Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

Intel i5-4670k or Intel i7 4770k? Will Hyper Threading get used?

Tags:
  • GTX 760
  • GTX 770
  • Intel i5
  • Intel i7
  • Intel Xeon
  • CPUs
  • Fraps
  • Hyperthreading
  • Graphics Cards
Last response: in CPUs
February 13, 2014 9:35:32 PM

Hello. I am interested in building a gaming rig which will be able to run Skyrim on Ultra settings at 1920x1080 and be able to handle graphical mods such as ENB Boost, Climates of Tamriel, etc.. plus many others but also be able to run and record very smoothly big custom battles such as 20 dragons flying around, etc.. like you see on some of those YouTube video recorders who use Fraps program.

I was told to go for an i5-4670k but was wondering if the hyper threading capabilities from the i7 4770k would be worth the $$$ as this is what I would be using the build primarily for? If I get an i5-4670k, I could get a better graphics card such as a 4gb GTX 770 instead of a GTX 760 with the i7. Should I stay away from any Xeon Processors or are they comparable to the i5 and i7?

What do you all think? Do you know if hypertheading would benefit since I am going to be using multiple graphic mods and fraps program? maybe running other programs outside of skyrim at the same time besides fraps or should I just go for the i5?

Thank you very much for your recommendations. :D 

Thank you CTurbo for answering my last question and recommending the i5 to me. Now this is on my mind, lol. :) 

More about : intel 4670k intel 4770k hyper threading

a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 13, 2014 9:40:42 PM

its better to go with i5 and a better graphics card
hyperthreading will to do a little fps increase
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
a c 131 U Graphics card
February 13, 2014 9:46:13 PM

Dear, pl take a note on current industry trend. All future games and apps (likely) will be using maximum cores/threads. As of this time few cores/threads are being utilized or in other words CPUs are not being fully utilized. Hyperthreading is always beneficial :)  It is here because it is needed.

Having said so, for your needs i5 4670k would be enough. But take a note again, if you want to stick with this CPU for say next 3 years then I would go for i7 4770k.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 13, 2014 9:58:24 PM

I agree with easy lover. Since the next gen consoles are sporting 8 physical cores it a reasonable assumption to make that games 2-3 years from now will make heavy use of multiple cores. For example a next gen console could use 4 cores for physics and another 2 for AI and the other 2 for various other task. Next gen games will likely be much more CPU intensive then they have been in the past.

However if you are on a budget, then the 4670k and a better GPU would be the way to go.
Score
0
a c 383 à CPUs
a c 300 U Graphics card
February 13, 2014 10:01:53 PM

I agree, i5 + better graphics card.

Also, more than 2GB isn't currently needed.

The best GTX770 IMO is the Asus version for $320.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-video-card-gtx770dc2o...

The 4GB model of this card is $395 (there are cheaper 4GB models, just not the same quality). However, at this price point it's tempting to go a little further and get a good GTX780 for $510 (EVGA 967MHz base model).

My advice still is get the 2GB Asus.

SKYRIM MODS:
It's possible to use over 2GB of VRAM if you throw lots of texture mods at Skyrim, but then your performance also can plummet trying to process HD textures even on a GTX770. Again, it's one thing to have extra VRAM for the higher definition textures, but it's another to be able to process that on the GPU and maintain 60FPS at Full Quality all the time.

I'd far rather have a constant, smooth 60FPS experience.

For example, i got SFO (plant overhaul) but my frame rate plummeted in certain areas (due to the GPU, not lack of VRAM). It was over 80FPS in cities (everything max; VSYNC forced off to test frame rate) but dropped to around 20FPS in thick grassy areas. After much playing around, I actually reduced the number of mods and removed SFO.

