i5 4690k @4.5 or 4.7 atm or OC in the future
i5 4690k @4.5 or 4.7 atm or OC in the future
geofelt :
If you want to game in a hot environment, look towards the most power efficient components you can find.
Consider the merits of a strong i3 like the i3-6320.
It comes with an adequate cooler.
Use a suitably strong nvidia card like a GTX970 for 1080P gaming.
Use a SSD for the os and games.
Use a case with good airflow.
That means to me at least two 120mm intake fans.
If you use a M-ATX sized motherboard, the Silverstone TJ-08E and PS-07 are excellent.
i can easily afford the i5 6600... i know the i3 6320 is good but there is some lack in 6th gen processors here and i wont take the piss
😀
why get the 970? i mean its good and in my price range and all but srsly the 3.5gb fast vram wont do good shit for 1080p
look at rise or tomb raider and the division ..... look at upcoming quantum break vram consumption... all above 4gb for ultra settings 1080p.... and 3.5gb wont do any good in that case... whats coming is worse... and i wont take the piss to have a frame dropping and losing card in that matter.. whats coming is worse i repeat.... the 390 and 970 are pretty close id rather get the 390 and futureproof myself... i wont keep changing gpus when i change i will change the whole rig..... whats your opinion on this
.
also i will already get a hyperx savage 120gb ssd for the os and programs.... for some decorations and impressive-ness
😀
also i dont have silverstone in my country ... probably a corsair spec 02 or 03 with extra fans will get the job done..... or even the better choice the spec alpha which will release next month
😀
Adel_Yasser :
alright if almost the results are almost not necessary for more than 2000 egp price change which is about 225 dollars.... ridiculuous as hell.... the guy who suggested the oc has an i7 4790k @4.5 and 980ti and he had some noticeable increase in some games to 7fps.....
If you are only getting 27FPS, you'll notice the bump to 34FPS more than you will from 65FPS to 72FPS...especially if your monitor's frequency is 60Hz. That's all I'm saying.
Adel_Yasser :
so is getting a k processor anyways to futureproof good?
It's not so much a question of future proofing as it is being allowed to overclock to keep up with newer chips that come out. For example, an old Ivy Bridge i5 3570K overclocked to 4.4GHz may be more or less equal in performance to a new i5 6600K at 3.9GHz. Nothing in PC world is ever "future proof" but having a K-series chip and overclocking it extends the performance life of it when newer chip technology comes out.
Adel_Yasser :
is going with i5 4690 and 16gb ddr3 kingston and H97 asus pro gamer mobo....or same with i5 but i7 4790
An H97 motherboard does not have good overclock options. You need a Z97 chipset motherboard if you want to overclock successfully due to having more O/C control options. And there is really little to no difference in game performance between an i5 and i7 clock for clock. if you only game, it's not worth the difference to go to an i7 over an i5. Now if you are into using video editing software and other productivity applications, it's worth it.
Adel_Yasser :
which would you strongly recommend to only heavy games with r9 390 or 390x sapphire... and the 390 or 390x because of the futureproofistic 8gb vram... and ill go with r9 390 cuz the difference aint that huge and both 8gb and 1080p only...
At 1080p, the 970 and 390 trade blows. But at 1440p the 390 pulls away due to more VRAM. FYI I have two 970s in SLI and run 1440p and have never come close to using all direct access 3.5GB VRAM (Witcher 3, BF4, Battlefront, Project Cars, Crysis 3, Far Cry 4). Still, the 970 is an excellent oveclocker and can be overclocked to match stock 980 speeds (mine are). Also the 390X is a 980 competitor and is at a higher price point than the 390.
But the future appears to be games with more VRAM requirements even at 1080p. We can see that today with modifications to games like GTA5 and Skyrim. One thing to keep in mind is that the VRAM "use" you see in something like MSI Afterburner or GPU-Z is not what the card is actually using, but instead what has actually been allocated to be used. It takes professional level software to run tests on actual real VRAM use.
If you're aiming for performance in a warm setting, focus on the most energy-efficient parts available. Think about a solid i3 such as the i3-6320. It includes a decent cooler. Opt for a powerful nvidia card like the GTX970 when gaming at 1080P. Pair it with an SSD for both the operating system and games. Choose a case that offers good airflow, ideally with at least two 120mm intake fans. If you're using an M-ATX motherboard, the Silverstone TJ-08E and PS-07 are excellent options.
Why choose the 970? It's solid, fits your budget, and within range. However, a 3.5GB fast VRAM won't make much difference for 1080P. Comparing titles like Rise or Tomb Raider shows that higher VRAM usage (over 4GB) is needed for ultra settings at 1080P. A 3.5GB setup won't help much in that scenario. The situation gets worse with the 390 and 970 models—better to stick with the 390 and prepare for future upgrades. Changing GPUs often means overhauling the entire rig, so it's better to stay consistent.
Your thoughts?
Check out: http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram...page2.html
It is important to grasp how VRAM functions.
A game should store most of its data in VRAM during frequent usage.
This is somewhat similar to how real RAM operates.
If a game requires information not present in VRAM, it must transfer it across the PCIe boundary, ideally from actual RAM and preferably not from a hard drive.
It doesn’t add value to know exactly how much of the available VRAM is utilized.
Much of what exists may not be necessary.
What remains unclear is the speed at which VRAM is exchanged.
VRAM management is handled by the graphics card driver and the game itself.
There could be variations in efficiency between AMD and NVIDIA cards, as well as differences among various games.
Here is an older performance test comparing 2GB with 4GB of VRAM:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/article...emory-154/
Spoiler... there wasn’t a significant difference.
In fact, I commend the engineers behind the GTX970 for their innovative approach to storage hierarchy.
The challenge lay in marketing, not in the product itself.
Currently, AMD's approach of undervolting has proven effective in reducing power usage differences compared to Nvidia. However, this strategy is best understood by those familiar with the process, and real-world benefits are somewhat limited. Geofelt's insights also align well. VRAM tends to deplete quickly until it's nearly exhausted, largely due to drivers delaying removal of unused or lightly used data until necessary. Consequently, actual usage often falls significantly short of capacity estimates—such as 6GB on an 8GB card using only about 1.5GB actively. This makes even a 2GB card sufficient and a 4GB card future-proof for typical needs. Such patterns are quite common.
Future-proofing is typically achieved with 8GB or 6GB cards, especially for multi-GPU configurations. These sizes will become increasingly relevant as GPU demands grow, though they may not be critical at 1080p resolutions just now.
Next, consider the GTX 970's memory architecture. The final 0.5GB might lag behind other components, but it should still outperform PCIe swapping, particularly when accessing data from the hard drive. Having at least the first 3.5GB is a reasonable safeguard.