|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
|
|
Ok here is a question I never got around to asking what do I really need to pay to get a gaming pc that will hopfully be realevent in 4 years or is it possible or should I go for upgradablity.
|
Well, my prediction is that in 4 years, our gaming PCs will be built into our skulls. Your crystal ball working any better?
Hard to know what's going to happen in 4 years. Tech, upgrade path, or games. Just don't know.
|
well how about a estimated price to get a computer that wont be an over sized overpriced calculater in a couple days (obvious overaxageration in case you cant tell)
|
Well, like people keep telling you, it depends.
Try answering the list of questions in the OP. Real answers, and the wordier you get, the better.
|
If you want to run the latest games on reasonably high settings than you are going to have upgrade in four years. And no there is no such thing as going for upgradability because I can guarantee you that Skylake and Skymont will not be on LGA1155 lolol.
|
On September 19 2011 10:13 rv238 wrote:
Ok here is a question I never got around to asking what do I really need to pay to get a gaming pc that will hopfully be realevent in 4 years or is it possible or should I go for upgradablity.
Well, I'd expect a tri-sli 6970 setup with overclocked 2600k and 32gb of ram and a sufficient motherboard to be enough, so you'd be looking at a ~2000 dollar cost.
Then again that setup barely runs Crysis at 2600x1600 max settings at 60 fps and that game was made in 2007.
Btw I really believe you will still be able to run most 2015 games on lowest settings even with like, a 6950.
HEY I figured out the benefit to AMD systems over intel! They have many processors in the 100 dollar range that are heavily overclockable!
|
On September 19 2011 10:32 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 10:13 rv238 wrote:
Ok here is a question I never got around to asking what do I really need to pay to get a gaming pc that will hopfully be realevent in 4 years or is it possible or should I go for upgradablity. Well, I'd expect a tri-sli 6970 setup with overclocked 2600k and 32gb of ram and a sufficient motherboard to be enough, so you'd be looking at a ~2000 dollar cost. Then again that setup barely runs Crysis at 2600x1600 max settings at 60 fps and that game was made in 2007. Btw I really believe you will still be able to run most 2015 games on lowest settings even with like, a 6950.
Depends on the next console generation. Within 6-8 months of that, game requirements will skyrocket.
|
That requires an aftermarket heatsink and a decent motherboard? And once overclocked, they can still barely compete with Sandybridge? Shrug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5930 Posts
i3 2100 isn't outperformed by the 3.5Ghz Phenom II in gaming. In basically every single game, the AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE (that's the 3.5Ghz one) gets slugged to death by the i3 2100 while consuming a significantly less amount of power. Even the AMD Phenom II X4 980 BE (3.7Ghz) is still quite a bit behind the i3 2100...you're going to have to hit 4Ghz to actually beat the i3 2100 in gaming and I'm certain most motherboards can't handle that.
In rendering, the i3 2100 loses because 2 cores + 2 threads can't beat 4 real cores but who are we kidding. If you have to do serious rendering for a living, I'd hope you'd be able to stretch the budget for a really, really good $200 Intel processor.
Bulldozer is clocked too low to make up for the huge IPC deficit. If the stock speeds were somewhere around 4Ghz and the turbo hit something close to 5Ghz, I might give them a chance and I might even look at them for a renderputer but the stock speeds are pretty much the same as Sandy Bridge. In the desktop market, I think AMD is pretty much gone. They're got some relevance with their new mobile chips, in HPC computing because of the sheer number of cores they provide, and ATi. But desktop computing is where single threaded performance is king and they're like 20-30% behind Intel in terms of IPC.
|
Core i3-540 can be had for like $105 and can be overclocked to almost 4.0 GHz on stock cooling and a pretty low-end motherboard (where it's faster than say a i3-2100). The Clarkdale Pentium should be under $100, if you really want to go there.
|
On September 19 2011 10:32 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 10:13 rv238 wrote:
Ok here is a question I never got around to asking what do I really need to pay to get a gaming pc that will hopfully be realevent in 4 years or is it possible or should I go for upgradablity. Well, I'd expect a tri-sli 6970 setup with overclocked 2600k and 32gb of ram and a sufficient motherboard to be enough, so you'd be looking at a ~2000 dollar cost. Then again that setup barely runs Crysis at 2600x1600 max settings at 60 fps and that game was made in 2007. Btw I really believe you will still be able to run most 2015 games on lowest settings even with like, a 6950. HEY I figured out the benefit to AMD systems over intel! They have many processors in the 100 dollar range that are heavily overclockable!
