# New 4K Gaming Build



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

In the progress of piecing together a new rig for 4K gaming CoD, Battlefield, Far Cry, Crysis, Assasins Creed etc...

So far i have put this together

CPU:  i7-4770K

Mobo:  Gigabyte GA-Z97X-Gaming 7

Cooler: Custom Loop

RAM: G.SKILL Sniper Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231670

GPU: 2x HIS iPower IceQ X² OC H290QMC4GD Radeon R9 290 4GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161459

PSU: Corsair TX850 (owned)

SSD: Crucial (Owned)

HDD: Various (owned)



What do you guys think ?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

Get a better CPU to drive those GPUs (Intel - sorry). You need all the horsepower you can get out of them.

Intel CPUs scaling multi-GPU setups better last I checked.

Id also go 2x 970's if only for the power consumption difference in such a setup (nearly 200W).


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Get a better CPU to drive those GPUs (Intel - sorry). You need all the horsepower you can get out of them.
> 
> Intel CPUs scaling multi-GPU setups better last I checked.


I read at 4K CPU doesn't matter as much


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

Read what I said though... the intel CPU allows the CFx/SLI setup to stretch its legs a bit more. That Athlon will struggle compared to Intel in pushing multi GPU setups.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471-11.html


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Read what I said though... the intel CPU allows the CFx/SLI setup to stretch its legs a bit more. That Athlon will struggle compared to Intel in pushing multi GPU setups.


I read it 

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

Exactly. That comparison is with AMD's 2nd fastest CPU.. YOu have a darn Athlon the differences would be bigger. Your own article says an average of 10% performance difference... 

You have the info right there... 

S





> pending an additional $180, or another 50% or so on top of the AMD combo, results in some decent improvements in frame rate. The issue again is, the performance increase is only around ~10% on average, while you're spending 50% more money. Some games are scaling much better, with improvements of 15-20%, but still - you're spending $180 more.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Exactly. That comparison is with AMD's 2nd fastest CPU.. YOu have a darn Athlon the differences would be bigger.


It fairs pretty well though especially when OC'd but what would you suggest than


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

As I said earlier... an Intel. 4670K/4690K.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> As I said earlier... an Intel. 4670K/4690K.


Sorry to say but i hate i5s


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

Then get an I7? Not sure what to say to that considering you are getting AMD's equivalent of one (but worse - its a Athlon), LOL!!?

You will be fine with that 'lowly' Athlon, but, like its much bigger brother in your link, it will hold your FPS even more than the 8350.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Then get an I7? Not sure what to say to that??
> 
> You will be fine with that lowly athlon, but, like its much bigger brother in your link, it will hold your FPS back some.


i7s are fine by me or an Xeon


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

So go Z97 and an I7 for best results... 

(Still don't understand why you have a problem with I5...)


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> So go Z97 and an I7 for best results...
> 
> (Still don't understand why you have a problem with I5...)


just don't like them for the price


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

Then spend a shed load more for no gains. If I was you, I would get over that instead of spending even MORE money on the I7... but that's just me a logic talking. 

Good luck with your build!


----------



## RCoon (Dec 8, 2014)

The Athlon might handle single GPU 4K, but it won't handle multi-GPU scaling very well at all. Multi-GPU scaling relies heavily upon processor capabilites. Without a better CPU, you're second card will scale relatively worse, and the gains from having 2 GPU's will be hindered.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Then spend a shed load more for no gains. If I was you, I would get over that instead of spending even MORE money on the I7... but that's just me a logic talking.
> 
> Good luck with your build!


Well for less i could get a 8350 with roughly the same performance of an i5 excluding single threaded task


----------



## RCoon (Dec 8, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Well for less i could get a 8350 with roughly the same performance of an i5 excluding single threaded task



You could, but the i5 would be better. the Athlon X4 is comparable to say, the A10 5800K, while the obvious choice of the i5 or i7 would be similar to what's shown in the graph. By going for the intel option, you'd be getting about 10-15 more FPS. Those figures are *average* frames. It does not show minimum and maximum FPS. Minimum FPS is heavily affected by CPU.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

RCoon said:


> You could, but the i5 would be better. the Athlon X4 is comparable to say, the A10 5800K, while the obvious choice of the i5 or i7 would be similar to what's shown in the graph. By going for the intel option, you'd be getting about 10-15 more FPS. Those figures are *average* frames. It does not show minimum and maximum FPS. Minimum FPS is heavily affected by CPU.


