MB & CPU recommendation?

I'm about ready for a new build, as my old system is over 5 years old.
I don't keep up with the latest information, so I'm looking for
recommendations..
My usage..
Some Photoshop, some video editing, lots of database work using
Filepro and Access, sometimes several databases open at the same time.
This is all associated with lots of Genealogy work.... retouching old
photos, updating web sites, searching databases, etc. Some of the
databases I use are large, the largest 2.8 GB.
Not much need for fancy graphics, but I need the ability to support at
least 2 monitors.... so I was thinking about on-board graphics instead
of a separate video card. My present system has 16 GB ram, so I'd
probably want to go to 32 GB on a new board. I've been using a SSD for
the operating system and programs so I'd probably do the same on a new
system. I don't need RAID capability, but I usually use 3 rotating
drives. Probably 6 SATA ports like I have now is sufficient. A couple
of USB 3 ports along with several USB 2 ports.

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty powerful
enough. But I don't know much about the current crop of processors..
as an example, I understand that some have integrated graphics, and
some do not. And if they do, do they need a special MB to utilize
that. And do the MBs taht support integrated graphics have provision
for dual monitors?

Any comments and suggestions appreciated.

My home-built is also getting tired, so I'm interested in your
question. But I'm surprised that you didn't mention what OS you're
planning on using?
I also like to play in Photoshop, not as seriously as you. But my PS
is version 5. Won't run on anything newer than XP. Can't be upgraded
and I'm not enough of a graphics man to buy a brand new Photoshop!

What software are you in jeopardy of obsoleting if you move to another
OS?


On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:45:29 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

I'm about ready for a new build, as my old system is over 5 years old.
I don't keep up with the latest information, so I'm looking for
recommendations..
My usage..
Some Photoshop, some video editing, lots of database work using
Filepro and Access, sometimes several databases open at the same time.
This is all associated with lots of Genealogy work.... retouching old
photos, updating web sites, searching databases, etc. Some of the
databases I use are large, the largest 2.8 GB.
Not much need for fancy graphics, but I need the ability to support at
least 2 monitors.... so I was thinking about on-board graphics instead
of a separate video card. My present system has 16 GB ram, so I'd
probably want to go to 32 GB on a new board. I've been using a SSD for
the operating system and programs so I'd probably do the same on a new
system. I don't need RAID capability, but I usually use 3 rotating
drives. Probably 6 SATA ports like I have now is sufficient. A couple
of USB 3 ports along with several USB 2 ports.

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty powerful
enough. But I don't know much about the current crop of processors..
as an example, I understand that some have integrated graphics, and
some do not. And if they do, do they need a special MB to utilize
that. And do the MBs taht support integrated graphics have provision
for dual monitors?

Any comments and suggestions appreciated.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:47:53 -0400, John B. Smith
wrote:

My home-built is also getting tired, so I'm interested in your
question. But I'm surprised that you didn't mention what OS you're
planning on using?
I also like to play in Photoshop, not as seriously as you. But my PS
is version 5. Won't run on anything newer than XP. Can't be upgraded
and I'm not enough of a graphics man to buy a brand new Photoshop!

What software are you in jeopardy of obsoleting if you move to another
OS?


On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:45:29 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

I'm about ready for a new build, as my old system is over 5 years old.
I don't keep up with the latest information, so I'm looking for
recommendations..
My usage..
Some Photoshop, some video editing, lots of database work using
Filepro and Access, sometimes several databases open at the same time.
This is all associated with lots of Genealogy work.... retouching old
photos, updating web sites, searching databases, etc. Some of the
databases I use are large, the largest 2.8 GB.
Not much need for fancy graphics, but I need the ability to support at
least 2 monitors.... so I was thinking about on-board graphics instead
of a separate video card. My present system has 16 GB ram, so I'd
probably want to go to 32 GB on a new board. I've been using a SSD for
the operating system and programs so I'd probably do the same on a new
system. I don't need RAID capability, but I usually use 3 rotating
drives. Probably 6 SATA ports like I have now is sufficient. A couple
of USB 3 ports along with several USB 2 ports.

