help me decide between a new ATX motherboard or a better PSU

[Zerileous]

I'm not totally convinced it's not the PSU. Maybe I'm doing this incorrectly, but when I add the 2060 to the outervision calculator, I input the GPU clocks from the AIB spec, not the default "outervision" clocks. Should we also be using the boost clock for the CPU? Using the AIB clocks gets me to 424W without over-voting, adding the boost clock for CPU gets me 440W Then he overclocks the GPU further....
I did all this before recommending he gets a new PSU, guess I should have shared my rationale.

The TT webpage doesn't even list the Wattage for each rail under it's "specifications" tab, but if I zoom in on the picture of the label, the 12V rail looks suspiciously like a 450W. OP can confirm this.

Even if this didn't cause his BSOD, it seems to me like the power supply is insufficient for this graphics card at stock AIB OC, much less further OC. I have no real world experience with power supplies shutting down because their ratings are exceeded, but I could imagine poor quality of power alone, near the limits of spec, causing enough problems for a BSOD. But that's just what I was imagining when I was thinking about this scenario.

 

[wingman99]

My overclocked i5 8600k to 5.0GHz and RTX 2070 ultra only pulls 345 watts from the wall in BFV. He should not be having a power supply problem with 500 watts.

 

[trents]

raident, you should invest in something like this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/USA-Plug-i...195502?hash=item54444db26e:g:6JsAAOSwiLdWCgTc

That way, you can no for sure how much the whole system is drawing from the wall plug. Are you on 220v/50 cycles international standard power? If so, make sure you get one that can switch between USA standard and international.

 

[Zerileous]

Fair enough, I may well have broken the calculator. According to TPU this is a 160W card and according to Intel the i5 8400 is a 65W CPU. Even with overclocking the GPU and Intel using base clocks instead of boost for TDP rating, I don't see those numbers doubling.

 

[trents]

I have not had much experience with overclocking GPUs at all but I do know that overclocking some CPUs can just about double power draw. I'm thinking of the AMD FX 8 core CPUs. Those things could draw 250 plus watts overclocked while being rated for 125 watts TDP. And modern GPUs have many, many processing units.

OP's current Thermaltake unit has a single 12v+ rail rated at 35 amps and 420 watts.

 

[Zerileous]

Lets return to his other concern. I'm not sure, but does the socket to PCIe card spacing differ between uATX and ATX boards? What about socket to DIMMs? I usually imagine uATX boards simply cutting off the bottom portion of PCIe slots, and maybe some DIMMS off the side, not cramping them closer to the socket. I believe mini ITX does this, to some extent but not micro.

If this is the case should he focus on a new cooler (liquid) and or a new PSU vs a new motherboard?

 

[trents]

Lets return to his other concern. I'm not sure, but does the socket to PCIe card spacing differ between uATX and ATX boards? What about socket to DIMMs? I usually imagine uATX boards simply cutting off the bottom portion of PCIe slots, and maybe some DIMMS off the side, not cramping them closer to the socket. I believe mini ITX does this, to some extent but not micro.

If this is the case should he focus on a new cooler (liquid) and or a new PSU vs a new motherboard?

I wonder about that space differential as well. I wonder if OP was thinking of using one the lower PCI-e slots that a full size ATX board would have? I also suggested an AIO water cooler but I think it's something he feels he can't afford right now, especially after buying a new PSU. He was torn between a new board and a new PSU.

 

[Bill_Bright]

raident, you should invest in something like this

I note most of the better UPS have a nice LCD display and/or monitoring program that report loads and power consumption too.

I'm not totally convinced it's not the PSU.

Which is why you need to swap in another - especially before spending money on something you might not need.

Maybe I'm doing this incorrectly, but when I add the 2060 to the outervision calculator, I input the GPU clocks from the AIB spec, not the default "outervision" clocks. Should we also be using the boost clock for the CPU? Using the AIB clocks gets me to 424W without over-voting, adding the boost clock for CPU gets me 440W Then he overclocks the GPU further....

You are overthinking this. The difference between 424W and 440W is insignificant. While the outervision eXtreme PSU calculator is, by far, the best out there, they still can only estimate your needs. And understand they all pad the results because the last thing they want to do is recommend a PSU that is underpowered for your system.

That said, the eXtreme PSU calculator is the most conservative (pads the least amount) simply because it is so extensive and flexible. I am not aware of any other that lets you change a 120mm fan to a 140mm, for example.

