Search the Community

I'm looking at scratch-building a PC to use at home to study cybersecurity and in the future when I go to college for computer science. I want it to have blazing-fast storage and plenty of RAM so it runs flawlessly for day-to-day use and also so it can handle running Virtual Machines, dual booting with several OS's, and anything else I may want to experiment with. I want to build it now so I can use it the next few months, but it'll be about 2 years before I go to college and start using it heavily, and I might want to upgrade it then if it makes sense. I've got two builds I'm pretty happy with, one AMD and one Intel, both 6 cores/12 threads, and I'm trying to decide between them. The AMD has the potential to add a second PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD, and the ability to potentially be upgraded to a Ryzen 9 5950X with 16 cores/32 threads in several years. The Intel is limited to a single PCIe 4.0 SSD, with any additional drives being PCIe 3.0. Additionally, I believe the biggest upgrade it could get would be to an i9-11900K which is only 8 cores/16 threads. It does however have integrated graphics, and I didn't want to buy a graphics card soon because this computer won't primarily be for gaming. Now frankly 1TB of PCIe 4.0 speed storage is proably overkill, and if I did want to upgrade it I could just get a 2 TB stick, so I don't know how important that is. The more important question is how much does the upgrade path matter? Because besides core count I'd rather go with Intel, but AMD having upgrade potential to 16 gives me pause. I've heard more cores matters more for things like productivity, so how useful will 8/12/16 cores really be for running Virtual Machines, DAWs, moving large files or other intensive tasks I might want to do? Advice appreciated. No need to budget for peripherals or monitor or anything. Just looking for the tower here. Suggestions on a decent cooler for overclocking appreciated. ~$100 Also I know nothing about graphics cards, what would be good for this rig? (willing to spend $400-600 when prices are normal again) 1440p & VR would be cool if that's possible. Pretty happy with my builds at this price, but am willing to save more if I'm missing something important. Budget: ~$1000 US Country: USA Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: Cybersecurity Testing - Running Virtual Machines Dual-booting with Windows & several versions of Linux (3+ OS's) Basic Coding Music Production - Studio One (DAW) Eventually add a GPU for Games & VR - suggestions in the $400-600 price range (when prices go down) Intel Build: PCPartPicker Part List CPU: Intel Core i5-11600K 3.9 GHz 6-Core Processor ($240.00) CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition 57.3 CFM CPU Cooler ($39.99 @ Newegg) Motherboard: Asus PRIME Z590-A ATX LGA1200 Motherboard ($238.00) Memory: G.Skill Trident Z 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($154.99 @ Newegg) Storage: Samsung 980 Pro 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive ($185.00) Case: Corsair Carbide 175R RGB ATX Mid Tower Case ($64.98 @ Amazon) Power Supply: Corsair CXF 650 W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($85.00) Case Fan: Corsair AF120 (2018) 52 CFM 120 mm Fans 3-Pack ($44.99 @ Best Buy) Total: $1052.95 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-05-10 13:18 EDT-0400 AMD Build: PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor ($300.00) Motherboard: *ASRock X570 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($173.99 @ Amazon) Or Motherboard: Asus PRIME X570-PRO ATX AM4 Motherboard ($329.00 @ Amazon) Memory: G.Skill Trident Z 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($154.99 @ Newegg) Storage: Samsung 980 Pro 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive ($185.00) Case: Corsair Carbide 175R RGB ATX Mid Tower Case ($64.98 @ Amazon) Power Supply: Corsair CXF 650 W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($85.00) Case Fan: Corsair AF120 (2018) 52 CFM 120 mm Fans 3-Pack ($44.99 @ Best Buy) Total: $1008.95 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available *Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-05-10 13:19 EDT-0400 Thanks!

So I'm trying to learn parallel programming with CUDA. So I'm wondering if there's a way to automatically get the number of blocks and threads without looking up the card's specifications online, then using those values in the <<<block, thread>>> line of code. I want to do this automatically so that regardless of what card model I run the code on, it will utilize the whole card. Right now I'm using a GTX 1050 with 640 Cuda cores according to the specs sheet from the nvidia website. If that's the total cores how do I get the number of blocks? Right now I put 1. Below is the code I'm trying to run. #include <cuda.h> #include "DataManager.h" #include "cuda_runtime.h" #include "device_launch_parameters.h" #include <cmath> #include <iostream> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> /* srand, rand */ #include <time.h> #include <array> #include <random> #define THREADS 640 DataManager dm; __global__ void Operation(int n, float *x, float *io) { int index = threadIdx.x; int stride = blockDim.x; for (int i = index; i < n; i+= stride) { io[i] = x[i] * io[i]; printf("%d %f\n", i , io[i]); } } int main(int argc, char ** argv){ int N = THREADS; float *x, float *y; cudaMallocManaged(&x, N * sizeof(float)); cudaMallocManaged(&y, N * sizeof(float)); for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) { x[i] = (float)(rand() % 100); y[i] = (float)(rand() % 100); } Operation <<<1, THREADS >>> (N, x, y); cudaDeviceSynchronize(); cudaFree(x); cudaFree(y); return 0; }

