I totally understand what you are trying to tell me about haswell but skylake offers gen 3 m.2 which is really a necessity for this build because of the Samsung sm951. If haswell had that capability, i would go for it but skylake is my choice. Thank you for the advice.
4.8 GHz which you can only get with a, guess what, Z board. H boards DO. NOT. ALLOW. OVERCLOCKING. Well, yes, since it's the only way to overclock. A cheaper (Z chipset) board, and an i5. Save the money for something that's actually worth it, better GPU or maybe a bigger SSD. Not worth £80. And again, any high-end gaming board is overkill, get a mid-end Z board and an i5, save your money. Only further reinforcing my point that Skylake is not really worth the price. An H81 motherboard does not support SLI or Crossfire, has only one x16 PCIe slot, and does not support overclocking so you're stuck at 4.4 GHz turbo with the i7. H81 boards often use lesser quality components too, making them more likely to fail. And the Z97-A is quite an expensive board actually, you can get much cheaper Z97 boards (although with no SLI support). There are Z97 board as low as $90, or even lower if you're willing to buy an ASrock board of rather doubtful quality. - - - Updated - - - TBH, should've gone with an i5 and a 256GB SSD. Or just saved yourself $100. Also, buy a hard drive. 1TB is $60 and you'll really need it, 128GB is nowhere near enough (Windows is ~30GB, GTA V alone would take half your storage).
I have an extra hard drive so so need to buy one, let me see how much it will cost with an i5 and a bigger ssd - - - Updated - - - Here is the new part list. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3H7fBm
Dont make me laugh. I will spend more in a Z97 motherboard because I wanna OC 400 MHz. The 4790K at stock is OCed 400MHz more than the 4790 non K, which isnt. What you said would make sense if I'm choosing the 4770K over 4770 or 4690K over 4690, because all of them are at the same stock speed. In other words, the 4790K performs better than the 4790 without any OC. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/520/Intel_Core_i7_i7-4790_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4790K.html That's why you put it onto a non Z motherboard instead of the 4790. Get it? And my question did not mention a better GPU or SSD, the guy have already chosen a 970, and wanna stick with it. Why would I SLI or Crossfire? It is well know for its problems with many games and bad performance considering that you have two cards. Some games even perform worse with two cards instead of one. Actually, Z motherboards are more likely to fail because of many VRM and Mosfet failure when overclocking. Lets see a RMA list: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/934-2/cartes-meres.html Classified by chipset, the return rate for failure is: - 3,30% Z87/Z97 - 2,54% H87/H97 - 2,17% B85 - 1,74% H81 jejeje And the motherboard that I mention is Gigabyte, not Asrock, lol. Although I don't have anything against ASRock. Seriously man, let's save money in hardcore mode. Do you know that overclock basically does not give any performance in games? Here are graphs comparing an 4790K at many speeds. i5 4690K at 4.8 GHz vs i5 4440. So yeah, I rather have an i7 4770 on a B85 dirty cheap mobo vs 4690K on a 100$ Z97 mobo. It might costs a bit more but it is a better investment. Is it an overkill? Yes, but same was getting a Q6600 instead of a E8400.
That is a thing of the past really. ASrock was 10 years ago a crap-board maker. Today they are surpassing Gigabyte and MSI and building actually high quality boards. I agree on your other points thou, save money on obvious overkill and invest it in things that are more needed. GPU > CPU, bigger SSD never hurts. @pillojon106 Gen3 m.2 supports up to 4GB a second of bandwidth and i kinda doubt that any current or next gen SSD is going to be limited by that in any way. There are also 1150 boards that have 4GB/s m.2 ports aswell but they are rather expensive. Yet the gen2 boards with 1GB/s shouldn't limit either. What matters in SSDs is IOPS and not bandwidth. You could have 4 GB/s with HDDs yet IOPS would suck because HDD. People rely on Overclocking for getting more future proofess out of their investment. Just because you don't need it now doesn't mean you don't need it in the future.
Overclocking does help with gaming. Some games rely on the gpu for performance so in that case, overclocking the 970 will help in fps. Games like beaming that rely on the CPU, overclocking will help. I would rather get the i5 honestly because an i7 is not worth the extra $100 the only difference between the i5 and i7 is hyper threading and more L3 cache by 2mb. Yes I would use the i7 of i was rendering videos or streaming but I'm gaming. The i5 is perfect for my needs. - - - Updated - - - I built a pic for my uncle recently using sm951 and the gen2 m.2 and it is fine but I would like gen3 because I want the most out of the ssd. The ssd is capable of 2gbps read speeds with the gen3 m.2 interface.
I have a question. Mom building his of for my brother and he thinks that getting a gtx 650 and then buy the 970 later is the best thing to do. What do you think about this silly theory?
Are you getting the 650 new or used? If new then it would be just money wasting and i'd go straight for the 970. Maybe save a little more up if money is the issue.
