Page 46 of 47 FirstFirst ...
36
44
45
46
47
LastLast
  1. #901
    Elemental Lord Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    8,264
    I was just confused about the "I see people...", if you meant the builds in this thread or random build threads on this forum or something different.

    There is one build in this thread, I'm not really sure when the latest overhaul was done and how up to date it is. Perhaps the APU was the best price/performance at the time and is maybe a possible extension of the "Family/Office/Entry 320", starting out with an APU.
    CPU: Intel i7-4790k 4.7GHz MB: ASUS Z97 Pro Gamer
    GPU: Gigabyte GTX 970 G1-Gaming 1519MHz Boost RAM: Corsair Pro 16GB 1866MHz
    SSD: Samsung 850-EVO 500GB PSU: Corsair RM550 CASE: Phanteks Enthoo Pro Monitor: 1440p Dell U2515H 1080p LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2015 || AV-TEST 2014

  2. #902
    I think in that specific case the APU was around 10 dollars more than the non-APU version. So he decided to go for the apu, so that in case the gpu breaks you got something to fall back on And the 10 dollars did not improve anything else significantly.

  3. #903
    Quote Originally Posted by Xuvial View Post
    There is only 1 build like that, the Extreme Budget Gaming 460. I see what you mean though, looks a bit odd.

    The "Gaming 1220" on the quoted previous page uses an i5 APU chip too. On page 20, two posters use i5 chips too, one poster uses an AMD CPU 6 core 3.5ghz chip for the "mid-end" build and an 3.4ghz quad core APU for their "high-end" build.

    I just feel like I'm missing something.

    EDIT: What I'm seeing is that you can't get an intel dedicated CPU for under $300 unless you're going to get a GPU thrown in. Why is that?

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

    It seems like all i5 are inferior in performance, or you can go with a much more expensive i7, or you can go with AMD.
    Last edited by Rukh; 2014-03-22 at 12:34 AM.
    [Infracted!]

  4. #904
    Elemental Lord Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    8,264
    You seem really confused. The i5 3570k, i5 4670k etc. is not bought for their graphical performance. For gaming those are some of the best CPUs around. You do not wanna go off of that websites benchmark to cage gaming performance.
    CPU: Intel i7-4790k 4.7GHz MB: ASUS Z97 Pro Gamer
    GPU: Gigabyte GTX 970 G1-Gaming 1519MHz Boost RAM: Corsair Pro 16GB 1866MHz
    SSD: Samsung 850-EVO 500GB PSU: Corsair RM550 CASE: Phanteks Enthoo Pro Monitor: 1440p Dell U2515H 1080p LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2015 || AV-TEST 2014

  5. #905
    Sure they could be great but my question is still: Is that GPU being used for anything?
    [Infracted!]

  6. #906
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    Sure they could be great but my question is still: Is that GPU being used for anything?
    Quicksync. Don't need Shadowplay
    Intel i5 2500K (4.5 GHz) | Asus Z77 Sabertooth | 16GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600MHz | Gigabyte Windforcex3 HD 7950 | Crucial M4 128GB | Crucial M550 256GB | Asus Xonar DGX | Samson SR 850 | Zalman ZM-Mic1 | Western Digital Caviar Black 2000GB | Noctua NH-U12P SE2 | Fractal Design Arc Midi | Corsair HX650

    Former author of the TankSpot.com Protection Paladin guide

  7. #907
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    15,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    Sure they could be great but my question is still: Is that GPU being used for anything?
    The dedicated GPU or the internal GPU within the CPU?

    A dedicated GPU will always be better and allow the CPU to focus on more CPU-bound tasks.

    CPU + GPU may be a bit more expensive, but it will ultimately perform much much better than an APU.

    Also, that website isn't good for gauging gaming performance as 99% of games are still single-threaded, where as that website uses a multi-threaded benchmarking software (not even a game!) thus it will highly favor multi-core/thread CPUs, so yes, in that case, AMD will often win, considering their love for 6, 8, core etc CPUs, whereas Intel focuses on stronger single cores within smaller core CPUs.