Other hardware recommendations:
1) 8GB DDR3 memory (2x4GB kit; 1866MHz CAS9; G. Skill/Corsair)
2) Windows 8 64-bit OEM (not Windows 7; but add Start8)
3) CPU cooler (stock one is too noisy)
4) Quality 1150 Z87 motherboard ($120 to $200 depending on budget/features)
5) Quality speakers? (i.e. M-Audio AV40 stereo or similar)

Score
0
February 13, 2014 10:35:16 PM

If you are strictly talking about gaming, the answer is no, a 4770K is not worth it. Spend the money on graphics and/or better cooling for the 4670K

(As for graphics, if your target is Skyrim on Ultra, you can do that with a 7750 or 7770 for around $110, it's not that demanding on GPUs. If you want to max most other games at 1080p the most you need is GTX 760 for around $240)
Score
0
February 13, 2014 11:35:12 PM

Thank you everyone for the answers so far! It seems that the i5 with a better graphics card is the way to go. As I mentioned before, I am planning on using lots of HD Texture mods for Skyrim which has been known to give 2gb video cards trouble. Photonboy pointed this out too. That is why I really need to get the 4gb version of the video card to ensure productivity. Photonboy raised up another concern though that maybe the GTX 770 will not be enough to process these texture packs? Also, Photonboy, are you sure that the Asus GTX 770 is better than the EVGA version? When comparing parts side by side from Newegg, it seemed that EVGA has a lot more features or better specs but I can double check these 2 again. Also if the GTX 770 isn't going to be enough to process these texture packs smoothly, what card is currently available that can? Maintaining 60 FPS or more, full quality, all of the time with these mods would be super nice! =)
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
a c 131 U Graphics card
February 14, 2014 12:05:11 AM

Check EVGA 770 Classified then.
Score
0
a c 482 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 14, 2014 12:14:27 AM

If you're running fraps as well I'd say you should have a look at an i7 4770k or Xeon 1230v3. The Xeon is a few hundred MHz slower than a locked i7 4770, doesn't have integrated graphics (they get disabled when a dedicated graphics card is used anyway), and some models use slightly less power than their i7 counterparts.

Depending on where you live you may be able to get the Xeon I mentioned + a B or H series motherboard for around the price of the i5 4670k and a Z87 motherboard. I'd take the Xeon any day of the week, especially if you're looking at heavy multitasking while gaming (recording). As you can see, overclocking is not free on intels platform - not only do you pay more for the k version of the processor, you then want a Z series motherboard to utilise it. And with Haswell's and Ivy Bridge's crappy TIM, you may not even get a worthwhile overclock without delidding.

Even so, if you look at multithreaded games as of now, the 4 core i5s hold up extremely well. I think a hyperthreaded 4 core might last a few years longer than a normal i5, but neither is a slouch. The best today will not be the worst tomorrow.



The 3470 is an Ivy Bridge CPU and holds up to an 8 core FX. With Haswell's minor performance increase it would probably beat it. Also these tests don't use the turbo functions of CPU, and since the 8 core FXs scale badly with clock speed, the intel would beat it further. Just something to think about.

For the GPU recommendations so far I agree 100%.
Score
0
February 14, 2014 1:46:48 AM

You better buy 8320 and 290x, it will last 10 yeaRS I swaer
Score
0
a c 482 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 14, 2014 2:32:04 AM

Romenfousek said:
You better buy 8320 and 290x, it will last 10 yeaRS I swaer


Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
a c 131 U Graphics card
February 14, 2014 4:21:11 AM

JOOK-D said:
Romenfousek said:
You better buy 8320 and 290x, it will last 10 yeaRS I swaer




:) 
Score
0
February 14, 2014 7:41:44 AM

luzhun said:
Thank you everyone for the answers so far! It seems that the i5 with a better graphics card is the way to go. As I mentioned before, I am planning on using lots of HD Texture mods for Skyrim which has been known to give 2gb video cards trouble. Photonboy pointed this out too. That is why I really need to get the 4gb version of the video card to ensure productivity. Photonboy raised up another concern though that maybe the GTX 770 will not be enough to process these texture packs? Also, Photonboy, are you sure that the Asus GTX 770 is better than the EVGA version? When comparing parts side by side from Newegg, it seemed that EVGA has a lot more features or better specs but I can double check these 2 again. Also if the GTX 770 isn't going to be enough to process these texture packs smoothly, what card is currently available that can? Maintaining 60 FPS or more, full quality, all of the time with these mods would be super nice! =)


Even with texture packs Skyrim isn't going to break a GTX770. I run it at 1080p on Ultra with HD textures using a 1GB 7750 and it is quite smooth. 2GB wouldn't hurt but that is pretty standard on cards $150+. 4GB cards basically only exist for SLi/Crossfire configurations when they're going to be handling resolutions beyond 1080p.

