Help me build a good X99 desktop

[sleepyxtreme]

So my budget is around $1500 or less for a new X99 build.

My current build has become completely unstable and I get frequent screen freezes for 30 seconds to a minute, random resets and BSODs. After attempting to troubleshoot /down clock, I feel like these problems could be from anything and everything and so after almost 7 years I'm looking to upgrade.

Goals:
1.Drastically improve from my current system
2. Ssd
3. ddr4 3000
4. Video card that can handle any game at 1080p
5. Closed loop water cpu cooler
6. Build a system that will last at least another 5 years.
7. Doesn't sound like a jet engine

Current system:
Old dual core stock 3.33 @ 4ghz
4gigs ddr3 2000
Noctua cooler with push/pull setup
Corsair hx1000 power supply
300gb Velociraptor hard drive
790i ultra motherboard
Xfx budget video card (had a top of the line card (that was like $500), it broke three years in and Xfx sent me their crappiest budget card (that was worth like <$200) because they no longer made my card, it was definitely not the same)
Antec 1200 with wayyyyyyy too many fans (8 in the case + 2 for cpu cooler +1 on power supply)

1) What will you be doing with this PC? Gaming? Photoshop? Web browsing? etc
Gaming and Photoshop
2) What's your budget? Are tax and shipping included?
~$1500 before tax and shipping. I'm a little flexible if it's worth the money
3) Which country do you live in? If the U.S, please tell us the state and city if possible.

Queens, New York
4) What exact parts do you need for that budget? CPU, RAM, case, etc. The word "Everything" is not a valid answer. Please list out all the parts you'll need.
CPU, CPU cooler, ssd, video card, motherboard, power supply, case, RAM
5) If reusing any parts, what parts will you be reusing? Please be especially specific about the power supply. List make and model.
1900x1200 24" monitor, mouse and keyboard
6) Will you be overclocking?
to 4ghz or better
7) What is the max resolution of your monitor? What size is it?
1900x1200 24"
8) When do you plan on building/buying the PC?
ASAP, in a month or two
9) What features do you need in a motherboard? RAID? Firewire? Crossfire or SLI support? USB 3.0? SATA 6Gb/s? eSATA? Onboard video (as a backup or main GPU)? UEFI? etc.
I-7 2011-v3 compatible, m.2, usb 3, sata 6, ddr4 3000+
10) Do you already have a legit and reusable/transferable OS key/license? If so, what OS? Is it 32bit or 64bit?
Windows 7 64 bit


PC Hound Part List

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K ($385.33 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASUSX99-A ($242.96 @ TigerDirect)
Memory: G.SKILL 16GB (4 x 4GB) Ripjaws 4 series ($244.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 960 04G-P4-3966-KR ($245.66 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 750W 220-G2-0750-XR ($109.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: SAMSUNG 250GB 850 EVO-Series MZ-75E250B/AM ($110.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair Carbide Series 400R ($64.99 @ TigerDirect)
CPU Cooler: CORSAIR Hydro Series H100i CW-9060009-WW ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1,494.89
Price may include shipping, rebates, promotions, and tax
Generated by PC Hound


I'm open to any and all suggestions and criticisms . Any helpful tips appreciated!

 

[Dangman]

How long is the drive to this Microcenter?
http://www.microcenter.com/site/stores/queens.aspx

Can you narrow down the time-frame for your build better than 1-2 months? It's rarely a good idea to plan/recommend systems more than a month in advance due to changing pricing and availability.

Wht games are you planning to play?

So there are some issues with your current planned setup:

So far you haven't made a solid case for going X99. You're only gaming so the extra cores of the 5820K really won't help and the lower clock speed is a slight detriment compared to Z97 Core i7 CPUs. In addition, if you were doing serious amount of Photoshop work that required more than 32GB of RAM, then that 4 x 4GB set of RAM was a poor choice. So basically, I'm not seeing a reason to go X99 here.

Speaking of the RAM: Why DDR4 3000? Have you found some article showing real-world performance increases in games and photoshop with such high-speed RAM?

