A worthwhile update?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looking at the no-render benchmarks for Civ5,even a basic Core i5 would be a decent jump up in performance.




TR,stopped testing of Civ5 recently,but an IB Core i7 3770K is around 10% faster than a SB Core i7 2600K.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have Civ5 - does the OP want me to run the internal benchmarks for them??

It will give you a rough indicate of Core i5 2400/Core i5 2500 and GTX660 performance in the game.

I can also attempt to measure power consumption too.

[DanceswithUnix]

How much extra heat does the 270 actually kick out then? A quick look didn't turn up any figures, and I have work to do so shan't look any further

The 270 is clearly the faster card, hence my saying earlier that in big machines the 750Ti is at best "meh".

The 7870 that the 270 is based on according to Anandtech kicks out an extra 64W in Crysis http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1130?vs=1034
Now the 270 is more efficient than that as the clocks are a bit lower, but for some people trying to get rid of 50W is going to make every single fan in the machine spin that bit faster. Personally I don't care, I only care about a machine being whisper quiet at idle as during gaming I'm not going to hear it over the subwoofer anyway.

So, if you care about heat and noise more than performance, then the Nvidia 750Ti. Otherwise, get an AMD 270 with nice big fans to deal with the heat as quietly as possible.

[MrJim]

Good old PCPER(they have close links to Nvidia).
However,mining performance has nothing to do with OpenCL performance. AMD is still better especially since the Apple Mac Pro uses AMD cards.

I've always found PC Perspective to give fairly balanced opinions on graphics card, I've never felt that they were nVidia-centric. Ironically, before changing its name to PC Perspective, the website was called 'Amdmb.com', and was an AMD enthusiast website

I don't know how mining performance compares to OpenCL performance, but I suspect there's a fairly high correlation between the two.

As for video cards, I have not even looked in that direction so I am open to suggestions! I do have space for a double WIDTH card just not a LONG card so any card at around £100 which is shortish and QUIET (if this is possible!) will be suitable. I do prefer dual-DVI rather than DVI/HDMI combo.

Given that the OP was looking for a short card at about £100, wouldn't that rule out an R9 270?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I linked to the HardOCP thread regarding the Q11. Interestingly people have run cards like the GTX460,etc in it.

My case is a bit bigger,but not massively so,and the IB Core i5 CPUs consume less power than the SB ones,so should be easier to cool.

The Gigabyte GTX750TI and Sapphire R9 270 I linked to,both are meant to be quiet cards,so those are the ones I would consider.

In fact the biggest bit of noise in my system at idle is the pump for my H40.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I've always found PC Perspective to give fairly balanced opinions on graphics card, I've never felt that they were nVidia-centric. Ironically, before changing its name to PC Perspective, the website was called 'Amdmb.com', and was an AMD enthusiast website

Nvidia was fishing for review sites to develop FCAT with(HardOCP editor and some other people said so). PCPER said OK,but quietly releases some Geforce Titan reviews with it,saying their frame pacing measuring method was developed by them. Nvidia then referenced their reviews in PR.

Then lo and behold when FCAT was finally announced by Nvdia,PCPER spilled the beans.

I am quite cynical about such stunts.

I don't know how mining performance compares to OpenCL performance, but I suspect there's a fairly high correlation between the two.

The AMD cards are generally ahead overall from what I gather. The GTX750TI has improved,but Nvidia has really no reason to push it too far in their cards,as they want to push CUDA. The Nvidia cards use CUDA miner BTW - not the OpenCL one.

Given that the OP was looking for a short card at about £100, wouldn't that rule out an R9 270?

The Q11 takes upto 9.5" cards - the Sapphire R9 270 is 8.9" long. People have used GTX460TI cards in the case for example.

If the GTX750TI was like £80 to £100(top end price for high end models like the Palit) it would be OK.

However,as I said my GTX660 is meant to be a "power hog" according to Nu Nvidia PR,yet it barely taxes my XFX PRO 450W.

No doubt the GTX750TI as a whole is not bad. My issue is the price is just too much. AMD did the same thing with the HD7750.

Whats the point of saving power in a standard SKU,if you end up charging more upfront for it??

Edit!!

OTH,it could be that as I like small rigs and want to have the best framerates I can in games,I have always found a way to accommodate as fast a card as I can.

[DanceswithUnix]

I don't know how mining performance compares to OpenCL performance, but I suspect there's a fairly high correlation between the two.

Litecoin etc mining is integer and depends on rotate instructions that are slow on nvidia.

Most gpgpu tasks are floating point.

So crypto mining is a really odd corner case and not really indicative of anything much.

Edit to add: Check out my link earlier http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1130?vs=1034

Vegas pro is a total win for Nvidia, there are a few close ties, and clbenchmark which is utterly owned by AMD there. Choose your software, grab the card that matches.