There's only two games that I know of which a GTX 760 will not get you 60fps on ultra/extreme details (Crysis3 and BF4) and that's because those two are actively trying to push the limits. Their "High" settings (which are smooth on a 760) still look better than most games' ultra. If you are gaming at 1080p, you don't need more than a 760.

The one other thing I might note is that with hi-res textures an SSD will help with load screens. I'm running on a 3570K with an SSD and those screens only stay up a second or two.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2014 12:56:30 PM

Just because games will use more threads and cores doesn't mean its the end of the world for four core CPUs. If you want gamble money on the probability of hyperthreading actually having a justifiable benefit, than more power to you.
Score
0
February 17, 2014 7:07:27 PM

JOOK-D said:
If you're running fraps as well I'd say you should have a look at an i7 4770k or Xeon 1230v3. The Xeon is a few hundred MHz slower than a locked i7 4770, doesn't have integrated graphics (they get disabled when a dedicated graphics card is used anyway), and some models use slightly less power than their i7 counterparts.

Depending on where you live you may be able to get the Xeon I mentioned + a B or H series motherboard for around the price of the i5 4670k and a Z87 motherboard. I'd take the Xeon any day of the week, especially if you're looking at heavy multitasking while gaming (recording). As you can see, overclocking is not free on intels platform - not only do you pay more for the k version of the processor, you then want a Z series motherboard to utilise it. And with Haswell's and Ivy Bridge's crappy TIM, you may not even get a worthwhile overclock without delidding.

Even so, if you look at multithreaded games as of now, the 4 core i5s hold up extremely well. I think a hyperthreaded 4 core might last a few years longer than a normal i5, but neither is a slouch. The best today will not be the worst tomorrow.



The 3470 is an Ivy Bridge CPU and holds up to an 8 core FX. With Haswell's minor performance increase it would probably beat it. Also these tests don't use the turbo functions of CPU, and since the 8 core FXs scale badly with clock speed, the intel would beat it further. Just something to think about.

For the GPU recommendations so far I agree 100%.


Lol.. about the Star Trek picture. Hi Jook-D. Thank you for your input about the Xeon. After reading the benefits that you stated and looking at it more closely on Newegg, I may just go for that one since I would be using a dedicated graphics card anyways and it also has hyperthreading. I never intended on over clocking, so another plus for the Xeon too. You said a B or H series motherboard? Would any LGA 1150 motherboard work or should I focus on the B or H ones? I notice on a Z87 one, they mention i5, i7, etc.. but not Xeon. Can you provide a link to one please? Also, should I get ECC memory or is that slower than dual channel DIMM's?

This will be the first time I will be using a Xeon. Not sure what to expect. Hopefully, even though these are used for servers, it will handle games and everything just as good as the ones made for gaming which I think the i5 and i7 are made for? This will be a money saver though and should last longer than an i7 too? Thanks for replying when you have time.
Score
0
February 17, 2014 7:22:54 PM

lowguppy said:
luzhun said:
Thank you everyone for the answers so far! It seems that the i5 with a better graphics card is the way to go. As I mentioned before, I am planning on using lots of HD Texture mods for Skyrim which has been known to give 2gb video cards trouble. Photonboy pointed this out too. That is why I really need to get the 4gb version of the video card to ensure productivity. Photonboy raised up another concern though that maybe the GTX 770 will not be enough to process these texture packs? Also, Photonboy, are you sure that the Asus GTX 770 is better than the EVGA version? When comparing parts side by side from Newegg, it seemed that EVGA has a lot more features or better specs but I can double check these 2 again. Also if the GTX 770 isn't going to be enough to process these texture packs smoothly, what card is currently available that can? Maintaining 60 FPS or more, full quality, all of the time with these mods would be super nice! =)


Even with texture packs Skyrim isn't going to break a GTX770. I run it at 1080p on Ultra with HD textures using a 1GB 7750 and it is quite smooth. 2GB wouldn't hurt but that is pretty standard on cards $150+. 4GB cards basically only exist for SLi/Crossfire configurations when they're going to be handling resolutions beyond 1080p.

There's only two games that I know of which a GTX 760 will not get you 60fps on ultra/extreme details (Crysis3 and BF4) and that's because those two are actively trying to push the limits. Their "High" settings (which are smooth on a 760) still look better than most games' ultra. If you are gaming at 1080p, you don't need more than a 760.

