Printable View
Hi :-) I Wang to upgrade my PC on a budget of around 500. I've seen 3570k, z77, 8gb ddr3 1600 and gtx 660 ti, but I've also been looking at an FX 8320, 990 mobo, 8gb ddr3 1600 and either a 7870 or 7950. I know the Intel is more powerful than the amd, but do radeons work better with amd cpus for gaming? I want to use PC for gaming, music and browsing internet. I'd get a decent cpu air cooler too, and would possibly crossfire/sli in the future...
You can mix and match as much as you like. Nvidia cards work perfectly well with AMD processors and AMD cards work perfectly well with Intel processors.
With the possible exception of a dual graphics system on an AMD APU.
What sort of games though?? What is your budget though?? You don't need to overclock.
Ideally, I'd want to spend close to £500, and as for which games, I'd like to play stuff like skyrim, witcher, bf3, metro 2033, crysis 3, far cry 3, dishonored... I want to change from a console gamer to pc gamer. I'd love to be able to get a 7970ghz and an i7 3770k, but can't afford that :-( I only ask about fx 8320 as i've heard that radeons and amd cpu's run together better than intel and radeons...
Does this £500 need to include monitor, windows, keyboard, etc?
If you have a monitor what resolution is it?
Actually I think I can see most of that on your profile, still a lot of unknowns though.
What are you planning on doing with your old system?
What items you are willing to buy under this budget & which PSU you are using?
What PSU and what motherboard do you have??
I've got 22" 1080p monitor, got basic keyboard, mouse and a saitek Cyborg command unit, got hard drive (although I'll end up getting an ssd in a month or two) and I'm basically just going to take all them bits off my old PC and use them in new one. I've got a 750w psu that I've never had a problem with, and I'll use my cooler master case. All I want to buy is the motherboard, CPU, cooler, ram and gpu for now. My system now is probably only just on the minimum for crysis 3, so I thought it's time to upgrade. Well, I've thought that for years, but never had money to do it...
OK, well in that case, suddenly you have loads of money :)
I'd suggest an i5 3470
A bog standard H77 board
8GB RAM
7950 of your choice
Personally I'd be tempted by this one:
http://www.dabs.com/products/sapphir...m_content=Q200
especially with 4% cashback from quidco
You might want to read this:
http://techreport.com/review/23981/r...0-ti-revisited
I was quite surprised how well the 660Ti did really and also just how small it is!
The 7950 should have the edge in Crysis, although performance tends to be a lot more spikey than the 660Ti.
Interesting, I like the 99th percentile test methodology, although it appears to be written with green tinted glasses if you read the comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
What PSU model is it?? 750W on its own means nothing if it CiT,EZ Cool or Powercool for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojothejester
Also,the Elite 334 has limitations in the card length it takes. It was an OK case years ago,but I have known people who have ditched it for something a bit more modern.
http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/s...ildPartOne.png
http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/s...ildPartTwo.png
It seems Scan should offer a free games bundle with the HD7950:
http://blogs.amd.com/play/this-holiday-never-settle/
They don't advertise it,but they should give you it according to the AMD website.
The components are from Scan and Amazon. Once you get to 20 posts,you can get free postage from Scan.
The build cannot be overclocked,but I don't even overclock TBH and a Core i5 at stock speeds is not slow IMHO.
The Merc Alpha can take cards as long as an HD6990:
http://i.imgur.com/88MYp.jpg
http://forums.iamextreme.net/f10/bit...e-review-1651/
The PSU is made by Seasonic.
The total comes to around £540 includig postage.
I think the killer for me was this throwaway comment at the end:Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
"The transition to Windows 8 could play some role here, but we doubt it."
Hang on a minute - they make a big issue of how they did all sorts of additional testing to eliminate possible causes of the unusual Radeon latency patterns. They swapped the cards to different rigs, used a different 7950, even gave some background on the same spikes being seen with earlier drivers, none of which apparently had any influence. Yet the change to a different OS merits only a "doubt" that it makes a difference? If Radeons have unusual latency patterns under Windows 8, doesn't that deserve some investigation?
*sigh*
My understanding is that the 7950 Boost has always had very spikey performance because the boost state uses such high voltage and then has to throttle back very quickly.
http://techreport.com/review/23419/n...ard-reviewed/9
Mind you nothing like the spikes on the 7870!
I can't remember where it was, but someone showed that a 7950 can only stay in boost state for a few seconds at a time.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6152/a...0-with-boost/3
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it must be Win 8 to blame, I'm just suggesting that it isn't the most professional journalism I've ever seen ;) It's almost like they just got to a point where they couldn't be bothered any more, and they just started shrugging off any other concerns - "Could it be Win 8? Ah, I've done enough work already, let's just assume it wasn't..."
Anyway, they say they swapped in a non-boost 7950 and got similar results, so I don't think it's down to the boost mode...
Yes, the fact that the 7870 is very spikey indicates that it probably isn't boost mode also, I guess it must be a driver issue.
660 Ti also looks good on Far Cry 3:
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-f...nce/page3.html
Despite all those concerns ppl had about it having the 192bit bus.
Sounds bad on paper, but does remarkably well in real life (with a few exceptions).
Which again like many of us have been saying in the long term will be its problem especially with the reduction in ROPs. It is already evident against the GTX670 or in games with higher bandwidth or intensive AA forms. Are you 100% certain in 18 months time it will be the case?? The card has been out 5 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
Moreover,Nvidia is only really pushing less bandwidth intensive AA NOW. I updated the GK104 threads on both here and OcUK for ages. The only reason that the big GPU card never was released is since the GK100 failed and the GK110 probably has limited quantities even now(targetted to HPC first). What do you think will happen when the GK110 is released as a top end card??
Nvidia will start pushing more intensive quality based AA methods and you will find the 256 bit bus returning to the cheaper cards. Then see the advertising showing how the new generation has X% better AA performance than the previous generation,etc.
At least with lower end cores,the GPU is likely to run out of steam first,but not with the cores found in £200+ cards.
Remember this is not the first time this has been done,and people made the same arguments with ROP limited,RAM limited and bandwidth limited "special edition" cards.
The problem after a year to two years the limitation start to be shown. I have seen this enough times over the last decade.
By then most review sites would have just gone onto the new generation emphasising how brilliant they are.
It's not worth worrying about theoretical limitations two years in the future if you've got a card that performs significantly better today. For whatever reason, the 660ti seems to be a very well balanced card, something AMD are usually good at doing as well, but for whatever reason, those tech report test conditions show AMD architecture having major failings in consistency. IF that effect is limited to a brand new OS like win 8 then fine, I'd be willing to give it a bit more time for software to catch up or hunt down win 7 tests.
I do not buy anything about TR being green-tinted - just look at some of their other reviews and news.
What about the 8800GT 256MB or the GTX460 768MB then? They were very good for the first year and we saw where they went eventually. Look at how the GTX660TI performance compares against a GTX670,and you also forget what Nvidia has done this generation. Look at the issues with boost now,which I said at time were possible. It seems I was someone correct about this(you basically said I was wrong).Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Buying a £200+ card that just appears good now is poor advice since,two to three years is not a unacceptable lifespan for such a card. The same goes with CPUs. All the people who told others to buy a E8400 over a Q6600 for example.
