Well, in terms of performance, you lost around 30% "power" . That is quite a lot if you ask me.
Never, cut your video-card budget. And I mean like .. never!
- buy a smaller HDD in terms of G's or T's - don't go blindly and think that 16 GB of RAM is a big difference then 8, or it will be a better option then buying a better video card. - don't buy that shinny cute nice awesome case. buy one which is doing the job.
Build a computer exactly in this order :
1) CPU - yes, is the most important aspect of your computer. Go for higher Ghz per core. 2) MB - The motherboard must be on the same "line" as your CPU. Your CPU will work at his full speed only if your MB is ... "allowing" it. 3) Video Card - No reasons to explain why
So those are the most important aspect from your computer. You never cut your budget on those. Never!
Next will be :
4) HDD - Go for SSD as a main Hard Disk. Why? Because SSD ... hello! 5) RAM - Some will put ram on 4 . I would have put it also, few years ago , but not in today's tech. 8 GB of ram is more then enough to do and play like whatever you want. You can upgrade to 16 if you want, just after you have the above and you still have cash left to spend on your computer.
Mentions : Don't be cheap on coolers, especially the CPU one.
Rest, you can solo choose
I'd put power supply at number 4) and ram at 5)
Get a powerful supply with decent headroom for upgrades, shave the ram if you have to. There's nothing worse than beefed up computer system and a shitty power supply. It's usually the most overlooked part, as your post shows, while it's one of the most important ones IMO.
Storage is the least mind-boggling part to consider. Do you want to boot OS/games quickly? Go for an SSD. Store all of your music/movies/pictures/temp files/whatever on the HDD which is dirt cheap by now but that's only because there are no more investments in this technology. It is at its peak and it is only staying because SSDs are too expensive as it is (with a dollar to gigabyte ratio close to 1:1 but that's about to change). Beside that, for storage, any 7200 RPM/64mb cache drive will do. You don't need anything more than that. After those specs its very steep hill to climb in terms of money thrown and speed received for these money.
I still can't believe this is even being discussed.
Because a few foolish persons have infested this forum, trying to establish themselves as the local experts, while spewing out silly advice and trolling the ones who know what they are talking about.
You demand benchmarks, but you don't need them yourself, to come to your conclusions.
And end it with a remark that could just as well have been about the Loch Ness monster or a UFO.
In fact, I am pretty much only person here that ever posts any back up(benchmarks in this case) but there is no point linking same stuff to same people over and over...some people are blind to facts and incapable of evidence based/deductive reasoning...
To be honest to you mate, If you are willing to pay more; go with gtx 980. But it is Endless, If I was you I wouldnt pay a fortune for a graphic card. 960 will be enough for at least 2 years. There is no point to race with technology. Yeah there is a slight difference between 960 and 970 but it doesnt really worth it.
For the CPU, hands down. It is the best imo.(Price/Performance wise):
I never had any heat issues or cpu dump. i.e. I'd a fx series cpu, I was able to play games for a couple hours after that FPS started to drop. So If you are going for high-end cpu's always choose Intel.
I seen some comments about R9's, dont bother. It is like mixing 2 chemicals, but you are using something not related to it and it will cause you blue screen memory dump issues.
You demand benchmarks, but you don't need them yourself, to come to your conclusions.
And end it with a remark that could just as well have been about the Loch Ness monster or a UFO.
In fact, I am pretty much only person here that ever posts any back up(benchmarks in this case) but there is no point linking same stuff to same people over and over...some people are blind to facts and incapable of evidence based/deductive reasoning...
You could make the case that an S is "fast enough" - that's the same argument we often use for picking AMD. But that isn't what is being said. To say you need benchmarks to see a slower chip is slower is... ridiculous.
Seems like I said that before. I'd agree these benchmarks show that an S or T version is "fast enough". But they also prove it's a slower chip, because the S/T versions aren't clocked as high. And we see that in many of these benchmarks. In the link you posted. a loss of 7% in exchange for the reduction in TDP - straight from the link you provided.
And the S/T versions costs ... the same or more as the non-S version. How exactly is that "more efficient" as you put it? Unless you want to pull the red herring and bring in electricity costs...
Is the power reduction worth the increase in cost? Ultimately the main use for lower power processors is for systems where heat and noise are critical junctures in the design. Again, straight from your link. I guess if your trying to build your own AIO, maybe. But most people building a gaming desktop are not constrained on heat and noise - and even then, in a desktop case, even a mini-ITX case, it would make more sense to spend less for the non-power saving chip, and underclock it to the same clocks as a S/T - save yourself a few bucks, and have the option to chose either speed or heat/noise.
Comments
Get a powerful supply with decent headroom for upgrades, shave the ram if you have to. There's nothing worse than beefed up computer system and a shitty power supply. It's usually the most overlooked part, as your post shows, while it's one of the most important ones IMO.
Storage is the least mind-boggling part to consider. Do you want to boot OS/games quickly? Go for an SSD. Store all of your music/movies/pictures/temp files/whatever on the HDD which is dirt cheap by now but that's only because there are no more investments in this technology. It is at its peak and it is only staying because SSDs are too expensive as it is (with a dollar to gigabyte ratio close to 1:1 but that's about to change). Beside that, for storage, any 7200 RPM/64mb cache drive will do. You don't need anything more than that. After those specs its very steep hill to climb in terms of money thrown and speed received for these money.
And end it with a remark that could just as well have been about the Loch Ness monster or a UFO.
And just for you:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8774/intel-haswell-low-power-cpu-review-core-i3-4130t-i5-4570s-and-i7-4790s-tested/5
For the CPU, hands down. It is the best imo.(Price/Performance wise):
I never had any heat issues or cpu dump. i.e. I'd a fx series cpu, I was able to play games for a couple hours after that FPS started to drop. So If you are going for high-end cpu's always choose Intel.
I seen some comments about R9's, dont bother. It is like mixing 2 chemicals, but you are using something not related to it and it will cause you blue screen memory dump issues.
You could make the case that an S is "fast enough" - that's the same argument we often use for picking AMD. But that isn't what is being said. To say you need benchmarks to see a slower chip is slower is... ridiculous.
Seems like I said that before. I'd agree these benchmarks show that an S or T version is "fast enough". But they also prove it's a slower chip, because the S/T versions aren't clocked as high. And we see that in many of these benchmarks. In the link you posted. a loss of 7% in exchange for the reduction in TDP - straight from the link you provided.
And the S/T versions costs ... the same or more as the non-S version. How exactly is that "more efficient" as you put it? Unless you want to pull the red herring and bring in electricity costs...
Is the power reduction worth the increase in cost? Ultimately the main use for lower power processors is for systems where heat and noise are critical junctures in the design. Again, straight from your link. I guess if your trying to build your own AIO, maybe. But most people building a gaming desktop are not constrained on heat and noise - and even then, in a desktop case, even a mini-ITX case, it would make more sense to spend less for the non-power saving chip, and underclock it to the same clocks as a S/T - save yourself a few bucks, and have the option to chose either speed or heat/noise.