Hello people, I have just built my first build with the specs shown below: CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 8 core/16 Threads RAM: 2x8 Corsair 2666MHz Ram Motherboard: Asrock X370 Pro4 GPU: Asus Astrix GTX 1050 Ti Power Suply: Thermaltake Smart RGB 600W OS: Windows 10 The PC is standing on a desk without any movement. Also Windows is set at Basic Performance mode. At first everything seemed to work fine until i noticed something while I was benchmarking my system using CINEBENCH. It showed I had 7 Cores and 14 Threads. Immediately, I checked task manager and under the Performance tab it said also that my CPU had only 7c/14t. As a matter of fact it showed only 14 diagrams under Performance/CPU tab. Finally I also checked AMD Ryzen Master in which I had never changed anything and while all the 7 first cores were working fine, the 8th was stuck at 600Mhz not moving at all. After some Internet research, I found some solution that didn't work for me. Internet Solution #1: Search "msconfig" -> Open "System Configuration" -> Choose "Boot" tab -> Choose "Advanced Options" -> Uncheck "Number of processors" In my case #1: The "Number of processors" box was already unchecked. Internet Solution #2: Check about Core-Parking Issue. In my case #2: None of my cores were shown core-parked. In fact the 8th was not shown at all in task manager. Only working temporary solution: Reboot. Oh yes! I noticed that when I boot my PC it sometimes has 7c/14t and sometimes it has the normal 8c/16t. So in summary: Sometimes when I boot my PC my core count is less that the normal (7c/14t) and it needs a reboot so that everything goes back to normal(8c/16t). WHY? Note that when I boot with the normal number of cores and threads every software is showing them perfectly.

I just bought an Dell G7 7590 with a i7-9750H 6 core CPU and on AC it's a little beast. The problem comes form trying to run on battery it becomes very slow for some apps and older games. (i.e. some things that ran ok on my old $250usd A12 APU Lenovo notebook while using battery run worse on this $1,200 i7 laptop the same way) From what little testing I have been able to do it the short time I have had it, It would seem the issue comes from power delivery limits from the battery making the CPU per-core speed throttle way down as more cores come active. For example with 1 core active (shown in Intel's XTU) the speed sits at just shy of 3Ghz but open Firefox or other app and all 6 core come up dropping the speed to as low as 1Ghz or less.. So what I want to know is there a way to automatically limit the system to only say 4 cores on battery and still let it use all 6 on AC with out having to reboot to BIOS every time, Just to try and keep the core speed up as some of what I run would do better with fewer fast cores then more slower ones..

so i am thinking about replacing my old computer because it is starting to show its age. (i7-4770k, gtx660, 8gb ddr3 ram) well, it has been showing its age for a while now. this new computer will mostly be used for gaming. but i will be doing some 3d design on it (mostly using Sketchup or CAD), basic photoshop, and some audio and video editing. nothing professional, just for personal projects and hobbies. i do plan on recording my games for YouTube, so it must be able to handle that. but again, this is is just for fun, something to share with my friends and family. i do not plan on making any money off of it. (i have been uploading videos to private so far) i might in the future (and this is a small maybe, most likely i will use a separate computer for it.) use this computer as a local server for my family, and run security surveillance system through it. i have a video card picked out (gtx 1080 ti) that i plan on getting used to save some money. (if this is a bad idea, let me know) , i plan on putting 32gb of ddr4 RAM, i will get an SSD m.2 of about 500gb (i am looking at one from WD right now) and a 2 TB HDD for mass storage. maybe a sata SSD instead of the HDD, but we will see. i plan on using 3 monitors, the center one will be 2k at ~120 HZ ultra wide for gaming. the two on the side will just be plain old 1080p which i will use for my various computer hobbies. i also want to future proof the computer, so that i just have to make some upgrades to it later on, and not have to replace it any time soon. yes, i plan on overclocking everything in the future, when it is needed. i also have a budget of $1800, but i am willing to go over if the performance gain is worth it. (although i will have to save up a little bit longer) i also live in California. so my question is.... i am looking at 3 different CPUs, i7-8086k, i7-7820x, and the i9-7940x (if i get the i9, i will go way over budget, but i am willing to do that if it is worth it) One other detail, i use cpubenchmark.net for my source. ( let me know if they are not a reliable source. ) it looks like to me that the 8086k is the best for gaming, with 6 cores (12 threads) @ 4.0 GHz and high single thread performance. I can also get it for ~$400 at best buy. but i am worried about future proofing it since it only has 6 cores. (which might be more than enough. IDK) the 7820x has 8 cores @ 3.6 GHz. slower per thread so not as good for gaming as the 8086k, but still very good. the higher core count might (hopefully) futureproof it more, and help with my other hobbies. i can get this guy from Fry's electronics for ~$450. last one i was looking at is the i9-7940x. this guy has 14 cores @ 3.1GHz. according to my source, it is just as fast per core as the 7820x but has way more cores. but it cost ~$1150 at newegg. my main concern with the 7940x is that i will never need all those cores. most games use 4 cores in total. (if i remember correctly) will games in the future use more than 4 cores? other CPUs i might have overlooked? (i am not getting a ryzen. not because i am team blue, i really do not care about that. but according to cpubenchmark, the ryzen is much slower per thread than intel. but again, let me know if i am wrong) thank you -Gary

I think I've never found a result for this and every time I search my google foo frustrates me to no end. The basic question that I want to set up a conversation for is put simply, when does clock speed matter? To explain, I keep hearing from almost every build question on the forum, usually by the same forum users, that the Intel i7-8700k is the best gaming cpu, but as far as I understood this was due to it's single thread performance. So why? Does this tie into clock speeds? I see that among even the most poorly binned chips, it can hit 4-5 GHz without LN2. Now in saying all this a CPUs performance is not just Clock speed but also I wonder, why the 8700k is considered the best Gaming CPU, and how much Clock Speed plays into that. But also, when does Clock speed for a processor cease to be important for gaming purposes, including in today's AAA titles. Anyone have some info?

asus z10pe-d8 ws motheboard, What lga 2011-v3 xeon has the highest core count?

I am wondering how big of a impact of CUDA cores affect my performance. Btw, here's the rest of my planned rig: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/hgHMmG