R9 270x vs GTX 760?
- Thread starter copium415
- Start date
Swordkd
Splendid
- Oct 3, 2012
- 2,795
- 1
- 21,965
The reason you purchase an I5 over an I7 for gaming, is that the I7 offers virtually nothing in performance gained over the I5. However, you can take the hundred dollars saved and instead of buying an nVidia 760, you instead can afford a 770 which WILL offer better performance. Of course you can upgrade later, but why not put the money where it'll make the most difference now?
for gaming, you simply just don't gain a lot from an i7, except in a few games, too few too even bother. you're much more likely to see an improved performance in gaming getting a much better GPU like a 280X/770 for $50-80 more, than a CPU for ~$100 more.
future proofing by spending more is a fool's errand personally. a Phenom II X4 955 or an i5-750 are still very viable gaming CPUs, all for the same price as a non-k i5 now ~4 years ago. it has a good year or two at worst for it to be considered otherwise.
you could get an i5 now & still have it as a viable CPU for gaming for the same amount of time. and the only thing the i7 has over the i5 is HT, which hasn't exactly been a key factor in gaming despite being introduced years ago.
you could get an i5 now & still have it as a viable CPU for gaming for the same amount of time. and the only thing the i7 has over the i5 is HT, which hasn't exactly been a key factor in gaming despite being introduced years ago.
EDIT: whoops. sorry. missed out on it being a pre-built. if there's an i5+770/280x build for around that same price, take it. otherwise, if you're not confident building your own, may as well take it.
if you want improvements, assuming you're using FRAPS, recording has more to do with an HDD fully dedicated to storing the video. faster is better of course.
with the exception of a few games (Crysis 3 & BF4 large MP maps come to mind), Skyping while gaming should not be an issue in most cases. unless skype starts gaining more bloat anytime soon.
some graphs;
if you want improvements, assuming you're using FRAPS, recording has more to do with an HDD fully dedicated to storing the video. faster is better of course.
with the exception of a few games (Crysis 3 & BF4 large MP maps come to mind), Skyping while gaming should not be an issue in most cases. unless skype starts gaining more bloat anytime soon.
some graphs;
I appreciate the help. Yeah, it's about $110 difference. That's right now, though. I'm assuming the deals will be better around Cyber Monday. I'll see what I can score then. I've built PCs before. I'm just so tired of it. I'm not insanely awesome at cable management. lol.
Hazle :
EDIT: whoops. sorry. missed out on it being a pre-built. if there's an i5+770/280x build for around that same price, take it. otherwise, if you're not confident building your own, may as well take it.
if you want improvements, assuming you're using FRAPS, recording has more to do with an HDD fully dedicated to storing the video. faster is better of course.
with the exception of a few games (Crysis 3 & BF4 large MP maps come to mind), Skyping while gaming should not be an issue in most cases. unless skype starts gaining more bloat anytime soon.
some graphs;
if you want improvements, assuming you're using FRAPS, recording has more to do with an HDD fully dedicated to storing the video. faster is better of course.
with the exception of a few games (Crysis 3 & BF4 large MP maps come to mind), Skyping while gaming should not be an issue in most cases. unless skype starts gaining more bloat anytime soon.
some graphs;
You kinda cherry picked your benchmarks... the only cpu intensive game you pulled was BF4 in which the graph provides no value.
I agree that an i5 with a better gpu is a more economical and budget friendly solution that will give better performance. i7 do perform better 100% of the time though.
Swordkd
Splendid
- Oct 3, 2012
- 2,795
- 1
- 21,965
While an I7 will perform better, it's still definitely not worth it, which I think was the point. Also, if you are comparing the 4670k vs. 4770k, then you also have to think about overclocking. An I7 will generally not overclock as well as an I5 because it uses more power and generates more heat. So if you only gain a 100mhz on the overclock, you put them back at the same footing and saved money.
epic_errors
Honorable
- Dec 8, 2012
- 53
- 0
- 10,630
Lol that BF4 graph only shows that BF4 uses 4 cores. You have 4 core cpu's at 90% load and 8 cores at 50% load. There's nothing of any use there. But to the topic, and i5 will never perform as well as an i7. And saying an i7 doesn't overclock as high isn't true either. I have both and i5 and i7, both 1155, in my house hold and my i7 overclocks to 4.7 maxed on custom loop. My i5 only gets to 4.5 on a custom loop. And yes they are using identical equipment. For gaming though, Most games will not utilize more than 4 cores at the moment. Future proofing is pointless when it comes to a computer because sure you can spend an extra $100 to have a cpu last n extra year, or in three years time you can just completely upgrade.
Champion_hero
Honorable
- Sep 30, 2013
- 5
- 0
- 10,510
I'd like to join in and say that I believe future proofing actually makes MORE sense than it did previously due to the new console generation using the x86 tech. Both of those machines have an 8 core CPU if I'm not mistaken, so the likelihood of more games in the future supporting more threads is very real, thus making an i7 more relevant.
All those graphs show me above is that the ones that have high utilisation of CPU cycles now, may be stretched when when more CPU demanding games come (think physics etc) now the consoles can handle them.
I'm still running an i7 920 and its been a fantastic chip - and its lasted much longer than any of my previous chips in terms of its power.
As for the actual GFX question, I would 'personally' lean towards the 760. I'm actually looking at both of these cards too, as the 270 is around £20-£50 cheaper, but I've been burned by ATI a few times in the past with regards to reliability and drivers. My last card was the 4650 and it failed far too quick. The only Nvidia card I've had die on me in comparison was my 4600ti - and that was after many many years of usage.
All those graphs show me above is that the ones that have high utilisation of CPU cycles now, may be stretched when when more CPU demanding games come (think physics etc) now the consoles can handle them.
I'm still running an i7 920 and its been a fantastic chip - and its lasted much longer than any of my previous chips in terms of its power.
As for the actual GFX question, I would 'personally' lean towards the 760. I'm actually looking at both of these cards too, as the 270 is around £20-£50 cheaper, but I've been burned by ATI a few times in the past with regards to reliability and drivers. My last card was the 4650 and it failed far too quick. The only Nvidia card I've had die on me in comparison was my 4600ti - and that was after many many years of usage.
HMS-ratters
Honorable
- Oct 24, 2013
- 58
- 0
- 10,640
why not opt for the fx-8350? it way out performs any i5 and is £30 cheaper (sorry if we're working I dollars) plus it has tonnes of oc potential which can make it out-preform even the 4770k?
Gee Bee
Honorable
- Jan 16, 2014
- 999
- 0
- 11,360
get an i5 and then you have extra dollars for 280x or 770. With regards to be burned by ATI my last card was a 5870 i used it for years before deciding it was getting a bit long in the tooth. (it still played everything that came out).Upgraded last year when i thought it was worth it. I used GTX680 for a short period then it somehow overheated with physical scorch marks visible. I still have the replacement card in storage, along with the trusty 5870. Now with 280x cf, and very happy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 7
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram