|
When using this resource, please read the 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. |
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157384
I was considering this board above, since I'm not over clocking anymore I wasn't sure if i wanted to pay for the GIGABYTE GA-Z87X-D3H. I realize the importance of having a quality mobo though, so maybe I just need to shell out regardless--that's my only worry.
|
On January 19 2014 12:18 EMIYA wrote:Interesting. So going for 4670 and not overclocking, would the cooler it comes with be fine? Apparently it also has pre-applied thermal paste as well, but may not compare to the aforementioned arctic MX4?
The Intel cooler is not good, but the CPU will never ever die if it's running at stock settings as far as I know, so there's not really anything to worry about.
Intel chooses very good thermal paste actually, something that's at the top in the few comparisons I've seen. You can just try to beat it by applying it better. You should only buy paste because you want to have it for something else and want to save shipping costs by throwing it into this $1000 shopping cart you have.
That case I linked to should have better results regarding cooling than the Define R4 (without buying extra fans). It's a lot smaller and a little strange, which you might like or hate. I just wanted to promote a small case because I like it better personally, so you might want to ignore this. 
That $145 ATX sized overclocking board you chose, there's not really a comparable mATX sized board below $200 quality wise. That's how it looks on paper when looking at the voltage regulating parts. I don't know if that's actually important for the overclocking results and longevity. When looking at ATX size, the Define R4 is a very good choice. "Arc Midi R2" is a version of the Define case with more air flow for similar price.
In that cart you had, you might want to replace the CM Hyper 212 EVO cooler. You could choose something a little luxurious like the Noctua NH-U14S for $75 on newegg.com. You can skip the $10 for thermal paste as it comes with a syringe of very good paste.
If you skip overclocking but don't keep your savings, instead put it into something else for the PC, I'm pretty convinced you'll get better overall results. You could for example buy an SSD for Windows and programs and some of your games. You could buy a different graphics card. You could buy a better monitor etc. Overclocking is neat for a few special games like SC2. Stupid WoW is apparently still limited by CPU. Trying to reduce the impact streaming or recording has on your game is a good reason to OC.
On January 19 2014 12:49 EMIYA wrote:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157384 I was considering this board above, since I'm not over clocking anymore I wasn't sure if i wanted to pay for the GIGABYTE GA-Z87X-D3H. I realize the importance of having a quality mobo though, so maybe I just need to shell out regardless--that's my only worry.
I really don't know what to choose regarding quality. I feel a board either breaks down early, when it's still new, or it will run forever until you throw it away. That's perhaps the same regardless of price. I'd buy something cheap if it would be my choice, same as what you linked to.
|
Alright, thanks a lot. The case looks a little funky to be honest, but I like the price on it compared to the Fractal R4 I was looking at, and that's the last of what I'm deciding on at the moment really.
|
|
|
I don't really understand the P100. It's got noise dampening foam but then apparently cheaps out on build quality (so... vibrations) and has top unblocked vents to let all the noise out anyway?
me dumb, see below.
Antec now getting with the times and copying other people rather than the opposite
|
Alright, here we go again. Same issue: Friend and teammate brought something up for me yesterday.
I still want to upgrade my PC, particularly my motherboard/CPU and I've been looking around, wanting to overclock. I asked around here and I thought I was good to go. Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement?
|
On January 19 2014 21:02 Thalandros wrote:
Alright, here we go again. Same issue: Friend and teammate brought something up for me yesterday.
I still want to upgrade my PC, particularly my motherboard/CPU and I've been looking around, wanting to overclock. I asked around here and I thought I was good to go. Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement?
inb4 Cryo posts his overclocked FPS charts. I can't be bothered to find it for you right now but SC2 benefits greatly IMO from overclocking
|
On January 19 2014 21:02 Thalandros wrote:
Alright, here we go again. Same issue: Friend and teammate brought something up for me yesterday.
I still want to upgrade my PC, particularly my motherboard/CPU and I've been looking around, wanting to overclock. I asked around here and I thought I was good to go. Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement?