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty powerful
enough. But I don't know much about the current crop of processors..
as an example, I understand that some have integrated graphics, and
some do not. And if they do, do they need a special MB to utilize
that. And do the MBs taht support integrated graphics have provision
for dual monitors?

Any comments and suggestions appreciated.

I'm restricted to windows because the genealogy program I'm using only
runs under windows. I'm currently using Win 7 Pro, 64 bit, and won't
upgrade it until Win 9 comes out.... so the new system will either be
my old win 7 installation, or a new win 7 .

My Photoshop ver is CS5 (I actually had to start it up and look to see
what version it was). I have no intention to upgrade it... it's taken
me a long time to get comfortable with it, and I wouldn't be
interested in either upgrading it or switching to another program.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:45:29 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty powerful
enough. But I don't know much about the current crop of processors..
as an example, I understand that some have integrated graphics, and
some do not. And if they do, do they need a special MB to utilize
that. And do the MBs taht support integrated graphics have provision
for dual monitors?

Haswell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswel...rchitecture%29

Though there's a lot of them (up to a 135watt consumer in 22micron
Extreme editions). Entrywise it would be a dualcore with known (not
proven, though when are they indefinitely for) overclocking leeway.

I wouldn't as much say specialized MB for certifiable dual monitor
operation, as apt to be buried if it all in documentation features or
an occasional review that surfaces to have found out the hard way.

Guesstimating I'd say, yes, duals supported, practically I'd say cross
that bridge upon encountering it. You're not talking about multiples
of PCI, so you're set there -- all MB's have a PCI-E for a videoboard
(egads, inconceivably for a slap in the face to the $500-a-card Gaming
Industry if they didn't).

Anyway, I got mine: a $10 PCI-E video board, which I haven't a clue as
to dualmonitor support, (likely would, an ATI board), because it's
never been installed (doesn't really surpass performance of the MB's
chipped Intel vidchip, just adds to the overall system heat, iow).
Serves as a forgotten desktop ornament, somewhere in a pile.

With a focus on practicality, that could be a nice budget build, least
to mention very popular among present reviews and considerations (no
other Intel chip is highlighted in a capacity to overclock, as is the
case with the Haswell). Memorywise, you're shot - 32G is going to
cost. I used to build starting at $500 for a higher end system and as
low as $100-200 for extreme budget builds;- higher end being lower
than it was with things geared to mini-factor, wris****ch MBs and such
nowadays.

Case, PS, storage, cooling, nice Cherry-switched keyboard, Farmer in
the Dell IPS monitors. The sky's the limit ... as Dirty Harry might
say, 'Do you feel like it's your lucky day, punk?'

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
I'm about ready for a new build, as my old system is over 5 years old.
I don't keep up with the latest information, so I'm looking for
recommendations..
My usage..
Some Photoshop, some video editing, lots of database work using
Filepro and Access, sometimes several databases open at the same time.
This is all associated with lots of Genealogy work.... retouching old
photos, updating web sites, searching databases, etc. Some of the
databases I use are large, the largest 2.8 GB.
Not much need for fancy graphics, but I need the ability to support at
least 2 monitors.... so I was thinking about on-board graphics instead
of a separate video card. My present system has 16 GB ram, so I'd
probably want to go to 32 GB on a new board. I've been using a SSD for
the operating system and programs so I'd probably do the same on a new
system. I don't need RAID capability, but I usually use 3 rotating
drives. Probably 6 SATA ports like I have now is sufficient. A couple
of USB 3 ports along with several USB 2 ports.

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty powerful
enough. But I don't know much about the current crop of processors..
as an example, I understand that some have integrated graphics, and
some do not. And if they do, do they need a special MB to utilize
that. And do the MBs taht support integrated graphics have provision
for dual monitors?

Any comments and suggestions appreciated.

After having just upgraded a machine here myself,
I'm a little less than impressed with how many activities
the extra cores speed things up. So if you were
expecting miracles, there's not really much to see.
Everything feels about as fast as before.

The things that change, are activities with long run times.
For example, when running 7ZIP on the old machine, I might
manage 3MB/sec when doing maximum 7Z compression. On the
other processor with less cache on it, that one was getting
2MB/sec. With the new processor and motherboard replacing
the lame 2MB/sec setup, the new setup gets 26MB/sec.

