I'm planning to buy a new processor for my gaming PC but I have one problem;
I have no clue what I'm looking for.
Is bigger cache or GHz better?
Two processors I've been thinking:
Intel® Core™ i7-4790K Processor
(8M Cache, up to 4.40 GHz)
Intel® Core™ i7-4930K Processor
(12M Cache, up to 3.90 GHz)
It depends on the kind of engine.
More cache is better for more, smaller and simple instructions.
More speed is better for less, bigger and more complex instructions.
For vidya generally more cache is better since the most complex calculations are usually left to the GPU anyways.
If you can spare the cash you won't lose anything by getting an i7 it might be beneficial when DX12 rolls along.
Though if you're on a budget a good overclocked 4690k is plenty right now and for years probably.
how'd i do for my first build? Ignore the resolution my TV is kinda fucked
also youre better off with an i5, barely any games require an i7
Why do I get the feeling any and all PC build threads are just bait these days.
Eh, I'd probably start with the GPU. You should be able to get a R9 280 or something similar for your money.
You should probably save some more money to get a better CPU as well though.
You don't need an i7 for gaming. No single graphics card on the market today can bottleneck any modern i5. Only when you Corssfire or SLI do you even begin to see differences.
i5 4690k (or even 4590/70 if you dont plan on OCing) & GTX 970 or R9 290x. Preferably the 970 if you run older games as nvidia drivers have less issues with older titles throughout the 2000s.
hey /v/ i just bought a sweet cpu coooler on sale and figured it'd over clock my shitty processor.
anyone know a easy to use OC program that will work with my build?
pic related, rate it.
Hey Im trying to build a pc and wondering if this is ok
4670k has a stock clock of 3.4 and turbo boost allows it to go up to 3.8 when needed. That's without overclocking.
I swear man you guys don't even know what hardware you're running. jeez.
For the moment its still a great CPU for DX11 games and will continue to be for years to come if you're ok with using an older graphics API. Later this year when Vulkan titles start appearing it might bottleneck your system in them but most games will probably continue to have DX11 as an option on Windows for years to come.
Honestly unless you need to build a new system right now you should save your money and wait to see how Vulkan and DX12 shake out this fall. By then we should also have an idea of how the 300 series cards and Zen CPUs will perform.
Can't wait till fall or even mid summer, my current PC is on point of going full mashed potatoes and I have games to play. Vulkan and DX12 parts would probably be too expensive anyway.
I should have asked currency too, but you're probably looking at either a GTX 970 or an R9 290X.
If you want to go with the Nvidia the MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4GB is the best, though I should alert you to the 3.5GB vram issue the card experiences. If a game needs more than 3.5GB of graphical memory, then the card causes the game to stutter due to the way the last 512MB of memory has been segmented by Nvidia. Most games don't use anywhere near 3.5GB of vram yet, especially if you're only gaming at 1080p, but they will in the future.
If you wanted to go AMD, then I recommend the Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X- OC. AMD's cards run a bit hotter than Nvidia's and they require more power, but your 750 is more than sufficient for this card. It's worth noting AMD drivers have known to cause issues with older games while Nvidias have been known to be generally more stable, so take this into account and whether it will affect you or what you play.
The 290x doesn't have the vram issue, but it's not like 500mb is going to make much of a difference in the future when 8GB becomes the norm. Maybe back in 2008 500MB made a big difference, but the advancement of hardware scaling has meant it doesn't really now.
Do some research on the 3.5GB vram issue (it's been blown out of proportion in my opinion) but still get to know about it and what it means for you.
Don't get an i7 unless you do more than game on your PC like for example edit video.
If you only want to play console ports then i5 should be enough for you if you invest in a good GPU.
Pretty much the only game that gives you reason to buy a 980 over a 970 is Assassin Creed Unity
You guys could take a risk on AMD, but just keep in mind for your bang of buck, it'll cost you in the fact that Nvidia buys every new release PC games to optimize better for their cards
Most of the problem GTA users have had (including jaggies and weird pop outs) have been AMD cards
Dude, any post-sandy bridge i5 (2500k in layman's terms) are still more than enough for gaming. What are you worried about? You don't need the latest processor for gaming. It's GPUs you need to worry about.
Any current GPU that supports OpenGL 4.3/DX 11.2 level features will in theory support DX12 and Vulkan. DX12 will be Windows 10 exclusive, but Vulkan will be available on any platform Windows 7 included shortly after its launch on SteamOS. The only real question is whether Nvidia and AMD will add driver support for their current cards, the only cards somewhat certain to get support are the Nvidia 900 series parts and the R9 285.
