building new PC w/i7-5960X cpu, part II

i've yet to order anything, but yes, am planning to order either a GTX 1080 or a 1060

but that's what i was wondering, what do i do to get the point where i can install the GPU's drivers

so you're saying i'll have a somewhat low level display, kind of like the low grade screen i see when i open the BIOS on
my six year old laptop. It's UEFI Bios, but it must be the 1st gen, and the graphics are something my 5 yr old grandson could draw

i'm pretty much focused on the 5960x, and basically upgrading my previous build
with, obviously a new motherboad - ASUS X99-M WS (micro-ATX), new memory, probably the GTX 1060 GPU due to
space limitations of my case, and a new 4K monitor. We bought a 4k TV and that's what started this upgrade binge

what are you thinking vs the 5960x?

1st - no gaming - but will be looking into VR
the 4k parameter was because of the 4K TV we bought, and am now picking up a 32" 4k screen for our RV ( i built a mini-RV, just to poke around the US for a year or so, visiting relatives and seeing the country.

Main reason i am focus'd on the 5960X is the 8 cores, and reducing my rendering times - rendering a 35 - 38 GB video file to h264, using Handbrake, takes approx 35-45 minutes with the system you see in my signature. Prior to that PC, i was using a duo core (iirc e8500) and was seeing 2.5 - 3 hour render times, so the drop in rendering times, going from a 2.6 GHz duo core cpu to a 4.0 GHz quad core, was a godsend. I asked about the benefits of 8 cores in "part I" of this quest, earlier today, and Owen_24 pointed me at a pretty informative link http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918-5.html?_ga=1.61181353.464626474.1477413218

that link kind of hit it on the head for me, especially the comparison running Handbrake which is what i use 50% of the time, see screen capture below



the 5960x shows a 33% reduction in time vs the i7-4970k (i'm running a 4790), so i've got to assume the reduction i'll see will be slightly greater (my 4790 tops out at 4.0 GHz vs the 4790K they used at 4.4 GHz).

I did learn from that comparison as well as from Owen_24 that clock frequency also plays a part, and it seems to play a stronger part with software not using that many threads or cores. But considering i render 5 - 10 movies, and sometimes more, per week, reducing my time from 45 minutes to 30 (or less) is a big deal to me. There were a number of different programs they tested with, but with Handbrake, cores seemed to be the deciding factor as the 5960x came out ahead of even the xeon 2678, not by much but still ahead, and considering it's 1/2 the price of the xeon cpu, that catches my attention. In other applications that don't seem to favor as many cores or threads, the 5930K actually came out ahead, but they were software i don't run (adobe).

Plus, when we're on the road, while the wife is driving, i'd love to be able to continue to render video files to add to my library - something about building a video library is addictive - can't quite explain other than to say, so many movies, so little time

i appreciate your suggestion, and can see from your perspective why you would make it. But the $600 difference in price is small to me, compared to the time savings. I made a living in another industry, making metal chips ie machining. If something could save me 15 minutes, up to 10x a week, X 52 weeks a year, (that's 2.5 hours a week, btw) it was definitely worth it. Plus, with the 8 cores, i'm hedging against what the 4k video files are going to take, time wise, to render - they've got to be 50 GB or larger, so it may end up a washout, ie same rendering time for a 4k file as i am seeing for a 35 GB file (1920x1080) file with my current setup.

Another consideration, at my age, this is the last computer i'll be building. So there's an element of future proofing.

so some of it is personal preferences, experiences etc

i appreciate your suggestions though

wow, you definitely put some effort into assembling those builds. Thanks for that

budget wise, i'm pretty flexible, but i'd like to re-use as much of what i already have as possible, mainly for convenience, plus i've already got a cabinet in the RV built to the AeroCool case. Back to budget, the only items i need are an X99 micro-atx Mobo, DDR4 mem and the CPU, and i lean pretty heavy toward ASUS because of the ease my current build went together and the few issues i had, ASUS customer tech assist proved outstanding (fingers crossed they're still there).