 

[sleepyxtreme]

I live close to microcenter.

Time frame is really just whenever i decide to pull the trigger.

Games:
COD, Diablo, Crysis, Dragon Age, Borderlands, racing games (need for speed) and other FPS games.

The reason I want to go six core is the last time i went dual core over quad core and regretted it. I'm also conservative when it comes to overclocking and i've seen z97's go to 4.5ish while x99's go to 4.0. When buying my previous computer, it was a similar dilemma, 4 ghz dual vs. 3.5 ghz quad. Also, some programs/games (of the "future") may take advantage of the extra cores better.

Also, i'm running ddr3 2000 so going ddr4 or ddr3 2400 doesn't "feel" like much of an upgrade. i.e. spending all this money for only a 20% upgrade after 7 years? Also, ddr3 3000 is 2x+ the price. From my own personal experience, i noticed a big difference in overall performance between ddr3 1333 and ddr3 2000 so i blindly assumed that 50% faster memory is what i want. if you can show me something explaining why i'd be wrong, please link it.

The reason i went with only 16 gigs of memory is because of the price point.

Assuming you accept these reasons for going with a x99 build, what do you think of my choices?

 

[Dangman]

Time frame is really just whenever i decide to pull the trigger.

So when will that be?

The reason I want to go six core is the last time i went dual core over quad core and regretted it. I'm also conservative when it comes to overclocking and i've seen z97's go to 4.5ish while x99's go to 4.0. When buying my previous computer, it was a similar dilemma, 4 ghz dual vs. 3.5 ghz quad. Also, some programs/games (of the "future") may take advantage of the extra cores better.

Even if you had gone with the quad back then, I still would have recommended an upgrade. The two extra cores don't really buy you that much time to justify the $200 price increase over a Z97 + Core i7 4790K setup.

Also, i'm running ddr3 2000 so going ddr4 or ddr3 2400 doesn't "feel" like much of an upgrade. i.e. spending all this money for only a 20% upgrade after 7 years? Also, ddr3 3000 is 2x+ the price.

Misconception on your part: Intel CPUs don't scale particular well with higher RAM speeds.

From my own personal experience, i noticed a big difference in overall performance between ddr3 1333 and ddr3 2000

Yeah, that was the placebo effect going on there:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Breaking-the-Hype-of-High-Frequency-RAM-142/
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-Memory-Optimization-182/page3

so i blindly assumed that 50% faster memory is what i want. if you can show me something explaining why i'd be wrong, please link it.

Yes I can show you just that:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8959/...to-3200-with-gskill-corsair-adata-and-crucial

Even at their recommended DDR4 2400, the differences were still very miniscule. DDR4 2133 would still be more than enough. So yes DDR4 3000 RAM is a waste of money.

The reason i went with only 16 gigs of memory is because of the price point.

Still a pretty bad price for 16GB of DDR4 RAM that doesn't provide any sort of noticeable worthwhile performance increases. You can get two of this RAM for $71 less and still get the same perceivable performance:
$174 - Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB DDR4 2400 RAM

Assuming you accept these reasons for going with a x99 build, what do you think of my choices?

The case, PSU, SSD, and CLC are all good choices if you were buying this month. Past this month and I can't really say. At $245, that video is stupidly overpriced for what it is.

 

[sleepyxtreme]

very interesting, a few questions though:

1. my current computer's ram was sync'd or linked to the CPU . in order to achieve 4 ghz and sync , my memory had to be set to 2000 for the highest multiplier. Syncing or linking (I forget the formal name) supposedly provided some stability and smoothness if it could be maintained. is this not relevant anymore?
2. if I went z97, what motherboard, CPU, memory would you go with? also, if I'm at a 4 ghz dual core (I think core 2 8600) with ddr3 2000, will I even notice a performance difference vs a z97 at 4.5 ghz with ddr3 2133?
3. all of the 960s are at $200, I chose the only one with more memory, what video card would you suggest?
4. is this a good time to buy ?
5. it would seem that the difference in performance between z97 and x99 for gaming is not THAT big most of the time, isn't going with more cores and ddr4 compatibility better for the future?