Yeah processors have been bottlenecked for several years now
It's better to invest that extra 100 on an SSD, better GPU, better monitor
That's if you intend to game and not video edit
>Is bigger cache or GHz better?
processor family/architecture matters most followed by cache, GHz is completely worthless as a performance metric outside of CPU's from the same processor family, an i3 will outperform a Phenom II x4 in CPU benchmarks with the same clock speed and cache by a margin of up to 20%, the i3 has half as many cores too.
You really need to look at benchmarks to compare, specs don't mean much any more.
I've got a I5 2500 (non-k , yes I fucked up). GTX 970 and 8 gig ram and GTA V runs like total ass. with mixed settings between high/normal no msaa, no fxaa, no tesselation it drops to 40 as soon as I get in traffic
Exactly. Hot tip: if you are going to build a video editing/rendering/whatever PC that you'll also use for gaming, you're best off going for a Xeon.
Up to 20% cheaper than an i7 with almost exactly the same performance with hyper-threading and without the integrated graphics. Absolutely useless to gamers with a dedicated GPU anyway and you'll never feel the need to overclock.
Sounds like I got a good deal with the 4670K then.
Well, since 290x is more expensive than 970 in my country, I should probably go for Nvidia? Less heat and wattage also sounds nice. Not going to play at more than 1440p before I would have to upgrade my GPU anyway so I don't think the 3,5gb memory will be a problem.
Yeah, I got the latest drivers trough Geforce Experience. I have no idea what's wrong, maybe it's worth noting I have a 2nd monitor attached however not being used for the game.
Do you guys think there is some setting in the Nvidia control panel that is screwing this up? IFso, would anyone mind pasting their Nvidia control panel settings?
The only problem with i5s today is that current games stress CPUs like this: 9:2:0:0:0:0:0:0
Next generation games stress CPUs more evenly across more cores like this: 3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3
This is why AMD's 8 core CPUs bottleneck in games currently especially on Windows 7 which still doesn't support their pseudo-core approach, and why i5s regulary perform within a few percent of the $100 more i7s.
For next-gen engines the single thread performance advantage i5s have that lets them perform like an i7 won't matter as much while its 4 thread limitation will start to be a bottleneck.
Vsync is on. When I'm walking, or in narrow areas it'll always stick to 60 easely. I already tried turning down density (population, cars..) yet as soon as I gain some speed in my car it all goes to crap and drop often to 40
What kind of cooler gives you fucking 52 degrees in idle? Even the stock screamer shouldn't be doing that badly.
Replace the PSU with a better quality 550ish W unit, also >>290899783 knows his shit
In that case, you were about to make the single most pointless upgrade money could buy. There's absolutely no need to upgrade from an Ivy Bridge CPU at this point.
By the way, do you have an SSD yet?
Newfag PCuck here building first PC.
Recently bought a Tri-X 290x for £285 (Fucking Birtbong prices) and was wondering if a 4690k would be worth the £20 price increase of the i5 4460?
So far I have
>4690k or 4460
>125GB SSD (will get a 1TB later, want to install the OS first and worry about the games after i'm done)
>Corsair Mid Tower Case
>EVGA 600W PSU
>Cooler Master (extra fan)
>Total = £690-705
When I get my Monitor (Samsung 24 inch, 1080p, LED = £105) and Keyboard / Mouse it will be around £820.
How am I looking /v/?
Are you monitoring CPU and GPU usage using, say, Task Manager? Try running GTAV in windowed mode (Don't know if that's possible, dont have the game) and have task manager open on the performance tab so it's visible whilst playing.
Keep an eye on it to see which is maxing out first, GPU or CPU usage. I have a feeling it's an nvidia driver issue, but we'll see. I have a hard time believing a sandy bridge is being maxed out with a game that's supposed to be so well optimized.
I'm just gonna leave this here. Courtesy of /g/
Just realized task manager will not display GPU usage, but you can still use it to determine if it's your CPU, which I am almost certain it's not. I mean, people are running it on very high at 45fps at 1080p with an fx6300 & a 270x.
Anyway, hope you find a solution.
Only the autists on /g/ would take the time to fill that out.
Literally surrogate girlfriend
Do you understand how Vulkan and DX12 work?
