EPTThanks for any help =)
Simple Questions Simple Answers - Page 166
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Blackhawk13
United States442 Posts
Thanks for any help =) | ||
|
Derpmallow
United States33 Posts
(For reference: http://rma.gigabyte.us/DirectRMA/EndUser_AddRMA.asp The RMA request page.) | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 28 2012 07:52 Blackhawk13 wrote: My brother is building a computer and I'm wondering if he should get one of the new intel processors, and if so, which one (theres like 10 different models). I have a i5-2500k in mine, so whatever the new equivalent of that would be for the new line of ivy bridges (minus the overclocking capability because I don't think he'll OC). And also a motherboard to go with. Normal type budget, strictly for gaming. Thanks for any help =) Well, there is not equivalent to the 2500 as the ivy bridges have much better performance than sandy bridge. If your asking what's the "higher end but not the highest" in terms of the i5 ivy bridges, it's the 3550. But you really should post in the computer build resource thread, making sure to answer all the questions list in the OP. It's very hard to make good hardware reccomendations without that information. | ||
|
Sovano
United States1503 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:19 Sovano wrote: Is the GeForce GT 650M considerably better than the GeForce GT 555M? Depends on what you mean by "considerably" but, yes it is better by a significant margin. Detailed benchmarks can be found here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html -Edit: wrong link! | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:19 TheToast wrote: Well, there is not equivalent to the 2500 as the ivy bridges have much better performance than sandy bridge. If your asking what's the "higher end but not the highest" in terms of the i5 ivy bridges, it's the 3550. Much better performance? I don't see that much difference. On June 29 2012 02:19 Sovano wrote: Is the GeForce GT 650M considerably better than the GeForce GT 555M? Compared to GT 555M 144 shader version (the usual), maybe only 25% faster or so. GT 650M is on 28nm and uses less power though. Compared to GT 555M 96 shader version (used in Lenovo Ideapad models and maybe some others?), it's considerably faster, almost twice as fast. It depends on clock speeds though, which vary by laptop model. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:30 Myrmidon wrote: Much better performance? I don't see that much difference. Well, that's why I said it depends on what you mean by "considerably". When I say significant, I mean measurable not necessarily 'a lot'. Passmark's benchmarks seem to back that up as well: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?gpu=GeForce GT 555M It's hard to compare mobile GPUs "apples to apples" as they are obviously integrated to the system board of a given laptop. Especially in this case as the 555M was generally paired with second gen intels, while the new third gen chips are being paired with the 650. | ||
|
Sovano
United States1503 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:40 Sovano wrote: Actually I was looking into Lenovo Y series, although someone on the forum recommended for me to look at a Kepler-based GPU instead. However, the Lenovo had a better processor (i7-2670QM), but an inferior GPU, GT 555M. Although I wasn't sure if going for a weaker processor (i5-2450M) with a GT 650M instead would be a considerable trade off in terms for gaming. You'd be better off with the i7 and GT 555M. While the 650M is better, it's still pretty close. You'd get a better performance gain by jumping from an i5 to an i7. I still say you're better of going for something like an Asus, but that decision is obviously up to you. | ||
|
Sovano
United States1503 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:42 TheToast wrote: You'd be better off with the i7 and GT 555M. While the 650M is better, it's still pretty close. You'd get a better performance gain by jumping from an i5 to an i7. I still say you're better of going for something like an Asus, but that decision is obviously up to you. Alright thanks. I still have about a month to keep looking around before I have to buy a laptop, so I'll probably look into some Asus laptops right now. I honestly haven't looked at their website yet, so I might as well give that a try. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:48 Sovano wrote: Alright thanks. I still have about a month to keep looking around before I have to buy a laptop, so I'll probably look into some Asus laptops right now. I honestly haven't looked at their website yet, so I might as well give that a try. They don't sell direct, you'd have to take a look at a retailer as well. | ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On June 29 2012 02:42 TheToast wrote: You'd be better off with the i7 and GT 555M. While the 650M is better, it's still pretty close. You'd get a better performance gain by jumping from an i5 to an i7. I still say you're better of going for something like an Asus, but that decision is obviously up to you. Completely disagree. Go for the 650M. It is noticeably faster and will make an actual (and huge) difference in 99% of games, whereas the i7 will rarely show better performance. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html (restrict to 555M and 650M) These Intel CPU's are pretty much never the bottleneck in gaming laptops except in SC2, and even there the i5 2450M is going to be very, very close to the i7 2670QM due to extremely similar/identical 2-core turbo speeds, differing only in extra L3 cache. I have no doubt whatsoever than in those 555M benchmarks the CPU was not a bottleneck. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Usually I'd be much more worried about build quality, keyboard / trackpad / screen usability, battery / heat / noise, and so on, for a laptop. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 29 2012 03:44 Wabbit wrote: Completely disagree. Go for the 650M. It is noticeably faster and will make an actual (and huge) difference in 99% of games, whereas the i7 will rarely show better performance. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html (restrict to 555M and 650M) These Intel CPU's are pretty much never the bottleneck in gaming laptops except in SC2, and even there the i5 2450M is going to be very, very close to the i7 2670QM due to extremely similar/identical 2-core turbo speeds, differing only in extra L3 cache. I have no doubt whatsoever than in those 555M benchmarks the CPU was not a bottleneck. Hmmmm I partially agree. It ovbiously depends on what he's doing. If he's primarily playing SC2 or doing other things like video editing, the i7 would be better. But yes, I suppose you're right if he's just playing games in general the 650M might be a better choice. | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
| ||
|
EdenPLusDucky
571 Posts
| ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
On June 29 2012 17:25 EdenPLusDucky wrote: What's wrong with 30 fps? Your fps is meant to drop in max army battles, no CPU in the world can handle that yet. hm what if I got a better gpu? EDIT: basically I'd like it smooth like pros on streams~ | ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On June 29 2012 17:16 xeo1 wrote: bought a new pc (i5 3570k, z77 board, 8gb ram, corsair cx430, gtx 460).. yet in max army 1v1 battles I drop down to about 30 fps, with all LOW settings. I added the fps cap in variables.txt as well, 30 in menu 60 in game. what could be the problem? oO The problem is the way SC2 is programmed. There is absolutely nothing you can do to change that and a better video card won't change a thing. The only solution is to overclock your CPU. That's why you paid extra for the "K" and Z77 so... start by doing a mild OC (like just increasing the multiplier to 42, disable turbo, leave everything else on auto - especially voltages - it should be stable). That'll increase your minimum FPS by quite a bit. This is all assuming you have some aftermarket cooling, of course. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 30 2012 00:03 Wabbit wrote: The problem is the way SC2 is programmed. There is absolutely nothing you can do to change that and a better video card won't change a thing. The only solution is to overclock your CPU. That's why you paid extra for the "K" and Z77 so... start by doing a mild OC (like just increasing the multiplier to 42, disable turbo, leave everything else on auto - especially voltages - it should be stable). That'll increase your minimum FPS by quite a bit. This is all assuming you have some aftermarket cooling, of course. What? He's got a high end i5 ivy bridge and you don't think that should be able to run SC2 above 30FPS on all Low settings? With everything on low he should be getting stupid high framerates, unless he left something like physics set on high. Also, the ivy bridges have been proving to get pretty hot when overclocked. Without an after market cooler I would not suggest trying this. xeo1, open a new thread. This isn't really a simple question and trying to keep up with answers spread out over 3 pages is going to be annoying as hell. If you can, run something like a 3D mark or a PCmark just to give everyone a baseline idea of what type of performance you're getting out of your hardware. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
| ||