Yes and no. Pretty much everything is going to be playable without overclocking. You can play single-player StarCraft 2 and 1v1 ladder to your heart's content without overclocking and probably never notice a difference. (I wouldn't. Some people would - as there IS an FPS benefit to overclocking.)
There will be a difference around the margins though. If you're one of those people that really wants 45 FPS rather than 30 FPS, then you'll want to overclock. If you're one of those people that plays 4v4s all day, or custom maps with a high CPU requirement/unit count (I think there was a TRON one that was notoriously demanding), then you'll notice a difference.
SC2 is a demanding game, so your friend is wrong that overclocking will get you no benefit. Next to no benefit? Well... that depends on your use pattern and desires, as stated above. You ask if the performance decrease is too little for the benefit, but really that's a question only you can answer. Hopefully what benefits there are is a little clearer now.
Overclocking IS expensive. Its benefits are (in my opinion) quite limited. But if you want those benefits, you can't get them any other way. You have to overclock.
P.S. Your friend is right in that for many games there will be basically no benefit. But SC2 is an odd duck that loves CPU power. There are a few other odd ducks out there. Planetside 2 may also see a small benefit, but probably more in the realm of not dropping down to fairly respectable FPS from very high FPS once in a while.
|
On January 19 2014 15:12 Myrmidon wrote:
I don't really understand the P100. It's got noise dampening foam but then apparently cheaps out on build quality (so... vibrations) and has top unblocked vents to let all the noise out anyway?
I wasn't aware of the build quality issues, but when I looked at a review of it awhile back I was thinking the same as you. I got to wondering if they designed the tower to be sitting on top of a desk - meaning the top vents would actually be above the height of your head and thus less likely to be huge sound problems?
|
On January 19 2014 23:11 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 15:12 Myrmidon wrote:
I don't really understand the P100. It's got noise dampening foam but then apparently cheaps out on build quality (so... vibrations) and has top unblocked vents to let all the noise out anyway? I wasn't aware of the build quality issues, but when I looked at a review of it awhile back I was thinking the same as you. I got to wondering if they designed the tower to be sitting on top of a desk - meaning the top vents would actually be above the height of your head and thus less likely to be huge sound problems?
Hm, it does do the front panel I/O and power on the front rather than on the top.
Actually, on second look they actually do have foam blanking plate covers on the roof that are removable. I totally missed that. Maybe I was also hallucinating the build quality issues. Now that I look around, all I can find is just that the front fan comes preinstalled only with two bolts / screws so it could be wobbly. But maybe that's just a review sample thing? =/
|
On January 19 2014 23:05 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 21:02 Thalandros wrote:
Alright, here we go again. Same issue: Friend and teammate brought something up for me yesterday.
I still want to upgrade my PC, particularly my motherboard/CPU and I've been looking around, wanting to overclock. I asked around here and I thought I was good to go. Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement? Yes and no. Pretty much everything is going to be playable without overclocking. You can play single-player StarCraft 2 and 1v1 ladder to your heart's content without overclocking and probably never notice a difference. (I wouldn't. Some people would - as there IS an FPS benefit to overclocking.) There will be a difference around the margins though. If you're one of those people that really wants 45 FPS rather than 30 FPS, then you'll want to overclock. If you're one of those people that plays 4v4s all day, or custom maps with a high CPU requirement/unit count (I think there was a TRON one that was notoriously demanding), then you'll notice a difference. SC2 is a demanding game, so your friend is wrong that overclocking will get you no benefit. Next to no benefit? Well... that depends on your use pattern and desires, as stated above. You ask if the performance decrease is too little for the benefit, but really that's a question only you can answer. Hopefully what benefits there are is a little clearer now. Overclocking IS expensive. Its benefits are (in my opinion) quite limited. But if you want those benefits, you can't get them any other way. You have to overclock. P.S. Your friend is right in that for many games there will be basically no benefit. But SC2 is an odd duck that loves CPU power. There are a few other odd ducks out there. Planetside 2 may also see a small benefit, but probably more in the realm of not dropping down to fairly respectable FPS from very high FPS once in a while.