 

[Dangman]

1) Nope. You can now overclock the CPU independent of the RAM speed. You can OC an Intel CPU to 4.5Ghz with DDR3 1333 RAM and the system will still feel the same as if you had bought DDR3 2400 RAM.

2) Can't answer that first part since you haven't provided a solid time-frame that makes sense for me to make recommendations for. The answer is yes. Multiple architectural and IPC improvements over the past seven years means that your current CPU at its current 4GHz is slower than the $57 3Ghz G3220 CPU let alone a Core i7 or Core i5 CPU. No I'm not recommend DDR3 2133 RAM either unless it's priced the same as DDR3 1600 RAM with the same 1.5V voltage.

3) R9 290 if you do go Z97. R9 280 if you stick with X99.

4) Yes considering that DDR3 RAM prices are at their lowest over the past three months.

5) Both the X99 and Z97 platforms uses CPUs based on the same Haswell architecture. Since the majority of games nowadays don't take advantage of more than 4 cores, the Core i7 4790K's 4Ghz clock speed allows it to perform better than the 3.5Ghz Core i7 5820K. In theory, yes the 5820K + DDR4 should be better for the future if games and programs become more multi-threaded. The problem is that it means an addition ~$130 for something that may or may not happen depending on your situation. Not to mention that the significant difficulty of programming a multi-threaded program or game combined with the possibility that more GPU direct APIs such as Mantle and DX12 means that the CPU isn't quite heavily relied upon. As such, the extra two cores may not even be used.

Think about it this way: Even if you had bought the highest clocked Core 2 Quad CPU seven years ago, it still would only have been a tiny bit more longer lasting than your E8600. Probably a few extra months at most. Clock speed still makes a difference.

 

[sleepyxtreme]

I appreciate all the info, I'm learning a lot, however, I think I have to disagree with you on some things for one reason: more power = more heat = more noise

1. the 960 requires much less power and performs on par with he R9 280. (230w vs 400w). this means the 960 will be cooler AND my psu will be cooler and not maxed out. also my personal bias requires me to hate ati/amd from the hours and hours I spent dealing with past problems with overheating cards and poor drivers

2. ddr4 requires 25-30% less power to run at the same speeds vs ddr3 which means less psu usage and less heat. so based on what you said I'll probably go with a low voltage ddr4 2400 and attempt to get better timings.

3. by going x99 now and spending an additional $100, it's a bet on the future. in five years all processors may be six or eight cores and software will likely want to take advantage of that.

everyone said the same thing you're saying now before when I bought my dual core. and literally six months after I assembled my computer , games started taking advantage of the quad core and I was left with serious buyer's remorse.

plus, every additional month I get from the delay in upgrading this upgrade will only add to my budget

while not all of the extra heat will affect anything, I think added together , it will. my current is like a jet engine and I've had to deal with many broken fans over the years due to them all running at high speeds and wearing out. ideally, with this new build, I'd like as few fans as possible running as slow as possible.

 

[Dangman]

I appreciate all the info, I'm learning a lot, however, I think I have to disagree with you on some things for one reason: more power = more heat = more noise

1. the 960 requires much less power and performs on par with he R9 280. (230w vs 400w). this means the 960 will be cooler AND my psu will be cooler and not maxed out. also my personal bias requires me to hate ati/amd from the hours and hours I spent dealing with past problems with overheating cards and poor drivers

You do have a point about the power consumption and the better performance in regards to the R9 280. However, the main problem is the price: The extra 2GB of VRAM is not worth an extra $45 over the base GTX 960 card. At $245, it's a total ripoff since you can get the faster R9 290 card for just $45 more. In other words, stick with the GTX 960 2GB at $200 if you want a bang for the buck Nvidia card. Another higher-end Nvidia option would be the GTX 970.

2. ddr4 requires 25-30% less power to run at the same speeds vs ddr3 which means less psu usage and less heat. so based on what you said I'll probably go with a low voltage ddr4 2400 and attempt to get better timings.