That's the reason I bought the new setup. Is knowing that
case would go faster. I compress 1TB backup files to save
space, and so having the compressor run at a reasonable
speed, means finishing a run in one day. Instead of more
than one day.

You could start on http://ark.intel.com/

Start on the 4th generation page for Core i5.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family...ssors#@Desktop

They all have the same internal graphics block (HD 4600).
The pricing is relatively flat, so being a cheapskate
doesn't pay off. You would head out of the i5 table and
find a cheaper table to work in, if the prices bothered you.

The 4690 is 4C/4T (no Hyperthreading), runs all cores flat out
at 3.5GHz, while under light load offers Turbo of 3.9GHz. It's
6MB of cache (whereas an LGA775 9650 would have been 12MB of
cache). Max RAM is four sticks of 8GB each, for 32GB total.
High end RAM would cost $400 for that much (for the stuff
that runs faster than your motherboard can go). So if you
want 32GB of RAM, it might cost more for the RAM than for
the CPU. The CPU costs $224 for a retail boxed one (which
would come with a cooler). The tray version would come
without a cooler, which is why it is cheaper.

http://ark.intel.com/products/80810/...up-to-3_90-GHz

Package is LGA1150, so that's what is needed to select
a motherboard.

It has virtually everything listed in the table, including
VT-x, VT-d, and EPT (for Hyper-V virtual machines in Win8).
So it doesn't seem to be missing anything important. VT-x
is an option for Windows Virtual PC, but perhaps that isn't
manditory any more. Getting VT-x was how I was tricked into
buying my current CPU on this motherboard :-) (Good ole Intel
marketing...)

If you check out the table here, the Z97 chips has six 6Gbit/sec
SATA ports and six USB3 native ports. There are a few LGA1150 boards
that include extra SATA ports by adding an extra chip. So you can
find a few boards with more than six.

I picked out this board, because it illustrates a lot of
different features.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157500

ASRock Z97 Extreme6

DVI-I
HDMI
DisplayPort

10 SATA ports

Notice that while the motherboard+CPU does graphics, no
two of the connectors use the same standard. You can
convert DisplayPort to other standards, but some
translation cases use passive electronics, other
use Active electronics. Because of this trend
to "never twice the same", it's hard for a person
owning two cheap monitors with identical connectors,
to get what they want. Some (but not all) DisplayPort
adapters can cost as much as a cheap video card.

Paul

Paul nospam needed.com wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

I'm about ready for a new build, as my old system is over 5
years old. I don't keep up with the latest information, so I'm
looking for recommendations.. My usage.. Some Photoshop, some
video editing, lots of database work using Filepro and Access,
sometimes several databases open at the same time. This is all
associated with lots of Genealogy work.... retouching old
photos, updating web sites, searching databases, etc. Some of
the databases I use are large, the largest 2.8 GB. Not much
need for fancy graphics, but I need the ability to support at
least 2 monitors.... so I was thinking about on-board graphics
instead of a separate video card. My present system has 16 GB
ram, so I'd probably want to go to 32 GB on a new board. I've
been using a SSD for the operating system and programs so I'd
probably do the same on a new system. I don't need RAID
capability, but I usually use 3 rotating drives. Probably 6
SATA ports like I have now is sufficient. A couple of USB 3
ports along with several USB 2 ports.

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty
powerful enough. But I don't know much about the current crop
of processors.. as an example, I understand that some have
integrated graphics, and some do not. And if they do, do they
need a special MB to utilize that. And do the MBs taht support
integrated graphics have provision for dual monitors?

Any comments and suggestions appreciated.

After having just upgraded a machine here myself, I'm a little
less than impressed with how many activities the extra cores
speed things up. So if you were expecting miracles, there's not
really much to see. Everything feels about as fast as before.

The things that change, are activities with long run times. For
example, when running 7ZIP on the old machine, I might manage
3MB/sec when doing maximum 7Z compression. On the other
processor with less cache on it, that one was getting 2MB/sec.
With the new processor and motherboard replacing the lame
2MB/sec setup, the new setup gets 26MB/sec.