To ThomasLeong, re the M.2 slot limitation - i figured it was when i saw that it was Sata & PCIe capable, same as my current mobo - but i've got the 950 Pro mounted on an expansion card in a PCIe slot. And to be frank, i don't think i've noticed any real speed increases from it vs a Sata SSD.

what might help you understand my focus on 8 cores, when i'm using Handbrake, i notice that whether i watch the cpu usage under the "performance" tab in task manager, or the RealtempGT mini-monitor, load bounces from 98 to 100%, constantly, no drop below 98, so i'm fairly certain Handbrake is a core hog. The other software apps i use seem to bounce around in the 55-80% load range.

That 6900k cpu looks interesting though - definitely a higher clock frequency. Thanks for putting that one on the table - but please, don't put any more effort into assembling builds - i'm pretty locked into what i described above. Memory wise, i was going with 32 GB of G.SKILL F4-2800C16Q as it's on ASUS's QVL list for that mobo. Would 64GB of ram offer any benefit to rendering times?

I am going to research that 6900k cpu though, curious to see what folks are OCing it to.

Update: after looking at reviews or comparisons between the 5960x and 6900k, other than being newer, ie the 14mm nand microarchitecture, there doesn't seem to be any advantages to the 6900k. The 5960x has a higher stable OC, which i like - i want to take it to 4.2 or 4.3, and with a ceiling of 4.5 to 4.8 (depending on the review) i've still got some head room vs the 6900k's ceiling of 4.3. But the 22mm nand means the heat being generated isn't focused in as small an area, so it should be a little easier to cool (i'd prefer to stay with the Noctua cooler i've now got on the 4790, or rather i prefer not to have to go the water cooling route.

But this review here on Tom's Hardware kind of sealed it for me http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-broadwell-e-6950x-6900k-6850k-6800k,4587-9.html

Mobo picked, Ram picked, and the only thing left is the monitor
for desktop use, i'm going to stay with a 27", for the RV 32", i'm going to wait a bit and see what happens to prices after Jan 1

PSU - currently when i'm rendering using Handbrake and showing 100% load, power meter is showing 137 watts.
My current 4790 is 84 watts TDP, the 5960 or the 6900 are 140,
so i calculated 137+56, + 122W (for the GTX 1060). Total = 315W. That 122w for the 1060 though is max under torture testing. When I'm using it to drive the monitor it will be to display movies, no hot & heavy gaming use. So i suspect actual draw will be considerably less. And when i'm using it, i won't be rendering at the same time, so the 137W base number is excessively high. Also, when capturing the screen, watt draw currently only runs in the 65-75W range.

Even at that high number of 315, that's still right at the 70% max of the seasonic i've got. The electrical engineer that helped me select the seasonic had a number of reasons he liked it, in terms of quality of current etc. But his guidance was the PSU should not go over 80% of max power supply, or rarely at most, and preferably to run in the 50-55% range.

I'm thinking to stay with it for the time being and watch the power meter to see what real life draw is. If it runs above that 70% of full capacity, then upgrade the PSU

and forgot to mention, the GTX 1080 got ruled out due to space limitations in the aerocool case.

sorry, i updated the post while you were posting

the 1080 got ruled out due to space limitations in the Aerocool case - it will accept the 1080 if i'm willing to forgo the BD cage, and the 3.5" HDD cage, which i'm not.

And again, displaying a movie file on screen, generally runs in the 24 to 30 FPS, so movie file is not stressful on the GPU - i'm hoping to see it's 50-70 watts max for the GPU. Once the file is copied, then it's rendered, which means i'm not displaying anything but a static screen - remember, rendering runs 98-100 cpu load on, currently, on all 4 cores

The design and build quality on the case were surprisingly good - a number of small touches or features they don't tout on their website description

thanks for the assist