Ummm. the difference is .3V. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the PC. Changing out just one light bulb in your home makes more of a power usage difference than going from DDR3 RAM to DDR4 RAM.

3. by going x99 now and spending an additional $100, it's a bet on the future. in five years all processors may be six or eight cores and software will likely want to take advantage of that.

If programs do take advantage of that, it also means that it's also going to be heavily dependent on IPC as well. If there was only a $100 difference, you would have a slight point in going X99. However, it's not a $100 difference or even the $130 difference I mentioned earlier. Let's do the numbers and assuming that you're buying from Microcenter and buying today:
$300 - Intel Core i7 5820K
$240 - Asus X99-A Motherboard
$175 - 2 x 8GB DDR4 2400 RAM
----
Total: $715

$280 - Intel COre i7 4790K
$130 - Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark 2 Motherboard
$115 - 2 x 8GB DD3 1600 RAM
-----
Total: $525

That's a difference of ~$190. That $190 could be saved towards a future PC, faster video card, better case and cooling, or more storage. That $190 will not make your system last that much longer to justify that cost. Here's an article by Tested, a site run by the people behind Mythbusters, that I highly recommend you read in regards to PC upgrades:
http://www.tested.com/tech/pcs/460415-pc-building-pay-more-front-or-upgrade-regularly/

everyone said the same thing you're saying now before when I bought my dual core. and literally six months after I assembled my computer , games started taking advantage of the quad core and I was left with serious buyer's remorse.

I was not one of those people: I was the one that mainly advocated for the quad-core route when possible. But you yourself just proved that even with a dual-core E8600, you were satisfied enough to keep it for 7+ years. In other words, going the quad-core route would not have made a real difference in your situation since you would have kept the system far longer than normal and it was going to be outdated no matter what due to the relative slow IPC.

plus, every additional month I get from the delay in upgrading this upgrade will only add to my budget

Then come back when you're 1-2 weeks away from buying the parts and ask for advice then. There's no point in planning longer than a month in advance for a PC.

while not all of the extra heat will affect anything, I think added together , it will. my current is like a jet engine and I've had to deal with many broken fans over the years due to them all running at high speeds and wearing out. ideally, with this new build, I'd like as few fans as possible running as slow as possible.

Are you aiming for a low-noise system or a moderately noisy system (what you have listed now)?

 

[sleepyxtreme]

in terms of noise, I'm aiming for something that can sound like ambient noise like a low air conditioner. so I guess that's "moderate"?

if I decided to go low noise, what steps would I take, other than just replacing all the fans with quieter ones and putting rubber pieces on the hard drive screws/connectors? also maybe a case with larger fans that move slower for the same air flow?

I'm going to buy this week I think, I'll post if I do or if I don't

 

[Dangman]

if I decided to go low noise, what steps would I take, other than just replacing all the fans with quieter ones and putting rubber pieces on the hard drive screws/connectors? also maybe a case with larger fans that move slower for the same air flow?

No. All you would really need to do is this:
1) Switch the case to either of these quiet cases:
$84 - Fractal Design Define R4 Black ATX Case
$124 - Fractal Design Define R5 Black ATX Case

2) Switch the relatively noisy CLC for this quiet air-cooling HSF:
$40 - Scythe SCKTT-1000 HSF

3) Choose between the MSI Gaming series or the Asus STRIX series of video cards, whichever one is closest to the $200 price point for the GTX960 or $330 price point for the GTX 970.

Do those three changes and the system will be dramatically quieter.

I'm going to buy this week I think, I'll post if I do or if I don't

Wait wait: What are you going to buy? Which platform? X99 or Z97?

 

[sleepyxtreme]

I honestly haven't decided lol

I'm leaning toward x99 because i don't mind the extra $200 that much.

