where did I say an i7 wouldnt run it fine? Hyperthreading just doesnt bring any benefit to high CPU usage tasks such as BeamNG, most games dont need the higher logical core count that hyperthreading brings either, end result being that an i7 is a total waste of money on a gaming rig.
Get the AMD, it's cheaper. I was thinking of an i7 but everyone told me it was overpriced and someone else recommended the 8350 to me.
UPDATE: New PC, based on an Intel i7 4790K @4.0GHz UPDATE: I'm working for my mom this week + birthday money. Getting $500 total for that. Plus the 300-400$ from selling my old CPU (the Acer Veriton L4620G, an $800 computer). So I'll have 800-900 plus any other extra money I get from my dad, so HOORAH. It's gonna happen. Probably gonna get the i7K (just cause I personally think it's worth it) and probably a nVidia GTX or something. Anyone have a good graphics card that pairs well with the i7K? Hoorah again! -Update- Possible (still probably going to change) Specs: Intel i7 4790K @4.0GHz (Turbo 4.4 GHz, Overclock ~@4.7GHz) nVidia GTX of some sort (recommendations anyone?) (or equivalent) 8-16 GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series RAM (or equivalent) ASUS Xonar 7.1 Surround Sound Card L337 Gaming GANK MACHINE EXTREME Motherboard (probably not, recommendations?) (Possibly) Seagate Hybrid Drive 1TB 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s Cooling/Case- To Be Decided I'm so happy that I get to build this
Re: UPDATE: New PC, based on an Intel i7 4790K @4.0GHz Get the AMD Radeon R9 270X it's a good but not ultimate graphics card or then go to R9 290X
Now the graphics card... Radeon R9 270X http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...1&cm_re=Radeon_R9_270X-_-14-127-761-_-Product (seeing lots of problems from the card (overheat, dying in a week, etc), but can't be sure yet) (in the reviews) vs nVidia GTX 760: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121775&cm_re=gtx_760-_-14-121-775-_-Product Possible motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131979 ASUS z87-PRO LGA
My personal preference has always been for NVidia cards over AMD. They have a similar thing going with intel vs AMD with the NVidia card costing a little more for the same performance, but the quality is almost guaranteed. You don't tend to hear about as many NVidia card failures as AMD and the drivers seem far more stable (AMD have often had problems with drivers). Not to mention the number of titles taking advantage of CUDA for extra effects outnumbering those taking advantage of Mantle for added performance (which seems to have become a non starter and isn't even boosting performance that much either)
Cheaper you say? You have to take into account all the variables here, not just money. It is cheaper on Day 1, but tell me, how long do you plan to keep that CPU? In my case I've had my CPU for 2 years and I will keep it for a few more years as I don't see any new CPU being a decent upgrade over mine. So my question is, is it really worth it saving a few dollars on day 1 for years of lower performance, more heat and higher power draw? Nope. I don't have any real preference, I think both offer good quality and I just get the one that offers me the best performance for the lowest price at that moment. That's why I've always had AMD cards so far, HD 4870, HD 5850, HD 7950, (and HD 6850 for my brother) not a single card has ever failed, nor I have ever had a problem with drivers (funny how every time someone says AMD drivers have problems it is a Nvidia owner who says that), though I can't say the same about the Nvidia card of my friend which died after 1 year... Every single product can fail, you heard AMD cards fail more, I've heard Nvidia cards fail more. And PhysX has been there for a long time, Mantle hasn't, and there are some big titles coming with mantle support, just give it some time.
Re: UPDATE: New PC, based on an Intel i7 4790K @4.0GHz You might not want to get a Seagate drive because of this. If you can fit it in your budget (It's super expensive per GB), get the fastest SSD available right now, the Samsung 850 Pro . I was on a budget, so I went with a Toshiba 7200rpm 2TB drive. As for the case, I personally like Fractal Design's cases or the Corsair Obsidian series for the clean look. I have a FD Core 1000 that has pretty good airflow, but I think the main problem is my "semi-modular" Corsair TX750M cables that get in the way. Speaking of which, you should probably add a PSU into your budget, it's one of the most important parts in your computer.
Re: UPDATE: New PC, based on an Intel i7 4790K @4.0GHz Alright, I'll definitely look at the hitachi drive. The case I'll decide on when I have picked everything else. I'll make sure to check those out though. And yes, that's going to be the next step. Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk
Seagates are reliable, my brother is using an 8 year old 250gb seagate and it works just like it did the first day. I've been using a 500gb seagate drive myself for a few years now. Don't change your opinion on some random study.
Not necessarily saying I will, just considering it. I'll look into both and see which would be worth it. Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk
Western Digital is master race, don't even consider seagoat. I am currently using and have installed the WD Blue 1TB in nummerous computers and I have yet to see a single one break down. At work I had two faulty seagoat 1TB external drives in a row.
Not really, as a good example a FX-8350 is about £100 ($170) cheaper than a i5 3770k that it out preforms in real world tests. Unless you have a reasonably high end i7 there will always be a "decent upgrade" over your CPU. I've seen loads of people bitching about the temperature on some AMD chips but my 8350 is about 30c at idle and up to 60c under heavy load. A bit hotter with the stock cooler but not too much, perfectly reasonable. So yes it is better to save $170 for something that out preforms the more expensive chip. Power usage isn't that awful and its not like its going to up your bill by $170... On top of all of this Intel motherboards are generally more expensive for less features.
i5 3770k doesn't exist. It is either i5 3570k or i7 3770k. There is a 60$ difference from the fx-8350 and the i5 3770k, and there is no doubt which one is the best for gaming. I'm not sure how much electricity costs where you live, in my case, in just 2-3 years of daily use the AMD would've cost more than the intel considering its 125W TDP. It is faster for video encoding and such, though I don't think most people who get a computer like that use it for that purpose.
Oh yeah I don't know how i managed to put it in wrong twice but yeah I meant the i7 3770k But yeah over the space of 2-3 years its not really overly important any more when its 3 years old I'm pretty sure at least some parts of your PC will have changed and you won't even care about the price gap after that long. Which means that the Intel is fine if you're planning on keeping the system the same for 3-4 years. However the FX-8350 will out preform the 3770k in some games and situations and when it does it will do so by a big margin. Either way its up to the buyer and what they want to spend on the day and both are pretty competitive CPU's and although the 3770k might be slower in some games and situations its still a bit of better choice overall if the money is right. Yep, agreed. Its all on money to performance for the most part...
I doubt that the fx-8350 outperforms i7-3770k. At it's best the 8350 is a tie with intel but with some other games the intel outperforms amd. And intel uses less energy. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407-3.html So i'd get the intel less heat and more power, but when amd is overclocked, it is about the same as stock i7-3770k. Anyway, it is pretty sure that the GPU is the bottleneck for gaming with these processors.
