Many cored high ghz AMD cpu or a lower to mid range Intel i7 cpu

[incarnate]

31 minutes ago, Tech Deals said:

 

The i7 chips are completely pointless for gaming.

Not quite, they are great for live streaming, and games are coming out now with decent hyperthreading/multithreading support. However, for just gaming, an i5 is more than enough. But the OP streams games, so an i7 or xeon is very with while

[Tech Deals]

22 hours ago, incarnate said:

Not quite, they are great for live streaming, and games are coming out now with decent hyperthreading/multithreading support. However, for just gaming, an i5 is more than enough. But the OP streams games, so an i7 or xeon is very with while

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/22

 

Find me a result in there where the i7 makes a lick of difference over the i5.

 

Half the gaming computers on the market are still dual core...  developers are not going to really use the power of an i7 for a long time...

 

If you're streaming, and you're serious about it, get a streaming hardware encoder, about the price difference between the i5 and i7 and it removes all stress from the computer.

 

22 hours ago, Brennan_Price said:

Ha-ha, you can get a cheap Xeon CPU for LGA 1366. If you wanna go cheap the this is probs the way to go.

Yes you can, but you're still stuck with the now old and slow x58 chipset, and that assumes it supports the Xeon.

 

Not all of the improvement in recent years has been the CPU, the chipsets are getting better too.  Skylake for example, the Z170 vs Z97 chipset has many improvements apart from the CPU itself.

 

His computer dates from 8 years ago, it really isn't worth upgrading in my personal opinion, everything needs to be replaced.  In many respects, he would be better off building or buying new, because then he has two computers.  If you upgrade, you only have one.

[incarnate]

12 minutes ago, Tech Deals said:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/22

 

Find me a result in there where the i7 makes a lick of difference over the i5.

 

Half the gaming computers on the market are still dual core...  developers are not going to really use the power of an i7 for a long time...

 

If you're streaming, and you're serious about it, get a streaming hardware encoder, about the price difference between the i5 and i7 and it removes all stress from the computer.

Look up newer games like fallout 4 and you'll see how big of a lick the difference is. That trend is only going to continue. And lastly, a xeon e3 is the same price as an i5 and on par with an i7 with the only sacrifice being the lack of overclocking, which in most cases, doesn't make much impact anyway.

[Tech Deals]

2 minutes ago, incarnate said:

Look up newer games like fallout 4 and you'll see how big of a lick the difference is. You're delusional if you think there is no difference in newer games. That trend is only going to continue. And lastly, a xeon e3 is the same price as your precious i5 and on par with an i7 with the only sacrifice being the lack of overclocking, which in most cases, doesn't make much impact anyway.

 

Starting at 6:40 in the video below, you'll see the following:

 

i7-4790k - 105 fps

i5-4690k - 82 fps

 

Two things:

 

1. That was run at 1080p at medium detail, a setting that no one with either CPU should be doing.

 

2. The i5 is 500 MHz slower, which no one with either CPU should be doing.  Both should be overclocked to the 4.4GHz range, or why have a K CPU?

 

Much of the benchmarks showing a i5 slower have the CPU at default clock.

 

Put them at the same clock rate and VERY few games will show any difference whatsoever.  Yes, you might find one or two examples, but are they worth $130 more for 5% more performance?  That money usually better put into the GPU.

 

Side note: Fallout is much like ARMA, a CPU intensive game, so those two are the exceptions.  Most games couldn't care less.  Sure, if you have the money, by all means, but WAY too many people buy the i7, then go cheap on video, rather than the i5 and go big on video, and that is a mistake.

 

 

 

[incarnate]

21 hours ago, Tech Deals said:

 

Starting at 6:40 in the video below, you'll see the following:

 

i7-4790k - 105 fps

i5-4690k - 82 fps

 

Two things:

 

1. That was run at 1080p at medium detail, a setting that no one with either CPU should be doing.

 

2. The i5 is 500 MHz slower, which no one with either CPU should be doing.  Both should be overclocked to the 4.4GHz range, or why have a K CPU?

 

Much of the benchmarks showing a i5 slower have the CPU at default clock.

 

Put them at the same clock rate and VERY few games will show any difference whatsoever.  Yes, you might find one or two examples, but are they worth $130 more for 5% more performance?  That money usually better put into the GPU.

 

Side note: Fallout is much like ARMA, a CPU intensive game, so those two are the exceptions.  Most games couldn't care less.  Sure, if you have the money, by all means, but WAY too many people buy the i7, then go cheap on video, rather than the i5 and go big on video, and that is a mistake.

As I said, for just gaming purposes, an i5 is more than enough. For streaming a xeon/i7 is a far better choice. And cpu intensive games shouldn't be ignored, pretending like they don't matter is akin to putting your head in the sand. We will see how game development plays out over the next few years. Personally I think we'll finally start to see more games take advantage of hyperthreading.

 

I never said anything about cheaping out on the graphics card, nor would I ever suggest something so amateurish. However acting like no one needs an i7 since that money should always be put towards the graphics card cause i5s play games well is just as silly. If someone streams and makes videos, an i7 will perform better across all tasks.

 

Lastly, on topic, the xeon would be the op's best choice, seeing as how he wants to stream games. It's not like he'd be throwing money away and wouldn't need to buy an external streaming device.

[jett473]

18 hours ago, incarnate said:

No, you're wrong. The difference between the e3 1231 v3 and an i7 4770 is 0.1 ghz and the xeon didn't have a igpu. It works just as well for gaming.

 

It would be a giant waste of money to get an i5 then upgrade to an i7 later. 

you're right, I came back later and noticed OP was going to do so video editing too, which that alone defeats my argument, along with the fact I just don't know much about Xeons

[incarnate]

3 hours ago, jett473 said:

you're right, I came back later and noticed OP was going to do so video editing too, which that alone defeats my argument, along with the fact I just don't know much about Xeons

 My post seems a bit too blunt, it wasn't intended to be. But learning is something everyone does here. Most xeon processors aren't right for this kind of use, and they certainly don't get the attention that the core i series does.

[jett473]

42 minutes ago, incarnate said:

 My post seems a bit too blunt, it wasn't intended to be. But learning is something everyone does here. Most xeon processors aren't right for this kind of use, and they certainly don't get the attention that the core i series does.

it's all good, learning is why I joined the forms after all (:

[Tech Deals]

1 hour ago, incarnate said:

 My post seems a bit too blunt, it wasn't intended to be. But learning is something everyone does here. Most xeon processors aren't right for this kind of use, and they certainly don't get the attention that the core i series does.

There is a use case for Xeon in some situations, but frankly I think for most people the Core i-series is a better bet, even if you can find a "deal" on a Xeon.

 

Why?  Because at some point, "easy" and "it just works" trumps 5% less price and 5% more performance, but "headache and a half".

 

 

 

Watch Linus's video on "dirt cheap gaming" using Xeon chips.  Yes, it works, but the headaches aren't worth it IMHO.

 

You can be assured that the next 3 consumer versions of Windows are going to comfortably install on a Core i-this or a Core i-that.  You can't be so assured of that with what is really a server product.

 

Yes, sometimes you can put a Xeon into a consumer motherboard, but sometimes you can't.

 

For me, it just comes with way to many "maybes" and "almosts" and "kinda sortas" for my taste.

 

Saving $50 to end up with hours of headache just isn't worth it, to me at least.