New and ya that's what I told him. If we got the 650 and then the 970, it would be like $430 for the gpus and if that were to happen, I would rather get a slightly used 980 then.
When I said overclock I mean CPU overclock (Nothing about GPU). And also, Witcher is a good example of CPU usage (Not as hard as BeamNG, but gives a good idea). Witcher (That I already posted a bench showing no difference between clocks speeds) Everything is great except when going thru the city (1:25) the CPU starts to struggle and the 4790K gets more than 10 fps over the 4690K, and stabler framerate, so yeah, HT Impacts in performance, while OC doesn't. I'll never tell you to go with a 4790K if you cant afford more than an i5 4440/4460 which is a great CPU and gives you more than enough performance for gaming but, if you're willing to spend more in a 4690K + Z97 motherboard (Or 6600K onto Z170) I'll recommend you to buy a 4770 (If your budget is tight, and costs extra 75$) or 4790K onto cheaper motherboard instead. You're spending almost the same or less and I've shown that is a good investment, obviously if you want all the possibilities of a newer chipset you cant, but you get the point. Another good example is the G3258, you can overclock it as much as you want until outperform the 4130 in multithread performance, but all its cores are always at 100% and the framerate struggles terrible to the point of unplayable in some games, so yeah, same conclusion: HT > OC. What you will need in the future is HT.
Witcher is a poor example. It's engine has been heavily optimised for the octa core architecture of next gen consoles, hence why they recommend an octa core for pc players and hence why hyper threading works on it.
I have used ASUS for over 15 years and only RMA one thing and that was a GTX680 and even then that was down to Nvidia causing the problem and I would highly recommend ASUS products because you get a quality product and a great service
I think everyone got it by now that you really like a 4790K in a H-board. But your preference for HT relies just on 1-2 benchmarks, other would call that 'cherry-picking'. Fact is that a lot of other games don't profit as much as in your examples. Some run worse. And for these games max CPU frequency is what counts. Also he could get a 6 Core Haswell-EP 5820K for around the same money as your 4790K. 6 Cores + HT + OC > 4 Cores + HT + OC. You can always argue whats best and whats worst. In this scenario right here he has a limited budget and a couple targets to achieve. I think the latest build achieves just that. ATX, i5 with OC, 256GB SSD, GTX 970.
That's what I'm sticking with. Because a lot of people have i5 2500k with an overclock and it performs great in games even today's games. So I think having the i5 overclock will do me fine.
Hence there will be more games optimized for multi thread process. The 5820K is way too expensive, not the CPU itself, its motherboards are too expensive. And no, there aren't any game that run worse in the 4790K vs 4690K/6600K, I already said that the 4790K at stock has better single thread performance, you would have put the i5 onto a Z mobo and OC it until beat the i7, here's when you can say that the max CPU frequency is what counts. Today there arent many games that show a big difference between an i7 and i5, but like I said, same thing happend in the past with the E8400 vs Q6600, by that time almost every game did perform better in the E8400, something completly different today. Guys we are in 2015, not 2011 when there wasn't differences between the 2500K and 2600K in every game (except for the Crysis 3 mania) I think that all we got that tendency is changing, still the i5 is a great CPU and has many years to come.
Its poor optimisation if anything.... Usually the solution to a problem is not throw more threads at it unless you have already maxed out the CPU cores you are using already as in BeamNG. The witcher only does it as its on a console with incredibly poor single core performance. The same type of game built for PC in the first place only needs 2 or 3 cores and could easily have had its logic merged back, but no, they opted to leave it split.
E8400 vs Q6600 2 real cores vs 4 real cores 6600K vs 4790K 4 real cores vs 4 real cores + 4 virtual cores You are comparing apples vs oranges. Of course 4 real cores will show an impact once they get used. Do you even know how Intels implementation of HT works? The virtual cores are squeezed into the empty spots of a real core that aren't fully utilized. Meaning once the 4 real cores on the 4790K are utilized to the max HT won't help anything. HT will never life up to the performance that 4 real cores would deliver. But that is just guesswork and hypotetical debating what we are doing here. I'd suggest we just stop talking about i5 vs i7 because it's 1. not in budget 2. i5 system fits pillojon106 brother demands quite good.
I'll never call that poor optimisation. If you see all the video until the compare them againts FX, the I5 still performs better than the FX 8350 which has better multithread performance in syntetic benchmarks. Poor optimisation is a high dependence of single thread performance, games like Arma III that are well know because a G3258 performs way better than a FX 8350. G3258 vs i3 4130. 2 Cores at even 4.8 GHz vs 2 Cores at 3.4 GHz + HT, and yes the i3 performs better even in the most demanding CPU games and way more stable. Yep, another thing to consider is the frame time, you can see many benchmarks showing the G3258 performing like the i7 4790K, but it does freeze during heavy usage making it unplayable.
