Windows 10: Is the Nvidia 1080 Compatible with My PC Parts?

I want to know if my parts are compatible with the Nvidia 1080 before I decide to buy it. Let me know guys!!

Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core, GeForce GTX 1080 8GB - Lighter Rig w/ New MSI Mobo - s Saved Part List - PCPartPicker

:)

 

NVIDIA Driver Installation on Windows 10 Pro - "Driver not compatible with this Version of Windows"

I had to reinstall Windows 10 Pro on a new system configured with the GTX 1080 video card. After hours of trying to install the drivers, a continue to get the message "NVIDIA driver not compatible with this version of Windows". Can anyone help?

 

Windows 10 is not compatible with my NVIDIA monitor

Windows 10 is not compatible with my NVIVIA monitor. When I download an update to the monitor it tells me the hardware doesn't support it. Can you help me?

 

Looks OK.

The graphics card may overhang the SATA ports. That wouldn't prevent you from using them, although it may be easier to remove the card when you need to access them. (Shouldn't need to do that often.)

This assumes that the PC case you choose can take the length of the graphics card.

Do you have any particular reason for choosing micro ATX? For example, the motherboard is limited to two DIMM slots. That's not a serious limit for most people, as you could use up to 32 GB of RAM (2 X16).

Speaking of RAM, are you sure that you don't want dual channel? It may not matter outside of synthetic benchmarks, but I'd go for it myself.

 

Hi bobkn. Yes, to answer your question, the reason why I chose this mobo is cuz it happens to be the lowest in price I can get for its features, like, USB 3.1 and HDMI port.

The case I got for it is Cooler Master HAF 912 which is big enough for it.

As for dual channel, all I'm interested in is gaming. I think dual channel is geared more for benchmarking in which case I wouldn't notice much difference in performance.

If you have another mobo in mind for me, let me know please. But remember that I'm on a budget. Thanks.

 

DDR4 does make better use of dual channel or even quad channel than DDR3 did if system supports it, nothing earth shaking but reports show some improvements.

 

Somehow the idea of worrying about a few dollars in a system that is intended to house a GTX 1080 ($600 and up) strikes me as incongruous, but it's your money.

Using the power search feature at my favorite online retailer:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ch=1&OEMMark=N

the least expensive full ATX card is $85US (+ $2 S&H), although there's a $5 rebate on it. I might prefer this one:

ASUS Z170-E LGA 1151 Intel Z170 HDMI SATA 6Gbs USB 3.1 USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com

(ASUS Z170-E) which is $105 but with a $30 rebate at the moment.

If you're willing to delete the built-in USB 3.1, you can get micro ATX boards for about $50.

 

With all due respect, if the cheaper mobo I posted would have no issue with the 1080 whats the difference between it and the one you suggested? I don't get it.

Looks good but its a K board. I won't be OCing. So maybe theres a cheaper non-K available? If not then I'll consider getting this as long as there are no sound issues.

I'm confused by your answer. Again with all due respect why would you suggest this mobo with the same form factor as the micro ATX I initially posted when you complained about it?

Just out of respect, I appreciate your answers. I just need clarification about them just to ensure that we're on the same page. So please don't think I'm dissing you. Thanks!

 

If you are not shooting for specialty of "Gaming" features which are mostly characterized by overclocking features with robust VRM section and multiple PCIe v3.0 ports with full x16 support for all of them, than any bloody socket 1151 MB would do it. Even ones with DDR3 support. They will all be compatible with1080 GPUs. Only other question is quality and durability of cheap ones. You get what you pay for still counts just as ever.

 

Ahh, I understand now. Quality and long-term durability are factors to consider then. I'll take another look at the mobo that was suggested before.

I was informed that MSI boards do a slightly better job than Asus and gigabyte. What do you think and which brand do you recommend?

 

I'm partial to Gigabyte with Asus close second, Acer was considered to be "Baby ASUS" because they were making cheaper Asus boards and components but since then they are separate entities. With MSI I had bad experience but that was years ago, they got better in mean time. At one time, couple years ago I collected all MBs and bunch of other stuff I changed for others during few years and sold them for recycling (there is a lot of precious metals in them) and sold the lot for over 300 Euro. From 100 or so MBs 80 something were MSI. Mind you, those are just my experiences and things may have changed since than.