Not a big gain and thats 1440P not 4K


----------



## RCoon (Dec 8, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Not a big gain and thats 1440P not 4K



Now imagine you're playing a CPU bound game.






There is no discernable reason to buy an Athlon for this purpose. Quite frankly, if you're going multi-gpu and 4K, stop being cheap and buy a suitable processor for the purpose.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 8, 2014)

Gotta say I was surprised to see the AMD x4 as the CPU choice for 4k. I am sure that it will work moderately well, but there are many choices that will work better and unfortunately those are all Intel chips.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

> There is no discernable reason to buy an Athlon for this purpose. Quite frankly, if you're going multi-gpu and 4K, stop being cheap and buy a suitable processor for the purpose.


Spot on... Get a proper CPU to drive the GPU's.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Now imagine you're playing a CPU bound game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But I don't play this though

Also that's still very playable.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

In the end, its up to you if you want to neuter yourself by buying that woeful processor for the task at hand...If you are stuck on AMD, which it seems you are, then grab an 8350 and call it a day.


----------



## adulaamin (Dec 8, 2014)

I guess the OPs mind is set on an AMD CPU. If that's the case, go with an 8350 and a board to go with it rather than the Athlon.


----------



## RCoon (Dec 8, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> But I don't play this though
> 
> Also that's still very playable.



But the percentage difference in frames is the important part. Just because the numbers get smaller the higher the res, the percentage difference is still there. And you can see the catastrophic difference between the 8350 and i5 in cpu bound games (Those include Crysis and Assassin's creed by the way). The i5 is not much more expensive than the 8350, but guarantees a massive improvement in CPU bound games, as well as a good percentage difference in GPU bound games.

You asked for opinions and advice, you have been given them. It would have been advisable to mention you simply don't want to buy intel hardware in the forefront, because I personally cannot understand why you "hate i5's" judging by the fact the motherboards are the same price, offer more features, and are only $20-30 more expensive for the chip, but offer such an improvement in all areas bar file compression and encoding/decoding.

If you don't want to receive advice on your choice of AMD processor, remove it from the original discussion, because everybody will tell you to change that Athlon. I have no problem if you want to go with AMD processors, but the 8350 is a minimum spec for 4K.


----------



## CJCerny (Dec 8, 2014)

Your hatred of the i5 is really going to bite you in the ass on this build. It doesn't make sense to spend $500+ on video cards only to limit yourself with an $80 CPU. Spend an extra $100 and get the i5. The 860k is a fine CPU--in a budget build. This is not a budget build.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

RCoon said:


> But the percentage difference in frames is the important part. Just because the numbers get smaller the higher the res, the percentage difference is still there. And you can see the catastrophic difference between the 8350 and i5 in cpu bound games (Those include Crysis and Assassin's creed by the way). The i5 is not much more expensive than the 8350, but guarantees a massive improvement in CPU bound games, as well as a good percentage difference in GPU bound games.
> 
> You asked for opinions and advice, you have been given them. It would have been advisable to mention you simply don't want to buy intel hardware in the forefront, because I personally cannot understand why you "hate i5's" judging by the fact the motherboards are the same price, offer more features, and are only $20-30 more expensive for the chip, but offer such an improvement in all areas bar file compression and encoding/decoding.
> 
> If you don't want to receive advice on your choice of AMD processor, remove it from the original discussion, because everybody will tell you to change that Athlon. I have no problem if you want to go with AMD processors, but the 8350 is a minimum spec for 4K.


ok what about a Xeon


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

What about it? Which Xeon? Its exactly the same as its non server coutnerpart for all intents and purposes outside from perhaps some lower power use binning.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 8, 2014)

It's kind of odd - a 4K gaming build requires an expense - why compromise?

