i5 4670k VS i7 4770k

[trance4life]

Hello Guys , So i'm planing to upgrade from my 6 years old PC and i have a choise between the i5 4670k and the i7 4770k but the price between them is like 100$ i want to save this money trying to get an MSI 780GTX.

My usage gonna be Games running on Ultra at 1080P , music Production like Ableton FL Studio , CueBase , Kontakt .. ,maybe some editing but not that much.

So is the i5 is great for me or i'll wait till i get the money to but the i7 . Thanks i'm waiting for the help.

 

[DubbleClick]

Would you pay $100 more for physx? :l

If I were to use it commercially... but then I'd take like a Titan Z or at least 780 ti/690 gtx anyway.

 

[Ytyoussef]

Would you pay $100 more for physx? :l

If I were to use it commercially... but then I'd take like a Titan Z or at least 780 ti/690 gtx anyway.

Well there you go. ^^ But if you were limited by your budget, you wouldn't go with a 780, am I right? I really think the main reason to consider the 780, is if you want a quieter build.

 

[DubbleClick]

Would you pay $100 more for physx? :l But that is indeed a reason to go with the 780, if you do want/use physx. (While we're at it, there's also shadowplay)

h.264 recording isn't exclusive to Nvidia. Radeon has it too, called somewhat VFX'ish.

 

[trance4life]

Damn i forgot about physx :| y u do dis i almost had a crush on the R9 290 x)

 

[Ytyoussef]

That's a good point, but the last time I checked it didn't work as well as shadowplay, but that might have changed now
Edit: It seems like it didn't : http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1561-shadowplay-vs-fraps-vs-gvr-recording-benchmark

 

[DubbleClick]

Would you pay $100 more for physx? :l

If I were to use it commercially... but then I'd take like a Titan Z or at least 780 ti/690 gtx anyway.

Well there you go. ^^ But if you were limited by your budget, you wouldn't go with a 780, am I right? I really think the main reason to consider the 780, is if you want a quieter build.

Yeah, which is why I recommended the r9 290. If it was just 20€ difference I'd probably still go with the 780, but for 130€ it's a no-brainer.

 

[DubbleClick]

That's a good point, but the last time I checked it didn't work as well as shadowplay, but that might have changed now.

Not like shadowplay is working all that well. I've had my fair share of fun experiences with it. xD

 

[DubbleClick]

Damn i forgot about physx :| y u do dis i almost had a crush on the R9 290 x)

I take this as a joke

 

[Ytyoussef]

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1561-shadowplay-vs-fraps-vs-gvr-recording-benchmark But anyway, the r9 290 is still the better purchase in my opinion.

 

[trance4life]

Can i run Physx with an R9 290 ?

 

[Ytyoussef]

With your CPU, but you will get very bad performance, and not all games support it. So it's basically a no.

 

[DubbleClick]

Quite a few games support physx, but none that I know of to the level that a 780 would shine versus a 290.

 

[Ytyoussef]

That's not what I meant, I meant that you can run physx with your CPU, but not all games let you use your cpu for physx.

 

[DubbleClick]

That's not what I meant, I meant that you can run physx with your CPU, but not all games let you use your cpu for physx.

You can't use physx with your cpu. In games, PhysX is simply a way of getting CPU load onto the GPU, to prevent CPU bottlenecking. Which I heavily doubt will happen in the next few years if he went with the i7

 

[Ytyoussef]

Oh, you can. ^^ http://physxinfo.com/news/9425/borderlands-2-is-cpu-capable-of-handling-the-physx-effects/
But as I said, not all games that have physx will give you the option to use it.
The batman games run with the CPU too, if I remember correctly.

 

[DubbleClick]

Oh, you can. ^^ http://physxinfo.com/news/9425/borderlands-2-is-cpu-capable-of-handling-the-physx-effects/

Well thats basically just not using PhysX. The effects should be presentable anyway.

 

[Ytyoussef]

How does that mean you're not using PhysX? The PhysX calculations are being handled by the CPU, even if that's not optimal.

 

[trance4life]

i really really like the Nvidia Physx i wonder why games don't take advantage of it i'll try to get the 780 if not ill take the R9 290 and sure i'll be happy both sides , thank you guys btw i'm a console lover i won't go with the PS4 just yet i choose the PC thsi time , hopie i won't get desapointed

 

[Ytyoussef]

Oh, you won't. You will get much better performance.

 

[DubbleClick]

i really really like the Nvidia Physx i wonder why games don't take advantage of it i'll try to get the 780 if not ill take the R9 290 and sure i'll be happy both sides , thank you guys btw i'm a console lover i won't go with the PS4 just yet i choose the PC thsi time , hopie i won't get desapointed

Games do take advantage of it, but there's simply not enough benefit of it in games when you have a decent CPU.
And the i7 4790k is high-end, so well above decent. The only thing you'd really want PhysX for is running lots of simulation software.

 

[DubbleClick]

How does that mean you're not using PhysX? The PhysX calculations are being handled by the CPU, even if that's not optimal.

There are no physx calculations when your gpu doesn't support it.

You might want to wiki PhysX.

 

[Ytyoussef]

That's not true, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_VE5yqNbLg . And on the wiki page of physx, "On July 5, 2010, Real World Technologies published an analysis[17] of the PhysX architecture. According to this analysis, most of the code used in PhysX applications at the time was based on x87 instructions without any multi-threading optimization. This could cause significant performance drops when running PhysX code on the CPU. The article suggested that a PhysX rewrite using SSE instructions may substantially lessen the performance discrepancy between CPU PhysX and GPU PhysX." So as I said, PhysX can work on your CPU alone, but it is not optimal, you will notice performance drops. And not all games allow you to use CPU PhysX

 

[DubbleClick]

PhysX is per definition an engine to put cpu workload on gpu.

 

[Beezy]

PhysX is per definition an engine to put cpu workload on gpu.

Physx is just instructions given to hardware like any other. It can be handled by the CPU or the GPU, but generally the GPU will do it better.

straight from Nvidias site:
"NVIDIA® PhysX® is a powerful physics engine enabling real-time physics in leading edge PC games. PhysX software is widely adopted by over 150 games and is used by more than 10,000 developers. PhysX is optimized for hardware acceleration by massively parallel processors."

It just so happens GPUs massively parallel process.

 

[Ytyoussef]

"PhysX is a proprietary realtime physics engine middleware SDK." It is not an engine to put cpu workload on the gpu, as you are saying. It works with CPUs, just not as well, as I probably said in my last ten posts.