i need help building a computer Follow

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.



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.



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.



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



Which brings me to this comment:



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.



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

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.



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.

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?



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



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!



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

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.



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