I'm not even considering it until the next gen GPU's arrive (doesn't stop me mindlessly trawling etailers though...).  As for the CPU it's a bit ignorant to skimp on it and think, "yeah it's only 10% slower than the top end".  That performance gradient will increase as GPU power develops as the CPU is required to feed it.

If you're going 4K, you need to attempt some form of 'future proofing' (terrible term).  In a year or two you can swap out gpu's without hassle but CPU swap outs require system changes.  Don't cripple a 4K system on a less than average chip.  I imagine a game like the 3rd Witcher or Star Citizen is going to bring everything to it's knees at 4k.  That is the future - be warned.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 8, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> ok what about a Xeon



Xeons are nice but are pretty much the same as the equivalent i7. Personally I would rather spend the extra $10 and get the higher clocked, unlocked, K version of the i7.

The Xeon E3-127x is basically a i7 4970k. Just clocked lower for reduced power use and greater chip life span. Locked multi. I guess the 1 benefit is you can use ECC with the Xeon, but why bother in a desktop environment.


----------



## GhostRyder (Dec 8, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> ok what about a Xeon


As others have stated your going to need some serious CPU power to run 4K effectively along with GPU power.  While 2 290's can do it well enough and an 860K is a decent CPU the problem is that CPU is more for 1080p gaming and not for the extreme resolutions as the need for heavy CPU and GPU power becomes a thing.  You would most likely get decent performance in some games if you overclock it upwards of 4.7+ghz but in the end you would be running into some problems in many games that require the CPU to be stronger especially trying to render 4K pixels (Not even including games yet that are actually designed around 4K like Ryse is).

If you do not want an i5 or you are planning on going heavy with the possibility of expanding later, why not go for a 5820K chip on an X99 board?  You would be set for awhile and not have to worry about a bottleneck being anywhere on top of being able to throw a third GPU in later should you decide to.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 8, 2014)

Going 2011-3/X99/DDR4 is a very expensive route over socket 1150/z97/DDR3 and I am not sure the performance difference is worth the price right now.


----------



## RealNeil (Dec 8, 2014)

I have an i5-4670K and a i5-4690K system here. Both of them are faster than my FX-8350 system. (and the FX-6300) All three systems have multiple GPUs in them. All three are running SSDs and 16GB of RAM.
I usually always advocate for AMD, and I still say that their performance is good enough, but Intel's CPU performance is that much better.

So, I just talked to a friend who is coming over later on today to make me an offer on my FX-8350 and FX-6300 CPUs and their motherboards. This money will go towards a new GPU.
I'm going to stay with the Dark Side until AMD lays a golden egg.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> What about it? Which Xeon? Its exactly the same as its non server coutnerpart for all intents and purposes outside from perhaps some lower power use binning.


Xeon E3-1230 V3


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 8, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Xeon E3-1230 V3



Yeah that is the same as a i7 4770k..except not a K.


----------



## Champ (Dec 8, 2014)

You should really go Haswell or Refresh and Z87/97. There are certain games that require as much from your processor as it does your gpus. BF4 or Dragon Age for instant require peak performance from both to play well. And that still with no Post or regular AA. I mean, you need to overclock you gear bawls off too. I just don't think the AMD could handle that efficiently.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Yeah that is the same as a i7 4770k..except not a K.


Even than it can be OC'd slightly


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 8, 2014)

Yes, even then, it can be overclocked. 

I just don't get the point of a Xeon now... Why would you go that route?


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 8, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Even than it can be OC'd slightly



Slightly, yes. But the unlocked multiplier is worth the extra $10. Especially if you will be watercooling..why limit yourself to bus clocking.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 8, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Yes, even then, it can be overclocked.
> 
> I just don't get the point of a Xeon now... Why would you go that route?