SC2 was more or less the first game that completely took a big dump on CPUs. Other games were more GPU limited. I don't have insight on the requirements of future games but as of right now SB seems like something that will hold its own for a while and stay somewhat relevant even after a couple or so years.
Getting a quad core sandybridge and upgrading the graphics card once needed sounds like the most reasonable choice to me instead of overkilling on the GPU now.
Phenom vs i3 SB. If you can snipe a cheap cooler at <15$ and a 70$ish mobo its not that bad. I don't think any other game other than SC2 is this restrictive on CPU power on 2 cores. For more general use though I think its great. It does take a bit more work and for a SC2 focused forum it doesn't make sense to recommend it at all. I'm taking the angle I can see albeit its a very very small one that really is negligible lol. The intel stock cooler is a travesty though...
|
On September 19 2011 10:57 Womwomwom wrote:
i3 2100 isn't outperformed by the 3.5Ghz Phenom II in gaming. In basically every single game, the AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE (that's the 3.5Ghz one) gets slugged to death by the i3 2100 while consuming a significantly less amount of power.
In rendering, the i3 2100 loses because 2 cores + 2 threads can't beat 4 real cores but who are we kidding. If you have to do serious rendering for a living, I'd hope you'd be able to stretch the budget for a really, really good $200 Intel processor.
Bulldozer is clocked too low to make up for the huge IPC deficit. If the stock speeds were somewhere around 4Ghz and the turbo hit something close to 5Ghz, I might give them a chance and I might even look at them for a renderputer but the stock speeds are pretty much the same as Sandy Bridge. In the desktop market, I think AMD is pretty much gone. They're got some relevance with their new mobile chips, in HPC computing because of the sheer number of cores they provide, and ATi. But desktop computing is where single threaded performance is king and they're like 20-30% behind Intel in terms of IPC.
In gaming... both an overclocked phenom and i3 are overkill and you're not bottlenecked by them, ESPECIALLY in a budget 500-600 dollar setup, in which case the extre cores should be more helpful.
With that said, the fact that sandybridge uses half the power makes it win anyway. Dammit, I really try to see the good points in AMD.
|
On September 19 2011 11:04 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 10:57 Womwomwom wrote:
i3 2100 isn't outperformed by the 3.5Ghz Phenom II in gaming. In basically every single game, the AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE (that's the 3.5Ghz one) gets slugged to death by the i3 2100 while consuming a significantly less amount of power.
In rendering, the i3 2100 loses because 2 cores + 2 threads can't beat 4 real cores but who are we kidding. If you have to do serious rendering for a living, I'd hope you'd be able to stretch the budget for a really, really good $200 Intel processor.
Bulldozer is clocked too low to make up for the huge IPC deficit. If the stock speeds were somewhere around 4Ghz and the turbo hit something close to 5Ghz, I might give them a chance and I might even look at them for a renderputer but the stock speeds are pretty much the same as Sandy Bridge. In the desktop market, I think AMD is pretty much gone. They're got some relevance with their new mobile chips, in HPC computing because of the sheer number of cores they provide, and ATi. But desktop computing is where single threaded performance is king and they're like 20-30% behind Intel in terms of IPC. In gaming... both an overclocked phenom and i3 are overkill and you're not bottlenecked by them, ESPECIALLY in a budget 500-600 dollar setup, in which case the extre cores should be more helpful. With that said, the fact that sandybridge uses half the power makes it win anyway. Dammit, I really try to see the good points in AMD.
See, you're missing something crucial. None of us WANT Intel to dominate like this. We're merely looking at the facts as they exist. If AMD was competitive, prices would be better.
And extra cores don't help the majority of users.
|
On September 19 2011 11:07 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 11:04 Shikyo wrote:On September 19 2011 10:57 Womwomwom wrote:
i3 2100 isn't outperformed by the 3.5Ghz Phenom II in gaming. In basically every single game, the AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE (that's the 3.5Ghz one) gets slugged to death by the i3 2100 while consuming a significantly less amount of power.