If you want to buy something, buy that 650W PSU. That will put your mind at rest over the TT 500W you have now, and then you will not need to worry about a new PSU when ready to upgrade your motherboard.

 

[Zerileous]

You are overthinking this. The difference between 424W and 440W is insignificant. While the outervision eXtreme PSU calculator is, by far, the best out there, they still can only estimate your needs. And understand they all pad the results because the last thing they want to do is recommend a PSU that is underpowered for your system.

To clarify, the 424 W reflects the increase from the 374 W load that you quoted using stock clocks when using the AIB clocks for the GPU. The 424W to 440W reflects the increase from using the CPU base clock to CPU turbo clock. I'm not sure I would call 374W to 440W insignificant.

That said I would agree that this calculator is only useful to a point. I also agree that I jumped the gun in assuming the BSOD / other problems. was caused by his PSU. However, I do not agree that a budget 500W unit is adequate to overclock the OPs build. A high quality unit, sure, but budget units are known for claiming wattage that they cannot sustain. I do think the best option if available would be to swap with another PSU, provided it is at least 500W and high quality.

I'm not trying to bring this topic off track of beat a dead horse. My personal opinion is that the OP shouldn't replace his current PSU for another budget unit, such as the CX650W or the FSP. However when funds are available to purchase a high quality unit like the Focus +, I think that would be an excellent upgrade. And in the mean time not worry too much about obtaining high overclock on the GPU. But that's my 0.02 cents on the matter.

 

[trents]

Zerileous,

After doing some thinking and investigating, the real issue here with regard to the spacing between the CPU socket and the PCI-e slot is whether or not there is PCI-e short slot between the socket and the 16x PCI-e slot. I have a mATX motherboard on hand that has plenty of room between the socket and the 16x PCI-e slot because there is a short PCI-e slot (2x?) between the two. OP's mATX board has the 16x PCI-e slot as the first one, closest to the CPU socket.

 

[Zerileous]

So I wanted to compare things to my motherboard, to have a frame of reference. What I noticed is that on AMD boards, the socket to PCIe slot distance is usually longer, due to the socket orientation. Hence why some Intel boards will use the first PCIe as a short slot. I did not notice any difference in distance between the socket and first PCIe slot (regardless of weather its long or short) between Intel ATX and mATX boards. miniITX boards appear to have increased distance from the socket to PCIe, due to the chipset being placed between the two. I did not notice any appreciable difference in distance between socket and first DIMM, however it's worth noting that in the most common configuration (Dual channel 2 DIMM), motherboards with 4 DIMMs place the sticks in slots 2 and 4, effectively increasing the spacing by one DIMM slot.

My methodology for this was not particularly scientific. I went to videocardz.com which has a lot of pictures of motherboards taken straight on with likely similar camera settings. Copied and pasted these into paint, and lined up the holes. Then moved a line shape around to compare spacing.

This all confirms what Trents indicated, if the OP wants to upgrade the motherboard due to spacing, he should pick one with a short PCIe slot above the long one. Since he has an ATX case, then ATX or mATX are both options, so he should get whichever one has the other features he desires at the budget available. Unfortunately there is no upgrade path to the 9 series CPUs for an 8 series board, so this makes me question if an upgrade is worthwhile given the OP has a non overclockable CPU. True there are a lot of great Kaby Lake CPUs that the OP could overclock in the future with a motherboard upgrade, so it's still worth considering. From a budget perspective, I'm not sure that a new motherboard with the short slot on top + a new air cooler is less expensive than a liquid cooler.

 

[Bill_Bright]

What I noticed is that on AMD boards, the socket to PCIe slot distance is usually longer, due to the socket orientation.

Unless I am not following you correctly (quite possible) I'm not certain that is a characteristic of AMD boards vs Intel boards. But rather with the specific boards you looked at.

I say this because if it were common, it seems cases would be manufactured specifically for AMDs and specifically for Intels since many cases provide access to the back of the motherboard to mount coolers that use back-plates.

I note too the ATX Form Factor standard dictates where case standoffs and motherboard mounting holes must be, if present. I say "if present" because the standard does not state there must be mounting holes, but it does state if there are mounting holes, they can only be in specific locations. This is what allows us to mount any ATX compliant motherboard in any ATX compliant case and be assured the mounting holes line up - including those surrounding the CPUs that support heavy heatsinks. This is for µATX boards and cases too.

As for everything fitting, I have not found the problem to be whether it is an AMD or Intel platform. But rather things like length of the video card, height of the RAM sticks, size of the aftermarket cooler, and in smaller cases, the depth for case.