Hyperthreading and cost less than a i7


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 8, 2014)

It has not benefit over the i7's hyperthreading. The only difference is lower power draw due to lower clock speed, locked multiplier, ECC memory use and $10 cheaper.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 8, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> ok what about a Xeon


No reason for VT-d, ECC memory, vPro, or any other feature Xeons have to offer. I would just say go with Intel for the IPC and get an unlocked i5 for the performance. If you're not running more than 2 GPUs, an i5 is the way to go IMHO. More than 2 GPUs and you'll be wanting skt2011 or 2011


----------



## Dieinafire (Dec 8, 2014)

Epic fail build. 4790k with sli gtx 980s would be the start to a decent 4k build. Waiting for the titan 2 if you want a true 4k card


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> It has not benefit over the i7's hyperthreading. The only difference is lower power draw due to lower clock speed, locked multiplier, ECC memory use and $10 cheaper.


Idk where you're looking but it's more than a $10 difference 



Aquinus said:


> No reason for VT-d, ECC memory, vPro, or any other feature Xeons have to offer. I would just say go with Intel for the IPC and get an unlocked i5 for the performance. If you're not running more than 2 GPUs, an i5 is the way to go IMHO. More than 2 GPUs and you'll be wanting skt2011 or 2011


2 GPUs for now 



Dieinafire said:


> Epic fail build. 4790k with sli gtx 980s would be the start to a decent 4k build. Waiting for the titan 2 if you want a true 4k card


Please no


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 9, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> 2 GPUs for now


Devil's Canyon i5, hands down. There is no better option IMHO for such a build if you don't plan to exceed 2 GPUs. If you're not sure if you'll get more GPUs, going 2011-3 and a 5820K might not be a bad option for starters, but the DC i5 will shine WRT IPC.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2014)

Dat horse... dat water... wonder if he'll drink?


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 9, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Dat horse... dat water... wonder if he'll drink?


It takes a special brand of... Oh. Yeah, I don't need another infraction.  The OP can choose to spend the money as he chooses, but in the end it's up to him to make the choice as to what will serve him best. If company preference triumphs, good for him, but logic can only be stated for him to make an informed decision, nothing more, nothing less.

Performance speaks for itself IMHO.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Devil's Canyon i5, hands down. There is no better option IMHO for such a build if you don't plan to exceed 2 GPUs. If you're not sure if you'll get more GPUs, going 2011-3 and a 5820K might not be a bad option for starters, but the DC i5 will shine WRT IPC.


I may add a third GPU at some point


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 9, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I may add a third GPU at some point


Is it more likely that you'll replace the GPUs than add a third? 3-way CFX/SLI has never been optimal. Think very carefully about that because going 2011-3 is probably going to cost twice as much with not a whole lot of real gain for gaming if you never actually go with 3-way CFX. I only say 2011-3 for the PCI-E lanes, not the cores.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Is it more likely that you'll replace the GPUs than add a third? 3-way CFX/SLI has never been optimal. Think very carefully about that because going 2011-3 is probably going to cost twice as much with not a whole lot of real gain for gaming if you never actually go with 3-way CFX. I only say 2011-3 for the PCI-E lanes, not the cores.


I do indeed intend to add a third GPU eventually if not 290s than 970s


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 9, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I may add a third GPU at some point





Durvelle27 said:


> I do indeed intend to add a third GPU eventually


Dude, I'm not going to try to help you if you can't make up your mind. I feel like I'm wasting my breath.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Dude, I'm not going to try to help you if you can't make up your mind. I feel like I'm wasting my breath.


Some point and eventually is the same conclusion but nonetheless CPU wise it's a hard decision.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2014)

In the end, I wouldn't go much less than an 8350 on the AMD side. But to support it, well, overclocking it, you will need a fairly robust motherboard. So the only pricing difference will be between the processors for all intents and purposes. Since it was shown that the Intel CPUs, be it i5 or i7, can get the most out of multi-gpu setups, if you want the performance and can put out the cash, there is your answer. If you want more than adequate performance, save a few bucks, but just have a glass ceiling so to speak, grab the AMD solution. Either way Im sure you will be happy.

Good luck.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> In the end, I wouldn't go much less than an 8350 on the AMD side. But to support it, well, overclocking it, you will need a fairly robust motherboard. So the only pricing difference will be between the processors for all intents and purposes. Since it was shown that the Intel CPUs, be it i5 or i7, can get the most out of multi-gpu setups, if you want the performance and can put out the cash, there is your answer. If you want more than adequate performance, save a few bucks, but just have a glass ceiling so to speak, grab the AMD solution. Either way Im sure you will be happy.
> 
> Good luck.


