new gpu

[Neo-revo]

4 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

yea i do agree that intel is currently being an idiot when it comes to pricing and products compared to amd. however i feel better with intel than that i do with amd. same goes for gpu's like the vega. 

ok on GPU's i admit that Nvidia products are better if you can afford the rates. my old 8800gts lasted for 9 years before i finally retired it..

so if you can accept lowered setting for the the AAA games then it becomes a very open market depending on your desired resolution.

 

Cpu's though.... i've never felt the intel tax is justified... just like apple tax...   but to each their own..  but honestly

8700k = 30% real world performance speed max'ed rating vs your 7600

6:(12) vs 4:(8)  for 170$ more atm

and the 8700k is only 16% better than a R7 1800x  that only costs 45$ more than you 7600.. and the board to run it likely cheaper too.. and the 1800x is 8:(16) core cpu

[hollyh88]

8 hours ago, Neo-revo said:

Cpu's though.... i've never felt the intel tax is justified... just like apple tax...   but to each their own..  but honestly

8700k = 30% real world performance speed max'ed rating vs your 7600

6:(12) vs 4:(8)  for 170$ more atm

and the 8700k is only 16% better than a R7 1800x  that only costs 45$ more than you 7600.. and the board to run it likely cheaper too.. and the 1800x is 8:(16) core cpu

7

yes i do agree with that. But for some reason i find the intel more reliable not in performance but more in the product. i also have a pc that i gave to my father which is an amd build. but i guess thats more opinion based. i do agree that the prices are still over the top for higher end cpu's. i first had a i5 6500 when i started but got a 7600 later. but its a 20 buck more to get the k version of the 7600 which isnt allot at all but i would need to upgrade my mobo for that to which atm i dont feel like doing  i already had a bit of a shitty time when i installed the hyper 212 evo for the first time. 

but would i really be seeing bottleneck with an 2070? like turtle mentioned? he recommended a gtx 1060 which would be a downgrade  so i dont understand his comment at all. since my gtx 1070 sc has seen no  bottleneck this far. 

[Neo-revo]

3 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

but i would need to upgrade my mobo for that to which atm i dont feel like doing  i already had a bit of a shitty time when i installed the hyper 212 evo for the first time. 

this is intel's problem,  WHY i cant justify their tax...  right now you have AM4 and TR4....   in a am4 you can put a APU, or a 2700X...    in a 100-300$ board... 

 

certain AM3 chips back in the day were backwards compatible into AM2 boards   (the early Phenom days)

 

but would i really be seeing bottleneck with an 2070? like turtle mentioned? he recommended a gtx 1060 which would be a downgrade  so i dont understand his comment at all. since my gtx 1070 sc has seen no  bottleneck this far.

 

in game your cpu already runs at 90-100%  you wouldn't see much improvement without dropping game stats ...  in other games you would see a modest increase at current settings..

 

it comes back to F1 motors....    you cant just put the super premium gas in your car for better performance..   it doesn't have the space for the extra power to exit efficiently  (people all exiting a stadium after a sporting event)   The info can only move so fast to the end result.  if you can add ram(wider paths in the stadium), that will help a little bit. But the biggest help is faster GHz(more exit gates) so it can eat the info fast enough to spit 1440p 120+ times per-second of pixel data at your screen. then you benefit from the F1 parts.

 

[Neo-revo]

my current setup i tested 2 of my common resolutions, in Fallout4 and Dyling light (maxed at 1440p)  i got 150-200 frames, 

at 5960x1080 i got 90-120 frames depending on level of action and 120+ in 'quiet low render areas'

 

at both times my cpu load hovered around 100%. GPU'S 60-100%   so if i i really wanted to go into 4k i would need a more powerful gpu and cpu to keep up my 90+

 

My system is not slow... but in comparison to the new parts on the market it  is slow...   But if i treat it like how it is and dont expect more than it can handle then it is a perfectly fine computer.

[hollyh88]

21 hours ago, Neo-revo said:

this is intel's problem,  WHY i cant justify their tax...  right now you have AM4 and TR4....   in a am4 you can put a APU, or a 2700X...    in a 100-300$ board... 

 

certain AM3 chips back in the day were backwards compatible into AM2 boards   (the early Phenom days)

 

but would i really be seeing bottleneck with an 2070? like turtle mentioned? he recommended a gtx 1060 which would be a downgrade  so i dont understand his comment at all. since my gtx 1070 sc has seen no  bottleneck this far.

 

in game your cpu already runs at 90-100%  you wouldn't see much improvement without dropping game stats ...  in other games you would see a modest increase at current settings..

