Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

i need help building a computer Follow

#52 Apr 16 2012 at 3:40 AM Rating: Default
****
4,145 posts
Susanoh wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
As I said before, the x60 is the entry point for any sort of decent performance from XIV. I don't suggest x60 and I wouldn't suggest lower than x80 if the person wanted solid performance.


Just to note, this entire discussion stemmed from me recommending a stronger GPU to a user who was using a 550 TI, which is why I and now Levish were using that card as the base for the discussion.


Actually no, it didn't. My first post was a response to the OP where I suggested not buying any components at all. Your first comment to me was in response to this...

FilthMcNasty wrote:
The suggestions to slack in the CPU department for a greater GPU aren't good suggestions.


I didn't even comment on a specific model GPU until just recently and that was to point out that had I suggested a GPU, neither the 550 or the 560 would have been one of them. Any other comment I made about GPUs was about general bottlenecking because of CPU clocks.

Susanoh wrote:
If you'd like to use other video cards as a reference to make a different point, by all means, but the 550 TI is kind of important to the build which was being discussed.

This thread, like any other 'building a computer' thread is about general advice for building a rig for XIV.

That being said, in my honest opinion neither the 550 nor the 560 are worth mentioning other than the fact that the 560 should be reference as the minimum you would want to get. I've been saying this since before the 560 was out and the 460 was the closest comparable option. You want a good experience at medium-high settings? GTX x60 or HD x770 will be what you want at a minimum.

Don't downgrade important components in a build. If you can't fit what you need into your budget, wait until you can. You act like I'm anti-value but maybe you forget that my first post here was a suggestion to wait until 2.0 comes out so we can nail down exactly how these components will perform under the new graphics engine. Not only that, but anything(550, 560 or otherwise) being considered now will be outdated by then. It's still almost a year away...
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#53 Apr 16 2012 at 5:05 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
Quote:
Actually no, it didn't. My first post was a response to the OP where I suggested not buying any components at all. Your first comment to me was in response to this...


I was talking about the particular discussion that sparked the i5/i7 comparison between me and another user, which your first post in this thread wasn't a part of. And your right, my first comment to you was in response to this.

Quote:
The suggestions to slack in the CPU department for a greater GPU aren't good suggestions.


This, I thought, was in response to my post which was specifically aimed at the build using an i7 2600k and a 550 TI, so in the next post I explained exactly why I thought upgrading to a $100 better processor even if it meant taking money from the CPU would be a good move. You responded with a post about overclocking and whether a CPU would hold the GPU back. I responded with this.

Quote:
I thought you were referring to my post because I believe I was the only one who mentioned anything about taking money from the CPU and putting it into the GPU, so I explained why I felt going from i7 to i5 and putting an extra $100 into the graphics was a good move. My link was to show that i5 paired with a higher quality GPU will show very good results, while if we instead switched the CPU to an i7 the results would seem comparatively smaller. It wasn't about the difference between an overclocked CPU compared to a stock one.

It seems we might be talking about different things here. My post was about a specific build. If you were just speaking in general and not referencing my post about the specific build I was referring to, I don't really have anything to argue.


In your next post you talked about CPU intensive games and showed a Starcraft 2 benchmark, and at the end of your post you made this comment.

Quote:
Nothing wrong with the build, but the suggestion to downgrade the CPU and the reasoning behind it was why I responded. About the only way the CPU wouldn't hold the GPU back is at incredibly high resolutions that tax the GPU to it's limits. Most people run at standard resolutions.


In the first line of my next response, I said this.

Quote:
My reasoning is that there is an incredibly small difference between the i5 and i7, while there is a rather large difference between the 550 ti and options that cost roughly $100 more.


Which brings me to this comment:

Quote:
I didn't even comment on a specific model GPU until just recently and that was to point out that had I suggested a GPU, neither the 550 or the 560 would have been one of them. Any other comment I made about GPUs was about general bottlenecking because of CPU clocks.


You're right, you didn't comment on a specific model of GPU. I did, and you seemed to argue the points I made which I repeatedly mentioned were specific to the build I was replying to. If you are not advocating keeping a 550 TI in place of a more expensive GPU option in order to keep an i7 2600k, then you are either talking about something else and not taking issue with what my comment was about (which I even said was a good possibility in one of the posts I quoted above) or you are completely taking what I said out of context.

As for the part about CPU clocks, I wasn't even the one to bring that up. I said that an i5 wouldn't hold back a 550 TI or 560 TI, and when I said that I still had an i7 in mind as the comparison, and I was referring to the actual performance difference between them, not to say they would perform 100% identically to each other. I have honestly never seen anyone refer to an i5 as "holding back" modern GPUs, but regardless, practical performance is all I was talking about.

