March, 2012

Building a new computer, 2012

Update - see these notes as of March, 2013.

It is March of 2012. I have decided that I want to "invest" in some new computer hardware. I want to run Adobe Photoshop CS5, and have found that the 10 year old machine I had hoped to use for this is not really up to the task. (an Athlon 64 2400+ single core machine with 1.5G of ram, a 60G ATA hard drive, and running Windows XP). This is a great chance for me to catch up with the world of computer hardware.

When building a computer it is always a good idea to ask the basic question: "exactly what do I want to do with this thing". My answer is simple - I want to run photoshop nicely. Beyond that, I would like the machine to be as quiet as possible (no noisy fans). I am not a gamer or an overclocker.

AMD or Intel

I have usually built systems based on AMD processors, simply because they offer the most bang for the buck. This still seems to be the case, but I am giving serious thought to using an Intel chip this time, just for the change. Trying to build the fastest possible system at any given time is an elusive goal in any case, and in general a great way to waste money. Such a system will be hot stuff for 6 months or maybe a year at most. My desire to run Photoshop means (at this point of time with CS5) that multiple cores (such as AMD's current 6 and 8 core processors) do not offer as much to me as a fast single core -- but this may change with future versions of photoshop, much as I hate to contemplate buying yet another photoshop release. Also, as always, but especially with recent processors, clock speed is only part of the story. Intel processors with 3.1 Ghz clocks perform better than AMD processors with 3.6 Ghz clocks.

The AMD FX-4100

My choice for an AMD processor would be the 4 core FX-4100. The 6 and 8 core processors command premium prices and for Photoshop the single core clock speed and performance is what matters. The FX-4100 runs at 3.6 Ghz, uses 95 watts, fits into the socket AM3+, and costs $110. Lots of bang for the buck. It is said though that the Intel i3 2100 performs as well or just a little better, even though it is a 3.1 Ghz chip. The i3 has 2 cores (but 4 hyperthreads), and uses 65 watts. The AMD has a "turbo" mode that allows it to run 2 cores at 3.7 Ghz or a single core at 3.8 Ghz. The claim though is that the i3 performs better than the FX-4100 when only one core is being used, even when running at 3.1 Ghz. The FX chips from AMD shine, insofar as they shine, when all 4, 6, or 8 cores are being used. The i3 (and i5) have integrated graphics, which is interesting. An i3-2120 sells for $128, runs at 3.2 Ghz (socket 1155) and really would be a better choice than the FX-4100 for me. See benchmark details below.

The Intel i5-2500K

This is a 3.3Ghz socket LGA 1155 chip that uses 95 watts and sells for $220. What do we get for an extra $90? First of all the "K" indicates that this version of the chip is "unlocked" and suitable for overclocking, which has never been something I have been eager to do, but there it is as an option. I can save $10 and get the i5-2400, which cannot be overclocked, and maybe I should, but ultimately I don't and buy the i5-2500K.

The i3-2120 versus the i5-2500K

So really, the big difference is that the i5 has 4 true cores, wheras the i3 has 2 cores, but supports 4 threads. The 2500K has the newer 3000 integrated graphics processor, which takes up almost as much chip real estate as 2 cores! The GPU in the 2500K has 12 execution units versus 6 in the i3. This is something to learn about.

Another processor that I was just made aware of is the Xeon E3-1230. This is a 4 core "Sandy Bridge" just like the i5-2500K, running at 3.2 Ghz and using only 80 Watts. It consumes less power because it has no GPU. It does run 8 threads rather than just 4, making it more like an i7. It has 4x256k for the L2 cache and an 8M shared L3 cache. At a price of $240 (versus $220 for the i5-2500K), it is an interesting alternative, especially if the 8 threads would be advantageous. The negatives are no GPU and not unlocked for overclocking. It does fit into a socket LGA 1155 (as are all the intel processors I am discussing here).