 

it comes back to F1 motors....    you cant just put the super premium gas in your car for better performance..   it doesn't have the space for the extra power to exit efficiently  (people all exiting a stadium after a sporting event)   The info can only move so fast to the end result.  if you can add ram(wider paths in the stadium), that will help a little bit. But the biggest help is faster GHz(more exit gates) so it can eat the info fast enough to spit 1440p 120+ times per-second of pixel data at your screen. then you benefit from the F1 parts.

 

do keep in mind that the cpu usage is only at 90/100% in battlefield 1 and v who are both very cpu heavy games. my cpu doesnt get to that much on any other game. 

[hollyh88]

20 hours ago, Neo-revo said:

my current setup i tested 2 of my common resolutions, in Fallout4 and Dyling light (maxed at 1440p)  i got 150-200 frames, 

at 5960x1080 i got 90-120 frames depending on level of action and 120+ in 'quiet low render areas'

 

at both times my cpu load hovered around 100%. GPU'S 60-100%   so if i i really wanted to go into 4k i would need a more powerful gpu and cpu to keep up my 90+

 

My system is not slow... but in comparison to the new parts on the market it  is slow...   But if i treat it like how it is and dont expect more than it can handle then it is a perfectly fine computer.

so i just tested dying light again in 1080p and 1440p to see the cpu and fps.

1080p:
gpu: 99%
cpu : 80-100% 
fps : 110-140

1440p:
gpu: 99%
cpu: 40-60 %
fps 80-100

thus i game at 1440p. 

fallout 4 has similar % for cpu in 1080p and 1440p.

[hollyh88]

oh and i have my gpu at a stable 100 core and 400 memory overclock  so that ofc increases my performance a bit. 

[Neo-revo]

2 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

so i just tested dying light again in 1080p and 1440p to see the cpu and fps.

1080p:
gpu: 99%
cpu : 80-100% 
fps : 110-140

1440p:
gpu: 99%
cpu: 40-60 %
fps 80-100

thus i game at 1440p. 

fallout 4 has similar % for cpu in 1080p and 1440p.

Games like this you would get modest better performance.  Frames might be a little higher but gpu load will decrease a bit too depending on what route you go.       You are close to the cusp of needing faster equipment though.

 

With a faster gpu, you will be looking for 100% on both

[Neo-revo]

2 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

oh and i have my gpu at a stable 100 core and 400 memory overclock  so that ofc increases my performance a bit. 

i just wanted to give you a little better idea how all the parts actually work together in a more understandable likening.

 

so if gpu=100% and cpu =40-60%  then  a faster gpu will help

 

if your cpu and gpu are both at or around 100...  you need faster cpu and gpu...

[hollyh88]

1 hour ago, Neo-revo said:

i just wanted to give you a little better idea how all the parts actually work together in a more understandable likening.

 

so if gpu=100% and cpu =40-60%  then  a faster gpu will help

 

if your cpu and gpu are both at or around 100...  you need faster cpu and gpu...

yes there are however only 2 results this far in which my cpu reaches 100% or close to 100%

those are either in the latest battlefield games or in 1080p. 

but as you said a faster gpu will help when playing at 1440p since then my cpu doesnt reach 100%. and a faster gpu in this case is well low end a gtx 1070ti mid end a gtx 1080 and high end a rtx 2070. but i rather go for either a gtx 1070 ti or a rtx 2070 seeing how the prices currently are.

[hollyh88]

but currently my option can also just wait for a bit to see how those 3 games that i mentioned perform on my current setup. and well see how the gtx 1070 sc goes up or down in price. it has at least for now gone up a bit. and im seeing a line thats only going up. 

[Neo-revo]

1 hour ago, hollyh88 said:

yes there are however only 2 results this far in which my cpu reaches 100% or close to 100%

those are either in the latest battlefield games or in 1080p. 

but as you said a faster gpu will help when playing at 1440p since then my cpu doesnt reach 100%. and a faster gpu in this case is well low end a gtx 1070ti mid end a gtx 1080 and high end a rtx 2070. but i rather go for either a gtx 1070 ti or a rtx 2070 seeing how the prices currently are.

1080 is harder to display on a monitor that supports 1440p.  The gpu has to figure out what pixels to expand and how much to fit the screen. 

Unless you set desktop resources to 1080 aswell...  but it's reverse bottlenecking.

[hollyh88]

2 hours ago, Neo-revo said:

1080 is harder to display on a monitor that supports 1440p.  The gpu has to figure out what pixels to expand and how much to fit the screen. 

Unless you set desktop resources to 1080 aswell...  but it's reverse bottlenecking.

yeah i get what you are saying. ill wait on buying a new gpu and save up a bit. for as much as i can at least.