re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts

/r/gamingpc for higher end stuff. People there know wtf they're talking about.

/r/buildapc is where everyone goes.

I stick mostly to gamingpc because most people on buildapc spout useless bullshite

Christ I can't find a damn copy of Windows 7 anywhere. I might need to redownload the copy I got before. I don't think my flash drive is cooperating.

quote:

---

has anyone come across a graph or similar device that has a reasonable approximation of maximum gpu to cpu combo? basically the point where a cpu X will generally bottleneck vid card Y.

i imagine there are too many variables to really create such a device.

---

Because of the variables, it's easier to just come up with a general rule. I recommend anyone building an all-around gaming machine meant for today's games, yesterday's games, and tomorrow's games at whatever settings, just get a quad-core CPU with average or high single threaded performance compared to other quad-cores. This obviously covers all GPU-heavy games in that it doesn't bottleneck anything at all on your motherboard, but it also covers CPU-dependent games that aren't optimized for multiple cores, as well as future games that will actually do a better job of using all 4 cores to their optimal potential. It's the reason I recommend Intel. It has a significant advantage in single-thread applications, and will be an equivalent (or at least sufficient for the rest of the hardware) performer when/if we get more games that actually give a shite about what the rest of the CPU can offer.

But really, even an i3 paired with a 7970 is a perfectly capable gaming machine. People tend too put too much emphasis on the CPU, thinking that a CPU "bottleneck" means that you need 8350 instead of the 8320 or else your 7970 will perform like a 7950 or even worse (just a random example).

In most games which are GPU-dependent, the difference between, say, an i7-4770k (my CPU) and a $75 Pentium G850, is marginal (assuming both CPUs are paired with the same card).

But, it is a different story with CPU-hungry bitches like Skyrim. Recall a Tom's Hardware test from early 2012.



As you can see, even cheap i3s were raping those AMDs. Look how terrible even the 8120 was performing compared to an i3. It's gonna be a similar story with games like Civ 5, starcraft, FSX, etc.

That's why the 2500k was THE CPU to get for gaming systems. But now AMD has the 8320 and 8350, with the latter performing at a similar level to Intel's i5 IB and Haswell, so the choice between AMD and Intel at that price point is really just a matter of preference in strictly a gaming environment.


GPU-hungry Metro 2033 test, showing the chips performing at pretty similar levels with the same GPU.

The bottom line is if you're building a budget machine, it's incredibly easy to keep it simple. If the game wants GPU power, a $100 AMD FX-6300 or i3 equivalent won't hold it back enough to matter. And if you just want good gaming performance across the board, you'll be happy with pretty much any $200 flavor of the month CPU.

LINK

quote:

---

and then after that I have to learn how to overclock

---

you can take your time with this, you don't have to do it on day 1

quote:

---

you can take your time with this, you don't have to do it on day 1

---

If I don't take my time on OC'ing I know I'll end up burning up my new $250 processor.. I will be taking my time on OC'ing

When I think of HTPC, I think of PCs that will not be used for games, in which case a discrete card is not even necessary unless you're trying to watch 3d movies. Or else you can look into the low level 7000 series.

I know those of you around a Micro Center will be foaming at the mouth for this deal

LINK

come to think of it i think i have a 6570 laying around somewhere. im sure thatll pair nicely.

Yea I am actually going to hop on in an hour or so.