Battlefield 4 also takes advantage of overclocking, I think Guild Wars 2 is also another example. Basically, poorly written games take advantage of overclocking. :p
|
On January 20 2014 00:20 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 23:05 MisterFred wrote:On January 19 2014 21:02 Thalandros wrote:
Alright, here we go again. Same issue: Friend and teammate brought something up for me yesterday.
I still want to upgrade my PC, particularly my motherboard/CPU and I've been looking around, wanting to overclock. I asked around here and I thought I was good to go. Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement? Yes and no. Pretty much everything is going to be playable without overclocking. You can play single-player StarCraft 2 and 1v1 ladder to your heart's content without overclocking and probably never notice a difference. (I wouldn't. Some people would - as there IS an FPS benefit to overclocking.) There will be a difference around the margins though. If you're one of those people that really wants 45 FPS rather than 30 FPS, then you'll want to overclock. If you're one of those people that plays 4v4s all day, or custom maps with a high CPU requirement/unit count (I think there was a TRON one that was notoriously demanding), then you'll notice a difference. SC2 is a demanding game, so your friend is wrong that overclocking will get you no benefit. Next to no benefit? Well... that depends on your use pattern and desires, as stated above. You ask if the performance decrease is too little for the benefit, but really that's a question only you can answer. Hopefully what benefits there are is a little clearer now. Overclocking IS expensive. Its benefits are (in my opinion) quite limited. But if you want those benefits, you can't get them any other way. You have to overclock. P.S. Your friend is right in that for many games there will be basically no benefit. But SC2 is an odd duck that loves CPU power. There are a few other odd ducks out there. Planetside 2 may also see a small benefit, but probably more in the realm of not dropping down to fairly respectable FPS from very high FPS once in a while. Battlefield 4 also takes advantage of overclocking, I think Guild Wars 2 is also another example. Basically, poorly written games take advantage of overclocking. :p
Thanks. I have one final question, and obviously this is personal, but just some right directions are already great.
I am currently running an HD Radeon 6970 (comparable to GTX560) and I've been using this badass for 3 years now. What do you guys think of saving the money (~€70) and hassle, get a locked i5 4670, then save that money up for a better graphics card soon? The same friend that I spoke to also told me, in the same conversation, that games are moving to be more GFX-card reliable, and I completely believe that looking at Crysis 3, Skyrim, etc. So I guess my question is more: Is it worth saving the extra money, then spending that on a better graphics card later on?
|
United Kingdom20343 Posts
Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement?
sc2 and planetside are the two games i would say that overclocking is a big focus for on a midrange build. They both starve to death in intense situations on the best CPU's available, nothing performs better than i5-4670k on either of them as they don't scale past 2 cores (in sc2's case) or ~3? in Planetside's case.
sc2 scaling in a 2v2 fight not near max supply or the most intensive, but pretty damn hard hitting, big ling army.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9j31npY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/V6lyXC0.png)
^That's CPU, Uncore and RAM frequency on a Haswell quad core.
Planetside 2 performance in a big fight, think 50+ vs 50+ maybe quite a few more, hard to count numbers, but sustained performance for a long time - this shows four minutes of outdoor stuff, sieging a tower
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y13bY1R.png)
^I have a big FPS lead over my friend with a stock 4770k in ps2. Not sure what is is, could be 20%, could be 40% - It's hard to bench unless we were to both do a bench run for example, and even then it would be approximate at best due to the extreme volatility of a continent map with hundreds on each side. Likely it's somewhere near linear scaling with clockspeed (so @4.5ghz, it's be a 22% advantage over stock 3.7 boost as the game utilizes 2-4 cores enough to avoid single core turbo)
That's with the best performance i can get, on Haswell@4.7ghz - and i was running 120hz strobed backlight display, can sure as hell use the extra FPS. I love this game, but sometimes you just gotta accept when you are in a closed environment during a peak time fight, you can just be staring at sub-30fps on stock haswell like worst case scenario, and that's how it is. I find it more enjoyable to power through, have sweet hardware and good OC knowledge, and then shoot everyone that can't shoot me because they have half of my FPS ^.^
In both games, i would make the upgrade to OC CPU before upgrading past an r9 270 or gtx760 (or even ~650ti?) on the GPU.