 

[trents]

So I wanted to compare things to my motherboard, to have a frame of reference. What I noticed is that on AMD boards, the socket to PCIe slot distance is usually longer, due to the socket orientation. Hence why some Intel boards will use the first PCIe as a short slot. I did not notice any difference in distance between the socket and first PCIe slot (regardless of weather its long or short) between Intel ATX and mATX boards. miniITX boards appear to have increased distance from the socket to PCIe, due to the chipset being placed between the two. I did not notice any appreciable difference in distance between socket and first DIMM, however it's worth noting that in the most common configuration (Dual channel 2 DIMM), motherboards with 4 DIMMs place the sticks in slots 2 and 4, effectively increasing the spacing by one DIMM slot.

My methodology for this was not particularly scientific. I went to videocardz.com which has a lot of pictures of motherboards taken straight on with likely similar camera settings. Copied and pasted these into paint, and lined up the holes. Then moved a line shape around to compare spacing.

This all confirms what Trents indicated, if the OP wants to upgrade the motherboard due to spacing, he should pick one with a short PCIe slot above the long one. Since he has an ATX case, then ATX or mATX are both options, so he should get whichever one has the other features he desires at the budget available. Unfortunately there is no upgrade path to the 9 series CPUs for an 8 series board, so this makes me question if an upgrade is worthwhile given the OP has a non overclockable CPU. True there are a lot of great Kaby Lake CPUs that the OP could overclock in the future with a motherboard upgrade, so it's still worth considering. From a budget perspective, I'm not sure that a new motherboard with the short slot on top + a new air cooler is less expensive than a liquid cooler.

Did you mean to say, "Coffee Lake"?

 

[Zerileous]

Bill, I think the difference is small enough, and the space in the motherboard try large enough, that socket specific cases are not necessary. I simply compared the distance from the edge of the socket to the edge of the PCIe slot. If I had to guess, I would imagine that the distance from the center of the socket to the PCIe slot might be similar. You are correct that this isn't absolutely standardized and I'm sure some variance exists. I used a small sample size and made some rough comparisons, YMMV. I did another comparison which may be more relevant and that is CPU cooler mounting holes to PCIe slot. This time it seemed AMD were closer, due to their rectangular back plates vs Intel's square ones. While this distance might not be a huge concern for many applications, it is obviously enough of one for motherboard manufacturers to move the x16 PCIe slot down one space. In terms of aftermarket coolers, this is overclockers.com, it kind of comes with the territory.

Trents, yep.

 

[trents]

I have an ASRock socket 1151 mATX motherboard that has the short slot above the main PCI-e slot so I don't think the determining factor there is whether or not it's and AMD socket board or an Intel socket board.

 

[Zerileous]

yep, found an AM4 board with a short slot above the x16.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I am going to assume (and hope assuming does not get me into trouble again), unless you correct me otherwise when you guys say "short slot" you mean a PCIe x 1 slot - like the orange one here. And if so, as noted, it's place up top has nothing to do with whether the board is AMD or Intel, but also it does not matter if µATX or full ATX either. As seen by that image, that is a full ATX board. The slot is there because there is real estate there to put a smaller PCIe slot that does not need access to a corresponding slot in the back of the case - the location of which is dictated by the ATX Form Factor standard.

Not sure what you would put in there, however. You could put a SSD (perhaps with a M.2 to PCIe adapter) but the slow speed of the x1 slot would be a bottleneck. I guess one of these to add additional USB 3.0 support - though it would still be a "theoretical" bottleneck.

 

[trents]

Yes, by "short slot" we meant a 1x PCI-e. They do come in handy for adding USB ports, an extra LAN port or a WIFI adapter.

 

[Bill_Bright]

an extra LAN port or a WIFI adapter.

Well, in the case of that top x1 slot, if no access to the rear of the case, not sure about LAN/Ethernet. Wifi, yes, but I have had less than stellar performance with wifi adapters that are fully contained inside metal boxes. So I would recommend only those that again, have access to a case slot so the antenna can be on the outside of the case, like this.

 

[trents]

Not sure what you mean by "no access to the rear of the case". All the boards I have with short slots, the short slots line up with the case I/O slot covers and the front end of the 1x slots line up with the long PCI-e slots. They should afford external access. Internal PCI-e ad on adapter cards generally come with external antennas. Some ITX and proprietry SFF motherboards do have mini cards that have an internal only socket (like m.2) with an internal antenna. Some of my client's computers are like that. I've not seen a problem with that kind of setup, however.