Ok I've decided

8350 or Xeon


----------



## Naito (Dec 9, 2014)

Such irrational love for AMD, if I have ever seen it...


----------



## AhokZYashA (Dec 9, 2014)

the lowest end Xeon, which is i think the E3-1220v3 trumps the 8350 in pretty much everything.
except encoding probably. 

i dont really understand a low-end AMD processor is being used for 4K gaming, multi GPU setup too, 

i've seen people here, using specs much higher than an 8350/E3-1220v3 for just 2560x1440 gaming.

i suggest take the xeon, and be happy with it


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Ok I've decided
> 
> 8350 or Xeon


I still see two choices... i wouldn't call that deciding (nor would it be my choice either), LOL.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Ok I've decided
> 
> 8350 or Xeon


I still see choices, and not a decision...



> but nonetheless CPU wise it's a hard decision.


Actually, its not. I told you how it is. Now its simply up to you to make the choice... Save a few bucks on the AMD and be several % short of your peak performance, or spend the extra cash and get the (overclockable) Intel. What is making it hard is what was described in post #55.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 9, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Ok I've decided
> 
> 8350 or Xeon


As @EarthDog said, that's not a decision, that a limited set that you've wheedled down that you haven't decide on.

Secondly. The 8350 wouldn't be my first choice and the Xeon would be a waste of money because you wouldn't have a use for any of the Xeon's features. I think I need to un-sub from this thread. There is no helping you because apparently you're too ignorant to listen to what people are posting...



EarthDog said:


> Actually, its not. I told you how it is. Now its simply up to you to make the choice... Save a few bucks on the AMD and be several % short of your peak performance, or spend the extra cash and get the (overclockable) Intel. What is making it hard is what was described in post #55.





AhokZYashA said:


> i've seen people here, using specs much higher than an 8350/E3-1220v3 for just 2560x1440 gaming.





Aquinus said:


> Devil's Canyon i5, hands down. There is no better option IMHO for such a build if you don't plan to exceed 2 GPUs. If you're not sure if you'll get more GPUs, going 2011-3 and a 5820K might not be a bad option for starters, but the DC i5 will shine WRT IPC.





Dieinafire said:


> Epic fail build. 4790k with sli gtx 980s would be the start to a decent 4k build. Waiting for the titan 2 if you want a true 4k card





Aquinus said:


> No reason for VT-d, ECC memory, vPro, or any other feature Xeons have to offer. I would just say go with Intel for the IPC and get an unlocked i5 for the performance. If you're not running more than 2 GPUs, an i5 is the way to go IMHO. More than 2 GPUs and you'll be wanting skt2011 or 2011





RCoon said:


> If you don't want to receive advice on your choice of AMD processor, remove it from the original discussion, because everybody will tell you to change that Athlon. I have no problem if you want to go with AMD processors, *but the 8350 is a minimum spec for 4K*.



On top of that I think this sums it up pretty well:


Naito said:


> Such irrational love for AMD, if I have ever seen it...



I think we can call it a day now as it appears that our effort is being wasted. :-/

If the OP wants to waste his money, he should go ahead and do it. I just don't think I'll want to hear about it as it will probably just piss me off though considering this thread.


----------



## buildzoid (Dec 9, 2014)

The 8350 has less IPC than the 860K. An 860K at 4.5 or 4.7Ghz will be better than a similarly clocked FX8350. At 4K your GPUs are the biggest bottleneck not the CPU unless you are playing RTSs or MMOs. There is not a single game in W1zz's GTX 980 SLI review that is CPU intensive and gets more than 80FPS(2xGTX 980) excluding WoW. So if OP has 2 R9 290s the CPU only has to be able of providing some 70FPS in all titles to avoid a bottleneck.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 9, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> The 8350 has less IPC than the 860K. An 860K at 4.5 or 4.7Ghz will be better than a similarly clocked FX8350. At 4K your GPUs are the biggest bottleneck not the CPU unless you are playing RTSs or MMOs. There is not a single game in W1zz's GTX 980 SLI review that is CPU intensive and gets more than 80FPS(2xGTX 980) excluding WoW. So if OP has 2 R9 290s the CPU only has to be able of providing some 70FPS in all titles to avoid a bottleneck.



