Fobus

Maybe you can move some files around? Uninstall bigger programs/games? Windows do not take much space. Cloning programs can copy larger disk into smaller.

Me and my 980 joined too Btw, LTT is 15th with 1% of the total. cool stuff Ok, don't know if it's a problem, or it's supposed to be like that. But i get only like 1/10th of the points that is says i should get. My PPD is ~360k depending on my PC use. CPU (i7-4790k) and GPU at >90% utilisation on medium settings. My stats says i done 3 WUs so far. got only ~5k points. It's suspiciously looks like only from CPU. Is it normal?

Ok, so the same goes to other software? But here's something i dont understand. If load is split between virtual cores, shouldnt the whole system be more responsive? That is if the physical core dont have to wait for the disk read or network connection, or RAM, but instead can be fed information from another program, thus increasing it's speed. Less idle CPU = more responsive and capable system. So it shouldnt matter if it's one program capable of utilizating 8 threads or 8 programs capable of only one. So on an i5 those 8 programs would be fighting for processor time, while hyperthreading makes them share cores easier. So i was wondering if there any any benchmarks for this, and if not, why the hell not, seems to me such an important aspect for modern PC user.

Would you mind sharing those benchmarks?

Guys, you're misunderstanding me. I'm specifically asking about multitasking, not purely gaming or rendering/graphics programs. I know all that stuff already. What i dont know and dont yet understand is running multiple programs and processes at once and how threaded vs non-threaded CPU handles it. Also, how it then relates to SSD. Does anyone have any links to share or benchmarks that i can read more? As i understand, if a program (or a game) is written to take advantage of hyperthreading, threaded CPUs will see benefit. If not - not. But what about running multiple non-optimised for hyperthreading programs? Can OS make use of i7 capabilities, especially coupled with capable SSD?

At this point everybody knows that for gaming, i7 is overkill, since very few games can utilize hyperthreading. Synthetic benchmarks, compression, certain graphics programs, rendering all favour i7. And there are numerous benchmarks done on this. What i'm asking for is what affect hyperthreading has on multitasking, especially coupled with ssd? I cant find any benchmarks on that... I'm moderate to high multitasker, as I have ton of tabs running and extensions, skype, spotify, sometimes graphics programs, torrents, multiple youtube streams. And when i game, i usually leave it all on in the background. There's frustratingly little information on this stuff. I imagine because it's harder to test such conditions fairly. So could anybody give pointers to where i could find it? Let's say i7-4790k vs it's equivalent?

I remember first benchmarks, 300 series really were not that special. Not, some time after release, with better driver optimisations, they are coming into their own. Digital foundry benchmarks are just out. Seems like 1440p 390 is better, at 1080p it trades blows with 970. Mind you, 970 has a lot better OC potential.

I will reiterate a point made by someone else already. If you plan on gaming 1080p - 970. If 1440 - depends on the deal you get. Better fps you get might not be worth extra cost. If 970 is within budget, get it. Check this benchmark: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/1984-amd-r9-390-380-benchmark-review/Page-2

Depends. Are you planning on overclocking? Or multiple GPUs in the future. In any case, it's best to loop up benchmarks. Some other things that gets overlooked: - resell value. you will be able to sell 970 for more. - lifetime electricity cost. Cant remember who did it a few years back, but for 70W difference it's $15/y more in electricity cost. Depending on how many years you plan on using, and your gaming habits, or overclock, price gap can close pretty quick - driver support. With things like Nvidia's gameworks and AMD being late to fix their driver issues, it might be better to go with 970. I'm not saying it's fair. That's just sad reality. - Whole system wattage for 970 is ~300W. So your PSU is overkill. Plus, going with 970 you can save on PSU. 450W decent PSU is enough. 390 - 500W? Everything else depends on maker. Some have unacceptable noise levels or thermals. Or god help whine. Edit: corrected typo of 390

And how much more longevity can you get from i7? I'm wondering this because with time software gets more bloated. So hyperthreading might come in handy. Longer lifespan of a processor means also no motherboard change, ram change. More money for GPU or SSD in the long run. I feel like desktop got just good enough for regular users. If you're not professional, who really needs those features, is it usb3 or usb 3.1 doesnt really make a difference.

The more the merrier

Can these be trusted? http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/amd-fury-x-performance-benchmarks-idnum360/ According to digitalstorm, system draws 41W more than 980ti, but has only 58C under load? (84C for 980ti) And bechmarks are sandwitched between Titan X and 980ti on 4k. But sadly no details about clock speeds, oveclocks, or detailed game settings. Or even driver versions.

According to AMD's internal testing, 390x and 390 fares better in gaming than gtx 980, at least at 4k http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/06/18/amd-radeon-390x-video-card-edges-out-nvidia-gtx-980-in-4k-gaming/

Makes me think you did not check benchmarks... They are on par with consoles. That means that +$40 for i3, +$60 for gtx960 and you have a 1080p beast 60fps on high. That's only 400-500. And what did you say? 1000-1200? How is that not trolling? @killtothis You only need 400-500 plus Windows for 1080p 60fps on high (270x-gtx960). I would personally spend 50 more on sdd as it would make daily use that much more enjoyable. But you dont need that for gaming pc.

Here are some PC for 300-400 that have the same level or better graphical performance than console: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-budget-gaming-pc-guide http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/02/07/build-a-compact-1080p-gaming-pc-for-400-benchmarks-included/ http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/how-to-build-a-steam-machine-for-less-than-the-price-of-a-ps4-1261190 and that's building new. What if you only upgrading? One thing though. these builds are not advisable. It's better to think ahead and have a little bit nicer compenents, so that 4 years later you only need GPU upgrade to blow console out of the water.