What about them? Both were good cards for the money, the 8800GT 256mb especially so - we had one and only changed it because it died of hardware failure many years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
You can't possibly know how future games are going to perform on graphics cards. The only benchmarks you have are today's games, so pick the best card for the games you play today, otherwise you're wasting money on crystall ball gazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Yet,the people who had 9600GT 512MB,HD3870 512MB and 8800GT 512MB still can run games well. The 256MB card collapsed in comparative performance,especially with higher resolution monitors being more common now. The GTX460 768MB also started to show problems even when compared to the 1GB version.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Meh. Again more a case of inability to look at trends which is more your problem than mine. Just like the people who said get a E8400 over a Q6600 and ended hitting problems much quicker. I still remember thread regarding BFBC2 on forums on OcUK. Same arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Considering that,so far,my crystal ball gazing on Hexus, and my advice to loads of people outside of forums(at work too) seems to have worked longtime,I think I will stick with doing it! ;)
If you think looking at the short term is the best way,then good for you.
You're joking right? The 3870 was aweful, the 9600GT is only really good for a physX card, and the 8800GT 512mb isn't fast enough to take advantage of the increased framebuffer unless you're in the odd position of pairing low end cards with high end monitors. In which case you're building an unbalanced build. It makes far more financial sense to change your GPU more often than your monitor if you're a gamer, and if you can save money by buying for known requirements then that can be put towards an upgrade in a few years time as and when (if) the requirements then change.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
No more than anyone else's :pQuote:
Considering that,so far,my crystal ball gazing on Hexus, and my advice to loads of people outside of forums(at work too) seems to have worked longtime
You are joking right?? You see I had the HD3870 512MB,9800GT 512MB and 8800GTS 512MB. I have had 24 graphics cards in the last 8 years. I have had friends who had the cards in many rigs including the 8800GT 256MB and the 8800GS 384MB.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
The HD3870 512MB and 9800GT 512MB did not show the collapse in performance the 8800GT 256MB had. Loads of games started to use more 256MB even with moderate levels of AA or even without AA with higher resolutions. Even the HD3870 512MB showed the same advantage over time when compared to the 256MB HD3850(even with normalised core clockspeeds),and it was not that long either. The 8800GT 256MB even showed lower performance than the 512MB version even at launch and that gap only started to increase as time progressed.
So,really now??
Moreover,I do tend to frequent some other forums too,so I also do follow all the little benchmarks done by enthusiasts! ;)
I have a good memory of what I post,so I can remember back when people call me out. Then it always make me smile a year or so afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Anyway,you won't agree with me and neither me with you(probably not the first time either),so I agree to disagree.
The 600 series struggles even now if you crank up AA or resolution i.e. eat into memory bandwidth/usage. Despite the 680 being priced firmly above the 7970 and being considered the faster card (at least before latest drivers) frame rates collapsed when you go above 1920x1080 or so, or use high levels of 'true' AA like MSAA or SSAA. A lot of reviews seemed to exclude/discredit higher resolutions, and ran a lot with like likes of FXAA which has a negligible impact on either card, but plays to the advantage of the smaller memory bandwidth of 600 series.
Going forward, and given the current pricing of the cards, I know which I'd be more comfortable with.
The 660 Ti is showing excellent performance on brand new up to the minute games, AC3, MOH:WF, FC3. It might be that future games become more memory dependent, but no-one can say that for sure, it might be that shader performance becomes more important in which case the 660 Ti will thrive.
Collapse in performance happens when a GPU runs out of memory capacity, this is not the same as bandwidth.
OK, but this depends on the customer. A 660 Ti is a mid market card, where almost every user is going to be using a single 1080p screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Where people have multi-monitor setups then I have recommended the 7950 over the 660 Ti.
'True' AA also uses a lot of other resources, memory is not the only constraint, there are examples where Nivida 600 series cards like the 660 Ti beat AMD cards despite the lack of bandwidth. There's no point having all that bandwidth if you don't have the grunt to make the calculations in the first place.
The memory bandwidth and cut in ROPs,is the reason the GTX670 shows a performance advantage at higher resolutions and more intensive AA over the GTX660TI. Moreover,it is still a decent chunk over £200,so TBH,this should not be happening either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
Thank goodness,the GTX670 has dropped in price,at least things are starting to be more like the GTX500/HD6900 series pricing.