The following (and some of the above) comes from a review on "hardwarecanucks.com"

A single core benchmark (calculating 32 million digits of Pi) showed:

A multi core benchmark (newtons method for square roots) showed:

A photoshop benchmark using CS4 (applying 15 different filters to a 109M jpeg) shows:

Clearly the i5 only outperforms the i3 when all 4 cores get busy, for single threaded use (like the bulk of photoshop) they are quite similar.

What about some AMD benchmarks?

The real candidate here is the AMD "Bulldozer" chips. I am pulling a lot of this out of this review of the AMD Bulldozer on the hardware Canucks site. They say (and it seems to be agreed) that AMD is years behind Intel as far as lightly threaded (such as single core) performance, and the situation is only getting worse.

The "Zambezi" chips are the new 32nm process chips that replace the prior "Phenom" series. The Zambezi chips have over 2 million transistors (compare that to 758 million for the Phenom chips and 995 million for the Intel i5). A person just has to ask just what AMD is doing with that extra million transistors!! They certainly aren't squeezing much performance out of them.

I am looking at the FX-4100 which has 4 cores and 4 threads and using 95 watts. It clocks at 3.6 Ghz, L1 is 4x(16k data, 64k instruction), L2 is 2x2M, L3 is 8M shared. The Canucks actually benchmark the 8 core FX-8150, also running at 3.6 Ghz, so the single core benchmarks against the intel chips can be compared, but the 8 core marks are really apples and oranges in some ways.

A single core benchmark (calculating 32 million digits of Pi) shows:

A multi core benchmark (newtons method for square roots) shows:

I find the above AMD benchmark seriously disappointing. Here we have 8 cores just managing to beat 4 cores in the i5-2500. This would imply that a 4 core AMD chip like the FX-4100 would perform not quite as well as the i3-2120, which has already been said.

A photoshop benchmark using CS4 (applying 15 different filters to a 109M jpeg) shows:

the Intel GPU

Here is a birds eye view of an i5 chip.

Note how much real estate is invested in the "3000 iGP" on the chip; nearly as much as 2 cores. (Personally, I think I would rather have 6 cores than 4 cores and what boils down being to a mediocre and not often used graphics processor, but what do I know?)

Some motherboards (like the Asus P8H67-M PRO that I just ordered) have on board graphics that utilize the GPU built into the i5 processors. Most however do not have any provision for using on chip GPU to drive a display and so the GPU is essentially "wasted" on such boards.

Take a look however at:

A first candidate motherboard, the Asus Sabertooth P67

I was encouraged to look at the ASUS Sabertooth P67 motherboard. This is a socket 1155 motherboard with a novel and controversial "thermal shield". They make a big deal about using "military" components (including solid capacitors). It has no motherboard fans. (but word is you have to go out and buy a 50mm fan and mount it on the motherboard!!) The controversy over the thermal shield is that some people think it is a heat trap. I think most people misunderstand what the intent is. The intent is to keep the heat from a big pair of gamer video cards away from the motherboard components. The thermal shield establishes two air plenums, one for the superheated air from the video gear, the other for air from the processor fan which hopefully is being pulled from outside the case, as it is in well designed cases. For someone like me, this is all moot since I don't use that kind of gamer hardware. In any event, the board seems to run just fine and it does look cool.

It has 4 240 pin memory slots and supports 32M of ram. It does have two PCI-e slots and allows SLI (which is a gamer thing) so that two graphics cards can be used together. It has NO parallel ATA port, so no ribbon cable for a DVD (this is OK, I have a SATA DVD). It supports USB 3.0 and Sata 6G/s (4 ports). It also has 4 Sata 3G/s ports. 2 of the Sata 6 ports are via the P67 chipset, the other 2 via the Marvell PCIe chip. There are 8 USB 2.0 ports and 2 USB 3.0 ports. Onboard LAN via Intel 82579 to 1000G. If I really wanted to play with overclocking, a Cooler Master Gemini S524 might be a good fan and fits over the RAM. It defaults to 1333 RAM, but can be set to use faster. I was all ready to buy one of these, even had it in my cart at NewEgg, but when I finally got ready to cash out, it had gone out of stock! This was originally a $210 board, but was available open box for $130