The one other thing I might note is that with hi-res textures an SSD will help with load screens. I'm running on a 3570K with an SSD and those screens only stay up a second or two.


Hi lowguppy. Not sure if you know of SkyrimTuner on Youtube, but I am planning on setting up the texture mods like how he has it. He gives a detailed list of things to do such as mod order, which mod to use depending on system specs, and have to make changes to the .ini files themselves to maximize the mods. He is using an i5 with a NVidia GTX 660 Ti 2GB video card. I saw a comment from him where he said that he was struggling to get 30 FPS and recommends 3gb or more video cards to help with the ENB Boost mod. I am guessing he was using Fraps too, so maybe that made the FPS drop as well. Here is a link to his video with the details in the About section underneath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4nsj0FAoZ0


Umm.. you mentioned that you have an SSD drive to help with loading screens. You just have your Operating System and Skyrim installed on that drive and nothing else? Which SSD do you recommend or does the brand matter? Is there a faster SSD or do a majority load at the same rate?

Thanks for getting back to me again. :) 
Score
0
February 17, 2014 7:28:33 PM

photonboy said:
I agree, i5 + better graphics card.

Also, more than 2GB isn't currently needed.

The best GTX770 IMO is the Asus version for $320.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-video-card-gtx770dc2o...

The 4GB model of this card is $395 (there are cheaper 4GB models, just not the same quality). However, at this price point it's tempting to go a little further and get a good GTX780 for $510 (EVGA 967MHz base model).

My advice still is get the 2GB Asus.

SKYRIM MODS:
It's possible to use over 2GB of VRAM if you throw lots of texture mods at Skyrim, but then your performance also can plummet trying to process HD textures even on a GTX770. Again, it's one thing to have extra VRAM for the higher definition textures, but it's another to be able to process that on the GPU and maintain 60FPS at Full Quality all the time.

I'd far rather have a constant, smooth 60FPS experience.

For example, i got SFO (plant overhaul) but my frame rate plummeted in certain areas (due to the GPU, not lack of VRAM). It was over 80FPS in cities (everything max; VSYNC forced off to test frame rate) but dropped to around 20FPS in thick grassy areas. After much playing around, I actually reduced the number of mods and removed SFO.

Other hardware recommendations:
1) 8GB DDR3 memory (2x4GB kit; 1866MHz CAS9; G. Skill/Corsair)
2) Windows 8 64-bit OEM (not Windows 7; but add Start8)
3) CPU cooler (stock one is too noisy)
4) Quality 1150 Z87 motherboard ($120 to $200 depending on budget/features)
5) Quality speakers? (i.e. M-Audio AV40 stereo or similar)



Hi Photonboy, which cpu cooler would you recommend? Would a Noctua U142 or DH14 be really quiet and work well? I guess I am getting the Xeon now, so not sure if that would work with that too. Thanks for all of your other information about your mod usage in Skyrim. Have you seen SkyrimTuner's videos in 1080p? The game looks really nice. :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 17, 2014 11:51:09 PM

PsyKhiqZero said:
I agree with easy lover. Since the next gen consoles are sporting 8 physical cores it a reasonable assumption to make that games 2-3 years from now will make heavy use of multiple cores. For example a next gen console could use 4 cores for physics and another 2 for AI and the other 2 for various other task. Next gen games will likely be much more CPU intensive then they have been in the past.

However if you are on a budget, then the 4670k and a better GPU would be the way to go.


Don't forget that even though next gen consoles have 8 cores but;
A. 2 of those cores will be reserved for the OS and apps
B. They are running at around ~1,8GHz
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2014 11:59:51 PM

People should forget about games fully utilizing 8 threads.
Console is using a jaguar CPU not piledriver, there are a greater difference between the two architecture.
Console developers know exactly what every console hardware therefore they can optimize the game best possible for that exact hardware setup.

PC developers will as console developers make their game playable for the most, and optimizing it for 8 cores is a rather bad thing to do, when most people are still using dual-core and quad core. Why would they only optimize the game for 5% playerbase, instead of lets say 70%.
Score
0
a c 482 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2014 1:47:38 AM

luzhun said:
JOOK-D said:
If you're running fraps as well I'd say you should have a look at an i7 4770k or Xeon 1230v3. The Xeon is a few hundred MHz slower than a locked i7 4770, doesn't have integrated graphics (they get disabled when a dedicated graphics card is used anyway), and some models use slightly less power than their i7 counterparts.