Thanks. I have one final question, and obviously this is personal, but just some right directions are already great.
I am currently running an HD Radeon 6970 (comparable to GTX560) and I've been using this badass for 3 years now. What do you guys think of saving the money (~€70) and hassle, get a locked i5 4670, then save that money up for a better graphics card soon? The same friend that I spoke to also told me, in the same conversation, that games are moving to be more GFX-card reliable, and I completely believe that looking at Crysis 3, Skyrim, etc. So I guess my question is more: Is it worth saving the extra money, then spending that on a better graphics card later on?
The more FPS you want, the more CPU limited you will be. On one system for example, if you was targetting 120fps on 1080p, you need a CPU capable of scaling to 120fps on the game engine. You can turn graphics settings down, you can have 2 high end gpu's, whatever - if your CPU isn't capable of more than 80fps, you'll get 80fps. sc2 and ps2 are extremely cpu demanding and >will< choke here in intense situations, so it's a big focus for them.
Lets say one person is running 1080p, at med settings for 120fps. His friend wants to run 1440p - so lets cut fps down to 70 for that. His friend also wants to run max settings with AA, so say 40fps.
That friend wants FPS to go to 60, so he purchases 50% faster graphics hardware, and now has 60fps at 1440p.
You have two people with two different needs - the 1080p guy will require a CPU capable of processing twice as much FPS in order to get his 120fps image for his wonderful awesome motion clarity strobe backlight screen, while the 1440p guy - he only needs half as good of a CPU, yet would lose performance massively if he was to sacrifice on graphics hardware due to the higher graphical demand of the much higher resolution as well as higher settings - so you can make the point that generally, the higher resolution you want to run, higher settings you want to go etc - that's what you buy a GPU or GPU setup for.
You buy a CPU for an FPS target in a given game engine.
In most games, like bf4 or crysis 3 - people like to run rather high settings, and they don't have amazing GPU's. Most people have like a 760. They often don't really find themselves seriously CPU bound, even though the engines will both be, if you want to target high FPS in some areas. They scream for CPU, but only when you want higher FPS than a lot of people are happy with, as long as you have something decent.
Other games like sc2 and planetside - you're dealing with hundreds of units. Sc2 could probably have been coded significantly better, but there's been a lot of work on planetside. The reality of having over 200 individual players and simulating every bullet in an area of like a square mile will crush any CPU 10x over, so regardless of graphics settings, CPU becomes a major, major player - for not just the people with a high FPS target, but for everyone, so that they can actually run the game well in large fights.