Quote:
Don't downgrade important components in a build. If you can't fit what you need into your budget, wait until you can. You act like I'm anti-value but maybe you forget that my first post here was a suggestion to wait until 2.0 comes out so we can nail down exactly how these components will perform under the new graphics engine. Not only that, but anything(550, 560 or otherwise) being considered now will be outdated by then. It's still almost a year away...


Now this, I somewhat agree with. I really don't have anything against people spending more in order to buy better parts. But with that said, discussing better ways to handle a budget (which is what I was attempting to do) is definitely valid. One is "you could spend more money to upgrade this and keep everything else the same" while the other is saying "for the same price as that, you could have this. For anyone conscious of their budget, I think that is a perfectly valid discussion to have. You don't need to have the best of the best to game. And unless you do have an unlimited budget and are buying all high end, which parts will show most the largest performance increases for their given price is a discussion I find to be entirely relevant.


Edited, Apr 16th 2012 7:33am by Susanoh
#54 Apr 16 2012 at 6:22 AM Rating: Default
****
4,145 posts
Susanoh wrote:
You're right, you didn't comment on a specific model of GPU. I did, and you seemed to argue the points I made which I repeatedly mentioned were specific to the build I was replying to. If you are not advocating keeping a 550 TI in place of a more expensive GPU option in order to keep an i7 2600k, then you are either talking about something else and not taking issue with what my comment was about (which I even said was a good possibility in one of the posts I quoted above) or you are completely taking what I said out of context.


Really didn't need a play-by-play of the thread as I've been keeping up, but thanks.

I am advocating not downgrading the CPU period and it's completely independent of the GPUs you listed. Why? Because they're both sh*tty GPUs is the bottom line. If it had been a question of 'Do I drop to a 2500 so I have enough to get the 580?' then it's at least worth dedicating a moment to think about.

Instead, the question you went to all the trouble for is this... "Do I down grade from awesome to slightly less awesome so that I can upgrade from crap to barely adequate?".

Susanoh wrote:
I said that an i5 wouldn't hold back a 550 TI or 560 TI, and when I said that I still had an i7 in mind as the comparison, and I was referring to the actual performance difference between them, not to say they would perform 100% identically to each other. I have honestly never seen anyone refer to an i5 as "holding back" modern GPUs, but regardless, practical performance is all I was talking about.


You'd be wrong either way. Both the i5 and the i7(2500k and 2600k) are bottlenecking newer GPUs unless they're being overclocked or you're running at some ungodly resolution, which was the reason why clock speed was part of the discussion. There is nothing practical about downclocking for the sake of comparison. Why then would you refer to a benchmark of essentially the same thing, an underperforming CPU, to make your point? Protip: This is a rhetorical question and really doesn't need a response.

Susanoh wrote:
For anyone conscious of their budget, I think that is a perfectly valid discussion to have.


Pretty much everything here is common sense, but you need to apply it in the context of the thread and what info they've given. You might have a point if he wasn't willing to spend nearly twice what he needs to on a mobo, which should be toward the bottom of the list of priorities when considering components. We're not here to give him budget tips.

No offense to the OP, but tossing $1500 just to play XIV is throwing money away so it's a bit silly to have an argument about saving money anyway. I would gladly spend the extra $100 on a 2600k, but I'll be damned if I'd shell out half that much for a copy of XIV. I'm not a cheap ***, I just like value for my dollar.

Welp, what used to be a horse is looking a lot like glue now. It's been fun.

Edited, Apr 16th 2012 8:23am by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#55 Apr 16 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
Quote:
I am advocating not downgrading the CPU period and it's completely independent of the GPUs you listed. Why? Because they're both sh*tty GPUs is the bottom line. If it had been a question of 'Do I drop to a 2500 so I have enough to get the 580?' then it's at least worth dedicating a moment to think about.

Instead, the question you went to all the trouble for is this... "Do I down grade from awesome to slightly less awesome so that I can upgrade from crap to barely adequate?".


Umm, alright, so you don't care to acknowledge the question of whether saving $100 in one area in order to spend it in another is worth it, because neither option looks adequate to you. Only if saving $100 in order to spend $300 more in the other area is worth talking about. You want to advocate spending more money on the GPU and keeping the CPU the same, that's great! I won't try and stop you, I am just pointing out that the point of my post was to show which parts could be switched in order to increase performance while keeping the budget the same. If you refuse to acknowledge the other half of the equation, and instead insist on saying "don't downgrade this half" with no consideration for anything else, then I have nothing to really add to this. I get it, you throw a ton of money at it, and you can have the best GPU and CPU available without any compromise between the CPU and GPU.

