Does the 0.4 GHZ make a big difference?

[Bittenfleax]

Xeon has the same clock speed as an i5 with slightly lower turbo clock, but it has hyperthreading of which the i5 do not. They cost roughly the same too. Single-threaded performance in various benchmarks are identical. Prices below are in Australian dollars.

 

Xeon 1231

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=28040&cPath=1490

i5 4690K

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=27941&cPath=1490

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4690K

 

It is pretty much a locked i5 with hyperthreading, and can be put into a 1150 motherboard (e.g. Z97, H97)

 

Do not confused Xeon as server chips only because not all of them are.

Yes but as single core performance the i5 is a lot better. Even though they have the same clock speed...

 

And I am talking about UK prices.

[ApolloEleven]

So again, through error of your own, you don't recommend a perfectly good CPU because simply plug and playing an intel rig was easier for you? *sigh* I mean I guess... At the current time of 2015 the FX cpu is only good if you're on a mega tight budget and need the 8 cores, for gaming etc, the cheaper i5 is a MUCH better choice especially the K versions. When I bought my CPU in 2012 however this wasn't the case as the i5 was far too expensive and the gaming motherboards where no cheaper than the FX boards not to mention some of the intel board were setting fire to themselves from gigabyte which was worrying as I had a UD5 for my FX at the time.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, the CPU he currently has it plenty strong for his needs, just stop spouting bullshit. FX is irrelevant these days, unless you already own one then you should overclock the tits of it to the max. If you're buying a gaming rig, then an i5 is the best bang for buck unless your budget it mega tight then the APU from AMD will see you good until you've learned some shit and want more power. 

 

I'll withdraw my rant against the FX-8350. Though I'd still recommend an i5 or Xeon in my personal opinion. AMD APUs or the FX6xxx are good choices too. But to get back to the OP's question, the 0.4GHz can make a bit of a difference. Getting an unlocked (K) processor you can overclock it further but then you will need to replace the stock cooler.

My i7 6700K defaults at 4.00GHz. I overclocked it to 4.4GHz and I saw a 10FPS improvement for Dirt Rally (from 85FPS avg to 95FPS avg, minimums are slightly up too) and around 6-10FPS for ARMA III (from 70 to 78FPS avg). But for GPU-heavy games you won't see any improvements, such as Tomb Raider and Battlefield. Dirt Rally and ARMA III are CPU-bound games (Dirt Rally uses heavy physics and particle effects, ARMA III has so many AI and systems).

 

R9 290.

DDR4 8GB 2400MHz.

[PlayModeOn]

Could you spend more for a i7 4790K? 

[D2ultima]

In what area? About my FX giving me no issues or my 970 giving me no issues? Because if it is either then YOU are wrong, because I have no fucking issues. 

You said, and I literally quote:

 

There IS no issue with the 4gb of vram on the 970, windows 10 uses the full 4gb it's just windows 7 can't use it fully, as for overclocking, the fx8350 imo does incredible things when clocked to 5ghz.

and that is incorrect.

 

There *IS* an issue with the 970's vRAM, whether or not you ever experience the problem is irrelevant to me or to the card's design issue. That's like me telling someone who drives at 100Mph that a car that shuts down at 90Mph has no problems whatsoever because you drive it and never pass 75Mph. Oh, and if you think Windows 10 can get around a hardware design problem, you REALLY shouldn't be commenting on anything having to do with tech. Here: go educate yourself on vRAM, and then educate yourself on the 970's issue.

 

Also, there *ARE* issues with AMD's CPUs and cards of a R9 390 or GTX 970's power or above.

Education post #1

Education post #1 ver. 2015

Education post #2

[Benji_w]

You said, and I literally quote:

 

and that is incorrect.

 

There *IS* an issue with the 970's vRAM, whether or not you ever experience the problem is irrelevant to me or to the card's design issue. That's like me telling someone who drives at 100Mph that a car that shuts down at 90Mph has no problems whatsoever because you drive it and never pass 75Mph. Oh, and if you think Windows 10 can get around a hardware design problem, you REALLY shouldn't be commenting on anything having to do with tech. Here: go educate yourself on vRAM, and then educate yourself on the 970's issue.

 

Also, there *ARE* issues with AMD's CPUs and cards of a R9 390 or GTX 970's power or above.

Education post #1

Education post #1 ver. 2015  - all these are invalid and cba wasting my time reading none overclocked benchmarks, nothing in my system is stock.

Education post #2

 

When I start having anything less than 100fps in games mate, then I'll call it an issue ok?

 

 

 

I've seen reports of users hitting 4gb of memory and not seeing stuttering, but this was rumored before windows 10. I have pushed shadows of mordor and GTAV extremely hard and have zero stuttering - but even though Im at max vram usage, it may also be due to SLI config for myself as to where stuttering went.

Nvidia has not released any statements regarding the optimization of the last 500 mb of Vram though, I searched a lot on this subject recently. biggrin.gif

 

And...

 

 

I think it depends on the game and driver optimization. I don't think the new drivers let you use the 0.5GB "slower" ram, and with Windows 10 people have been reporting that system memory is being used beyond the 4GB. Most people are upset that they are/were advertised as a 4GB card, but I bought mine based solely on benchmarks vs. price.

 

Regardless of the last 500mb of ram being a fuck up on nvidia's side, issue or not it doesn't really fucking matter unless you're going massive with it which it isn't marketed at anyway. So this conversation is over between you and I, Good day sir. 

[JefferyD90]

Didn't recommend buying the FX I just said mine has no issues, and you're proving my point, there is no issue.

The issue is it is end of life already.  Don't invest in old technology.  It's quite literally the same thing as recommending a Samsung Galaxy S3 to someone that is looking for a phone.  Or recommending a Intel Core i7-2600k.  As a matter of fact, it would be like recommending a GTX 480 or a HD6970.

[SuperCactus]

omg don't get a "K" version if you don't overclock !

[comicsansms]

But 8 treads is great for video stuff and streaming! :3 (Gaming only? Then yes I agree...)

If you were video rendering or stream, an FX 6300 is ok.

But anything more, you should buy a Xeon.

[Nena Trinity]

If you were video rendering or stream, an FX 6300 is ok.

But anything more, you should buy a Xeon.

Xeon still cost a bit more

[comicsansms]

Xeon still cost a bit more

True, but they are worth it.

[Jjon_]

Still, get the xeon over the 4790 unless you're getting the k version for 300$ from ebay as you mentioned. Xeon is around 5 % slower, 50$ is not worth it

R9 390 is also a better choice so for the 50$ left from buying the Xeon, get a better power supply and you're good to go

Yeah that's probably what I'll do, if I can get the 4790K for 300$ I'll probably get that and if not the Xeon is really a much better choice than the 4790 non K, thanks for that advice .

 

Just so I understood it right, the Xeon is basically the same as the 4790 non K, but just doesnt have Intergrated graphics and has 100MHz less, right? 

 

I sadly can't see how much watt my PSU has, unless I take it out (Which im a bit scared to do) , so should I just get a new one anyways because the one I have is like 2-3 years old anyways? If so, could someone reccomend a good cheap one? 

[Morgan MLGman]

Yeah that's probably what I'll do, if I can get the 4790K for 300$ I'll probably get that and if not the Xeon is really a much better choice than the 4790 non K, thanks for that advice .

 

Just so I understood it right, the Xeon is basically the same as the 4790 non K, but just doesnt have Intergrated graphics and has 100MHz less, right? 

 

I sadly can't see how much watt my PSU has, unless I take it out (Which im a bit scared to do) , so should I just get a new one anyways because the one I have is like 2-3 years old anyways? If so, could someone reccomend a good cheap one? 

this Xeon is like the 4770 non k without the integrated GPU and has 100mhz lower turbo boost, which doesn't really matter

As for the PSU, EVGA makes decent ones, they also have good prices so if you need one, evga should be good

[Jjon_]

this Xeon is like the 4770 non k without the integrated GPU and has 100mhz lower turbo boost, which doesn't really matter

As for the PSU, EVGA makes decent ones, they also have good prices so if you need one, evga should be good

Ahh okay, and if you don't mind me asking, how big/what is the difference between i7 4790 and i7 4770?

[Morgan MLGman]

Ahh okay, and if you don't mind me asking, how big/what is the difference between i7 4790 and i7 4770?

4790 is clocked higher, it's around 5% more powerful which with the 50$ price increase over the xeon makes it not worth it at all, the Xeon is so powerful anyway you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two

[NeatSquidYT]

K version can OC... overclocking is free performance gains, so really yes it makes a big difference.

Not really. You have to buy a decent heatsink and a decent mobo if you want to increase the voltage.

 

A Xeon will not help AT ALL in gaming. The single core performance will not be up to standard. They are designed for multiple cores and threads and CPU intensive tasks such as servers and rendering. You can get an i5 for A LOT cheaper with the same performance as a Xeon and i7 in gaming.

Not always. In games like GTA V and BF4, hyperthreading does make a difference.

[Jjon_]

4790 is clocked higher, it's around 5% more powerful which with the 50$ price increase over the xeon makes it not worth it at all, the Xeon is so powerful anyway you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two

Okay, that's true. So my (probably) last question, can the Xeon be overclocked if I'd get a Z motherboard? Because then you could just overclock it to 3.60MHz and it would perform the same as the i7 4790,for 50$ freaking euros less, right? 

[Morgan MLGman]

Okay, that's true. So my (probably) last question, can the Xeon be overclocked if I'd get a Z motherboard? Because then you could just overclock it to 3.60MHz and it would perform the same as the i7 4790,for 50$ freaking euros less, right? 

No, that's the only flaw of Xeons, since they were designed to be used in workstations, they cannot be overclocked cause they were supposed to have low heat output and low power draw, however it can be an upside for some people cause not everyone wants to overclock and you save up money on a motherboard which is either a H81/B85/H97 and there's no need for an aftermarket cooler in addition to that ^^

[Megahurt]

A Xeon will not help AT ALL in gaming. The single core performance will not be up to standard. They are designed for multiple cores and threads and CPU intensive tasks such as servers and rendering. You can get an i5 for A LOT cheaper with the same performance as a Xeon and i7 in gaming.

Only performance difference between xeon E3 1231 V3 and i7 4790 is 200 MHz, which for gaming with a 970/390 would make no difference.

 

http://ark.intel.com/fr/products/80910/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1231-v3-8M-Cache-3_40-GHz

http://ark.intel.com/fr/products/80806/Intel-Core-i7-4790-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_00-GHz

 

As to OP, the  400 MHz difference is about ~ 10% more, which you would notice in cpu limited tasks, but gaming with a 970/390 will be mainly gpu limited with either of those.

[Jjon_]

No, that's the only flaw of Xeons, since they were designed to be used in workstations, they cannot be overclocked cause they were supposed to have low heat output and low power draw, however it can be an upside for some people cause not everyone wants to overclock and you save up money on a motherboard which is either a H81/B85/H97 and there's no need for an aftermarket cooler in addition to that ^^

Yeah, I'm just unsure if I want to overclock or not do you think for 300$ the i7 4790K is a better choice? It does perform slightly better than the Xeon (really not much tho) and I could maybe overclock it. As for PSU, is this good enough for the R9 390 ? http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/550-Watt-Corsair-VS-Series-Non-Modular-80-_974736.html

 

[Morgan MLGman]

 

Yeah, I'm just unsure if I want to overclock or not do you think for 300$ the i7 4790K is a better choice? It does perform slightly better than the Xeon (really not much tho) and I could maybe overclock it. As for PSU, is this good enough for the R9 390 ? http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/550-Watt-Corsair-VS-Series-Non-Modular-80-_974736.html

 

 

Get at least a 600W one, preferably a 650W+ PSU. Avoid Corsair CX series.

Remember that  to the price of a 4790k you're adding a CPU cooler cause you won't be overclocking much on a stock one and a Z97 motherboard which costs more than the one that can support a xeon

[jjohnthedon1]

K version can OC... overclocking is free performance gains, so really yes it makes a big difference.

Yes but overclocking ur 4ghz i7 to 4.5ghz doesn't make a difference in gpu bound games

So unless op is playing flight sim no it won't make a difference with current games

[Jjon_]

Get at least a 600W one, preferably a 650W+ PSU. Avoid Corsair CX series.

Remember that  to the price of a 4790k you're adding a CPU cooler cause you won't be overclocking much on a stock one and a Z97 motherboard which costs more than the one that can support a xeon

Ima get the Xeon as I probably will never want to overclock anyways, but for GPU I still can't decide between the 2, because if I'd go with R9 390 I'd have to get the Asus R9 390 STRIX Gaming, because I really want that 35$ cashback, but I've heard the Asus modells arent really a good choice, is that true? So I thought about GTX 970 a bit more, because then with the GTX would a 450-500 watt PSU be enough? 

[Morgan MLGman]

Ima get the Xeon as I probably will never want to overclock anyways, but for GPU I still can't decide between the 2, because if I'd go with R9 390 I'd have to get the Asus R9 390 STRIX Gaming, because I really want that 35$ cashback, but I've heard the Asus modells arent really a good choice, is that true? So I thought about GTX 970 a bit more, because then with the GTX would a 450-500 watt PSU be enough? 

ASUS are just not known for making good AMD cards, it doesn't mean they're bad, the STRIX version is fine cause it's a top tier ASUS line of GPUs, don't worry you're good with it ^^

As for the PSU, getting anything below 500W is a mistake in my opinion, you're limiting your expansion possibilities in the future without changing your PSU. Get at least a 650W + one and a R9 390, this is the best for you imho. The GTX 970 also requires no less than a 500W one for your entire system so it's not like it draws much less than the 390 =)

[Jjon_]

ASUS are just not known for making good AMD cards, it doesn't mean they're bad, the STRIX version is fine cause it's a top tier ASUS line of GPUs, don't worry you're good with it ^^

As for the PSU, getting anything below 500W is a mistake in my opinion, you're limiting your expansion possibilities in the future without changing your PSU. Get at least a 650W + one and a R9 390, this is the best for you imho. The GTX 970 also requires no less than a 500W one for your entire system so it's not like it draws much less than the 390 =)

This will probably be what I'm getting https://www.mindfactory.de/shopping_cart.php

 

U think this is good? Is it worth it to get the asus Strix 390 to save 15$? Bcs the Saphire Nitro is clearly the best one, but worth 15$?Still haven't 100% decided between 390 and gtx 970 tho

[jc980]

Both are excellent cards, The only thing I can find different about the Sapphire one is... they don't have a backplate.

If aesthetics is your thing, the ASUS Strix is fine.