agreed, an i5 4690K is the best bang for your buck CPU you can buy nowadays IMO.
The GTX 970M also is a great value, but if you want to get closer to the $250 "sweet spot" an AMD R9 280X or 290 will do a nice job too.
Comment has been collapsed.
good thing you provided him multiple detailed reasons as to why
Comment has been collapsed.
AMD is just fine for gaming, I have an AMD processor in mine, the 8350 and it works just fine and runs everything I throw at it without a hiccup so far with an Nvidia 760 GTX.
I originally was trying to get an Intel setup which by stats alone was faster, but the price increase just could not be justified for a frame rate increase so small the human eye couldn't even detect it.
Saying AMD is a POS compared to Intel is about like saying a Pinto is a POS compared to a Cadillac without taking into account the difference in cost associated with it and the parts you are required to connect it to. If i had went Intel, both the CPU and Motherboard gets more expensive for equivalent setups.
Comment has been collapsed.
without taking into account the difference in cost associated with it and the parts you are required to connect it to
only if you are factoring the required additional costs for OC for intel, while also ignoring the same costs required for AMD.
Yes, you can get AMD's flagship cpu for 150ish which benches about the same as an intel i5-46xx, but you also need to OC AMD's cpu, which REQUIRES, not suggestes, REQUIRES a water set up. At stock, an i5-4xxx (none K) doesnt require a special mobo, and it runs fine with the stock fan. At stock, Intel's I5-45xx+ matches the game performance of the FX 8 series from AMD.
Of course, if you buy the ASUS maximus or other flagship overclocking mobos with 4 pci-x16 slots, but then compare a shitty foxcon barebones AMD mobo, youll say, "But what about intel's costs!!".
Comment has been collapsed.
I have mine setup without an overclock and it runs everything I have thrown at it on max settings without a hitch. I paid a little extra for a better cooler but it isn't water and my CPU still only hit 114F after encoding with handbrake taking every core to 100% for hours. Temp measured with a program called Core Temp.
You forget, I am using the 8350, it is the 9000 models that get retarded with the water cooling required.
I did my research when building this rig, going intel would have cost me a few hundred more between the mainboard and process for equivalent stuff.
My setup runs at stock speeds and runs everything I throw at it so far. I am not saying that intel isn't faster, it is but it still costs more to do it, that gap in cost is closing but as far as I can tell, it isn't closed yet and I am not paying for an improvement so small I can't tell without a damn program to show it to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
one reason would be the poor performance compared to the energy consumption and heat production^^
intel relies on better tech to get better performance, amd simply just relies on more energy to reach more performance and that's a shameful fact^^
Comment has been collapsed.
do you have a source?
i don't really care for either, i'd just like to know. no one is going to take your word based on what sounds like a biased opinion. they shouldn't at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
everyone who supposedly knows better than anyone else always tells you "look it up" o_O
thanks man, appreciate it, you smart^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much, the thing many seem to be neglecting about those power requirements is that the difference in power requirements might translate to maybe $8 more in electricity in a YEAR and heat issues.
If you are going for the AMD FX 9000's, yes they use Watercooling and put out tons of heat, most people who get AMD go with what I have the 8 core AMD FX 8350. I got that and a $35 aftermarket fan. My CPU idles at around room temperature and after pushing it it still only hits 114F. During the entire time I have had it, the absolute highest it hit was 123F and that was more because it was summer and the whole house was sitting at close to 90F to do it.
Performance wise, it gives great bang for the buck and runs everything I have thrown at it without flinching. The only people who will tell the difference between this and an Intel that is a couple hundred dollars higher for most games will require a program counting frame rates to do it because lets face it, I am not going to notice a difference between 140 FPS and 155 FPS even if I had an Oculus Rift to do it.
And if you are talking about max settings, those will still be more GPU bound than CPU bound.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 Fugus
Sometimes i buy AMD, sometimes Intel. It just depends on deepness of my wallet. I am satisfied with both of them. Lets face it, both do the job just right. 95% of you just play games and are Fanboys who babble about stuff they dont know about like i bought i54690K and razer kraken 7.1 headphones for 100 euro wich are worth shit and u were brainwashed with marketing. Lets face it, we all use computers everyday, everyone has its own opinion, and for years we all go all round.
Comment has been collapsed.
i heard that the phenom or similar old cpu's will slow down a new, strong graphic cards
Comment has been collapsed.
Im running a i7-4790K with mine, no bottlenecks at all and everything is always set to max or ultra settings. The i5-4690K is considered the best bang for buck by PC Gamer mag and I tend to agree while the best high end processor is the i7-4790K. But I went a little higher when buying my processor. Check out the PC Gamer article at: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-pc-gaming-cpus-processors/
Get the K not the non K version, they are around the same price anyways and in some cases the K is cheaper than the non-K version. (K is the newer generation).
Comment has been collapsed.
4gb or 2gb? game-debate.com says the CPU best match for the GTX 970 4gb is: Core i7-4770K 4-Core 3.5GHz
Beastly card, I'm jelly. Rocking a GTX 860m atm (and an I7 4810MQ 2.8-3.8 GHz)
Comment has been collapsed.
I run my 970 with a i5 2400 and even that's not a real problem. Sure you can do better but cpu's haven't had a real jump in performance for a long time.
I actually compared my average fps in games I own to reviews from guru3d and such and most of the time I came pretty close, just a few frames short or even got some more frames than they had in the review in the case of Tomb Raider.
Games that need a lot of CPU power like e.g. Total War games won't benefit as much but I'm running my graphics card for around 2 months now and haven't had a single game where I was disappointed in my pc's performance, even Shogun 2 runs miles better than it did before :)
I don't know how it is done outside of germany but we have something like a "2 week testing phase law" for online bought products where we can send something back if we aren't satisfied even when it's not broke. So should you have a similar in your country you should think even less about if your cpu is too puny and just buy the card and try it out.
Comment has been collapsed.
There will always be bottleneck situations. Either your GPU can't calculate fast enough or your CPU. Install the card now and have fun. The only time you'll need to upgarde your CPU is when the performance in the games you play isn't acceptable anymore. So stop worrying too much because the naysayers only recommend high-end CPUs for your 970 and in the next thread they will say "you need a faster GPU because it's a bottleneck. Your CPU is getting bored" :/
Comment has been collapsed.
regarding the requirements for witcher 3, it would make sense to pick a strong cpu, or?
Comment has been collapsed.
40 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by OilBud
286 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Wok
159 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by KevinWin789
396 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Wok
1,248 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by logorkill
8 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by TheLimeyDragon
82 Comments - Last post 14 hours ago by GarlicToast
16 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by RuOkCryBaby
26 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by WaxWorm
84 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by thegamingkage
803 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by squall831
58 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Mhol1071
11 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by WaxWorm
651 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by krol7
hey there, i want to upgrade my desktop pc with a geforce gtx 970 and a new cpu if its necessary. i don't want to spent to much money for a cpu but i also don't want a bottleneck in the system. in the moment i have a phenom II x4 955 and i consider to buy intel i5-4690 and a new mainboard. has someone any experiences with these cpu's together with a gtx 970.
Comment has been collapsed.