Now that I'm looking more closely at your graph Quiz, shouldn't it be more like a exponential function rather than a square root function?
I mean, if you actually plotted price versus some benchmark number or something, that's one thing, but in my non-scientific experience, the price tends goes up pretty steeply at the performance end of the pool.
It's not a list of all of the CPUs that you could buy. For one discussion, we might be considering an FX-6300 as the budget option and a Core i5-4690K as the high end. For another, it might be a Silvermont Atom as the budget option and a dual core Kaveri as the "high end". Or a lot of other places on the scale. My point is, if CPU B is both faster and more expensive than CPU A, and CPU C is closer in price to B and in performance to A, then don't buy C.
The Core i5-4440 and -4690 are the same chip, but merely clocked differently. Their max turbo boosts are 3.3 GHz and 3.9 GHz, respectively. That makes the latter about 18% faster than the former. If you're going to pay a price premium for a faster CPU, then you want to get a faster CPU.
For AMD, the usual budget gaming CPU is an FX-6300. It's slower than a Core i5-4440, yes, but it's a lot cheaper. My argument basically amounts to, on this graph, don't buy a red dot.
On your budget, I'd get the Core i5-4690 or 4690K, depending on your interest in overclocking. It fits your budget, and for gaming purposes, we're seeing very slow gains, so a nice processor now might last a very long time. GPUs are still advancing steadily, so a CPU you buy today might still be nice in five years, while a GPU is probably going to feel awfully dated by then.
You also want to know what upgrade path you want to take. Do you want to SLI/Xfire for triple monitor setup or are you going to go for one single powerful GPU to manage the load? If you are going SLI/Xfire route you'll need to have a PSU that can handle the dual GPU load as well as have a Mobo that will be efficient enough to SLI/Xfire properly. You will also need a powerful enough PSU if you are going with a powerful single GPU set up - don't get caught short on your power supply.
Last thing you want to do is change out a 550w PSU for a higher rated PSU on dual GPU or single high end GPU set up. Also, for two GPUs you will want to have a mobo that can support them with 2 PCIe x16 slots instead of 2 PCIe x8.
SLI/CrossFire isn't a viable upgrade option unless you later get the second GPU for free or nearly so. I've seen some people claim to buy two identical GPUs for two computers at once, then later upgrade both by buying a single faster GPU, while putting both of the old GPUs in the same rig. Apart from that, SLI/CrossFire is really only sensible for people who think one high end GPU isn't good enough, so they'll buy two high end GPUs up front. And that doesn't fit the budget of most people.
This is the direction I would go if I had $1k for a new game rig, I'm not sure what it would cost in euro but if it comes out over I think dropping the 980 for 970 should make it attainable under 1k.
Why I chose these parts for a Gaming PC (emphasis on G-Sync):
- The FX 6300 is a very capable CPU for a gaming PC the brunt of the work will be handled by the GPU.
- The mobo has 2 x16 slots for SLI upgrade ability
- The PSU is overkill atm but it is SLI ready
The key point of this build is to upgrade by adding components instead of replacing parts. ie: instead of changing out a 960 for a later card you can add another 980 when they drop in price for SLI performance.
There's really no sense in going with G-sync if you have to buy both a new monitor and a new video card, unless you've got a ridiculous budget and won't consider anything else but a Titan X. Adaptive sync does the same thing as G-sync, but without adding $150 to the price of the monitor.
AMD's AM3+ platform is only PCI Express 2.0, so PCI Express 2.0 x16 is essentially the same bandwidth as PCI Express 3.0 x8. That's really not the way you want to go. Not to mention that SLI is ridiculous on a sub-$2000 budget, as is planning to go SLI with a GTX 970 or GTX 980.
Originally posted by albers It seems that 4440 has almost same performance as 4690, it differs, really not by much. Altho, with k version you need a pcu cooler where you going to spend even more. Changed my build many times now. Does it really worth buying 4690k when you can go with 4440 +970 gpu and get 97 motherboard for later on upgrades. And indeed save more money for, monitor or something else.
I guess im really picky buyer.
Not picky at all, you are spot on there. Once you get i5, even the slowest one, you hit diminishing returns very quickly and any further MHz increase or more cores do not translate their price into performance well.
I would personally go with either i5-4460 or as I suggested above i5-4590s(bit faster than 4460 and less heat, imo good value for money).
While 97 boards support Broadwell CPUs, they seem to remain focused on mobile platform thus do not provide sensible upgrade/replacement path and in that case, you could just stick with cheaper B85 boards.
This is the direction I would go if I had $1k for a new game rig, I'm not sure what it would cost in euro but if it comes out over I think dropping the 980 for 970 should make it attainable under 1k.
Why I chose these parts for a Gaming PC (emphasis on G-Sync):
- The FX 6300 is a very capable CPU for a gaming PC the brunt of the work will be handled by the GPU.
- The mobo has 2 x16 slots for SLI upgrade ability
- The PSU is overkill atm but it is SLI ready
The key point of this build is to upgrade by adding components instead of replacing parts. ie: instead of changing out a 960 for a later card you can add another 980 when they drop in price for SLI performance.
There's really no sense in going with G-sync if you have to buy both a new monitor and a new video card, unless you've got a ridiculous budget and won't consider anything else but a Titan X. Adaptive sync does the same thing as G-sync, but without adding $150 to the price of the monitor.
AMD's AM3+ platform is only PCI Express 2.0, so PCI Express 2.0 x16 is essentially the same bandwidth as PCI Express 3.0 x8. That's really not the way you want to go. Not to mention that SLI is ridiculous on a sub-$2000 budget, as is planning to go SLI with a GTX 970 or GTX 980.
