I'm going to build my first PC this year, and I wanted to know which motherboard I should get for the i5 4670K. The PC is for gaming, and I'm not overclocking in principle. I'm also using only one GPU and dual-channel 1866 memory. Do you think I should get a Z87 or a H81 mobo? If I buy the H81 can I upgrade the PC in a couple years (hopefully 5)? Thanks!
If you never want to OC don't buy the k version just get 4670 and h81. If you don't want to OC now but may in future get z87 and 4670k. As for upgrading Intel may change the socket in the next year or two so cannot be sure. It's hard to make 5year + future proof pcs
if you haven't bought it, may as well cheap out and get an i5-4440/4430 instead. that .4ghz or so loss in stock clock speed may equate to lower performance in games, but nothing majorly noticeable.
do that, and you got a choice between H87, B85, H81, or B81 motherboard. maybe a Z85. ignore the 4670K and you'd find yourself with a bit of cash to spend on an H87, preferably mATX with quality components hopefully.
as for your upgrade plan; 5 years is a long time. by then you're looking at a possible full overhaul. though if most games don't benefit largely from CPU by then, which i'm gonna go on a whim and say; unlikely as it is, i guess you could get away with a GPU upgrade. start saving up, regardless.
do that, and you got a choice between H87, B85, H81, or B81 motherboard. maybe a Z85. ignore the 4670K and you'd find yourself with a bit of cash to spend on an H87, preferably mATX with quality components hopefully.
as for your upgrade plan; 5 years is a long time. by then you're looking at a possible full overhaul. though if most games don't benefit largely from CPU by then, which i'm gonna go on a whim and say; unlikely as it is, i guess you could get away with a GPU upgrade. start saving up, regardless.
My only fear is that the i5 4440 can't last as long as the i5 4670K, and the $30 less does not offset the loss in game (please correct me if I'm wrong). I usually play a in a 1-year-old i5 2400 (family PC) without that many problems (related to CPU), but I wanted my computer to be at least usable in 5 years.
http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
ARMA 3 is an unoptimized mess, and RTS like SCII tend to benefit from better CPUs, so unless you mainly play the latter, ignore those.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427.html
as i said, while there's a fall in performance, in some but not all games, it's really nothing to major. performance is still within acceptable range. here's my personal CPU usage with an i5-3330 (3.0-3.2ghz) with 670:
no bottleneck and good enough to justify me getting a 780ti if i could even be bothered. i plan to stick with this for another 3-4 years, if the building bug doesn't bite me again (i had an i5-2310 + 6870 before this), my next probable upgrade being a GPU in 2-3 years. an i5-2400 is still a good CPU for gaming, and really there's still no worthwhile upgrade from it, not for $200+. there's a good 2 years or so from that CPU at worst.
getting a 4670K with an H81 is basically overpaying for a feature you completely under utilize. for around $300, do you really think a 10-15% gain at most, in a few handful of games is worth it, when you could spend it elsewhere like a better GPU (if you don't have a good one at least) and see more gain from there?
(no gaming comparison between a 2400 & 4670K, so have a 3570K instead. for comparison, a 4670K really isn't an impressive upgrade from a 3570K. it's only really recommended for those starting a new build)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/363?vs=701
ARMA 3 is an unoptimized mess, and RTS like SCII tend to benefit from better CPUs, so unless you mainly play the latter, ignore those.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427.html
as i said, while there's a fall in performance, in some but not all games, it's really nothing to major. performance is still within acceptable range. here's my personal CPU usage with an i5-3330 (3.0-3.2ghz) with 670:
no bottleneck and good enough to justify me getting a 780ti if i could even be bothered. i plan to stick with this for another 3-4 years, if the building bug doesn't bite me again (i had an i5-2310 + 6870 before this), my next probable upgrade being a GPU in 2-3 years. an i5-2400 is still a good CPU for gaming, and really there's still no worthwhile upgrade from it, not for $200+. there's a good 2 years or so from that CPU at worst.
getting a 4670K with an H81 is basically overpaying for a feature you completely under utilize. for around $300, do you really think a 10-15% gain at most, in a few handful of games is worth it, when you could spend it elsewhere like a better GPU (if you don't have a good one at least) and see more gain from there?
(no gaming comparison between a 2400 & 4670K, so have a 3570K instead. for comparison, a 4670K really isn't an impressive upgrade from a 3570K. it's only really recommended for those starting a new build)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/363?vs=701
Hazle :
http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
ARMA 3 is an unoptimized mess, and RTS like SCII tend to benefit from better CPUs, so unless you mainly play the latter, ignore those.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427.html
as i said, while there's a fall in performance, in some but not all games, it's really nothing to major. performance is still within acceptable range. here's my personal CPU usage with an i5-3330 (3.0-3.2ghz) with 670:
no bottleneck and good enough to justify me getting a 780ti if i could even be bothered. i plan to stick with this for another 3-4 years, if the building bug doesn't bite me again (i had an i5-2310 + 6870 before this), my next probable upgrade being a GPU in 2-3 years. an i5-2400 is still a good CPU for gaming, and really there's still no worthwhile upgrade from it, not for $200+. there's a good 2 years or so from that CPU at worst.
getting a 4670K with an H81 is basically overpaying for a feature you completely under utilize. for around $300, do you really think a 10-15% gain at most, in a few handful of games is worth it, when you could spend it elsewhere like a better GPU (if you don't have a good one at least) and see more gain from there?