That's the reason I bought the new setup. Is knowing that case
would go faster. I compress 1TB backup files to save space, and
so having the compressor run at a reasonable speed, means
finishing a run in one day. Instead of more than one day.

You could start on http://ark.intel.com/

Start on the 4th generation page for Core i5.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family...ration-Intel-C
ore-i5-Processors#@Desktop

They all have the same internal graphics block (HD 4600). The
pricing is relatively flat, so being a cheapskate doesn't pay
off. You would head out of the i5 table and find a cheaper table
to work in, if the prices bothered you.

The 4690 is 4C/4T (no Hyperthreading), runs all cores flat out
at 3.5GHz, while under light load offers Turbo of 3.9GHz. It's
6MB of cache (whereas an LGA775 9650 would have been 12MB of
cache). Max RAM is four sticks of 8GB each, for 32GB total. High
end RAM would cost $400 for that much (for the stuff that runs
faster than your motherboard can go). So if you want 32GB of
RAM, it might cost more for the RAM than for the CPU. The CPU
costs $224 for a retail boxed one (which would come with a
cooler). The tray version would come without a cooler, which is
why it is cheaper.

http://ark.intel.com/products/80810/...690-Processor-
6M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz

Package is LGA1150, so that's what is needed to select a
motherboard.

It has virtually everything listed in the table, including VT-x,
VT-d, and EPT (for Hyper-V virtual machines in Win8). So it
doesn't seem to be missing anything important. VT-x is an option
for Windows Virtual PC, but perhaps that isn't manditory any
more. Getting VT-x was how I was tricked into buying my current
CPU on this motherboard :-) (Good ole Intel marketing...)

If you check out the table here, the Z97 chips has six 6Gbit/sec
SATA ports and six USB3 native ports. There are a few LGA1150
boards that include extra SATA ports by adding an extra chip. So
you can find a few boards with more than six.

I picked out this board, because it illustrates a lot of
different features.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157500

ASRock Z97 Extreme6

DVI-I HDMI DisplayPort

10 SATA ports

Notice that while the motherboard+CPU does graphics, no two of
the connectors use the same standard. You can convert
DisplayPort to other standards, but some translation cases use
passive electronics, other use Active electronics. Because of
this trend to "never twice the same", it's hard for a person
owning two cheap monitors with identical connectors, to get what
they want. Some (but not all) DisplayPort adapters can cost as
much as a cheap video card.

The file conversion and copy I recently posted about took six+
hours with all four cores working at about 70%. Imagine how long
that would take on a single core machine.

And then there's gaming.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:56:05 -0400, Flasherly
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:45:29 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty powerful
enough. But I don't know much about the current crop of processors..
as an example, I understand that some have integrated graphics, and
some do not. And if they do, do they need a special MB to utilize
that. And do the MBs taht support integrated graphics have provision
for dual monitors?

Haswell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswel...rchitecture%29

Though there's a lot of them (up to a 135watt consumer in 22micron
Extreme editions). Entrywise it would be a dualcore with known (not
proven, though when are they indefinitely for) overclocking leeway.

I wouldn't as much say specialized MB for certifiable dual monitor
operation, as apt to be buried if it all in documentation features or
an occasional review that surfaces to have found out the hard way.

Guesstimating I'd say, yes, duals supported, practically I'd say cross
that bridge upon encountering it. You're not talking about multiples
of PCI, so you're set there -- all MB's have a PCI-E for a videoboard
(egads, inconceivably for a slap in the face to the $500-a-card Gaming
Industry if they didn't).

Anyway, I got mine: a $10 PCI-E video board, which I haven't a clue as
to dualmonitor support, (likely would, an ATI board), because it's
never been installed (doesn't really surpass performance of the MB's
chipped Intel vidchip, just adds to the overall system heat, iow).
Serves as a forgotten desktop ornament, somewhere in a pile.

