And guess what.. there's no free lunch in computing. That additional crunching power has to come from somewhere. Yet they write "the desktop Haswell is no good in terms of performance per watt. Not all Haswell-based CPUs are energy efficient, as we can see." ... and disregard the performance aspect completely. Seriously, WTF? At this point I have to stop and dismiss further judgement of Haswell by XBit. And while Haswell is not a perfect product, the number I've seen tell me that it's a far better product than XBit writes.

@TJ: And speaking of AMD.. for DP you're really better off with a (high end) AMD GPU. Far better bang for the buck there. With nVidia you have so many other projects to choose from, you don't need to run projects which are better suited to AMD hardware.

70°C measured by CoreTemp on an Intel are fine (they report the hottest spot), for AMDs this is generally equivalent to approximately 50°C (they measure elsewhere, sometimes also just plain wrong). But 70°C seems way too high for water cooling. Is the water warm? Sounds like some contact problem.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Tetchy thread, but I'll dip my toes again.

Since the i7-980X there has been little improvement in 'out and out' processing power from either AMD or Intel. Lots of different generations, revisions, sockets, packaging, hype and waffle, but limited performance gain.

Intel and AMD have largely ignored CPU improvement wants from the high end workstation, gaming and crunching markets. Instead they have sought gains in other areas; more done on the processor, better performance/watt. At the same time a lot of what we are now working with is the product of marketing strategy; on-die controllers, Intel only chipsets, push towards laptops and portable devices, fewer PCIE lanes, and the 'shroud of the cloud' (server processors) - all at the expense of high end desktop improvements. But the same can be said of NVidia and OpenCL - it's typical business maneuvering.

When SB arrived we reached the point where a laptop processor existed that was capable of handling >99% of office performance requirements.

Since Gulftown, Sandy Bridge-E has been Intel's only attempt at a genuine high end workstation/gaming/crunching system, but it failed to deliver PCIE3 and thus failed almost completely - you don't do CAD on the CPU, don't game on the CPU and don't crunch on the CPU (relatively speaking).

I'm not sure if the i7-4930MX is Intel's new best processor for the laptop market, if you want to spend $1000 for Intel graphics, or if it's some Iris?!? Neither are good value for money when it comes to crunching and gaming on laptops. Ditto for the desktop processors and most ix-4000's.

For crunching the i7-4770K has nothing over i7-3770K. In fact I would say it's just an i7-3770K done all wrong! Seriously, we don't want lots of USB3 ports and another crap iGPU (which hiked the TDP from 77W to 84W).

Maybe the pick of the i7-4000 bunch is the i7-4765T - 35W TDP, or the i7-4770T - 45W.

I measured the actual crunching difference at 4.2GHz of an i7-2600K and an i7-3770K for ~14 CPU projects and there was nothing between them. Only one app from one project was significantly faster (7%), and many were slightly (1 to 3%) faster on the 2600K.

Maybe apps need to be recompiled before there is any 'performance per MHz' gain? If that's the case, many project use the same apps for a long time (year or more). Anyway, an i7-4770K shouldn't be considered as an upgrade option to an i7-2700K or i7-3770K.

Has AMD any plans to go to PCIE3.0 boards?

TJ, You might want to try Speccy.

While I suspect some of the pre-reviews of the i7-4000 series might have been done on unlocked 35W samples, there are a few i7-4000 series processors that operate reasonably fast, but at very low TDP's. The problem is their price is not far off the top models! You can't win.

I would not want to spend time lapping a CPU hood (been there), and wouldn't flip the lid unless I could gold coat, had liquid nitrogen coolant, some special thermal conductive (snap) resin and wanted to break some meaningless record - not quite GPU crunching.

---

FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help