A small modest motherboard, the Asus P8H67-M Pro

My local computer shop recommended this board ($125 at NewEgg). It is a smaller (microATX) board. No thermal shield. H67 instead of P67 chipset, which gives fewer overclocking options. Does have a parallel ATA cable spot. Only 6 SATA connectors, only 2 of which are 6G/s. It does handle 4 240 pin memory sticks and allows up to 32M. No bragging about military grade components. Realtek instead of Intel LAN. 2 USB 2.0 ports and only 4 USB 2.0 ports (no big deal). Half the price of the other board I am considering, and would probably be just fine.

Yet another motherboard, the Asus P8Z68V-Pro

This is the one I ultimately placed the order for.

Here are some reviews:

I ordered it as an open box item from NewEgg for $140 (original price $220). It went out of stock the next day (gotta move fast ordering things from NewEgg). We will see (and report on here) how the open box gamble works out.

The board arrived in a plain white box (which is fine), with all cables and backplates, but no DVD or manual. All in all this is fine, I can download the latest manual anyhow and the DVD would just have outdated drivers and software. The big problem is that the board turned out to be DOA - at least it won't emit any video on the onboard DVI or via a PCIe card that I plug in. The red VGA led on the motherboard is always lit whether I plug in a PCIe card or not.

Well, it was a gamble, BUT when I did the online RMA request from Newegg, indicating the item was defective, I was charged with a $21 restocking fee. This took place at 10PM and I went to bed frustrated and unhappy. The next morning I got on the phone determined that if this is how things were that I would be doing no more business with Newegg! But none of this was necessary. After a reasonable wait, I got a nice girl on the phone who agreed that a restocking fee for a defective item was not right and then said she would not just be cancelling that charge but was also going to send me a UPS shipping label, since I ought not to be having to pay to return a defective item. So, all in all, I am extremely pleased with Newegg, and did not hesitate to place an order for a replacement board (not an open box this time though). I ordered an ASUS p8z68 V Pro/gen3.

It uses an Intel network chip, which I like.
It has on board switches for reset and power, which is cool, and I have found wonderfully helpful while setting up the board.
It has an ASUS proprietary "MEM OK" button.
It does have the UEFI bios, which I guess is a good thing.

The big deal about the Z68 chipset, insofar as it is a big deal, is that it allows you to use the integrated graphics on the CPU, while also overclocking, which might be a big deal for somebody.

An interesting thing about this board is that it supports using the on board GPU for graphics (in fact it supports using both the on board GPU and one or more PCIe graphics cards and switching between them. Just using the on board GPU would save power and make thing run cooler, which is always a good thing. This is done via LucidLogix Virtu software, which I have read is a real dog. And this whole graphics switching them is awkward, as near as I can tell you have to plug and unplug cables each switch as well as fiddling software, which makes it worthless, pointless, and bad.

It has something called SRT which allows you to use a small relatively low cost SSD to be a transparent cache giving an extimated 4x speed up to existing hard drives.

It uses DDR3 1333 Mhz memory (I ordered 1600 Mhz memory, to allow some overclocking, hey it was cheap).

Card slots:

Note that if both PCI-E slots are used together, they both become x8.

Internal SATA ports:

Apparently the Marvel ports have had some issues.

The rear of the board has:

Another pair of USB 3.0 ports is available via a header on the motherboard. (right next to the 8 SATA ports). The SATA cables "exit to the rear", which could be tricky depending on how much room I have in my case.

Asus has two things I need to learn about. There is a TPU (TurboV Processing Unit) with a switch to enable it. This implements their well regarded overclocking features. They also have an EPU with enabling switch to control power use.