    Look at Intel's more high-end serious multi-core CPUs. AMD provides cheap "okay" multi-core CPUs, for instance their $200~ 8 core CPUs... while Intel's 8 core CPUs are much much more powerful. Intel doesn't waste time on making cheap 8 core CPUs, instead they make very powerful 4 core CPUs that ultimately perform just the same if not better, oddly enough.

  8. #908
    Elemental Lord Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    8,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    Sure they could be great but my question is still: Is that GPU being used for anything?
    No not really. You could use it if your GPU died, you could use it to watch videos, browse the web etc. while mining Crypto currencies.
    CPU: Intel i7-4790k 4.7GHz MB: ASUS Z97 Pro Gamer
    GPU: Gigabyte GTX 970 G1-Gaming 1519MHz Boost RAM: Corsair Pro 16GB 1866MHz
    SSD: Samsung 850-EVO 500GB PSU: Corsair RM550 CASE: Phanteks Enthoo Pro Monitor: 1440p Dell U2515H 1080p LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2015 || AV-TEST 2014

  9. #909
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltrusDisc View Post
    The dedicated GPU or the internal GPU within the CPU?

    A dedicated GPU will always be better and allow the CPU to focus on more CPU-bound tasks.

    CPU + GPU may be a bit more expensive, but it will ultimately perform much much better than an APU.

    Also, that website isn't good for gauging gaming performance as 99% of games are still single-threaded, where as that website uses a multi-threaded benchmarking software (not even a game!) thus it will highly favor multi-core/thread CPUs, so yes, in that case, AMD will often win, considering their love for 6, 8, core etc CPUs, whereas Intel focuses on stronger single cores within smaller core CPUs.

    Look at Intel's more high-end serious multi-core CPUs. AMD provides cheap "okay" multi-core CPUs, for instance their $200~ 8 core CPUs... while Intel's 8 core CPUs are much much more powerful. Intel doesn't waste time on making cheap 8 core CPUs, instead they make very powerful 4 core CPUs that ultimately perform just the same if not better, oddly enough.
    99% of games don't need anywhere near the top of the line CPU either. ; ) However, the XB1 does in fact use an 8 core CPU, just with much lower clock speeds than anything on the list.
    [Infracted!]

  10. #910
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    15,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    99% of games don't need anywhere near the top of the line CPU either. ; ) However, the XB1 does in fact use an 8 core CPU, just with much lower clock speeds than anything on the list.
    Actually, need vs want here.

    If you want to play games, even WoW at max settings with consistent 60 fps, or at least close, and high resolutions like 1080p or above, yes, yes you do need a higher-end CPU.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Basically it is a case of "do we need max graphics?"

    No, we don't, but a lot of people want them. In many games, WoW being the game this particular website is focused on, the CPU is very important.

  11. #911
    Elemental Lord Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    8,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    99% of games don't need anywhere near the top of the line CPU either. ; ) However, the XB1 does in fact use an 8 core CPU, just with much lower clock speeds than anything on the list.
    Yeah it's perfect for a home media entertainment system with some light gaming on the side.
    CPU: Intel i7-4790k 4.7GHz MB: ASUS Z97 Pro Gamer
    GPU: Gigabyte GTX 970 G1-Gaming 1519MHz Boost RAM: Corsair Pro 16GB 1866MHz
    SSD: Samsung 850-EVO 500GB PSU: Corsair RM550 CASE: Phanteks Enthoo Pro Monitor: 1440p Dell U2515H 1080p LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2015 || AV-TEST 2014

  12. #912
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    99% of games don't need anywhere near the top of the line CPU either. ; ) However, the XB1 does in fact use an 8 core CPU, just with much lower clock speeds than anything on the list.
    Last I recall the i5 3570k, etc, remain the sweetspot for gaming for a couple of reasons.