Depending on where you live you may be able to get the Xeon I mentioned + a B or H series motherboard for around the price of the i5 4670k and a Z87 motherboard. I'd take the Xeon any day of the week, especially if you're looking at heavy multitasking while gaming (recording). As you can see, overclocking is not free on intels platform - not only do you pay more for the k version of the processor, you then want a Z series motherboard to utilise it. And with Haswell's and Ivy Bridge's crappy TIM, you may not even get a worthwhile overclock without delidding.

Even so, if you look at multithreaded games as of now, the 4 core i5s hold up extremely well. I think a hyperthreaded 4 core might last a few years longer than a normal i5, but neither is a slouch. The best today will not be the worst tomorrow.



The 3470 is an Ivy Bridge CPU and holds up to an 8 core FX. With Haswell's minor performance increase it would probably beat it. Also these tests don't use the turbo functions of CPU, and since the 8 core FXs scale badly with clock speed, the intel would beat it further. Just something to think about.

For the GPU recommendations so far I agree 100%.


Lol.. about the Star Trek picture. Hi Jook-D. Thank you for your input about the Xeon. After reading the benefits that you stated and looking at it more closely on Newegg, I may just go for that one since I would be using a dedicated graphics card anyways and it also has hyperthreading. I never intended on over clocking, so another plus for the Xeon too. You said a B or H series motherboard? Would any LGA 1150 motherboard work or should I focus on the B or H ones? I notice on a Z87 one, they mention i5, i7, etc.. but not Xeon. Can you provide a link to one please? Also, should I get ECC memory or is that slower than dual channel DIMM's?

This will be the first time I will be using a Xeon. Not sure what to expect. Hopefully, even though these are used for servers, it will handle games and everything just as good as the ones made for gaming which I think the i5 and i7 are made for? This will be a money saver though and should last longer than an i7 too? Thanks for replying when you have time.


Hi,

I mentioned a B or H series motherboard because they tend to be cheaper than the Z series and will handle the Xeon just fine (generally you only need the Z series if you're looking at overclocking [not a possibility with the Xeon], or using dual graphics [Crossfire/SLI] which still has more problems than a single card solution). I can help pick one out if you give me a budget for it. :)  Using https://pcpartpicker.com/parts/partlist/ will allow you to choose the CPU and will then show the compatible motherboards. It's always worth double-checking on the motherboard manufacturer's website in the CPU Support List section to ensure that it is listed also.

ECC RAM is only really necessary if you're looking for a very stable system - it's not necessary for the average user, maybe servers only (which would be a pain in the ass if they went down, so ECC is necessary). Normal dual channel DIMMs would be just fine, and would perform slightly better.

The Xeon would perform identically to an i7 with the same clockspeed and of the same generation. I believe it's clocked 100-200MHz slower than an i7 4770 and consequently would perform ever so slightly, not at all noticeably, slower. Considering an i7 4770 is top of the line in the 'consumer' market (excluding the extreme series, LGA 2011 etc.) it won't be getting old any time soon. The i7 2600k was released in Q1 of 2011 and is still performing extremely well, so the i7 4770/Xeon 1230v3 won't be going anywhere.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2014 3:25:25 AM

Here is 1000$ build.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.30 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Thermalright Macho-120 73.6 CFM CPU Cooler ($43.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85-HD3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($86.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: A-Data XPG V2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 Pro Series 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($114.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 760 2GB Video Card ($249.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ Microcenter)
Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1000.19
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-18 06:21 EST-0500)

Id look maybe better case like Bitfenix Ghost or Fractal R4
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/bitfenix-case-bfcgho300kkn...
Fractal Design Define R4 (Arctic White) Is now cheap.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/fractal-design-case-fdcade...
Score
0
February 18, 2014 8:06:28 PM

AxlFone said:
Here is 1000$ build.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.30 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Thermalright Macho-120 73.6 CFM CPU Cooler ($43.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85-HD3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($86.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: A-Data XPG V2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 Pro Series 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($114.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 760 2GB Video Card ($249.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ Microcenter)
Power Supply: Rosewill Capstone 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1000.19
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-18 06:21 EST-0500)

Id look maybe better case like Bitfenix Ghost or Fractal R4
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/bitfenix-case-bfcgho300kkn...
Fractal Design Define R4 (Arctic White) Is now cheap.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/fractal-design-case-fdcade...