Intel is fed up with this situation where a $350 cpu is barely better than a $225 cpu which is barely better than a $125 cpu which is barely better than a $75 overclocked pentium. They want to make PC gaming more like other high-performance computer tasks so they can sell their $500 CPUs to gamers.
You've done well, I the only way I could recommend cutting corners is getting a H97 chipset motherboard if you go with the 4460 or any other non-K. But you said it's only 20 quid more for the 4690k so i would go with that and stick with the z97. I guess if you really needed to, you could go down to a 290, 10% performance drop for 25% price difference. Well at least here. Your local prices might be different.
Yea, ironically the 290 is only £20 odd cheaper as well. (Probably could find an even cheaper one if I didn't go Sapphire).
But yea, the price is pretty much what I hoped for so guess the purchases must begin!
(Already pruchased the 290x so far, the cheapest one I found was £310! Only for me to find one for £285)
Any advice on a decent Monitor around £100-105?
Here's what i've got so far
Am I missing/need to change anything big other than case/monitor? Well OS too I guess but >paying for OS
You will regret cheaping out on the case.
I bought a very similar case because I was completely out of funds and had to buy my shit then and there or get nothing. The airflow is shit, cable managment is a nightmare, my GPU barely fits, my ssd is just dumped at the bottom because I forgot to buy a 3.5 to 2.5 bracket and I can't fit my cpu cooler in there properly and have to use stock till I can get a new case.
You don't need 850 watts for a single GPU rig, 550 is the sweet spot. Also XXXTREME PERFORMANCE RAM is really pointless, 1600 MHz is more than sufficient and anything above 1866 gets hit by diminishing returns real bad
Not him. But both AMD and Nvidia gpus have their fair share of issues with older games. There tends to always be a work around but I have found in my own work on the subject there tend to be more forums / posts dedicated to AMD issues rather than Nvidia issues.
Except its not, and next-generation engines already are. You seem to be stuck in the idea that the status quo will never change, when the reality is the industry is already changing via necessity. We've hit a wall in single thread performance, I'd think that would be clear in a thread where people are reassuring i5 2500k owners that they're still fine. The only way to push to higher CPU performance both on desktop and mobile is to shift to using more threads.
You don't need 16 gigs of ram.
That 980 is wasted if you're going to buy a 1080p monitor, make sure it's 1440p at least.
Your psu is overkill. You don't need anything past 600w unless you're running multiple gpus
All that raw power and no ssd?
Also unless you watch dvds on your pc or have old games you WILL NOT use the DVD drive.
Heat is generally about the same with aftermarket cards and the wattage difference is minimal.
I would go for the regular 290, I dont think any card above it is worth the price difference.
What the fuck are you and the other anti-cpu retards even fucking talking about?!!?
I'd go for better CPU over GPU any fucking day. Enjoy my faster load times, enjoy my higher FPS count, enjoy emulating wii and previous generation consoles at smooth 60+ fps.
His graphics card doesn't need a fucking upgrade, you're trolling or a console retard who thinks gaming PCs cost two thousand dollars to run tetris.
No one is saying get a shit GPU, but a mid tier graphics card coupled with god tier CPU is better than mid tier cpu with amazing graphics card.
The last time I built a PC something like this would have blown my mind.
Shit, I don't even know WHAT I'd be putting in a system right now if I were to build.
Technology pls stop.
Of course, and in an ideal world you would write 10 lines of code and it would magically turn an engine into one that runs a graphical engine on 8 thread perfectly utilizing them all.
Even with necessity, there are things you just can't parallelize. I know because I'm a software engineer. DX12 is not a magical bullet that will lead to 8-core engines.
A lot of /v/ are obsessed with the 2500k so they freak out whenever anyone wants to get something slightly higher-end.
The 4790k was a great choice and i'm glad I didn't listen to /v/ or /g/.
I had to actually turn up the delay on my post screen to give my monitor a chance to wake up before it got to the login screen.
From the login screen to a usable desktop with no loading is essentially instant, and applications open as soon as you click on them.
The few games I've got installed to my current system SSD start up really quickly as well and load screens go by so far sometimes you can't even read hints and crap on them. Planning to get another SSD to replace my steam drive now that 500gb SSDs aren't unreasonable.
Any suggestions for my completely entry level PC?
i7 is overkill for most purposes. if you have the expendable income, go for it, but at that point, why even bother asking for advice on parts if you're just gonna spend several thousand dollars on the most expensive/best parts anyway?