With a focus on practicality, that could be a nice budget build, least
to mention very popular among present reviews and considerations (no
other Intel chip is highlighted in a capacity to overclock, as is the
case with the Haswell). Memorywise, you're shot - 32G is going to
cost. I used to build starting at $500 for a higher end system and as
low as $100-200 for extreme budget builds;- higher end being lower
than it was with things geared to mini-factor, wris****ch MBs and such
nowadays.

Case, PS, storage, cooling, nice Cherry-switched keyboard, Farmer in
the Dell IPS monitors. The sky's the limit ... as Dirty Harry might
say, 'Do you feel like it's your lucky day, punk?'

Thanks, it looks like Haswell is what I want/need.
I'll probably re-use case, PS, keyboard and monitors. Maybe even the
copy of Win 7 that I have on the old system... depends on whether MS
complains when I try to boot up with the new MB. I do have a video
card on the old system, nothing fancy, but since I'm not using much in
the way of graphics, I figured why put that load on the system if I
don't need to. As to memory, I took a look at prices on Newegg, and
I'll probably start with 2 sticks of 8 GB at first on a MB with 4
slots capable of 32 GB total.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:56:05 -0400, Paul wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
I'm about ready for a new build, as my old system is over 5 years old.
I don't keep up with the latest information, so I'm looking for
recommendations..
My usage..
Some Photoshop, some video editing, lots of database work using
Filepro and Access, sometimes several databases open at the same time.
This is all associated with lots of Genealogy work.... retouching old
photos, updating web sites, searching databases, etc. Some of the
databases I use are large, the largest 2.8 GB.
Not much need for fancy graphics, but I need the ability to support at
least 2 monitors.... so I was thinking about on-board graphics instead
of a separate video card. My present system has 16 GB ram, so I'd
probably want to go to 32 GB on a new board. I've been using a SSD for
the operating system and programs so I'd probably do the same on a new
system. I don't need RAID capability, but I usually use 3 rotating
drives. Probably 6 SATA ports like I have now is sufficient. A couple
of USB 3 ports along with several USB 2 ports.

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty powerful
enough. But I don't know much about the current crop of processors..
as an example, I understand that some have integrated graphics, and
some do not. And if they do, do they need a special MB to utilize
that. And do the MBs taht support integrated graphics have provision
for dual monitors?

Any comments and suggestions appreciated.

After having just upgraded a machine here myself,
I'm a little less than impressed with how many activities
the extra cores speed things up. So if you were
expecting miracles, there's not really much to see.
Everything feels about as fast as before.

The things that change, are activities with long run times.
For example, when running 7ZIP on the old machine, I might
manage 3MB/sec when doing maximum 7Z compression. On the
other processor with less cache on it, that one was getting
2MB/sec. With the new processor and motherboard replacing
the lame 2MB/sec setup, the new setup gets 26MB/sec.

That's the reason I bought the new setup. Is knowing that
case would go faster. I compress 1TB backup files to save
space, and so having the compressor run at a reasonable
speed, means finishing a run in one day. Instead of more
than one day.

You could start on http://ark.intel.com/

Start on the 4th generation page for Core i5.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family...ssors#@Desktop

They all have the same internal graphics block (HD 4600).
The pricing is relatively flat, so being a cheapskate
doesn't pay off. You would head out of the i5 table and
find a cheaper table to work in, if the prices bothered you.

The 4690 is 4C/4T (no Hyperthreading), runs all cores flat out
at 3.5GHz, while under light load offers Turbo of 3.9GHz. It's
6MB of cache (whereas an LGA775 9650 would have been 12MB of
cache). Max RAM is four sticks of 8GB each, for 32GB total.
High end RAM would cost $400 for that much (for the stuff
that runs faster than your motherboard can go). So if you
want 32GB of RAM, it might cost more for the RAM than for
the CPU. The CPU costs $224 for a retail boxed one (which
would come with a cooler). The tray version would come
without a cooler, which is why it is cheaper.

http://ark.intel.com/products/80810/...up-to-3_90-GHz

Package is LGA1150, so that's what is needed to select
a motherboard.

It has virtually everything listed in the table, including
VT-x, VT-d, and EPT (for Hyper-V virtual machines in Win8).
So it doesn't seem to be missing anything important. VT-x
is an option for Windows Virtual PC, but perhaps that isn't
manditory any more. Getting VT-x was how I was tricked into
buying my current CPU on this motherboard :-) (Good ole Intel
marketing...)