Hi AxlFone. Thank you for that list. It would actually be less than that since I already have an SSD and Sata hard drive. I may get a new SSD though if any of the newer ones are faster than the previous models. I also already have an Optical Drive too and an Ultra LSP750 power supply. Here is what I came up with. Still seems to be around the price you had with yours. ----> http://

A few questions though.

1. Perhaps I could get only 8gb of memory instead of 16 which may save me around $60-70 and I could get a GTX 770 or a better cpu cooler if needed? Is 16gb totally unnecessary or would 8gb be sufficient for gaming and recording with FRAPS?

2. Would the stock cpu cooler be just fine? or should I get a better one to ensure longevity?

3. I would like to use the Intel Turbo Boost feature which gives a Max Turbo Frequency of 3.7 GHz for the Xeon. Do I adjust this in the BIOS manually? or is this automatically done? If I do implement the Turbo boost, maybe it would be better to buy a better cpu cooler after all.

Thanks for getting back to me again when you have time. Thanks Jook-D for your help as well. :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2014 8:12:56 PM

EasyLover said:
JOOK-D said:
Romenfousek said:
You better buy 8320 and 290x, it will last 10 yeaRS I swaer




:) 


LMFAO that just made my day.
Score
0
a c 482 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2014 2:13:50 AM

1. 2x4gb of RAM should be enough.
2. The stock cooler should be fine, though a cheap aftermarket one may be quieter and will keep it cooler (though heat isn't really an issue with the Xeon chips, they're designed for stability).
3. I believe the turbo is on by default on most motherboards, so you should be achieving 3.7GHz. If you want all cores/threads to run at 3.7GHz when at full load (100% usage) then you need a motherboard with an MCE (Multi-Core Enhancement) option in the BIOS, I believe most ASRock boards (i was informed that the Z87 Pro3 does) have this and honestly most reputable brands/models probably will. Normally I believe at 100% usage the clock speed would drop to 3.5GHz or somewhere in that region, and I think this occurs with all intel chips. The MCE option would circumvent that.
Score
0
February 19, 2014 10:37:32 AM

You absolutely do not need a Xeon for Skyrim.

If you aren't overclocking, get an i5 4570, which is functionally the same as the 4670K just without the unlocked multiplier and $40 cheaper.

Also, those Crysis3 charts tell you nothing about how any other game will perform, ignore them. That game is designed to punish high end systems and has no relevance to mainstream games. Skyrim couldn't be much more different from Crysis3 in terms of the demands it places on a system.

Score
0
a c 482 à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2014 2:23:47 PM

lowguppy said:
You absolutely do not need a Xeon for Skyrim.

If you aren't overclocking, get an i5 4570, which is functionally the same as the 4670K just without the unlocked multiplier and $40 cheaper.

Also, those Crysis3 charts tell you nothing about how any other game will perform, ignore them. That game is designed to punish high end systems and has no relevance to mainstream games. Skyrim couldn't be much more different from Crysis3 in terms of the demands it places on a system.



I posted the Crysis 3 charts to demonstrate the difference between CPUs when multithreading is applied in games. Similar results can be found in BF4 - we don't really have many options for real multithreaded applications in games to show benches on, quite limited there.

Just justifying my post if what you said was intended as a criticism, I honestly couldn't tell. I agree with the 4570 choice, personally I'd still take the Xeon.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
February 20, 2014 1:58:28 AM

Here in EU Xeon is cheap.
Same price that 4670k do have. (or close only 10 £ more)
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Xeon-E...
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Core-i...
So it is really good option if do not want to OC. CPU is faster than 4670k (under 4.2GHz.
Still it is like i7 for a price i5. (it do have HT + 8 Treads.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1...

But then you can use cheaper B-85 MoBo if you do not need SLI or CF. B85 is as fast mobo as the Z87.
Look this.
http://extremespec.net/gigabyte-ga-b85-hd3-motherboard-...