Drop the micro mobo if you're getting a mid case.
Get an unlocked cpu, trust me after you see the benchmark possibilities.
Get DUAL RAM, 4x2, 8x2, take your pick.
Try to go a little higher on the GPU.
Drop the PSU down to 500 or so.
Aftermarket cooler unnecessary for a locked CPU.
Put the savings towards a better GPU. 960 will get you ~60% more performance. R9 280 is also okay if you don't mind going with AMD.
Its no magic bullet and its not easy. Vulkan is essentially asking you to do things the GPU driver used to handle after all, but the benefits you get from it are worth it. That's why devs are spending a ton of time getting DX12 and Vulkan support for new engines built.
8, 12, and 16 thread games are coming. Stop living in denial. You're going to have to start upgrading CPUs again in the future, its not that big a deal.
You don't need a custom cpu cooler for that cpu.
You're paying too much for the motherboard
You do need 8 gigs of ram however. Use the money you save on the cooler to get a 2x4gb kit.
For $150 you could find a slightly better gpu
PSU is overkill for such a lightweight build.
You don't need an aftermarket cooler (the cpu comes with one), motherboard is shite, get something from gigabyte or asus, make sure it's h97 or a cheap z97, you should get an 2 sticks of 4 gb of ram, you could get a much better gpu for that money (r9 270 or r9 270x). Get an XFX or Seasonic PSU.
Don't listen to these faggots, go for the 4790k it's the best for gaming.
It has the best single thread performance which will give the best results in bad ports and everything else that only barely uses multiple cores.
Buy this CPU and you are set.
Hows this? I have the corsair 200r which is fucking awful for cable management currently so I'd be looking into a new one for one that isn't spaghetti junction inside. I'd like to keep the optical drive if possible.
Two big things
1: SSD's are fucking sweet. Does your computer boot up in less than 10 seconds? No? How about loading bigass programs like photoshop instantly? Get an SSD.
2: Unless you really shell out, most power supplies are horrendously inefficient when not using a decent fraction of their max wattage. They get good once they go above half or more, which is why it's better to get a PSU that fits rather than the biggest wattage you can find for the cash.
I like the semi modular coolermaster g550m I threw in my recent build, but form factor was a huge issue for me (mITX) so there weren't many options.
Have you even read any of the Mantle documentation, or paid any attention to the Vulkan and DX12 talks out there? Yes, we're going to have games that will be able to use far more than 4 threads.
This should be better.
Where's you case by the way? You should get a carbide 200r.
Best price/performance card by far.
Memory is only an issue if you are one of those 4k retards.
Besides NVIDIA is releasing optimizations and workarounds for every game in their drivers to get around the issue.
I upgraded recently from my 680 and 3570k to a 980 and a 4790k, I tend to upgrade every 2 years so I thought now was a decent time. A couple of games recently have benefited from i7s and I wanted to max out Witcher 3 at 1080p 60fps so I thought why not.
Some acer thing until I can get around to getting a better one which shouldn't take too long. Just a bit worried about everything else there. What would be the best case for cable management?
Yeah SSD I can look around into getting a trusted one/recommended by friends
Not him, but I'm a programmer interested in the many-core model, and it's not really that far-fetched. Rendering is the only area left where we're still bottlenecked by a single thread, but with Mantle, D3D12, and Vulkan, that bottleneck is all but gone.
Now that there's the means, programmers just have to be convinced to give up the legacy stuff and write for N cores.
That's nice, but the only thing that that simulation does is uploading fuckloads of data into a nonexistent virtual infinite fast GPU.
So they made uploading shit into the vram parallel. That's a good thing, but 90% of the engine is still single thread.
The only thing this example shows is that they made SOME part parallel, and now using a fake simulation they give that part a lot of work so it eats up all cpu cores. In practice, this is useless.
Of course, you could have figured it out on your own if you had any idea how it works, instead of just regurgitating promotional material.
Something that would be useful if current CPUs bottlenecked GPUs, which they don't.
>an i7 can easily keep 2 titans worked at 100%
>hey look at this engine that can theoretically utilize more cores to feed a possibly infinite number of GPUs!
>that's great but no one actually needs that
>BUT WE MANAGED TO FILL 8 CORES WITH USELESS COMPUTATIONS, SO LOOK HOW FAST IT IS
An unexpected side effect of an SSD that it can fix badly written engines loading shit from the hard drive at bad times which cause microshutter.