If you check out the table here, the Z97 chips has six 6Gbit/sec
SATA ports and six USB3 native ports. There are a few LGA1150 boards
that include extra SATA ports by adding an extra chip. So you can
find a few boards with more than six.

I picked out this board, because it illustrates a lot of
different features.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157500

ASRock Z97 Extreme6

DVI-I
HDMI
DisplayPort

10 SATA ports

Notice that while the motherboard+CPU does graphics, no
two of the connectors use the same standard. You can
convert DisplayPort to other standards, but some
translation cases use passive electronics, other
use Active electronics. Because of this trend
to "never twice the same", it's hard for a person
owning two cheap monitors with identical connectors,
to get what they want. Some (but not all) DisplayPort
adapters can cost as much as a cheap video card.

Paul

Interesting about the "no two connectors the same". I looked at a few
boards, and that seems to be the case on all of them. OTOH, on my old
system, the two monitors I have are HDMI input, whereas the video card
I have has two DVI outputs, so I'm simply using a cable that has DVI
connector to the video card and HDMI to the monitor. If there's any
problem with that , I haven't noticed it. so I figured I'd just use
one of those cables on the DVI out, and a simple HDMI-HDMI cable on
the HDMI out. I'll try to stay away from DisplayPort.

I haven't yet, but I'll take a look at that ASRock board.

On 9/17/2014 9:42 PM, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:56:05 -0400, Paul wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
I'm about ready for a new build, as my old system is over 5 years old.
I don't keep up with the latest information, so I'm looking for
recommendations..
My usage..
Some Photoshop, some video editing, lots of database work using
Filepro and Access, sometimes several databases open at the same time.
This is all associated with lots of Genealogy work.... retouching old
photos, updating web sites, searching databases, etc. Some of the
databases I use are large, the largest 2.8 GB.
Not much need for fancy graphics, but I need the ability to support at
least 2 monitors.... so I was thinking about on-board graphics instead
of a separate video card. My present system has 16 GB ram, so I'd
probably want to go to 32 GB on a new board. I've been using a SSD for
the operating system and programs so I'd probably do the same on a new
system. I don't need RAID capability, but I usually use 3 rotating
drives. Probably 6 SATA ports like I have now is sufficient. A couple
of USB 3 ports along with several USB 2 ports.

I was thinking that an Intel i5 processor would be plenty powerful
enough. But I don't know much about the current crop of processors..
as an example, I understand that some have integrated graphics, and
some do not. And if they do, do they need a special MB to utilize
that. And do the MBs taht support integrated graphics have provision
for dual monitors?

Any comments and suggestions appreciated.

After having just upgraded a machine here myself,
I'm a little less than impressed with how many activities
the extra cores speed things up. So if you were
expecting miracles, there's not really much to see.
Everything feels about as fast as before.

The things that change, are activities with long run times.
For example, when running 7ZIP on the old machine, I might
manage 3MB/sec when doing maximum 7Z compression. On the
other processor with less cache on it, that one was getting
2MB/sec. With the new processor and motherboard replacing
the lame 2MB/sec setup, the new setup gets 26MB/sec.

That's the reason I bought the new setup. Is knowing that
case would go faster. I compress 1TB backup files to save
space, and so having the compressor run at a reasonable
speed, means finishing a run in one day. Instead of more
than one day.

You could start on http://ark.intel.com/

Start on the 4th generation page for Core i5.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family...ssors#@Desktop

They all have the same internal graphics block (HD 4600).
The pricing is relatively flat, so being a cheapskate
doesn't pay off. You would head out of the i5 table and
find a cheaper table to work in, if the prices bothered you.