Note that there are sometimes some getouts. Last I saw Blender OpenCL didn't work on AMD because the AMD shader compiler couldn't cope, but otoh if you use LuxRender for your Blender output it seems you are best off with AMD again.

[Pob255]

AFAIK, LGA775 + LGA1156 + LGA 1155 + LGA 1150 all have the same physical layout. I've actually used a stock LGA1155 cooler on a LGA775 board for instance. Think LGA1366 is also the same. LGA2011 is not (well they are physically larger too). Hard to get a define answer though.

Just want to point out that this is wrong.
Just for some clarification.
All the current intel system use a square pattern of holes around the motherboard
Socket 775 = 73mm x 73mm (hole centre to hole centre)
Socket 1156 + 1155 + 1150 = 75mm x 75mm
Socket 1366 + 2011 = 80mm x 80mm

Now you can just about use a 775 cooler in a 1156/1155/1150 socket and vis versa however they do not fit correctly, which will result in decreased contact pressure on the cpu and additional strain on the motherboard & cooler mounting system.
It's really not recommended, doubly so if your cooler uses intel push pins.

[phurbs]

Wow! Thanks again for all the replies guys!

I am definitely going to go for a Intel CPU Xeon CPU. Either the E3-1220 or E3-1230. Price difference is only about £15 so probably the 1230.

As for GFX, I am still undecided. I am not sure I am going to need the extra grunt of the R9-270 or to stick with a smaller GTX750. My case is much tighter in terms of cable space / air flow than the one you posted CAT and the R9 is slight above my budget soI am still thinking about going GTX, but we will see what happens in a few weeks when I am planning on buying!

As for RAM. I have taken the advice above and increased the paging file from ~4GB to ~8GB so will see how that goes before I decide. I can always user my current 2x4GB and up grade in the future if needs be.

I have Civ5 - does the OP want me to run the internal benchmarks for them??

Many thanks for the offer, but I dont think I need so much detail. Appreciate the offer though!

Just want to point out that this is wrong. Just for some clarification. All the current intel system use a square pattern of holes around the motherboard

Socket 775 = 73mm x 73mm (hole centre to hole centre)
Socket 1156 + 1155 + 1150 = 75mm x 75mm
Socket 1366 + 2011 = 80mm x 80mm

Now you can just about use a 775 cooler in a 1156/1155/1150 socket and vis versa however they do not fit correctly, which will result in decreased contact pressure on the cpu and additional strain on the motherboard & cooler mounting system. It's really not recommended, doubly so if your cooler uses intel push pins.

Thanks for this! It isnt going to be relevant now as I am sticking with S1155 but good to know anyway!

[DanceswithUnix]

Check the link I posted earlier, if that is your motherboard then the E3-1230 is the only Xeon on the Asus compatible list and so would be the obvious one to go for. Other ones will probably work, but you want something you know the BIOS will recognise.

As for the graphics card, I'm sure either of them will be a huge step up from what you currently have.

Not sure the page file increase will help tbh. I just meant that I think if you upgrade the graphics and CPU then you should find 8GB of ram is enough. You do have a 64 bit Windows don't you? Apologies if that is a silly question, but sometimes they are worth asking

[phurbs]

Check the link I posted earlier, if that is your motherboard then the E3-1230 is the only Xeon on the Asus compatible list and so would be the obvious one to go for. Other ones will probably work, but you want something you know the BIOS will recognise.

Thanks for the info. I will deffo get the 1230 in that case!

As for the graphics card, I'm sure either of them will be a huge step up from what you currently have.

That's the plan

Not sure the page file increase will help tbh. I just meant that I think if you upgrade the graphics and CPU then you should find 8GB of ram is enough. You do have a 64 bit Windows don't you? Apologies if that is a silly question, but sometimes they are worth asking

Not to sound like a ninny, but why would the CPU/GFX affect how Windows handles the RAM/Page File?

Also, yeah, I am on x64 OS

[DanceswithUnix]

Not to sound like a ninny, but why would the CPU/GFX affect how Windows handles the RAM/Page File?

Also, yeah, I am on x64 OS

Well double the video ram will hopefully avoid paging textures in and out of memory. More cores just helps make the machine feel generally smoother. Then there are things like: if transcoding now goes way faster, do you need to leave that program open all the time? You will probably find how you use the machine changes a bit.

I generally think that nailing one component at a time in a gradual upgrade is better than compromising to drag all areas up just a bit. If you really believe that we are wrong and you *need* 16GB of ram (and only you know how you use the machine so we could well be), then get the RAM and the video card and you can start saving for the Xeon next. My gut feeling though is that the video card is an enabler, the cpu will speed up Civ and transcoding. The ram just avoids you swapping so much if you leave too many things open, it doesn't sound so important but as I say I might be wrong.