|
On January 20 2014 02:57 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement? sc2 and planetside are the two games i would say that overclocking is a big focus for on a midrange build. They both starve to death in intense situations on the best CPU's available, nothing performs better than i5-4670k on either of them as they don't scale past 2 cores (in sc2's case) or ~3? in Planetside's case. sc2 scaling in a 2v2 fight not near max supply or the most intensive, but pretty damn hard hitting, big ling army. ^That's CPU, Uncore and RAM frequency on a Haswell quad core. Planetside 2 performance in a big fight, think 50+ vs 50+ maybe quite a few more, hard to count numbers, but sustained performance for a long time - this shows four minutes of outdoor stuff, sieging a tower ^I have a big FPS lead over my friend with a stock 4770k in ps2. Not sure what is is, could be 20%, could be 40% - It's hard to bench unless we were to both do a bench run for example, and even then it would be approximate at best due to the extreme volatility of a continent map with hundreds on each side. Likely it's somewhere near linear scaling with clockspeed (so @4.5ghz, it's be a 22% advantage over stock 3.7 boost as the game utilizes 2-4 cores enough to avoid single core turbo) That's with the best performance i can get, on Haswell@4.7ghz - and i was running 120hz strobed backlight display, can sure as hell use the extra FPS. I love this game, but sometimes you just gotta accept when you are in a closed environment during a peak time fight, you can just be staring at sub-30fps on stock haswell like worst case scenario, and that's how it is. I find it more enjoyable to power through, have sweet hardware and good OC knowledge, and then shoot everyone that can't shoot me because they have half of my FPS ^.^ In both games, i would make the upgrade to OC CPU before upgrading past an r9 270 or gtx760 (or even ~650ti?) on the GPU. Show nested quote +Thanks. I have one final question, and obviously this is personal, but just some right directions are already great.
I am currently running an HD Radeon 6970 (comparable to GTX560) and I've been using this badass for 3 years now. What do you guys think of saving the money (~€70) and hassle, get a locked i5 4670, then save that money up for a better graphics card soon? The same friend that I spoke to also told me, in the same conversation, that games are moving to be more GFX-card reliable, and I completely believe that looking at Crysis 3, Skyrim, etc. So I guess my question is more: Is it worth saving the extra money, then spending that on a better graphics card later on? The more FPS you want, the more CPU limited you will be. On one system for example, if you was targetting 120fps on 1080p, you need a CPU capable of scaling to 120fps on the game engine. You can turn graphics settings down, you can have 2 high end gpu's, whatever - if your CPU isn't capable of more than 80fps, you'll get 80fps. sc2 and ps2 are extremely cpu demanding and >will< choke here in intense situations, so it's a big focus for them. Lets say one person is running 1080p, at med settings for 120fps. His friend wants to run 1440p - so lets cut fps down to 70 for that. His friend also wants to run max settings with AA, so say 40fps. That friend wants FPS to go to 60, so he purchases 50% faster graphics hardware, and now has 60fps at 1440p. You have two people with two different needs - the 1080p guy will require a CPU capable of processing twice as much FPS in order to get his 120fps image for his wonderful awesome motion clarity strobe backlight screen, while the 1440p guy - he only needs half as good of a CPU, yet would lose performance massively if he was to sacrifice on graphics hardware due to the higher graphical demand of the much higher resolution as well as higher settings - so you can make the point that generally, the higher resolution you want to run, higher settings you want to go etc - that's what you buy a GPU or GPU setup for. You buy a CPU for an FPS target in a given game engine. In most games, like bf4 or crysis 3 - people like to run rather high settings, and they don't have amazing GPU's. Most people have like a 760. They often don't really find themselves seriously CPU bound, even though the engines will both be, if you want to target high FPS in some areas. They scream for CPU, but only when you want higher FPS than a lot of people are happy with, as long as you have something decent. Other games like sc2 and planetside - you're dealing with hundreds of units. Sc2 could probably have been coded significantly better, but there's been a lot of work on planetside. The reality of having over 200 individual players and simulating every bullet in an area of like a square mile will crush any CPU 10x over, so regardless of graphics settings, CPU becomes a major, major player - for not just the people with a high FPS target, but for everyone, so that they can actually run the game well in large fights.
haha, alright. Damn, people keep turning my opinion around. It's relatively easy to set up the BIOS properly to overclock, right? And I'll obviously need to tweak a little bit, but after I've tweaked it around it'll be stable? That's one of my biggest fears with actually getting and spending the extra money on an overclocked CPU.