 

1) Either would work. If you're sure that you can live with the limits of a micro ATX board, run with it. (Those limits are probably completely irrelevant to you.)

2) The first link is sorted by price. I've used mostly Asus boards in the past, but my current main system uses Asrock.

3) I mentioned it only because it could save you a few bucks over the board you chose. Do you really want USB 3.1? It won't help you with USB 3.0 and older devices. (Future proofing? Seems inconsistent with micro ATX, if only because of its limited number of slots for add-in cards.)

If you think I'm being inconsistent, it's because I'm trying to suggest a variety of alternatives. I can't (or won't) point you at a single board and say it's the one you must use. My specific knowledge is hopelessly out of date: my latest build is from late 2014 (I7-5930k, X99 chipset).

I can't recommend a specific brand. ECS and Biostar are budget makers, but that isn't the same as making crap. If you read the customer reviews at Newegg, you'll find 1 star reviews for a lot of expensive boards.

 

Hi bobkm. I now understand your concern. I thank you for it. Now, ever since you suggested the Asus mobo I've been reconsidering the mobo I'm thinking of getting. That said, it now comes down to these 2 mobos.

I know you already gave your suggestion. But I want to give you additional info to help you help me make a better decision.

1) I don't want to do Sli or Xfire.
2) I want my desktop for gaming but will buy an Nvidia 1080 in the future, just don't know when.
3) I'm on a budget.
4) I don't need to OC - unless that can future-proof the mobo.

Also, the mobo you suggest can OC ram. And its got other features I'm sure the other mobo lacks. If you think this Asus is still a better option for me then I'll buy it. I just hope the audio on it is very good.

Please let me know.. I'm going to make a decision as soon as you reply. Thanks.

ASUS Z170-E LGA 1151 Intel Z170 HDMI SATA 6Gbs USB 3.1 USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com

MSI H110M Gaming LGA 1151 Intel H110 HDMI SATA 6Gbs USB 3.1 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com

------- EDIT -------
I finished reading all the reviews of the Asus mobo you suggested. There are complaints about the long boot times. This is a red flag for me. Just letting you know.

 

The two boards use the same Realtek audio chip. That doesn't mean that the sound on both boards would be identical: different board layouts can give different amounts of noise from the digital signals, the DACs may be different, etc. I'd expect the differences to be trivial, though.

I wouldn't worry about future proofing. The ability to use faster RAM than Intel specifies for the CPU is nice, but it's probably of little use in practice. If a future CPU needed changes, that would probably be supported by a BIOS update by the board maker anyway.

Overclocking is also of little use to you. Maybe a good overclocking board would be made with more robust components, making it more reliable for ordinary use. At a higher cost, possibly. (My late mother always said "You get what you pay for." I often added "If you're lucky.")

You wouldn't buy the Asus board if it took another 10-20 seconds to boot than the MSI one? That would be a minor factor in my choice. I wonder whether the reviewer compared similar settings. My Asrock board has 3 boot settings in UEFI: normal, fast, and ultra fast. I haven't used ultra fast much because it may prevent the PC from seeing hotkey inputs during POST. (If something screws up, you'd have to clear the CMOS to allow you to get into UEFI settings.)

I'd almost suggest buying a commercial PC (Dell, HP, etc.) if you wish to save money. The main problem with that is that commercial PCs tend to come with a PSU that is just adequate for the components they ship with. Having to replace the PSU to add a GTX 1080 would hurt the cost effectiveness of the purchase.

 

Actually, commercial PCs are more expensive than my custom build. I checked. So I'll be buying a custom build.

It looks like you're suggesting that I go with the mobo I originally posted. I really wanted to buy the mobo you suggested though. Its just that 20 - 30 sec boot time just kills it for me. Its the ONLY thing preventing me from buying it.

I don't want to end up buying the mobo I posted initially then have your words haunt me in the back of my head if I can't get the Nvidia 1080 to fit on it, although the case has enough room for it.