Anyone with the strike II and/or EVGA 780i I need some input

[dyetube]

O.k... So I was gonna buy the EVGA 780i board until i researched a little and found that the striker is going to have a better chance of not crapping because it is not a reference board. and from what I am seeing most people are getting really good overclocks with it. Honestly I'm still up in the air because EVGA has the step up program and when the 790i's come out I could step up if I wanted to. I guess my question is, I noticed there are lot of capacitors right around the cpu socket on the striker II. I am using the danger den mc-tdx waterblock. Will those caps interfere? They look kinda tall in the pics but then again without the cpu in the socket it is hard to tell. Also, anyone who wants to give their 2 cents worth, which would be the better board to buy and why (money is not a deciding factor as I can afford whatever I want so give me some good reasons as to why). I am hoping to buy the board tomorrow or friday, but I want to get the right board so I'll wait if a couple more days if need be. (also keep in mind I am going to do the tri-sli with bfg 8800gtx's one of which I'll buy this weekend and I already own one)

[dyetube]

Anyone had a problem with the striker II's clearance with a waterblock?

[kingdingeling]

I know a dude on a german OC forum who's had his Stirker II take a dump on him within the first 5 minutes of running it with a QX9650, the same with the RMA replacement. I'd pick up the EVGA, he's got that one now, and everything's fine

[philbrown23]

but the evga has all liquid caps and asus boards have soid state, it's a toss up no matter what board you get ther's a chance of it taking a dump, now as far as the space for the water block it should not be a problem as most stock cooling solutions take up more space than a waterblock and all boards are made to at least fit stock cooling if not bigger. just my 2 cents though.

[Bleeble]

I've built two systems with the Striker II so far. It fits a stock heatsink with no clearance issues, so a waterblock shouldn't have any problems. That said, it's a god-awful waste of money. Seriously, why do you need to blow $350 on a mobo just because you can?

[ccokeman]

Because you can thats why. Just because a stock heatsink fits does not mean everthing else will. Depending on the water block or heatsink you choose you can and probably will at one time or another have clearance issues. I use a Tuniq tower and any assortment of water blocks and depending on the board I have had to modify the heatsink or block to fit. Either that or use a mounting orientation that is less than optimal.

[Bleeble]

I have enough money to run out and buy the 45nm Extreme quadcore and a Striker II, but there's no compelling reason, especially when something that's a third of the price gets you the same performance. There's nothing wrong with buying an expensive, high-end motherboard, but there is something wrong with buying a motherboard just because it's expensive... I guess I'll never be part of the "empty your bank account just because you can" club.

 

The stock heatsink for any Core2 is wider and lower than any waterblock I've seen. If the WB fits within the four mounting holes, you're fine. If the waterblock mounting plate is higher than the botom of the stock HSF, you're fine.

[dyetube]

I have been an asus guy for my last 3 boards. I really like their reliability and performance! (Course these were amd setups) I really want to do 780i and I would like to do tri sli. That pretty much only leaves the striker board (or the evga). I'm not one of those waste my money on the best kind of guys but I want to buy the best performance. (Ex: I can afford the qx9650 but the e8400 is actually performing as good and sometimes better than a qx9650 and it only costs $230 so I am getting it instead.) My goal is to have a machine that will be the best. If you can afford it and you want it, why not? Why don't we just all drive econo cars? Who needs air conditioning or a radio... It gets me why people don't get this concept. This is an overclockers forum! We need good quality parts to overclock! Those come at a price!

[kingdingeling]

If you say the E8400 is as good as the QX9650, think again! The QX9650 has double the cores of the E8400

[dyetube]

I guess I should've clarified. I will be using this system mostly for gaming. Games don't typically take advantage of 4 cores but do take advantage of 2 cores. Look at this tom's hardware article: http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/13/wol...tors/page5.html You'll see that in 2 of the 3 games the e8500 beats the qx9650 at stock speeds and the E8400 is almost as good as the qx9650 (at most maybe a 5 fps difference). If I was folding or doing any multi-threaded applications, the extreme would be the way better processor. Also, that E8400 or E8500 is going to overclock just as well as that qx9650 (maybe even better but not sure on that). SO really that qx9650 is not the better processor for my use.

[fire_storm]

I guess I should've clarified. I will be using this system mostly for gaming. Games don't typically take advantage of 4 cores but do take advantage of 2 cores. Look at this tom's hardware article: http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/13/wol...tors/page5.html You'll see that in 2 of the 3 games the e8500 beats the qx9650 at stock speeds and the E8400 is almost as good as the qx9650 (at most maybe a 5 fps difference). If I was folding or doing any multi-threaded applications, the extreme would be the way better processor. Also, that E8400 or E8500 is going to overclock just as well as that qx9650 (maybe even better but not sure on that). SO really that qx9650 is not the better processor for my use.

 

I'd still go with the quad core though. Just because games right know don't take advantage of all 4 cores doesn't mean its going to stay that way for a while. Plus 4 cores will help speed up your multitasking if you do that kind of thing.

 

The way I think of it is the time for dual cores to be king is over with and quads are going to be the next big thing I don't see why you would waste money with something that is on its way out.

 

I remember when dual cores just came out and people had this exact same argument. People said it would not be worth it to buy a dual core because games did not take advantage of the second core. If I had listened to that argument and bought a signal core cpu I doubt that I would have been able to play new games like supreme commander, forged alliance, COD4, and Crysis, very well on a signal core cpu.

[dyetube]

How long before games take use of quad core? No one really knows but I think it is long enough down the road that if I bought a q6600 it would not be the better choice. The e8400 right now and until games take advantage of quad core will best that q6600 and for at least $50 less(or more). When the time comes that games take advantage of quads I can buy one. No not everyone can afford to do this but I can, so for me it is the wiser choice. I look for the best fps in games. An e6400 will do that! and then some! that q6600 will be about 10-15 fps slower! That is a big difference in a game like crysis where at highest resolution you're getting 25-30 fps (I play it at 1900 x 1280 with high not ultra resolution and no aa or af and my avg fps is about 30-35!) I really don't do a ton of multitasking, but I do do my share. I really spend more time gaming on this pc than anything, so that is how I am building this system.