Quote:
You'd be wrong either way. Both the i5 and the i7(2500k and 2600k) are bottlenecking newer GPUs unless they're being overclocked or you're running at some ungodly resolution, which was the reason why clock speed was part of the discussion. There is nothing practical about downclocking for the sake of comparison. Why then would you refer to a benchmark of essentially the same thing, an underperforming CPU, to make your point? Protip: This is a rhetorical question and really doesn't need a response.


Well you made the comment and you're going to get one anyway. I posted comparisons of the i5 and i7 at stock clocks because...most of the reviews use stock clocks! When you asked specifically about overclocking results, I found what I could and posted that too. They're there for anyone to see. As for talk about bottlenecking, or holding back, all I can really say is that I was directly comparing the i5 to the i7, real world gains between the two. A stronger CPU might bring better results than both, so might a stronger GPU, but that's beside the point. What matters for the sake of my argument is real world gains between the two, and that's it, because real world gains are what most people are concerned about when choosing what to buy.
#56 Apr 16 2012 at 2:58 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,148 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
The difference in performance of these processors running at stock is not the same as the difference in performance of these processors OC'd. They are a lot closer to performing the same when they are not overclocked. They aren't worlds apart when they are overclocked, but in terms of performance for the dollar, the $100 premium looks a lot better than it does when you aren't making good use of the processor.


You are mistaken they are in reality very close

Here is a superPI 1M

http://www.superpi.net/Scores/?action=searchScores&test=-7&vendor=Intel&platform=Desktop&series=Core+i7+2000K+Series&rpp=20

i5 2500K @ 4.5 Ghz 8.33sec
I7 2600k OC 4.5G 8.346sec

and a superPI 32M

candidcartoon i7 2600k @ 4.1Ghz 8min, 23.977sec
Untitled Score i5 2500k @ 4.0Ghz 8min, 38.392sec

Perfect examples for illustrating IPC differences, both showing nearly no difference from one to the next.

I have also tested Processor scalling in FF14, after 4 cores it doesn't scale well at all.
____________________________
Mishana: DRG | THF | RDM | NIN
#57 Apr 16 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,145 posts
Susanoh wrote:
Umm, alright, so you don't care to acknowledge the question of whether saving $100 in one area in order to spend it in another is worth it, because neither option looks adequate to you. Only if saving $100 in order to spend $300 more in the other area is worth talking about. You want to advocate spending more money on the GPU and keeping the CPU the same, that's great!


It isn't 'saving' money if you turn around and spend it on another component. If your budget is inadequate to buy a rig that will produce the desired result, you save until you have an adequate budget. You're still acting like I'm trying to get someone here to blow money on components they don't need or can't afford.

It's not a cheap build. It isn't top tier, but the OP clearly wants something that will perform well and they can expand with if they want to. Stop being so concerned with costs. There is a priority for what components will get you performance in XIV or any other game for that matter. He's prepared to drop $250 on a mobo, yet you're still here arguing with me about a 560... seriously?

Susanoh wrote:
I posted comparisons of the i5 and i7 at stock clocks because...most of the reviews use stock clocks!


And most of the users of these CPUs DON'T! Irrelevant information is still irrelevant. Thanks for pointing that out for the... well ****, I've lost count now.

Susanoh wrote:
When you asked specifically about overclocking results, I found what I could and posted that too. They're there for anyone to see.


I didn't ask for OC results about how high these processors could push compared to each other, I asked you to research on how they perform against each other when overclocked. The benches you posted showed increases in performance of 6 to 20% for an i7 over an i5 in gaming benchmarks with comparable systems. I thought I already thanked you for proving that point for me, but just in case I didn't... thanks again!

Levish wrote:
You are mistaken they are in reality very close

Here is a superPI 1M...


Please forgive me, but I ask that you insert the word 'gaming' before the word 'performance' into the quote you made. I assumed that it would be interpreted in that context. To what degree does calculating PI to 32 million digits relate to general gaming? SuperPi and HyperPi are used for stability testing. Try posting some results with gaming benchmarks please.

Susanoh posted a nice comparison of gaming related benchmarks like Aquamark, 3DMark and Heaven for us already. Heaven was the closest at about 6% difference, but the i5 was blown away by the i7 in Aquamark and 3DMark running 5 gig overclocks with the same components(slightly different GPU overclocks in some cases). These are all standard gaming performance benchmarks.



Edited, Apr 16th 2012 9:51pm by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#58 Apr 17 2012 at 12:56 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
Quote:
It isn't 'saving' money if you turn around and spend it on another component. If your budget is inadequate to buy a rig that will produce the desired result, you save until you have an adequate budget. You're still acting like I'm trying to get someone here to blow money on components they don't need or can't afford.