The 4690 is 4C/4T (no Hyperthreading), runs all cores flat out
at 3.5GHz, while under light load offers Turbo of 3.9GHz. It's
6MB of cache (whereas an LGA775 9650 would have been 12MB of
cache). Max RAM is four sticks of 8GB each, for 32GB total.
High end RAM would cost $400 for that much (for the stuff
that runs faster than your motherboard can go). So if you
want 32GB of RAM, it might cost more for the RAM than for
the CPU. The CPU costs $224 for a retail boxed one (which
would come with a cooler). The tray version would come
without a cooler, which is why it is cheaper.

http://ark.intel.com/products/80810/...up-to-3_90-GHz

Package is LGA1150, so that's what is needed to select
a motherboard.

It has virtually everything listed in the table, including
VT-x, VT-d, and EPT (for Hyper-V virtual machines in Win8).
So it doesn't seem to be missing anything important. VT-x
is an option for Windows Virtual PC, but perhaps that isn't
manditory any more. Getting VT-x was how I was tricked into
buying my current CPU on this motherboard :-) (Good ole Intel
marketing...)

If you check out the table here, the Z97 chips has six 6Gbit/sec
SATA ports and six USB3 native ports. There are a few LGA1150 boards
that include extra SATA ports by adding an extra chip. So you can
find a few boards with more than six.

I picked out this board, because it illustrates a lot of
different features.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157500

ASRock Z97 Extreme6

DVI-I
HDMI
DisplayPort

10 SATA ports

Notice that while the motherboard+CPU does graphics, no
two of the connectors use the same standard. You can
convert DisplayPort to other standards, but some
translation cases use passive electronics, other
use Active electronics. Because of this trend
to "never twice the same", it's hard for a person
owning two cheap monitors with identical connectors,
to get what they want. Some (but not all) DisplayPort
adapters can cost as much as a cheap video card.

Paul

Interesting about the "no two connectors the same". I looked at a few
boards, and that seems to be the case on all of them. OTOH, on my old
system, the two monitors I have are HDMI input, whereas the video card
I have has two DVI outputs, so I'm simply using a cable that has DVI
connector to the video card and HDMI to the monitor. If there's any
problem with that , I haven't noticed it. so I figured I'd just use
one of those cables on the DVI out, and a simple HDMI-HDMI cable on
the HDMI out. I'll try to stay away from DisplayPort.

I haven't yet, but I'll take a look at that ASRock board.

My new Gigabyte Z97X-UD5H supports 3 monitors without adding a
graphics card and with the 4 Gig i7-4790K Haswell Quad with 32 Gigs of
Crucial everything I use runs faster. Rendering video and
Solidworks/SolidCam has never been better.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7964/g...7x-ud5h-review

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages...-review,1.html

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/blt4k8g3d1608et3lx0

These are nice also:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8535/m...sd-for-oemssis

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:25:24 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

Thanks, it looks like Haswell is what I want/need.
I'll probably re-use case, PS, keyboard and monitors. Maybe even the
copy of Win 7 that I have on the old system... depends on whether MS
complains when I try to boot up with the new MB. I do have a video
card on the old system, nothing fancy, but since I'm not using much in
the way of graphics, I figured why put that load on the system if I
don't need to. As to memory, I took a look at prices on Newegg, and
I'll probably start with 2 sticks of 8 GB at first on a MB with 4
slots capable of 32 GB total.

Use the Intel chipset support nomenclature for the Haswell. (It's on
wiki under Haswell.) Do a search for MB reviews with that chipset
revision as a filter - Tom's Hardware, AnandTech, should provide some
good initial indications/impressions among better/reputable MB brands.

Once you plug another video board into a slot, you have to turn off
(from the BIOS) all that good stuff included on the MB. Including
any/all newer CPU's video support and associative architecture. Dunno.
Never owned any of that newer stuff, myself, just with both my
onboard videochipped Gigabyte MBs - once I do turn off its video, I
have to sometimes reset the BIOS after deciding not to use whatever I
had stuck in a slot.

Never tried a clone of W7 on a new build, either, just a ton of
machines I've moved XP between (and one fresh XP SP3 for a machine not
requiring a high degree of software tweaking).

Know what I'd do with not 8G, but 16 or 32G: A developer's platform
for running multiple instances of dissimilar operating systems through
virtual instances provided as platform extensions. Perhaps a tad
orgiastic at this juncture for someone, such as myself, used to buying
in 2G singlestick increments.