You wouldn't say that performance collapses though, you run out of memory and FPS will halve, you run out of bandwidth then it will have a much more modest effect. As I said above, for the typical user @ 1080p the Nivida solution is absolutely fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Not for the price of the card though. It is not really mid-market though in pricing,more high end. Both the GTX660TI and HD7950 started at £250+ which was the price of high end cards. People have forgotten the price inflation with this generation at launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
It is also why the lower end has effective stagnated,with the main improvement being power consumption.
It's still the middle of the current market, which is essentially the definition of mid-market as far as I am concerned.
The vast majority of people buying these cards are on 1080p, the cost is irrelevant, what monitor it is matched to is.
The cost is relevant and it is not a mid-market card at all. In fact cost is the singular most important metric. Companies can brand stuff whatever way they want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
In fact out of all the computer enthusiasts I know,none of them consider a £250 card as mid-market and neither do I. The GTX570,HD6970,HD5870 and GTX470 launched at £225+ and were never considered mid-market. Only computer enthusiasts on forums might think of a £225+ card as midrange.
I pity the OP. :(
Of course bandwidth != size but it can have a huge impact on performance, I just wanted to avoid essentially copy/pasting what CAT's already covered. The 660 Ti has the same amount of memory as the 680; bandwidth and loss of ROPs has a large impact on performance with increased resolution/AA which demand bandwidth. I recall even Nvidia fans on more weighted forums agreeing on this.
Cards like 660 Ti beat AMD cards? What cards? 4830? 7970? At a given price (market positioning is irrelevant) I don't recall 600 conclusively beating 7000, especially in terms of AA?
To some degree you can speculate.....and with ps4 and xbox 720 development underway I think it's fairly safe to say the the next 24-36 months will see a greater increase in requirements for pc gaming than we have seen the last few years.
OK and do any of them consider multiple monitors mid-range either?Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
You can easily find a 660 Ti under £225 anyway.
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...xy-msi-19.html
Batman: 660 Ti beats 7950 Boost on minimum fps 1600p 8xMSAA
BF3: 660Ti beats 7950 @ 1600p 4xAA
BL2: 660Ti beats 7970 @ 1600p FXAA
DA2: 660Ti beats 7950 boost @ 1600p 4xAA
Hard Reset: 660Ti beats 7950 @ 1600p 4xAA
Just Cause 2: 660Ti beats 7950 @ 1600p 8xAA
Shogun 2: 660(non Ti!) beats 7950 boost @ 1200p 8xAA
EU Escalation: 660Ti beats 7970 @ 1600p 8xMSAA
I'm sure you can find more where the 7950 wins, but this is supposed to be the 660 Ti's Achilles heel, this is where the 192bit bus is supposed to cripple performance, this is where it is supposed to suffer humiliating loss after humiliating loss, but yet it is still trading blows with cards that have a bus twice as wide.
How come the GTX670 is faster then?? We said long term which and all you done is cherry picked a few Nvidia sponsored games. Moreover,you still have not answered the question,will in 18 months after the GTX660TI was launched, will it be "faster" than a HD7950.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
It is also hilarious how on forums like OcUK,GTX670 and GTX680 owners are consistently recommending HD7950 cards over the GTX660TI?? Maybe,the expert should go and tell them they are obviously mistaken.
No-one knows what the situation will be in 18 months time, chances are it will still be a mixed picture like it is today.
If you take a look at the recent threads (including this one) you find that I am recommending the 7950/7970 to people with a budget of £250+.
I'm just saying that the 660 Ti isn't as bad as many think it is and for some people it will be preferable.
I'm not saying the 670 isn't faster, but it isn't better value.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The 670 is 30% more expensive and only very rarely 30% faster, even @ 1600p 8xAA the difference is unlikely to be 30%.
TBH it's easy to pick out a few runs where one card is better than the other, but even on the links you posted, I see just one graph (Hard reset 1680x1050, techspot) where the 660 Ti beats the 7950?Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
I double checked, final graph on the page 2560x1600 4xAA the 660 Ti beats the 7950.