Build looks good. Id go with G.skill memory or cruxial but kingston is good too. Id look for 1600MHz 2*8GB memyry kit. (they are cheaper + you do not lose much performance. But sure faster memory is bit better. (faster in some tasks)
Score
0
February 27, 2014 1:05:01 AM

JOOK-D said:
1. 2x4gb of RAM should be enough.
2. The stock cooler should be fine, though a cheap aftermarket one may be quieter and will keep it cooler (though heat isn't really an issue with the Xeon chips, they're designed for stability).
3. I believe the turbo is on by default on most motherboards, so you should be achieving 3.7GHz. If you want all cores/threads to run at 3.7GHz when at full load (100% usage) then you need a motherboard with an MCE (Multi-Core Enhancement) option in the BIOS, I believe most ASRock boards (i was informed that the Z87 Pro3 does) have this and honestly most reputable brands/models probably will. Normally I believe at 100% usage the clock speed would drop to 3.5GHz or somewhere in that region, and I think this occurs with all intel chips. The MCE option would circumvent that.


Hi again Jook-D, is this the correct motherboard? http://

I will update the PCPartPickers list to have 8 Gb's of memory and that motherboard too. I also sent an email to ASRock's support address to see if they can verify if it does have the MCE option in the BIOS. :) 
Score
0
February 27, 2014 1:13:10 AM

AxlFone said:
Here in EU Xeon is cheap.
Same price that 4670k do have. (or close only 10 £ more)
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Xeon-E...
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Core-i...
So it is really good option if do not want to OC. CPU is faster than 4670k (under 4.2GHz.
Still it is like i7 for a price i5. (it do have HT + 8 Treads.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1...

But then you can use cheaper B-85 MoBo if you do not need SLI or CF. B85 is as fast mobo as the Z87.
Look this.
http://extremespec.net/gigabyte-ga-b85-hd3-motherboard-...

Build looks good. Id go with G.skill memory or cruxial but kingston is good too. Id look for 1600MHz 2*8GB memyry kit. (they are cheaper + you do not lose much performance. But sure faster memory is bit better. (faster in some tasks)


Hi again Axlfone, I am not going to do SLI or CF. I will have to take a closer look at that motherboard. Do you know how it compares to this one? http://

You like G-Skill or Crucial memory. I have not tried those myself. I have used Corsair and Kingston before. Do you like Corsair? I will probably end up with a 1600mhz kit as the memory is not over clocked then. So it would be better for longetivity. Thanks for your suggestions as well. :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2014 1:33:48 AM

JOOK-D said:
Romenfousek said:
You better buy 8320 and 290x, it will last 10 yeaRS I swaer




I lol'ed
Score
0
February 27, 2014 7:27:36 PM

Bad_Kitty13 said:
JOOK-D said:
Romenfousek said:
You better buy 8320 and 290x, it will last 10 yeaRS I swaer




I lol'ed


Me Too! :D 
Score
0
February 27, 2014 8:55:33 PM

AxlFone said:
Here in EU Xeon is cheap.
Same price that 4670k do have. (or close only 10 £ more)
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Xeon-E...
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/Intel-Core-i...
So it is really good option if do not want to OC. CPU is faster than 4670k (under 4.2GHz.
Still it is like i7 for a price i5. (it do have HT + 8 Treads.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1...

But then you can use cheaper B-85 MoBo if you do not need SLI or CF. B85 is as fast mobo as the Z87.
Look this.
http://extremespec.net/gigabyte-ga-b85-hd3-motherboard-...

Build looks good. Id go with G.skill memory or cruxial but kingston is good too. Id look for 1600MHz 2*8GB memyry kit. (they are cheaper + you do not lose much performance. But sure faster memory is bit better. (faster in some tasks)


Hey. Just letting you know that I am most likely getting G-Skill now. It was between

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233254

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231536

Although Corsair I have used before and it has 1 more star than the G-Skill for ratings, I am most likely going with the G-Skill pair since they will better match the Antec 1200 v3 case that has blue led fans and it is cheaper too! The latencies of each are the same: 7-8-8-24 - 1.5v Dual Channel.

That is absolutely the lowest latency there is for DDR3 1600mhz?

Just seeing what you may think. :D 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2014 9:02:12 PM

This has just became a really big debate but I'd suggest going for the i7-4770k since it is more "futureproof" in the fact that hyperthreading will eventually help. If you're looking to save money just stick with the i5-4670k since it pretty much performs the same.
Score
0
a c 276 à CPUs
a c 133 U Graphics card
February 27, 2014 10:28:28 PM

This thread is more than a week old and full of off-topic posts
Score
0