This is the direction I would go if I had $1k for a new game rig, I'm not sure what it would cost in euro but if it comes out over I think dropping the 980 for 970 should make it attainable under 1k.
Why I chose these parts for a Gaming PC (emphasis on G-Sync):
- The FX 6300 is a very capable CPU for a gaming PC the brunt of the work will be handled by the GPU.
- The mobo has 2 x16 slots for SLI upgrade ability
- The PSU is overkill atm but it is SLI ready
The key point of this build is to upgrade by adding components instead of replacing parts. ie: instead of changing out a 960 for a later card you can add another 980 when they drop in price for SLI performance.
There's really no sense in going with G-sync if you have to buy both a new monitor and a new video card, unless you've got a ridiculous budget and won't consider anything else but a Titan X. Adaptive sync does the same thing as G-sync, but without adding $150 to the price of the monitor.
AMD's AM3+ platform is only PCI Express 2.0, so PCI Express 2.0 x16 is essentially the same bandwidth as PCI Express 3.0 x8. That's really not the way you want to go. Not to mention that SLI is ridiculous on a sub-$2000 budget, as is planning to go SLI with a GTX 970 or GTX 980.
does this mean that they started to support adaptive sync?
No, that's something else entirely. Adaptive sync lets you change the monitor refresh rate dynamically to refresh when a new frame is available. Adaptive v-sync doesn't let you do that. The problem with normal v-sync (vertical sync) is that, after you finish rendering a frame, the video card stops entirely until the next scheduled monitor refresh. Adaptive v-sync says, go ahead and start rendering the next frame, even if we can't display the previous one yet. Adaptive sync says, display the frame you just rendered as soon as it's ready rather than waiting.
Adaptive v-sync was very much an improvement over traditional v-sync, though it's not at all the same as adaptive sync.
I'm writing here after few years, because i need your help again. It's time to build new pc which i mostly will use for gaming. Dont need ultra graphics on every single game. I just want to run it without a problem, i dont care about AA or something similar. But i want it to be enough powerful for my needs. If it will run fallout 4, witcher 3 on high settings i would be really happy.
Anyway, i made this build without mouse, monitor, keyboard. Most of the things i already have. Im planning to get cheaper monitor at the moment, till g sync monitors get cheaper. Or even get 3 monitors, it needs SLI? Which is not an option.
Also i was reading about new cpu sky lake which going to be released this year? Should i wait? Will it be affordable?
Everything is roughly 900 euros.
I chose 960 because its cheaper and i might be upgrading it next year, as someone said new cards going to get released at 2016.
Mostly i want this pc to work properly without any problems, no bottle necks or so. I don't have too much knowledge on these kind of things, so i ask your help and feedback. You helped me last time with my laptop.
Im hyped about this build, since i finally can afford this. It was my dream ! haha
Not going to read all the posts i hate reading early in the morning.
Ditch the ImpactV and the i5 4440
and take a Asus Asus Z97I-PLUS and a Intel Core i5-4690K
For the SSD go look for an Crucial M.2 SSD you can fit that on the motherboard itself.
Comments
It's not a list of all of the CPUs that you could buy. For one discussion, we might be considering an FX-6300 as the budget option and a Core i5-4690K as the high end. For another, it might be a Silvermont Atom as the budget option and a dual core Kaveri as the "high end". Or a lot of other places on the scale. My point is, if CPU B is both faster and more expensive than CPU A, and CPU C is closer in price to B and in performance to A, then don't buy C.
SLI/CrossFire isn't a viable upgrade option unless you later get the second GPU for free or nearly so. I've seen some people claim to buy two identical GPUs for two computers at once, then later upgrade both by buying a single faster GPU, while putting both of the old GPUs in the same rig. Apart from that, SLI/CrossFire is really only sensible for people who think one high end GPU isn't good enough, so they'll buy two high end GPUs up front. And that doesn't fit the budget of most people.
There's really no sense in going with G-sync if you have to buy both a new monitor and a new video card, unless you've got a ridiculous budget and won't consider anything else but a Titan X. Adaptive sync does the same thing as G-sync, but without adding $150 to the price of the monitor.
AMD's AM3+ platform is only PCI Express 2.0, so PCI Express 2.0 x16 is essentially the same bandwidth as PCI Express 3.0 x8. That's really not the way you want to go. Not to mention that SLI is ridiculous on a sub-$2000 budget, as is planning to go SLI with a GTX 970 or GTX 980.
Not picky at all, you are spot on there. Once you get i5, even the slowest one, you hit diminishing returns very quickly and any further MHz increase or more cores do not translate their price into performance well.
I would personally go with either i5-4460 or as I suggested above i5-4590s(bit faster than 4460 and less heat, imo good value for money).
While 97 boards support Broadwell CPUs, they seem to remain focused on mobile platform thus do not provide sensible upgrade/replacement path and in that case, you could just stick with cheaper B85 boards.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/adaptive-vsync
does this mean that they started to support adaptive sync?
No, that's something else entirely. Adaptive sync lets you change the monitor refresh rate dynamically to refresh when a new frame is available. Adaptive v-sync doesn't let you do that. The problem with normal v-sync (vertical sync) is that, after you finish rendering a frame, the video card stops entirely until the next scheduled monitor refresh. Adaptive v-sync says, go ahead and start rendering the next frame, even if we can't display the previous one yet. Adaptive sync says, display the frame you just rendered as soon as it's ready rather than waiting.
Adaptive v-sync was very much an improvement over traditional v-sync, though it's not at all the same as adaptive sync.
Not going to read all the posts i hate reading early in the morning.
Ditch the ImpactV and the i5 4440
and take a Asus Asus Z97I-PLUS and a Intel Core i5-4690K
For the SSD go look for an Crucial M.2 SSD you can fit that on the motherboard itself.
Rest looks ok to me for the budget