The P8Z68-V Pro board targets the "enthusiast" (in other words the gamer and overclocker), this is why it supports dual video cards with an SLI jumper provided (nothing I intend to use). This is why it supports PCI-E 3.0 !! It has fancy BIOS features to support overclocking. The Bios provides an "EZ mode" to get a beginner started overclocking, and has more sophisticated screens in addition. A simple approach is to use the "OC Tuner" and one set of reviewers said that they were running at 4.43 Ghz after only a few minutes, without taking risks, and if I understand correctly without a fancy cooler. With a good cooler 4.8, 5.0 and even 5.2 Ghz are acheivable and stable, depending on memory and the particular chip.

Just in case, there is an email address for support from ASUS: [email protected] And people have given up on this board and gone with the Gigabyte Z68A-D3H-B3 V1.3 and been happy.

Overclocking the i5-2500K

So, I said I was never going to do this, but with 1600 Mhz memory on the way and having spent the few extra dollars to get the "K" chip, I wonder just what I can do that is sensible and reasonable. I don't want to buy a fancy cooler. I want to run the chip full time at whatever I set it up as and forget about it. I don't want to damage the chip.

Note that the base setup for 3.3 Ghz is a 100 Mhz base clock and 33x multiplier.

Word is that the 2500K allows a multiplier of up to 57x (approximately 6 Ghz). The claim is that it is perfectly reasonable to go to 4.5 Ghz with a heatsink like the Thermaltake Frio ($55 at NewEgg), which has a pair of 120mm fans and weighs 1042 grams! Another recommended cooler is the Hyper 212+ from Cooler Master ($30 at NewEgg) with one 120mm gan, one guy says: "Mine gets me to 4600MHz at 1.38v at upper 60's/lower 70's in IBT/8 threads". Another guy said he was running at 4.5Ghz and under 60C with little fan noise. Be sure it will fit in your case!!

But already I am talking about fancy coolers and I said I wasn't going to.

See:

Keyboards

Keyboards are extremely important, they are the primary interface for anyone who does programming or enters a lot of text into a computer. Despite the fact they are the major contributor to repetitive use injuries, they are often neglected. This is a truly dumb place to pinch pennies. I have long used a "natural" keyboard, and now insist on one.

My old favorite was the Microsoft Natural Multimedia Keyboard 1.0A and I am still using these, a quality durable product with a PS/2 connector. I tried the Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 - it is a piece of junk, it felt light and flimsy, but worst of all, keys stopped working after less than 2 weeks of light use. Reviews I have read for the Comfort Curve 3000 report the same problem. I am now typing on a Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite, which I have been using for close to a year with no problems and general satisfaction. It has a PS/2 connector, but comes with a PS/2 to USB adapter, so that shouldn't be a worry. Somewhat more expensive (and with native USB) is the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 - I haven't tried it. The issue of a USB connector has become important given that many motherboards now have only USB, and are no longer providing PS2 connectors for mouse or keyboard.

SSD drives

These are now all the rage and are 10 times as fast as a spinning disk. You can buy them with SATA interfaces, and they are just coming out with PCI-e interfaces which is far better

Conclusions

The i7-2600K chip at a price of $325 does not outperform the i5-2500K sufficiently to make we want to spend the extra $100. There are a gang of socket LGA 2011 i7 chips at outrageous prices that would be the thing to get if you simply had money to burn. The single core performance of the FX-8150 is disappointing, and it is running only half as fast as the intel chips in the digits of Pi benchmark. The performance running the photoshop benchmark is not as miserable, and would indicate that the AMD chip ought to do just fine running photoshop, and at an attractive price. Honestly the i3-2120 is the intelligent purchase right now to run photoshop, but spending the extra money for the i5-2500K really does give significant improvement once all four cores get busy, and future versions of photoshop can perhaps be expected to make better use of mutiple cores. What use can be made of the graphics processor in the new crop of chips is still an open question.
Have any comments? Questions? Drop me a line!