Lower IPC means increased frame latency which naturally lengthens it which will pull the overall frame rate down. I think the point everyone has been making is that Intel will provide the best experience. Your right though, most benchmarks have shown that as resolution increased (or rather as FPS decreases due to load) the GPUs spend more time doing work and the CPU spend less time working because the GPU needs more time (lower frame rate) to get the same job done. If frame rates at 4K were similar to 1080p, you would see the same CPU bottlenecks.


----------



## buildzoid (Dec 9, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Lower IPC means increased frame latency which naturally lengthens it which will pull the overall frame rate down. I think the point everyone has been making is that Intel will provide the best experience. Your right though, most benchmarks have shown that as resolution increased (or rather as FPS decreases due to load) the GPUs spend more time doing work and the CPU spend less time working because the GPU needs more time (lower frame rate) to get the same job done. If frame rates at 4K were similar to 1080p, you would see the same CPU bottlenecks.


Isn't that what I just said? Though I am on 2.5 hours of sleep so my communication ability has probably fallen through the ground.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 9, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> Isn't that what I just said? Though I am on 2.5 hours of sleep so my communication ability has probably fallen through the ground.


I was talking about an AMD CPU versus an Intel CPU for performance WRT IPC, not just within AMD.


----------



## buildzoid (Dec 9, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> I was talking about an AMD CPU versus an Intel CPU for performance WRT IPC, not just within AMD.


yep need more sleep. rvhjkkkkkkkkkkkkkkgi


----------



## Dieinafire (Dec 9, 2014)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/...view-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/6

Only a fool would go with an amd cpu.  Amd gets close to same fps with mantle compatible games but are over 20 fps behind in every other title


----------



## buildzoid (Dec 9, 2014)

Dieinafire said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/...view-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/6
> 
> Only a fool would go with an amd cpu.  Amd gets close to same fps with mantle compatible games but are over 20 fps behind in every other title


He's at 4K his GPUs will not push that much FPS even on an intel chip


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2014)

Exactly. As the resolution goes up, that difference also shrinks (1080p is kind CPU bound these days) as well as the overall FPS.


----------



## Dieinafire (Dec 9, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> He's at 4K his GPUs will not push that much FPS even on an intel chip


 
I'm currently running 4k and you need all the fps you can get.  So this shows you get more out of intel.  I had a 8350 with sli titans and now I have a 4790k with my sli titans.  Changing to the 4790k gave me a 8-12 fps boost depending on game. Big difference!
I'm currently waiting for the Titan 2


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

Ok guys what about a non-K variant Haswell


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2014)

Same as a Xeon without the Xeon features. Someone mentioned that earlier...

In this case, you actually save about $10 over the K variant. 

Looking at your signature, I see you overclock, why would you NOT get the K? To save $10 (and I thought I was cheap, LOL!)?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> Same as a Xeon without the Xeon features. Someone mentioned that earlier...
> 
> In this case, you actually save about $10 over the K variant.
> 
> Looking at your signature, I see you overclock, why would you NOT get the K? To save $10 (and I thought I was cheap, LOL!)?





Edit: found a 4770K for a decent price on a forum so gonna go for that instead.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2014)

More than $10 then, whatever. Don't split hairs like that in this abhorrently long thread...

Why is this our choice if you love to overclock??

This is trying my patience this seeming lack of ability for you to do anything independently. Forums are here to help of course, but come on man... THINK about the information we already gave you and DECIDE!!!!


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

EarthDog said:


> More than $10 then, whatever.
> 
> Why is this our choice if you love to overclock??
> 
> This is trying my patience this seeming lack of ability for you to do anything independently. Forums are here to help of course, but come on man... THINK.


I love to overclock but I don't have to

Look on Newegg the price difference between the 4770 & 4770K is more than $10


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2014)

JFC this thread is a a piece of work.

Unsubscribed.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 9, 2014)

Updated OP


----------