As I said, I'm not trying to make the argument that the 660 Ti is better than the 7950 @ 1600p +AA, I'm just saying it isn't beaten comprehensively like it ought to be going by theory. If the 192bit bus was as much of a liability as everyone says it shouldn't win a single one of these benchmarks.
Back in it's home territory of 1080p it can stand toe to toe with the 7950, although leads differ wildly as you go from game to game.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...i-2gb-review/8
Even at 5760 x 1080 4xAA the 660 Ti can sometimes beat the 7950 boost and even comes within an inch of beating the 7970.
Really it takes a lot to overwhelm the bandwidth on the 660 Ti, if it can handle 3x1080p now, I'm fairly sure it can handle a single 1080p screen for a good few years to come.
Wilzz is right - the 660TI does beat out the 7950 in quite a lot of reviews. Not to say there aren't good reasons to go for a 7950 (I went for a 7870 myself) but I don't comprehend the vitriol directed at the 660ti - they've proven that dumb bandwidth isn't the be all and end all and for all their despicable marketing, nVidia have created a card that seems to do really well on what we'd normally consider restrictive bandwidth. To pretend otherwise isn't looking at the results objectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
A shame Bit-tech still seem to want to use old drivers for both cards and at least looking at the results CryEngine 2 seems bandwidth heavy. There have been performance improvements for both AFAIK. OTH,CPC is so crap anyway especially with their wonky results they get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
Oh,so to put it another way,if someone does not agree with your assessment they are not objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Yawn.
Read what I said instead of imaging things that aren't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The 12.11 gave a modest 5% improvement in Skyrim, not quite enough to change the result in this case.
But hey, let's say they tied, isn't that a pretty good result at 4xAA 5760x1080?
Mistake on my part, I'd spammed open a few links, went to get a brew and assumed you'd linked only the techspot page containing Hard Reset. Still, there are only 3 games I counted where the 660 Ti beat the 7950 at all (I count boost as 7950 considering it's essentially a free upgrade, and something Nvidia also do) and in two of those, only at lower resolution/AA settings. Also bear in mind the HC review also has OC'd 660's in the charts and they're using old drivers.
I've seen the 660 Ti beat the 7950 in very few reviews, almost exclusively TWIMTBP titles at lower AA/res.
Edit: maybe this part of the discussion could be moved to a fresh thread, I really don't see it helping the OP any more, unless that's done and they're happy for it to continue as a discussion?
Yawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
What about BF3 and Crysis2?? Oh what about Skyrim with 3rd party mods which are very common. But you would know that wouldn't you?? So at this point,why would you get a GTX660TI over an HD7950 for multi-monitor gaming??Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
But then recommend the GTX660TI over the HD7950 then for multi-monitor gaming,if you think that is the way forward. Then you would probably still get a GTX670 if you can spend £300+ on monitors.
Still a crappy CPC review using old drivers for both cards. Hardly anyone takes them seriously and not even on other forums.
You seem very passionate about this Cat, everything OK?
What I am arguing with here is your assertion that the 192bit bus is not sufficient and your implication that the 660 Ti won't be able to cope 18 months after launch.
I think it is pretty clear that the bus is NOT the huge issue everyone seems to think it is. The 660 Ti CAN cope with titles running at very high resolutions and 8xAA.
Yeah the 660 Ti doesn't run some games very well, but these tend to be the exact same games that the 670 doesn't run very well either, despite the increased bus width and ROPs.
Tessellation is something we are going to see more of in the future and the 660 Ti is very strong in this area.
Performance of the 660 Ti is not going to drop off a cliff any time in the next couple of years.