    Firstly, while you get perfectly playable graphics with a lesser CPU the performance gain per dollar remains pretty solid until a certain point. I don't think the i5 k model is necessarily that sweetspot in and of itself, but it's in the ballpark sufficiently enough that the overclocking options become a very acceptable argument for why you should take the dive for that little bit extra.

    Secondly, don't look at AMD CPUs and say "it's got 8 cores!" without considering the caveat. While I'm fine with calling it 8 cores, remember that these are not "functionally independent" cores. Each pair in the CPU share modules that are critical to their operation. Now remember that both the XB1 and the PS4 use AMD hardware.

    Third, games don't give a toss about the number of cores. They just care about the speed of each of those cores. Most of the better threaded games ultimately still only really use threads best described as "one thread with everything, bunch of threads with the rest"; you don't need a lot of cores to work with those, even a dualcore can multitask through those small subprocesses just fine. Your CPU already does a couple thousand context switches per second IIRC.

    Now your question was about the iGPU. The iGPU is not being used by most users that have a discreet graphics card, because virtually any card worth having outperforms the iGPU. Is it redundant? Mostly, yes. It's convenient for diagnostics sometimes, but. However, you take what you get; most of Intel's newer CPUs come with an iGPU, and the few that don't usually aren't worth having.

    "But AMD doesn't bundle an iGPU with their AM3 FX series do they?" Well, they don't that I recall, but see the things I mentioned earlier; a lower performance per core, cores simply not mattering so much and sturdy overclocks make the Intel options attractive to most build guides. The AM3 FX series can all be overclocked, which is a great bonus, but they're a bit finnicky to figure out. A good temperature readout is something I struggle with when working with a friend's machine.

  13. #913
    So I poked Marest about it, and he seems to have been busy to do the update yet. I assume we should take this time then to ask if there are any obvious errors that need addressing?

  14. #914
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    15,765
    Well, we should definitely advise people the GTX 750/750 Ti over most of the lower-end GPU recommendations.
    Cooler Master Hyper 212+ was taken out of production literally over a year ago, good luck finding one. Should be switched to the 212 Evo, if we think $35 is a good price. Wouldn't say it is too bad.

    What else what else...

    Some of the AMD APUs I think are older varieties, newer ones will be better for likely the same price.
    Pretty much all RAM went up in price.

    Basically this is due for a rather massive overhaul.

  15. #915
    can i put a 4770k+h100i cooler in a cheaper case/mobo than the $2410 build or is that a bad idea. i like the asrock extreme 4 but no clue about cases and cooling is really important to me because of where i live.
    Quote Originally Posted by inboundpaper View Post
    The short answer is nope, the long answer is noooooooooooooooope.

  16. #916

  17. #917
    I am Murloc! Xuvial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    5,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Racthoh View Post
    can i put a 4770k+h100i cooler in a cheaper case/mobo than the $2410 build or is that a bad idea. i like the asrock extreme 4 but no clue about cases and cooling is really important to me because of where i live.
    This thread is for discussing the sample builds, price/performance and part suggestions. For questions regarding your own purchases/builds, please make a seperate thread in the Build/Upgrade subforum

  18. #918
    Field Marshal
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    French
    Posts
    57
    This thread is outdated (7-jul 2013)

    Please update it or unstick it.

  19. #919
    Quote Originally Posted by Aloryen View Post
    This thread is outdated (7-jul 2013)

    Please update it or unstick it.
    While I agree it needs updating, you're no commander or anything. If you want to ask for moderator actions, just report the post, no need for posting here. Additionally, you certainly provide very little good feedback on what exactly should be updated.
    Last edited by Drunkenvalley; 2014-06-24 at 02:03 PM.

  20. #920
    Field Marshal
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    French
    Posts
    57
    indeed.

    But a sticky post may be considered as a "reference" for all noobies here. And a 1 year old in computer hardware is no more a reference.

    In each build, at least one component is outdated and no more in sales. A simple update with, well the same but updated component (like a sandybridge>haswell cpu) is a good start.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •