Intel Core i7 4790k vs. AMD FX-9590

[Faceman]

Remember he mentioned rendering. So it would make sense, not everyone who games on a PC has that as top priority.

 

Right... that doesn't change the fact that he put a $100 AIO on a $80 CPU. 

[KirbyTech]

Right... that doesn't change the fact that he put a $100 AIO on a $80 CPU. 

Sure if he was buying that new, but if I read that right the pc your speaking of is his current one. Therefore if you knew you wanted a better pc in a year or so and wanted an AIO why not buy it now and upgrade is parts since saving up to build a whole PC is a bad idea IMO unless your doing it every 2 years or so.

[Faceman]

Sure if he was buying that new, but if I read that right the pc your speaking of is his current one. Therefore if you knew you wanted a better pc in a year or so and wanted an AIO why not buy it now and upgrade is parts since saving up to build a whole PC is a bad idea IMO unless your doing it every 2 years or so.

 

His original post is his current PC.  The FM2+ with 860k and GTX760.

 

He admitted that he didn't do enough research and has to almost entirely rebuild his machine because he was expecting performance, but went way too "bang for buck"  except, it was bang for buck in the wrong area of specialization.

 

No matter how you cut it, it doesn't make sense to do it the way you recommend.  With that money, if he didn't go for an AIO, he could have bought into a much more powerful platform and added cooling later if he wanted.  Cooling is ancillary.  Its cheap and easily added/replaced, unlike CPU and motherboard which is expensive, and not as easily to replace, especially when you will have to move across platforms now.

[KirbyTech]

His original post is his current PC.  The FM2+ with 860k and GTX760.

 

He admitted that he didn't do enough research and has to almost entirely rebuild his machine because he was expecting performance, but went way too "bang for buck"  except, it was bang for buck in the wrong area of specialization.

 

No matter how you cut it, it doesn't make sense to do it the way you recommend.  With that money, if he didn't go for an AIO, he could have bought into a much more powerful platform and added cooling later if he wanted.  Cooling is ancillary.  Its cheap and easily added/replaced, unlike CPU and motherboard which is expensive, and not as easily to replace, especially when you will have to move across platforms now.

I miss understood his post then. I was saying the AIO only made sense if he bought it after building his PC and with the idea to build a higher end system. In his case you noted it is a dumb idea. 

[Slayer1443]

4790k and dont get a gtx 960 sli 970 is better 

[ethaDAboss11]

I would redo it.  Don't spend initial money on a CPU cooler, use that money towards a stronger processor.  CPU cooler can easily be added later, and is much less expensive than having to buy a new CPU.  The i7-4790k is going to be the much better buy for you in the short and long term.

 

You want at least 1600Mhz RAM, especially if rendering.  We can get you some performance stuff for just as much.  With ITX, you only have 2 DIMMs, so buy a single 8GB stick, and add a 2nd later if needed.

 

The GTX960 is really a terrible card, its in no mans land.  For less money you get the same if not better performance from a $150 R9 280, and for just $20 more, you could have a vastly superior R9 290.  Avoid the 960.

 

Here is a new build that ends up costing the same.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/wxYhxr

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/wxYhxr/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($324.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: ASRock Z97M-ITX/AC Mini ITX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($101.98 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($54.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Crucial BX100 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($181.44 @ Adorama)

Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 280 3GB Dual-X Video Card  ($159.99 @ Newegg)

Case: Corsair 380T Mini ITX Tower Case  ($99.99 @ Newegg)

Power Supply: EVGA 600B 600W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($34.99 @ NCIX US)

Total: $958.36

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-06 17:45 EST-0500

 

 

EDIT*  Wait, I misunderstood.  Is this ITX PC supposed to be just for gaming?  Or also for rendering as well?

This PC will be just mine now - gaming first, then some light rendering. Instead of an i7,, how about an i5? It can handle some light stuff, and it's pretty much the same as the i7 when it comes to gaming.

 

Those parts are a lot better than the ones that I chose! Thanks!

[Faceman]

This PC will be just mine now - gaming first, then some light rendering. Instead of an i7,, how about an i5? It can handle some light stuff, and it's pretty much the same as the i7 when it comes to gaming.

Those parts are a lot better than the ones that I chose! Thanks!

Yea, go for an i5-4690k. It still renders incredibly well, amd gaming is of course amazing

[ethaDAboss11]

Yea, go for an i5-4690k. It still renders incredibly well, amd gaming is of course amazing

Yeah. So for my build now (full ATX tower desktop), should I go for the i5 or i7 or Xeon? You seem to understand what it is that I do on my computer. 

[Faceman]

Yeah. So for my build now (full ATX tower desktop), should I go for the i5 or i7 or Xeon? You seem to understand what it is that I do on my computer.

If rendering is really important, than an i7. If not an i7, then a Xeon with hyperthreading. Not all Xeons have HT, so check before you buy.

[Sintezza]

GTX970 for 4K gaming?

I would concider a Sapphire 290X Vapor X instead. anyday of the week.

 

Offcourse a single 290x wont realy cut it either for 4k gaming, however it atleast has the full 4GB availeble over a 512bit bus.

If you crossfire two 290x cards, then you basicly have a decent 4k gaming setup.

 

The problem with a GTX970 is that it only has 3.5GB availeble over a 224bit bus, and 512mb vram over a 32 bit bus, that 32bit bus is basicly utterly slow for a gpu.

So if you play heavy moded games, or texture heavy games, like Shadow of Mordor.

Then you will hit that 3.5GB vram cap very quickly

And a 970 Sli setup, isnt going to change that problem.

 

About video rendering, a 4790K would be a good choice.

[Admire]

GTX970 for 4K gaming?

I would concider a Sapphire 290X Vapor X instead. anyday of the week.

 

Offcourse a single 290x wont realy cut it either for 4k gaming, however it atleast has the full 4GB availeble over a 512bit bus.

If you crossfire two 290x cards, then you basicly have a decent 4k gaming setup.

 

The problem with a GTX970 is that it only has 3.5GB availeble over a 224bit bus, and 512mb vram over a 32 bit bus, that 32bit bus is basicly utterly slow for a gpu.

So if you play heavy moded games, or texture heavy games, like Shadow of Mordor.

Then you will hit that 3.5GB vram cap very quickly

And a 970 Sli setup, isnt going to change that problem.

 

About video rendering, a 4790K would be a good choice.

 

No single card is going to cut it at 4k...This is an insane proposition to begin with...

[Muatez]

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

 

Why not buy fx8350 and save money for gtx980, later if you need add second with bigger psu.

[Faa]

The problem with a GTX970 is that it only has 3.5GB availeble over a 224bit bus, and 512mb vram over a 32 bit bus, that 32bit bus is basicly utterly slow for a gpu.

So if you play heavy moded games, or texture heavy games, like Shadow of Mordor.

Then you will hit that 3.5GB vram cap very quickly

And a 970 Sli setup, isnt going to change that problem.

3.5GB @ 256 bit not 224 bit, 0.5GB @ 32 bit and no 3.5GB is enough for 4K gaming, even 3GB is enough and the only way to get to 4GB is using high MSAA settings which nobody would do as it's not needed on such a high pixel density monitor and it makes the game completely unplayable. The 970 can use 4GB without having a bottleneck;

 

[Sintezza]

3.5GB @ 256 bit not 224 bit, 0.5GB @ 32 bit

 

 

Wrong!

 

only 224bit bus for the 3.5GB chunck

the other 512MB chunck works on 32bit.

i would say get your facts right lol.

 

shadow of mordor, or skyrim with heavy texture mods can easaly hit that vram limitation.

GTX970 cannot use 4GB of vram on its full speed.

[GodSpoon]

This whole thread...

[Vek1313]

If you want to stream and maybe record some footage at the same time go with the AMD, it will still render well. If you have no plans to stream and just do recording go with Intel. My problem is I hate the misconceptions of AMD processors. People from what I read they say they don't seem to know correctly, and even think AMD FX 8320 will cap you at 60 fps in game but it just isn't true. You gotta get the right build for you. I have a friend on skype that is really good and smart with computers and he gave another friend of mine his partslist. The list involved the FX8320 which isn't even the best one in the series but he is getting 350 fps with recording and no overclock. Yes the cpu doesn't play much of a role in it but the GPU can't be bottlenecked and get that performance (R9 280x). He gets great speeds for recording and editing: 8 gb ram, FX 8320, R9 280x. So the cpu is complemented by the other parts as well as the other parts complement the cpu. Basically in my situation and not much money room I am going with the cheaper and more cores processor because it will have its own strengths (yes I know weaknesses too against the intel). So if money is no problem for you it is completely your choice but if you are on a tighter budget then go with the AMD, it will perform more than people are expecting it to for what you wanna do.

[Sintezza]

On 4K you will be GPU limited mainaly, so basicly a FX8350 would be totaly fine.

However in video rendering the 4790K will be better.

[sgloux3470]

No single card is going to cut it at 4k...This is an insane proposition to begin with...

 

Depends on how you define cut it.  A 980 tends to manage 30 FPS or better in most everything new.  60 FPS in anything a little older.  

[Sintezza]

I cannot understand why people still defend those awfull Nvidia lies about the GTX970 realy.

They just have riped off their customers, they simply lied about the specs, which is a bad thing.

 

i dont say that the GTX970 is bad card, its basicly totaly fine for 1080p and 1440p, however there are some games that can exaly go above the 3.5GB vram easaly., which is obviously a problem.

The problem is basicly the memory bus. like i said, the 3.5GB uses 224bit of the memory bus, and the last 512mb chunk uses the other 32bit thats left from the total of 256bit bus.

 

i simply dont understand this move from Nvidia atall.

If they just where clear about the specs, they probably could have sold more of their flagship GTX980 cards, Because people want some kind of future proofing.

 

But okay, lets not start a Nvidia vs AMD flame war.

Because its a bit offtopic.

 

But my point is, if you are a 4k gamer, i think you should also take a 290X in concideration.

[Faa]

only 224bit bus for the 3.5GB chunck

i would say get your facts right lol.

Sorry you're wrong, all memory controllers are connected to the buddy interface aka crossbar except the last 0.5GB misses some ROPs/L2 cache causing it to operate at a single controller instead of all of them which is 32 bit. As illustrated below;

You clearly can see the 7th memory controller bridging up with the 8th memory controller so making it effectively a 256 bit bus.

 

 

 

shadow of mordor, or skyrim with heavy texture mods can easaly hit that vram limitation.

GTX970 cannot use 4GB of vram on its full speed.

There's no VRAM limitation, you still get the 4GB to use. A memory controller bottleneck doesnt equal vram limitation.

In theory yeah but theory means nothing if that speed was enough to keep it GPU bound. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkh3L6PS2lw

GPU is at full load all the time without any dips into the usage -> theory meant nothing. It's simple, a large amount of VRAM are actually cached resources that just don't impact your performance and aren't needed at all therefore even if your monitoring tools are reporting 4GB of VRAM, probably a GB of that would barely be used hence why even 3GB cards perform the same as 4GB cards when the 4GB card is fully used. And ofc not all VRAM need a given bandwidth speed, so the last 0.5GB could survive with the 32 bit if memory allocating is properly done. Some games are ridiculously caching a lot, a 2GB card fully used at 100% vram usage and 99% load, throw a 3GB card in again 100% vram, throw a 4GB card in there again 100%. So VRAM monitoring is far from accurate, even if you use 4GB doesn't mean you need a 4GB card. You only need more if your VRAM bottlenecks, which means it starts to use your storage drive as a swapfile for additional VRAM which is just too slow to keep up with a GPU so you get the stutters/freezes etc.

This is how a VRAM bottleneck looks like;

Here's an example why VRAM monitoring means shit. Titan uses 3.6GB wait we need more than 3GB, the 780 will stutter like shit;

Nah you don't;

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/unlocked/images/articles/Nav/vramusage4k/crysis34kfps.jpg

So no, the card still seems to be fine at 4GB use for 4K and the 970 is a lot more practical for 4K if you were initially planning to go 2-3 Way SLI/CF because the 290x consumes like twice as much.

 

 

lol fail

So far you failed to prove your claims (you never proved one claim yet on this forum), don't make them if you can't prove them or just don't join the club of hearsaying BS and educate yourself about the issue.

 

[Sintezza]

 

Sorry you're wrong, all memory controllers are connected to the buddy interface aka crossbar except the last 0.5GB misses some ROPs/L2 cache causing it to operate at a single controller instead of all of them which is 32 bit. As illustrated below;

You clearly can see the 7th memory controller bridging up with the 8th memory controller so making it effectively a 256 bit bus.

 

 

 

 

lol you wrong.

 

just look better

you have 224bit bus for the 3.5GB chunk and 512mb on 32bit.

The 8th module isnt connected to the crossbar.

THe card has a 256 total bus right?

not 288bit like in your logic.

[Faa]

lol you wrong.

 

just look better

you have 224bit bus for the 3.5GB chunk and 512mb on 32bit.

The 8th module isnt connected to the crossbar.

Are you being blind on purpose to avoid being wrong?

If you struggle to understand a simple diagram, having jack proof, don't argue.

 

 

THe card has a 256 total bus right?

not 288bit like in your logic.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion I've said it's a 288bit. We got 8 MC's (memory controllers) each of them are 32 bit so 32*8 = 256bit.

 

[Sintezza]

 

Are you being blind on purpose to avoid being wrong?

If you struggle to understand a simple diagram, having jack proof, don't argue.

 

 

I don't know how you came to the conclusion I've said it's a 288bit. We got 8 MC's (memory controllers) each of them are 32 bit so 32*8 = 256bit.

 

 

dude you are blind,

the 3.5GB chunck is connected with 7 32bits modules, which is 224bit.

The 512MB is connected with to a 8th 32bit module, bridged with the 7th. so fully 256bit bus for the 3.5GB chunck is not possible, this would only be possible if the 8th module was connected to the crossbar aswell

 

you basicly have 4GB of vram over a 256bit total bus connected with 8 dram modules of 32 bits.

Since there are 2 chuncks, on which the 512mb module is connected to a single 32bit module, means that you have 256bit - 32bit = 224bit availeble for the 3.5GB chunk

[itachipirate]

I'll just leave this here. Guy with experience with both platforms, unbiased and lots of real-world usages explained.

[Faa]

dude you are blind,

the 3.5GB chunck is connected with 7 32bits modules, which is 224bit.

The 512MB is connected with to a 8th 32bit module, bridged with the 7th. so fully 256bit bus for the 3.5GB chunck is not possible, this would only be possible if the 8th module was connected to the crossbar aswell

 

you basicly have 4GB of vram over a 256bit total bus connected with 8 dram modules of 32 bits.

Since there are 2 chuncks, on which the 512mb module is connected to a single 32bit module, means that you have 256bit - 32bit = 224bit availeble for the 3.5GB chunk

The 8th MC is connected to the 7th memory controller look again before you call someone blind, just like any other memory controller is.

 

 

I'll just leave this here. Guy with experience with both platforms, unbiased and lots of real-world usages explained.

Not relevant as he's proven wrong numerous times.