***cough***
Lets stick to facts and keep the veiled sarcasm away from the tech forums. :)
Not off a cliff, but moving towards higher AA/res, it does dip faster than cards with higher bandwidth. Basically, I'd expect it to perform relatively worse than others in future games based on past and present trends. On the subject of tessellation, the 5870 was (and still is IMO, but I own one so may be somewhat biased) a excellent performing card, but problems arise vs newer cards when you crank up tessellation, I'm thinking about a similar situation for AA/res for the likes of the 660 Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
The odd thing is that in many games where the 7950 has a lead at 1080p that lead actually diminishes as you crank up resolution/AA.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
I won't go into too many examples, but here are the first two games I looked at:
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-b...rds/page4.html
The 7950 has a 15% lead at 1080, this decreases to a 10% lead at 1600p on BF3.
In BL2 they are dead even at 1080p, but at 1600p the 660 Ti suddenly has a lead of 16%.
Thing is it's not only bandwidth requirements that increase with resolution/AA, these also require far higher processing capacity, which the 660 Ti has plenty of.
BL2 is still CPU limited (or fps capped, as I said elsewhere, it seems too close to be a bottleneck given error margin usually accounts for >1fps variance) for both cards at 1920x1200, 1fps advantage for 7950 is well within error margin.
Non-boost and Ti seem to tie on BF3, the boost version loses some margin at higher resolutions which to me suggests the extra core frequency is becoming less advantageous. The 680 starts in line with the 7970 (non-GHz) then drops off at higher res, also suggesting bandwidth may be becoming a problem.
OK, in a bid to be scientific and eliminate as many variables as possible, let's look at the 670 vs 660 ti.
In BF3, the 670 gives up a very small amount of ground as resolution increases.
In COD the gap stays the same
In DA2 the gap lowers very slightly.
Generally speaking it doesn't seem that the 670 gains a larger advantage as resolution increases, which it should in theory due to extra bandwidth.
In fact we see very small decreases, although this is probably due to random error/rounding issues.
If you take a look at the recent threads (including this one) you find that I am recommending the 7950/7970 to people with a budget of £250+.
I'm just saying that the 660 Ti isn't as bad as many think it is and for some people it will be preferable.
What's the point of a 7950 if the processor isn't all that? It's just better to go for an FX series rather than that to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Do explain what you mean as there isn't anything wrong with that processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Venomz1337
Agreed, it's only clocked slightly slower than the more expensive models and lacks an IGP, so it looks like a fairly good value CPU IMO. FX is also worth considering at that price point but there's nothing wrong with that i5.
Honestly, I'm not a computer guy who knows everything but I'm sure, you'd be 35% better off getting a 2500k/3570k with a 7950 rather than that, being able to overclock is a huge upside!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonj1611
You'd pay considerably more for a k model for only slightly higher stock clocks. Overclocking doesn't always help massively with games, and realistically you'd need to spend even more on aftermarket cooling if that's what you want to do.
Fair enough, but like I said, I'm not all that into pc hardware ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Which is fair enough but why resurrect a 5 month old thread and then give the wrong information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Venomz1337
hey all, Ive got a nvidia GTX 670 and I also have a spare radeon 6850 kicking around..
I have x2 PCI-E slots can i put them both in and use the 670 as my main card for games etc but also use the 6850 for foldinghome?? is this possible?
Yeah that should be possible. I'm not sure if there's some Nvidia nonsense relating to having an AMD card in the system disabling GPU PhysX effects, or if it only applies to having an AMD card as your primary one, but it would be worth checking.
A point of etiquette: It's considered a bit rude to bump a thread that's over a year old with a question of your own that's not really related to the original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwondeR
But to answer your question, it is possible, but not easily because the drivers don't play nicely together. The hassle may or may not be worth your time.
if u prefer cooler card go with the nvidia else go with the radeon
Why's that? AMD Pitcairn cards for example run cooler than many nVidia cards. You need to be a bit more specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezekeal
If its AMD vs Intel CPU - always go the the Intel CPU.
You'll thank yourself later when the single threading performance outshines in games.