|
United Kingdom20343 Posts
On January 20 2014 03:14 Thalandros wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2014 02:57 Cyro wrote:Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement? sc2 and planetside are the two games i would say that overclocking is a big focus for on a midrange build. They both starve to death in intense situations on the best CPU's available, nothing performs better than i5-4670k on either of them as they don't scale past 2 cores (in sc2's case) or ~3? in Planetside's case. sc2 scaling in a 2v2 fight not near max supply or the most intensive, but pretty damn hard hitting, big ling army. ^That's CPU, Uncore and RAM frequency on a Haswell quad core. Planetside 2 performance in a big fight, think 50+ vs 50+ maybe quite a few more, hard to count numbers, but sustained performance for a long time - this shows four minutes of outdoor stuff, sieging a tower ^I have a big FPS lead over my friend with a stock 4770k in ps2. Not sure what is is, could be 20%, could be 40% - It's hard to bench unless we were to both do a bench run for example, and even then it would be approximate at best due to the extreme volatility of a continent map with hundreds on each side. Likely it's somewhere near linear scaling with clockspeed (so @4.5ghz, it's be a 22% advantage over stock 3.7 boost as the game utilizes 2-4 cores enough to avoid single core turbo) That's with the best performance i can get, on Haswell@4.7ghz - and i was running 120hz strobed backlight display, can sure as hell use the extra FPS. I love this game, but sometimes you just gotta accept when you are in a closed environment during a peak time fight, you can just be staring at sub-30fps on stock haswell like worst case scenario, and that's how it is. I find it more enjoyable to power through, have sweet hardware and good OC knowledge, and then shoot everyone that can't shoot me because they have half of my FPS ^.^ In both games, i would make the upgrade to OC CPU before upgrading past an r9 270 or gtx760 (or even ~650ti?) on the GPU. Thanks. I have one final question, and obviously this is personal, but just some right directions are already great.
I am currently running an HD Radeon 6970 (comparable to GTX560) and I've been using this badass for 3 years now. What do you guys think of saving the money (~€70) and hassle, get a locked i5 4670, then save that money up for a better graphics card soon? The same friend that I spoke to also told me, in the same conversation, that games are moving to be more GFX-card reliable, and I completely believe that looking at Crysis 3, Skyrim, etc. So I guess my question is more: Is it worth saving the extra money, then spending that on a better graphics card later on? The more FPS you want, the more CPU limited you will be. On one system for example, if you was targetting 120fps on 1080p, you need a CPU capable of scaling to 120fps on the game engine. You can turn graphics settings down, you can have 2 high end gpu's, whatever - if your CPU isn't capable of more than 80fps, you'll get 80fps. sc2 and ps2 are extremely cpu demanding and >will< choke here in intense situations, so it's a big focus for them. Lets say one person is running 1080p, at med settings for 120fps. His friend wants to run 1440p - so lets cut fps down to 70 for that. His friend also wants to run max settings with AA, so say 40fps. That friend wants FPS to go to 60, so he purchases 50% faster graphics hardware, and now has 60fps at 1440p. You have two people with two different needs - the 1080p guy will require a CPU capable of processing twice as much FPS in order to get his 120fps image for his wonderful awesome motion clarity strobe backlight screen, while the 1440p guy - he only needs half as good of a CPU, yet would lose performance massively if he was to sacrifice on graphics hardware due to the higher graphical demand of the much higher resolution as well as higher settings - so you can make the point that generally, the higher resolution you want to run, higher settings you want to go etc - that's what you buy a GPU or GPU setup for. You buy a CPU for an FPS target in a given game engine. In most games, like bf4 or crysis 3 - people like to run rather high settings, and they don't have amazing GPU's. Most people have like a 760. They often don't really find themselves seriously CPU bound, even though the engines will both be, if you want to target high FPS in some areas. They scream for CPU, but only when you want higher FPS than a lot of people are happy with, as long as you have something decent. Other games like sc2 and planetside - you're dealing with hundreds of units. Sc2 could probably have been coded significantly better, but there's been a lot of work on planetside. The reality of having over 200 individual players and simulating every bullet in an area of like a square mile will crush any CPU 10x over, so regardless of graphics settings, CPU becomes a major, major player - for not just the people with a high FPS target, but for everyone, so that they can actually run the game well in large fights. haha, alright. Damn, people keep turning my opinion around. It's relatively easy to set up the BIOS properly to overclock, right? And I'll obviously need to tweak a little bit, but after I've tweaked it around it'll be stable? That's one of my biggest fears with actually getting and spending the extra money on an overclocked CPU.