Here's the other thing that i've focused on: when comparing the benchmarks for games (not overclocked), they're neck and neck (within only 1-3 fps on most games and up to 15 on one or two games that i don't play). However, the x99 is super underclocked at 3.3ghz and if i can get it to 4 ghz it'll bridge the gap significantly. So when comparing a 4.5ghz 4790k vs a 4 ghz 5280k it's probably not noticeable at all when gaming but it will be noticeable when doing other tasks (photoshop, winrar, video editing)

Thus, my thinking is that yes i may lose like 3-5 fps on games i'm playing now but on multi-threaded applications the x99 performs up to 25-30% better so it's a gamble for the future. the extra $200 may or may not pay off

regarding quietness, two questions:
1. the R4 is now $109 and the other one is $124 so which one would you go with and why?
2. What if i replaced the fans that came with the CLC with quieter fans? Also, if i have a push/pull with scythe, won't that be the same noise?

 

[sleepyxtreme]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...a&cm_sp=&AID=10440897&PID=7718204&SID=pchound

$160 x99 motherboard! but i don't like msi!

 

[Dangman]

I honestly haven't decided lol

I'm leaning toward x99 because i don't mind the extra $200 that much.

Here's the other thing that i've focused on: when comparing the benchmarks for games (not overclocked), they're neck and neck (within only 1-3 fps on most games and up to 15 on one or two games that i don't play). However, the x99 is super underclocked at 3.3ghz and if i can get it to 4 ghz it'll bridge the gap significantly. So when comparing a 4.5ghz 4790k vs a 4 ghz 5280k it's probably not noticeable at all when gaming but it will be noticeable when doing other tasks (photoshop, winrar, video editing)

Thus, my thinking is that yes i may lose like 3-5 fps on games i'm playing now but on multi-threaded applications the x99 performs up to 25-30% better so it's a gamble for the future. the extra $200 may or may not pay off

It still won't pay off if you don't actually use multi-threaded programs. Photoshop isn't heavily multi-threaded nor does it appear that the next version will be either. Nor did you mention anything about video editing.

Also, key word is "If". There's always a good chance that you may not get 4Ghz with the 5820K.

Like you said, it's a gamble. To me, it's not worth gambling. In my ten years on HardForum and as a hardware enthusiasts, I rarely see an extra $200 on the CPU and motherboard paying off as an investment of sorts. The only times I've seen cases where an extra $200 on the CPU and motherboard pay off is when the person has the ability to take advantage of the extra performance/features of that extra $200 right off the bat.

regarding quietness, two questions:
1. the R4 is now $109 and the other one is $124 so which one would you go with and why?

R5 hands down since the R5 has enough improvements over the R4 to justify that $4 difference (The R4 no longer has free shipping as of this post). Though even with $15 difference, I still would recommend the R5 over the R4. However, if it was a $40 difference like at the time of my previous post, that would be hard to call.

2. What if i replaced the fans that came with the CLC with quieter fans? Also, if i have a push/pull with scythe, won't that be the same noise?

It's not a matter of the fans: It's the pump itself: it's very noisy. Not jet engine levels but loud enough that you know liquid is being pumped throughout your system. As for the Scythe, nope , not the same noise since A) There's no noisy pump like with a CLC and B) the stock fan on the Scythe is quiet. In fact, the stock fan on the Scythe is probably the same fans one would recommend to replace the fans on many CLCs or other air-cooling HSF.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...a&cm_sp=&AID=10440897&PID=7718204&SID=pchound

$160 x99 motherboard! but i don't like msi!

I don't factor in MIR until I receive them. So the MSI mobo is still $180 to me. It's not bad for a budget X99 mobo. Then again, the Z97 motherboard I mentioned above is a mid-range motherboard. Not exactly a fair comparison per se.

 

[doug_7506]

Go z97 and get a gtx 970.

Four core z97 + gtx 970 > six core x99 + gtx 960

If money wasn't an option and you could get both the X99 and 970/980, then sure, why not. But you are giving up performance now for the possibility of getting some futuristic performance.

