Fate

Just got the same thing. Twitch posted this on twitter: 

Should be fine to visit, but who knows?

The 660 is better, and yea it should be fine for most games at 720p; it's an incredibly easy resolution to run.

In any GPU intensive game, he'll be totally fine. In games like The Witcher, Fallout 4 and other heavily unoptimized titles there will be a bottleneck, but as long as the game is optimized there will be none.

 

You guys love the word "bottleneck."

 

OP, you're fine pairing those together in games like Battlefield, Battlefront, and some other popular shooters. Skyrim will be fine, with a less power GPU and a more powerful CPU I get ~75 FPS on Ultra High everything. I don't get dips or anything.

Except the 6300 is LITERALLY the only problem for OP, and he didn't say anything about any other game. 

Most likely no.

Why not look up the answer before blindly throwing out a "most likely" no?

The title says it all.

P.S. I will be using an core i5 6500

Should be able to get around 40-50fps with your setup high 1080p. http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-geforce-gtx-950-strix-review,12.html

The i7 will be better for gaming because gaming tends to favor fewer, stronger cores. 

Kinda scummy for small businesses since it could waste a lot of their time and potentially money, but for bigger stores like Walmart, who cares?

It says $247

That's how much it is converted to CAD. It says $179.99 for me, since I live in the US. 

but I dont want a bigger board, and I wanna keep my 8350<3, and i wanna go crossfire, and cant wait for the fury x2, yeah i got a few problems with this build, i know

If you want micro ATX and a fury x2, you need to go Intel, period. AMD just doesn't have a viable lineup for it on the CPU & motherboard side.

Yes, it's worth it. 390's perform much better than 780's at 4k (~20-25% per card), and you will never be bottlenecked by the vram.

Fps scales fairly linearly with pixel count, so if you got for example 30 fps on a 4k monitor, you'd, in most games, get roughly 60-70 fps on a 1440p monitor. With that being said, they're probably very similar in terms of difficulty to run at their full potential. 

Most people on the forum are going to recommend 1440p 144Hz over 4k 60Hz, because for the majority of people/games, smoothness > image quality.

I doubt it will be enforced; the UK and NYC police don't seem to care at all.

Not so much concerned about the budget but wanted to make sure there was a bit of "future proofness" to it.

Might be upgrading to add another 980 in SLI in the future. 

EVGA 750/850 G2

im offended

What is your interpretation of heavy? I just want to know ... (Can't get my 3770k higher than 4.2GHz on all cores)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sxzGshuqVtFe_2zgRhN3gXCraR7d8p-NazJ6z0nsGGc/edit#gid=0

Based on the forum's R15 scores, a 4.7GHz 3770k is around 15% better than a Xeon E3 1231 v3. I'd imagine at 4.2GHz yours is close to the same performance as the Xeon.

 

I am pretty sure the xeon outperforms the i3770k at the same clockspeed by a measurable amount and in gaming (I know that for sure) by more than 5% across various games.

Yup, because the Xeon is Haswell based (it's basically a 4770). However, a heavily overclocked 3770k will destroy it.

Referring to the above topic......

Which is better? (Video editing terms.....)

Factor in everything about the processors....

The Xeon will be better in video editing when both at stock. If you overclock the 6600k quite a bit, it will be similar in performance in things like rendering, and better in the majority of games. However, you'll need a more expensive motherboard, RAM, and a cooler, so it's better to go with the Xeon.

There will be no bottlenecking. 

Thank you so much!  If i use this motherboard and this adapter can I still have two 980s in SLI with them both scaled on 8x?

 

Motherboard:  http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Amazinjoe555/saved/v2Wqqs

 

Adapter:  http://www.amazon.com/Lycom-DT-120-PCIe-Adapter-Support/dp/B00MYCQP38/ref=pd_sim_147_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=41XbyjHLhmL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=1F929628MBYAV22KCEZD#Ask

I don't think so. If you plan to go SLI 980s, I would just get a SATA SSD. 

Your motherboard/CPU supports either 16x, 8x/8x, or 8x/4x/4x. SLI requires at least 8x/8x. 

Hey guys, isn't this a much good deal. I am not sure about the versions and all. So may be you can tell me.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438027&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker,%20LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

B1/G1 aren't great compared to B2/G2. The B2 is a higher tier than the G1 in every tier list I've seen.

MFW I got the worse B1 version for the same price a few months ago

Look up REM cycles, I believe that's why if you sleep for 8 hours and 30 minutes you may wake up and feel great, but if you sleep for 9 hours you wake up and feel horrible (these are not actual numbers, they vary for everyone).

No it won't lower performance a significant amount, if any.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling/21.html

 

You sure?

That site doesn't seem to be very reliable. 

More on this thread: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/482664-is-it-time-to-stop-discouraging-use-of-the-fx-8350/page-3

 

 

 

See what I mean?

 

And then look at this;

 

One core maxed out. How the hell can the 5960X be higher.

 

I'm not saying with absolute confidence either is right. But the fact they contradict proves that you can't just blindly go by one and stick with it.

IPS - anything bellow IPS is unacceptable in this day and age

Could say the same about 144Hz and FPS gaming.

RIP Australians

R9 380, or a new/used R9 290.

The 960 is also an option if it's significantly cheaper than the R9 380.