It's not a cheap build. It isn't top tier, but the OP clearly wants something that will perform well and they can expand with if they want to. Stop being so concerned with costs. There is a priority for what components will get you performance in XIV or any other game for that matter. He's prepared to drop $250 on a mobo, yet you're still here arguing with me about a 560... seriously?


I'm talking about the build I was referring to when I told the user I quoted that he'd be better off spending more of the budget on the GPU to upgrade the 550 TI, not the OP's build. If you're not interested in discussing it, that's fine, you don't have to, but just note that my original comments were specific to that build and that to apply my original comments to other builds or budgets would be to take them out of context.

Quote:
I didn't ask for OC results about how high these processors could push compared to each other, I asked you to research on how they perform against each other when overclocked. The benches you posted showed increases in performance of 6 to 20% for an i7 over an i5 in gaming benchmarks with comparable systems. I thought I already thanked you for proving that point for me, but just in case I didn't... thanks again!


You're welcome. Speaking of research, I'd like to show what the OCC link results looked like when comparing the CPUs in their tests using actual games.

Far Cry: difference -- percentage difference
800 x 600 stock: 21 -- 12%
800 x 600 OC: 22 -- 12% (in favor of i5, unsure if they used the correct values for this one but this is what the chart shows)
1024 x 768 stock: 19 -- 11%
1024 x 768 OC: 0 -- 0%
1280 x 1024 stock: 10 -- 6%
1280 x 1024 OC: 0 -- 0%
1680 x 1050 stock: 7 -- 5%
1680 x 1050 OC: 1 -- 1%

CoD: MW2:
800 x 600 stock: 19 -- 6%
800 x 600 OC: 5 -- 1%
1024 x 768 stock: 17 -- 6%
1024 x 768 OC: 8 -- 2%
1280 x 1024 stock: 10 -- 4%
1280 x 1024 OC: 3 -- 1%
1680 x 1050 stock: 31 -- 12%
1680 x 1050 OC: 25 -- 10%

Batman: Arkham City
800 x 600 stock: 61 -- 18%
800 x 600 OC: 229 -- 7%
1024 x 768 stock: 43 -- 13%
1024 x 768 OC: 30 -- 8%
1280 x 1024 stock: 37 -- 12%
1280 x 1024 OC: 19 -- 5%
1680 x 1050 stock: 95 -- 26%
1680 x 1050 OC: 9 -- 3%

Overclocked percentage differences highlighted in dark blue. Now in this fairly CPU tilted test where some lower budget CPUs such as the AMD Phenom x4 would at times receive less than half of what either of these two would, and yet these two came out very close almost every time. I'd be very curious to know if there are any tests out there that show the kind of increases i7 gets in 3DMark (which from what I have read, is boosted by hyperthreading moreso than an actual game would) in any real game scenario. I've never seen i7 show a large increase, stock or overclocked, high or low end GPU, high or low game settings, or anything else. It's difficult to want to change an opinion that every review, tech site and forum I frequent seems to support that opinion and I've never seen so much as a single test support the opposite. At least if I did see the i7 outperforming an i5 by a significant margin in actual games, it'd be an alternative view to take into consideration, but so far I've yet to even find that.

Edited, Apr 17th 2012 3:37am by Susanoh
#59 Apr 17 2012 at 2:49 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,145 posts
Susanoh wrote:
I'd be very curious to know if there are any tests out there that show the kind of increases i7 gets in 3DMark (which from what I have read, is boosted by hyperthreading moreso than an actual game would) in any real game scenario.


It would simply be a matter of deselecting the box for the AI test.

There are two GPU tests, an AI test for the CPU and also a physics test. These 4 tests are factored into your total score, but overall the score is mostly related to GPU performance. nVidia has an advantage due to the physics test supporting PhysX, but the 20% difference in scores from the hwbot links you posted were both run on identical setups aside from the CPUs and neither of those were using nVidia GPUs.

Susanoh wrote:
At least if I did see the i7 outperforming an i5 by a significant margin in actual games, it'd be an alternative view to take into consideration, but so far I've yet to even find that.


I'm not out to change your opinion really because you've proven you won't let that happen. You don't think the 2600 outperforms the 2500; not because you have the proof in front of you in your own postings, but because you read that it isn't in whatever tech forums you read. You acknowledge the difference in the 3DMark test finally, but now you're saying that test is skewed. I'd tell you to believe what you want to, but it's clear you'll do that anyway and disregard anything that supports otherwise.

Edited, Apr 17th 2012 7:48pm by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)