In rendering, the i3 2100 loses because 2 cores + 2 threads can't beat 4 real cores but who are we kidding. If you have to do serious rendering for a living, I'd hope you'd be able to stretch the budget for a really, really good $200 Intel processor.
Bulldozer is clocked too low to make up for the huge IPC deficit. If the stock speeds were somewhere around 4Ghz and the turbo hit something close to 5Ghz, I might give them a chance and I might even look at them for a renderputer but the stock speeds are pretty much the same as Sandy Bridge. In the desktop market, I think AMD is pretty much gone. They're got some relevance with their new mobile chips, in HPC computing because of the sheer number of cores they provide, and ATi. But desktop computing is where single threaded performance is king and they're like 20-30% behind Intel in terms of IPC. In gaming... both an overclocked phenom and i3 are overkill and you're not bottlenecked by them, ESPECIALLY in a budget 500-600 dollar setup, in which case the extre cores should be more helpful. With that said, the fact that sandybridge uses half the power makes it win anyway. Dammit, I really try to see the good points in AMD. See, you're missing something crucial. None of us WANT Intel to dominate like this. We're merely looking at the facts as they exist. If AMD was competitive, prices would be better. And extra cores don't help the majority of users.
scratch what I wrote. Best focus point is how bad the intel stock cooler is in comparison to the amd one.
|
5930 Posts
I don't think buying a high end CPU for gaming is overkill. In a few low end console ports, like Fallout 3, the CPU honestly doesn't really matter but there are a lot of games that benefit greatly from good CPUs. Civilization 5, Starcraft 2, all simulators ever made, calculator intensive RPGs, etc. Even some physics intensive games like Just Cause 2 like a nice CPU.
You can easily dial down GPU settings to make a game playable but shifting the CPU quality is not possible since its the backbone of everything that calculates everything. I'm not saying "buy i7 2600ks" because that's stupid. I'm saying you should buy a balanced system that can do everything. Outside of render tests, 2 extra cores is still marginally useful and if you want to game, an Intel processor is still the best bang for you buck.
At the end of the day, building a desktop computer for gaming is really all about getting the best bang for you buck. If it wasn't, I'd be telling people to just buy iMacs so they can enjoy the glorious silence and eye-burning brightness of the IPS-loaded aluminium all-in-one.
|
On September 19 2011 11:09 Bambipwnsu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 11:07 JingleHell wrote:On September 19 2011 11:04 Shikyo wrote:On September 19 2011 10:57 Womwomwom wrote:
i3 2100 isn't outperformed by the 3.5Ghz Phenom II in gaming. In basically every single game, the AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE (that's the 3.5Ghz one) gets slugged to death by the i3 2100 while consuming a significantly less amount of power.
In rendering, the i3 2100 loses because 2 cores + 2 threads can't beat 4 real cores but who are we kidding. If you have to do serious rendering for a living, I'd hope you'd be able to stretch the budget for a really, really good $200 Intel processor.
Bulldozer is clocked too low to make up for the huge IPC deficit. If the stock speeds were somewhere around 4Ghz and the turbo hit something close to 5Ghz, I might give them a chance and I might even look at them for a renderputer but the stock speeds are pretty much the same as Sandy Bridge. In the desktop market, I think AMD is pretty much gone. They're got some relevance with their new mobile chips, in HPC computing because of the sheer number of cores they provide, and ATi. But desktop computing is where single threaded performance is king and they're like 20-30% behind Intel in terms of IPC. In gaming... both an overclocked phenom and i3 are overkill and you're not bottlenecked by them, ESPECIALLY in a budget 500-600 dollar setup, in which case the extre cores should be more helpful. With that said, the fact that sandybridge uses half the power makes it win anyway. Dammit, I really try to see the good points in AMD. See, you're missing something crucial. None of us WANT Intel to dominate like this. We're merely looking at the facts as they exist. If AMD was competitive, prices would be better. And extra cores don't help the majority of users. scratch what I wrote. Best focus point is how bad the intel stock cooler is in comparison to the amd one.
sandybridge could probably run at 40 degrees without any cooling tbh
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