The GPU you'll be looking to replace every few years - but that CPU may end up running 4yrs (if you're lucky) and still provide enough OOMPH for most things you'll be throwing at it.
That difference is also grossly over-exaggerated, especially when factoring price into the equation. The CPU isn't commonly a significant bottleneck in gaming anyway, and many games requiring CPU performance are well-threaded nowadays anyway.
Many places 'proving' the difference deliberately run the games at stupidly low settings to move the performance bottleneck from the GPU to the CPU.
DX12 is likely to significantly improve CPU loading too.
Do people really replace GPU so regularly? The systems I'm using at the moment is 3years+ old and I'm only just now seeing things that require more than the HD7970 and i7-2700K. I can dial back from maximum settings and play everything with no issues still, and don't expect to need to upgrade for at least another 9 months (and probably double that). Even then I think I'll probably just build a new machine rather than playing the min-max game of upgrading individual components.Quote:
Originally Posted by DB007
If anything the limiting factor for me is the amount of RAM - 32Gb is getting tight for some of the labwork I do these days.
AS long as the unit works acceptably, I see no reason to replace items. For me, video processing is a big deal and the Intel quicksync unit is great. For my few games, I also have a ATI 7850 installed which does all I want of it.
Quicksync is pretty rubbish for transcoding, unless there's a reason you want to keep the CPU free. x264 on a faster preset will match it in speed and better it in quality. At slower settings, there's simply no comparison.
There is one scenario where the Intel does really shine and many people will be in that situation: Playing Blizzard titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Blizzard have a track record with loading up the CPU instead of the GPU, personally I think it's due to their style of low-poly-high-texture-detail graphics.....or perhaps its that they are the original PC/Mac dual-format supporters.....I dunno.....but many CPUs really show their weaknesses when running their games.......in fact the last 2 weeks I've been getting annoyed with my mate who keeps slowing our SC2 games down on his overclocked Q6600....and this is early/mid game....late game it's constant slowdown from him :(
Yeah there are bound to be a couple of games which strongly prefer one architecture over another. I remember on the Nehalem release, while most games performed similarly or better on the new architecture, there were a few which ran significantly better on Core, probably down to the much larger L2 cache.
If you're going to be playing primarily a select few games then it probably pays to look into performance of those.
Blizzard games tend to be more CPU limited but apparently on some tech forums its more important what card you have!:rolleyes:
check out my pc build specs i built this from ground up all new parts for quite cheap
Depends what type of games you wanted to run. AMD is cheaper but that doesn't mean it won't perform as well as nvidia.
Intel CPUs as they are stronger core for core. AMD and Nvidia gpu, AMD are more price to performance, NVIDIA is good aswell, but the 960 isnt great as there are AMD card that out perform it at a similar price.
Typically it's Intel/Radeon for me, I have had instances when that has been different though.
8800GT comes to mind, I believe I was Intel/nVidia then.. maybe, the timelines mix up for me since I do remember having a Phenom X3 with a 4th core unlocked but I am not sure if it was at the same time, I owned a 8800GT for about 5 years, it definitely was the maximum value hardware I've ever purchased in my life, will anything ever match that? Probably after the dust on 4k settles and becomes more affordable so about half a decade from now.
Ever since the i5/i7 though Intel's been killing it in the CPU market, I don't know what to expect of Zen since I haven't read of it much but I'll be with Skylake this winter since my i5 2500k just needs to get out ma face really, even though I could probably squeeze another year or two out of it.
ATM though, as in today right now Intel/nVidia seems a winning formula for mid high to straight up enthusiast systems, when you go lower you may look at Radeon cards and 'maybe' AMD CPU's but for example high AA 1080p gaming GTX 970 is king of, and that's further enforceable by adding another in SLI, should last you a good few years for 1080p gaming and then the 1440p or 4k ship may appear and you may wish to board.
If you can fit it in your budget Intel/Nvidia is a great option. that said amd is provides better low-budget options.