You can put those games on an SSD to eliminate frame drops in the middle of the action when the retarded engine decides to load an effect.
So yes, it's worth it.
That's because nearly all AAA games are console ports, and consoles have a ridiculous power imbalance between the CPU and GPU. On the flipside you have something like Arma, which is seriously bottlenecked by your CPU.
You know how the devs always say they can't make cool AI or physics because it would mean giving up graphical effects? When rendering has a smaller CPU footprint, you can have more of those cool things that actually fucking matter towards gameplay.
OP, you DO realize that the 4790k and 4930k are two different architectures, right? The 4930k is previous gen Ivy Bridge-E while the 4790k is current-ish gen Haswell.
The 4790k is a quad core with hyperthreading. The 4930k is a 6-core with hyperthreading. The 4790k would win out in some games and other shit that doesn't take as much advantage of cores, but for pure multithreaded workloads the 4930k would give more performance.
Still, it's not worth getting the 4930k since it's previous gen and costs too much. If you were to go with the E platform then look at Haswell E and the i7 5820k. It's just a bit more than the 4790k compared to the 4930k's $200 premium.
Only thing is you'd have to go X99, meaning DDR4 ram and a new platform in general.
>Enjoy my faster load times
That's most related to drives.
>enjoy my higher FPS count
GPU makes a bigger difference in framerates than a CPU, especially if you're already using intel shit. Seriously, in games the frame rate difference between CPUs is negligible for the kind of money you'd sink on them.
The only time CPU would be more important would be if you were playing an unoptimized piece of shit like arma or total war or, as you said, emulating old shit.
However, in this situation it's a bit tricky. OP, what resolution will you be playing at? If you're at 1080p, just stick with the 280X and get the 4790k. If higher than that, get a 290X and a 4690k.
>Arma, which is seriously bottlenecked by your CPU.
Cause it's shit.
>you can have more of those cool things that actually fucking matter towards gameplay
Come back when a game will use this, not now where theoretically things are possible but never get used anyway.
It doesn't matter if the graphical engine has a smaller cpu footprint.
The AI and physics can go on a different core from graphics, which means that especially today, with so many unused cores, you have enough cores left for those kinds of things.
Hell, as the scalability testing pointed it out, the new engine can actually eat up all the cores if the gpu needs it. Which means even LESS cpu time left for ai and physics. How do you think this adds up?
Yeah, they're great.
Booted from cold in ~3 seconds.
Bethesda Games are much better.
Main drive is completely free.
And any other applications you throw on it are much better.
The downsides though are write-heavy things should be moved to your HDD. And you can no longer use hibernate if you did. Because the massive RAM caching is not fun for SSDs.
Get an i5 4670K/4690K.
You currently don't need something with more than 4 beefy cores. You don't need something with hyperthreading. The i7 4770K/4790K performs almost exactly the same in all games with such a tiny margin of difference that it isn't even worth noting. The i7 4930K might perform a bit better in some games due to having more cores and 12MB cache, but the price isn't really worthwhile. Also, don't bother getting a K variant unless you have a motherboard that allows full overclocking and are actually going to take advantage of the overclocking. I see this mistake all the time, people with K processors using motherboards that don't support overclocking at all. At least Z/X97 or GTFO.
Source: I run an overclocked i5-4690K
AI and physics can be run across all cores too.
Then you have lots of tiny vertical slices without any wasted core time instead of big horizontal slices which still need to be run in some kind of deadlock.
Don't listen to retarded trolls like this OP. Unless you're going to actually be rendering videos with your processor, there's literally no advantage to buying a more expensive i7 when there's an i5 that performs the same for far cheaper.
You better hope CDPR doesn't pull a FC4 where the game is programmed not to run if you have 2 cores unless you patch it.
Also upgrade that GPU. Seriously, non-shit midranged cards at cheap nowadays. Get a fucking R9 280 or something.
>AI and physics can be run across all cores too.
Then why don't they do that today? We have tons of unused cpu cores available.
Let me answer that. Because devs don't even bother making proper AI. You don't need ai in today's multiplayer focused games.
Yeah, the GPU is actually shit, but keep in mind it's a budget build. Disregarding the eventuality of not being able to play it at all on a dual core, do you think a 4ghz dual would be able to play the game?
OP has the money so what?
It's the best CPU anyway.
>preferiably a 970
>970 still being considered in April of 2015
Is this January? Who the fuck would pick an equal performing/priced card with 0.5 GB less VRAM in 2015?