 

[sleepyxtreme]

I pulled the trigger! I've been building for a few hours (making really dumb mistakes causing tons of delays and going slow to avoid big mistakes)

Microcenter gave me some awesome deals, they price matched everything.
I got a 970 for only $325. it's an evga that's overclocked but 33% quieter
Asus-a was only $230
5820k was $300
16 gb crucial ddr4 2400 for only $160
went with an h90 because it has a 140mm fan and it's super quiet

i'll post photos and more info later, gonna get some sleep now

edit: sitting pretty at 32C with 4.1 ghz and that's just the asus software without me touching anything

 

[doug_7506]

Very nice build. For those prices, why not get the extra 2 cores. Hope you enjoy it.

 

[sleepyxtreme]

had to go to work today but I figured I'd post because in the entire build I had one major problem I didn't fix yet: I was afraid of breaking the CPU cooler tubes so I mounted it upside down so that there wouldn't be pressure on the tubes. I twisted and flipped the block and the radiator and this was the only setup that had virtually no pressure on the tubes.

the downside is that this made the tubes block my cd drive from fitting in. I honestly don't even need a cd drive (I was going to take out the 5.25 bays entirely) but then I totally forgot i only had windows on a cd so I had a ghetto setup to install windows.

some guidance on a better way to mount the radiator would be appreciated, I've only attempted water once before and had a bad experience with the tubes bending too much causing poor cooling . ideally I'd like to just flip the radiator without having to remount
http://imgur.com/Rjo4HLh

I can't believe how good this motherboard is, I have a real gui bios that tells me a TON. I also flashed the bios to the newest verson from fricken windows, no usb needed. there are a million settings that I have to learn but I'm not sure how much I want to play with it, the idle state puts the CPU at 1.2ghz when not in use which is kinda good so I don't cook myself in my room when browsing the internet. plus if I do almost anything it jumps to 4-4.1 ghz automatically (20-25% OC). I don't see a downside yet.

the ssd is also insane, everything is instantaneous.

I haven't done a stress test yet so I'll have to see if it's 100% stable but so far I haven't seen any warning signs whatsoever.

I played diablo 3 on max settings and min fps was like 80-90 with an average of 145.

 

[doug_7506]

had to go to work today but I figured I'd post because in the entire build I had one major problem I didn't fix yet: I was afraid of breaking the CPU cooler tubes so I mounted it upside down so that there wouldn't be pressure on the tubes. I twisted and flipped the block and the radiator and this was the only setup that had virtually no pressure on the tubes.

the downside is that this made the tubes block my cd drive from fitting in. I honestly don't even need a cd drive (I was going to take out the 5.25 bays entirely) but then I totally forgot i only had windows on a cd so I had a ghetto setup to install windows.

some guidance on a better way to mount the radiator would be appreciated, I've only attempted water once before and had a bad experience with the tubes bending too much causing poor cooling . ideally I'd like to just flip the radiator without having to remount
http://imgur.com/Rjo4HLh

I can't believe how good this motherboard is, I have a real gui bios that tells me a TON. I also flashed the bios to the newest verson from fricken windows, no usb needed. there are a million settings that I have to learn but I'm not sure how much I want to play with it, the idle state puts the CPU at 1.2ghz when not in use which is kinda good so I don't cook myself in my room when browsing the internet. plus if I do almost anything it jumps to 4-4.1 ghz automatically (20-25% OC). I don't see a downside yet.

the ssd is also insane, everything is instantaneous.

I haven't done a stress test yet so I'll have to see if it's 100% stable but so far I haven't seen any warning signs whatsoever.

I played diablo 3 on max settings and min fps was like 80-90 with an average of 145.

Yeah its a beast of a setup. Congrats again on getting it pieced together.

You must have did something wrong when you tried to put the AiO in. It is designed to go on to the rear exhaust fan slot with the fan blowing through the radiator. Should have a little bend in the tubs, but not much.

However, if it is not bothering you, then I would just leave it like it is.

 

[sleepyxtreme]

well the problem is that the manual for the cooler said the fan should be an intake, so I thought it would not make sense for the back fan to be an intake and have the only exhaust be from the top

If I rotated the block 180 do you think it would be okay? basically going from a curve to a backward C

edit: hmm from various photos online it seems people make the tubes into an S so a C shape shouldn't be a problem