Yea, you need to do stuff in a reasonably scientific way and can't just throw settings up, but it should be reasonably easy - and if it's not stable, what's the point?
4670 is still good, OC is a much better focus if you enjoy it and like tweaking etc, but it does make a real solid difference and especially if you prefer FPS to graphical settings it's a good choice
|
On January 20 2014 03:18 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2014 03:14 Thalandros wrote:On January 20 2014 02:57 Cyro wrote:Now I asked a friend of mine to look at a motherboard and while we were there, he told me overclocking got me basically no benefit, especially in games like StarCraft. He said it's very unlikely I'll need it and maybe in a couple of years (for other games) but right now it's completely unnecessary. Is this some wise advice? I got a bit confused now since some people say it's good, some people say overclocking is not worth the hassle and extra money. Personally I would like to experiment with overclocking, but if the performance increase it gives (in games such as Starcraft 2 and Planetside 2) is too little, then never you mind. Is there any truth to his statement? sc2 and planetside are the two games i would say that overclocking is a big focus for on a midrange build. They both starve to death in intense situations on the best CPU's available, nothing performs better than i5-4670k on either of them as they don't scale past 2 cores (in sc2's case) or ~3? in Planetside's case. sc2 scaling in a 2v2 fight not near max supply or the most intensive, but pretty damn hard hitting, big ling army. ^That's CPU, Uncore and RAM frequency on a Haswell quad core. Planetside 2 performance in a big fight, think 50+ vs 50+ maybe quite a few more, hard to count numbers, but sustained performance for a long time - this shows four minutes of outdoor stuff, sieging a tower ^I have a big FPS lead over my friend with a stock 4770k in ps2. Not sure what is is, could be 20%, could be 40% - It's hard to bench unless we were to both do a bench run for example, and even then it would be approximate at best due to the extreme volatility of a continent map with hundreds on each side. Likely it's somewhere near linear scaling with clockspeed (so @4.5ghz, it's be a 22% advantage over stock 3.7 boost as the game utilizes 2-4 cores enough to avoid single core turbo) That's with the best performance i can get, on Haswell@4.7ghz - and i was running 120hz strobed backlight display, can sure as hell use the extra FPS. I love this game, but sometimes you just gotta accept when you are in a closed environment during a peak time fight, you can just be staring at sub-30fps on stock haswell like worst case scenario, and that's how it is. I find it more enjoyable to power through, have sweet hardware and good OC knowledge, and then shoot everyone that can't shoot me because they have half of my FPS ^.^ In both games, i would make the upgrade to OC CPU before upgrading past an r9 270 or gtx760 (or even ~650ti?) on the GPU. Thanks. I have one final question, and obviously this is personal, but just some right directions are already great.
