You need to Read the rules and Join the forums before you can post.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I'm a Noob who needs help.
05-28-2014, 05:21 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-28-2014, 05:26 PM by Sir_Pyr0_the_III.)
#11
I'm a Noob who needs help.
I will and I also switched the Case to the Cooler Master Storm Stryker White Edition just because it had higher ratings and had a window so I can see my wonderful work tinted blue with the NZXT HUE.

And yes it appears that It comes with thermal paste however people say it is a little on the stiff side.
Using Tapatalk
Reply
05-29-2014, 01:29 AM,
#12
RE: I'm a Noob who needs help.
if it were me, I'd put a 500GB samsung evo 840 for $40.00 more than the 256GB samsung pro.
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.7Ghz Mobo: Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 5 GPU: MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G HSF: Cryorig R1 Ultimate
Mem: 2 x 8GB G.Skill TridentX DDR3 2400 SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 500GB + a few spinners
PSU: Seasonic SS-760XP Platinum Case: Fractal Design Define R5 Monitors: 2 x Dell 2007FP 1600x1200
Reply
05-30-2014, 02:45 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-30-2014, 02:57 PM by PwnBroker.)
#13
RE: I'm a Noob who needs help.
(05-27-2014, 01:00 PM)Rapajez Wrote: The i7 just adds hyper threading, and won't do much for you in gaming. Plus you save $100 dollars in the process. The 4th gen i5 should actually beat out the 3rd gen i7 in most games.

in this users situation that would be true, but as newer updated game engines are now rolling out the and have been since BF3 and now BF4, Crysis3, ans Watch Dogs "hyper threading wont do much for gaming" is no longer valid. to prove this, just look at benchmarks between the i3 and one of the dual core cpu's without hyper threading. one other thing to think about, where the i3 used to beat out the higher end FX chips that is also no longer the case with these newer games.

thats not to say that you need an i7 to play the game but the best user experience in a mainstream or higher end system does makes sense for the best user experience, even at 1080p, if playing one of these newer games. even with a haswell i5, in a 64 player meat grinder map on BF4, it will push 90-100% cpu usage with occasional lag spikes. with the i7 it will push it to about 80% with no lag spikes, it gives a little more head room for those types of games. if just looking a FPS benchmark results one could take away that there is no difference between an i5 and an i7(except in the case of BF4 where the i7 shows a marked increase in FPS), but put them toe to toe in the games i mentioned above with those high player maps and user experience will lend toward the i7.

didnt mean to hijack the thread.
Reply
06-09-2014, 03:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-09-2014, 03:08 PM by Rapajez.)
#14
RE: I'm a Noob who needs help.
Makes sense. I should have clarified "for those games, hyper-threading isn't worth the $100". At least when that $100 could go toward a more future proof card.

Even with heavily threaded games, would you agree that the old rule "spend twice as much on your GPU as your CPU" still applies?
GPU: NVIDIA Titan X, CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz OC'd @ 4.5GHz, Mobo: ASRock Z77 Extreme4, Mem: 2x Corsair Dominator 2133MHz 8GB, SSD: Samsung 850 EVO, Case: Corsair Carbide 500R, PSU: Corsair TX850M, CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14, Case Fans: 4x Cooler Master Excalibur 120mm PWM, Monitors: 3x ViewSonic VX2270SMH-LED in NVIDIA Surround
Reply
06-09-2014, 04:43 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-09-2014, 05:50 PM by PwnBroker.)
#15
RE: I'm a Noob who needs help.
(06-09-2014, 03:07 PM)Rapajez Wrote: Makes sense. I should have clarified "for those games, hyper-threading isn't worth the $100". At least when that $100 could go toward a more future proof card.

Even with heavily threaded games, would you agree that the old rule "spend twice as much on your GPU as your CPU" still applies?

generally most users want to run as high as a detail setting that they can get away with, and thats the graphics portion which may dictate a gpu costing twice as much as the cpu. where the threading/cores comes into play is those high count multiplayer maps/games. that is where your cpu utilization is going to hit a ceiling, even with 4 core/thread cpus regardless of the gpu you have slotted.

so it all depends on what the user wants. say for instance if a user plays BF4 and only likes the 32 player maps, then an i5 will play it all day long. but, when going into a 64 player map then the user might see some lag in certain parts of the map. remember, DICE, strives to push a 6 core cpu to 100% cpu usage in bf4 64 player maps. and looking at the newer games from some of the other devs, they are pretty much doing the same.(DICE'S reasoning was because with the AMD cores in the new consoles, they are pushing them for a better user experience. 2 of those 8 cores are reserved for gpu processing.) as we get further down the road i can all of the dev's game engines utilizing high thread count, BUT hopefully they will also adopt an API solution like Mantle(or an NVIDIA solution) that will help alleviate the high cpu utilization of the lower threaded cpu's.
Reply
06-10-2014, 10:54 AM, (This post was last modified: 06-10-2014, 10:55 AM by Rapajez.)
#16
RE: I'm a Noob who needs help.
Now that we've already de-railed. Smile Do you think the Hyperthreading on a Haswell i7 has much of an impact in those BF4 64 person maps, over the i5? I understand how going from an i5-4570 to a 6-core i7-4930 could do that.

In other-words, if the core-count is important, is the $100 for an i7 4770 worth it, or should the user jump to the 2011 platform?
GPU: NVIDIA Titan X, CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz OC'd @ 4.5GHz, Mobo: ASRock Z77 Extreme4, Mem: 2x Corsair Dominator 2133MHz 8GB, SSD: Samsung 850 EVO, Case: Corsair Carbide 500R, PSU: Corsair TX850M, CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14, Case Fans: 4x Cooler Master Excalibur 120mm PWM, Monitors: 3x ViewSonic VX2270SMH-LED in NVIDIA Surround
Reply
06-10-2014, 12:11 PM,
#17
RE: I'm a Noob who needs help.
well here are some benchmarks to answer your questions:

in this benchmark the i7 outperforms the i5 in single player by 25% in bf3, and thats about how much perfromance increase that HT will achieve with software that utilizes it. notice how the i5 hovers around 34 at the highest, throw in 95-100% utilization on multiplayer maps and you will hit 10-15 fps drop causing those lag spikes. the i7 will still hit around 30 making it still playable.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel...son/8.html

bf4 uses even more cpu resources in multiplayer as seen here:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/33218/batt...index.html

it hovers around 61% and jumps to 75% at times, with the i5 its gonna hit at 100% at times.

on the other side some of the newer game engines prefers cores over HT as seen here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watc...833-8.html

even at ultra settings(which usually which used to transfer the load to the gpu), clearly loves cores over HT.

one other thing that stands out on these new game engines where they are utilizing more threads/cores is that overclocking the cpu no longer yields that much of a frame rate increase. so with all of this info in hand, if you got the money to spend, play those higher player count maps and want the smoothest gameplay possible then 100 bucks wont mean much to you, but for most of us still, the i5 or the 6300/8350 will still be rocking these game engines for a while longer. and like you said that 100 bucks could be spent better elsewhere.

again sorry for the hijack, but i like a good conversation from time to time.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)