I am currently running an HD Radeon 6970 (comparable to GTX560) and I've been using this badass for 3 years now. What do you guys think of saving the money (~€70) and hassle, get a locked i5 4670, then save that money up for a better graphics card soon? The same friend that I spoke to also told me, in the same conversation, that games are moving to be more GFX-card reliable, and I completely believe that looking at Crysis 3, Skyrim, etc. So I guess my question is more: Is it worth saving the extra money, then spending that on a better graphics card later on? The more FPS you want, the more CPU limited you will be. On one system for example, if you was targetting 120fps on 1080p, you need a CPU capable of scaling to 120fps on the game engine. You can turn graphics settings down, you can have 2 high end gpu's, whatever - if your CPU isn't capable of more than 80fps, you'll get 80fps. sc2 and ps2 are extremely cpu demanding and >will< choke here in intense situations, so it's a big focus for them. Lets say one person is running 1080p, at med settings for 120fps. His friend wants to run 1440p - so lets cut fps down to 70 for that. His friend also wants to run max settings with AA, so say 40fps. That friend wants FPS to go to 60, so he purchases 50% faster graphics hardware, and now has 60fps at 1440p. You have two people with two different needs - the 1080p guy will require a CPU capable of processing twice as much FPS in order to get his 120fps image for his wonderful awesome motion clarity strobe backlight screen, while the 1440p guy - he only needs half as good of a CPU, yet would lose performance massively if he was to sacrifice on graphics hardware due to the higher graphical demand of the much higher resolution as well as higher settings - so you can make the point that generally, the higher resolution you want to run, higher settings you want to go etc - that's what you buy a GPU or GPU setup for. You buy a CPU for an FPS target in a given game engine. In most games, like bf4 or crysis 3 - people like to run rather high settings, and they don't have amazing GPU's. Most people have like a 760. They often don't really find themselves seriously CPU bound, even though the engines will both be, if you want to target high FPS in some areas. They scream for CPU, but only when you want higher FPS than a lot of people are happy with, as long as you have something decent. Other games like sc2 and planetside - you're dealing with hundreds of units. Sc2 could probably have been coded significantly better, but there's been a lot of work on planetside. The reality of having over 200 individual players and simulating every bullet in an area of like a square mile will crush any CPU 10x over, so regardless of graphics settings, CPU becomes a major, major player - for not just the people with a high FPS target, but for everyone, so that they can actually run the game well in large fights. haha, alright. Damn, people keep turning my opinion around. It's relatively easy to set up the BIOS properly to overclock, right? And I'll obviously need to tweak a little bit, but after I've tweaked it around it'll be stable? That's one of my biggest fears with actually getting and spending the extra money on an overclocked CPU. Yea, you need to do stuff in a reasonably scientific way and can't just throw settings up, but it should be reasonably easy - and if it's not stable, what's the point? 4670 is still good, OC is a much better focus if you enjoy it and like tweaking etc, but it does make a real solid difference and especially if you prefer FPS to graphical settings it's a good choice
Cool. Seems I'll be rolling with the K version then. Thanks for all the help Cyro (and others that have replied of course) seems that my decision on atleast CPU has been made. 
|
Anyone have a chance to help me out on page 190?
|
United Kingdom20343 Posts
On January 19 2014 10:28 Br33zyy wrote:
Helping a friend in guiding him to a new computer.
What is your budget?
$1,500
But he says cheaper if possible. And for what he wants he will get is easily.
What is your monitor's native resolution?
1920X1080
What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings?
Any and everything. He'd like to play on full spec essentially
What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming?
General use as well as using photoshop lightly and cs5. (But nothing too crazy i don't think)
Do you intend to overclock?
Yes
Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire?
Eventually but not right out of the gate.
Do you need an operating system?
yes
He says he wants windows 8
Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget?
no
If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify.
Intel for the most part
What country will you be buying your parts in?
United States
If you have any retailer preferences, please specify.
Not really no.
$1,500
But he says cheaper if possible.
This single line makes it really hard to build for
A budget like.. "1k, but X amount more under Y conditions" is better, otherwise maybe just falling back to some kind of decent build (~capstone 450/650 (one gpu/two gpu), z87x-d3h, 4670k, 2x4gb ram, 120gb ssd 1tb hdd, gtx760 etc)
Actually, that's a pretty exceptional system. My mind has been clouded by OCN :D
|
|
|
Oh dear lord. Cyro, I'll need your expertise one last time. Looking at coolers I've been told I can get really good coolers for around €40,- already, such as the Hyper 212 EVO from CM. I'm not too sure how high I'll be able to throw my 4670k up with that though? And also I've heard some complaints about it being noisy. I have quite a noisy fan at the moment so I'd like it to not be super noisy - but that's just a preference, not a requirement. Is the 212 EVO a good choice or should I look higher up/at completely different cooling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