(no gaming comparison between a 2400 & 4670K, so have a 3570K instead. for comparison, a 4670K really isn't an impressive upgrade from a 3570K. it's only really recommended for those starting a new build)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/363?vs=701
ARMA 3 is an unoptimized mess, and RTS like SCII tend to benefit from better CPUs, so unless you mainly play the latter, ignore those.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427.html
as i said, while there's a fall in performance, in some but not all games, it's really nothing to major. performance is still within acceptable range. here's my personal CPU usage with an i5-3330 (3.0-3.2ghz) with 670:
no bottleneck and good enough to justify me getting a 780ti if i could even be bothered. i plan to stick with this for another 3-4 years, if the building bug doesn't bite me again (i had an i5-2310 + 6870 before this), my next probable upgrade being a GPU in 2-3 years. an i5-2400 is still a good CPU for gaming, and really there's still no worthwhile upgrade from it, not for $200+. there's a good 2 years or so from that CPU at worst.
getting a 4670K with an H81 is basically overpaying for a feature you completely under utilize. for around $300, do you really think a 10-15% gain at most, in a few handful of games is worth it, when you could spend it elsewhere like a better GPU (if you don't have a good one at least) and see more gain from there?
(no gaming comparison between a 2400 & 4670K, so have a 3570K instead. for comparison, a 4670K really isn't an impressive upgrade from a 3570K. it's only really recommended for those starting a new build)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/363?vs=701
Nonono, I think you misunderstood me
. The PC I have with a 2400 is not for gaming (crappy Intel HD Graphics 2000) and it's not mine. My family uses it for working and everyday uses. I want to build my new computer from scratch, and I haven't got any of the parts yet.No, I'm not happy with the 2400, and my current PC is a OEM pre-built system.
At Amazon the price difference between the 4570 and 4670 is minor (less than $15) and, for an unknown reason, both 4670 and 4670K cost exatly the same price. At Newegg the 4570 costs $200, the 4670 costs $220 and the 4670 costs $240.
If I get the K version, will it be possible to overclock in a H81 mobo?
technically, you could OC wth an H87/B85 board, provided it doesn't come with a more recent update to the board which locks it. it's better to assume it does. and i'd be suspicious of the quality of the power design to warrant a decent OC on them, especially on cheaper boards costing the as close as an H81.
you COULD get an H81 (~$40-50. wouldn't get less than that since cheap boards = cheap parts = possible failure) now and a Z87(~$90) later, though financially-speaking, not really the best way of spending things. in the end, you're paying ~$130-140 for two boards within that PC's lifecycle, when you could spend $90 on a decent Z87 at least by waiting another month or two. you could sell that H81 for $25 later, but you still end up overpaying $25 for two boards.
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#s=12&f=34&sort=a8
use this to determine the best CPU price. for best results, financial-wise, don't stick to one retailer. sans promo, there's a $14-17 difference between the 4670 & 4670K, normally.
if you got a microcenter nearby, the 4670K retails at $180, but pickup only. that is about the only reason to get one with anything but a Z87 board, under utilization be damned. otherwise, you are overcomplicating things & worrying over nothing. the hardwarepal article i linked recommended an i3 for a budget build & TomsHardware STILL recommends the i5-3350P for a non-OCable i5 build, after well over a year, because that 5-7% boost getting a 4670K at stock just isn't worth that extra $40+. minimum system requirements in many upcoming and current games still refer to Core 2 Duo/Quads, and recommending at least a modern-day intel quad core at most. and it has been going at it for well over 5 years, with many gamers still using first gen i5's or Core 2 Duos. this next gen of gaming will probably move that minimum requirement up to an i3, though not anytime soon, still leaving you with some room to meet the recommended requirements with a cheap i5 in years to come.
you COULD get an H81 (~$40-50. wouldn't get less than that since cheap boards = cheap parts = possible failure) now and a Z87(~$90) later, though financially-speaking, not really the best way of spending things. in the end, you're paying ~$130-140 for two boards within that PC's lifecycle, when you could spend $90 on a decent Z87 at least by waiting another month or two. you could sell that H81 for $25 later, but you still end up overpaying $25 for two boards.
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#s=12&f=34&sort=a8
use this to determine the best CPU price. for best results, financial-wise, don't stick to one retailer. sans promo, there's a $14-17 difference between the 4670 & 4670K, normally.
if you got a microcenter nearby, the 4670K retails at $180, but pickup only. that is about the only reason to get one with anything but a Z87 board, under utilization be damned. otherwise, you are overcomplicating things & worrying over nothing. the hardwarepal article i linked recommended an i3 for a budget build & TomsHardware STILL recommends the i5-3350P for a non-OCable i5 build, after well over a year, because that 5-7% boost getting a 4670K at stock just isn't worth that extra $40+. minimum system requirements in many upcoming and current games still refer to Core 2 Duo/Quads, and recommending at least a modern-day intel quad core at most. and it has been going at it for well over 5 years, with many gamers still using first gen i5's or Core 2 Duos. this next gen of gaming will probably move that minimum requirement up to an i3, though not anytime soon, still leaving you with some room to meet the recommended requirements with a cheap i5 in years to come.
it's the start of a new gen of gaming. last gen saw people still sticking to core 2 duo/quad and get respectable performance out of it over consoles as long as they have a good GPU. while you can't exactly compare performance between consoles and PC just by CPU clock speed, due to optimization, but i imagine a a much faster quad core like an i5 at 3.0ghz+ can take any game that's developed for an octocore clocked at 1.6-1.75ghz for a good while by compensating it with pure clock speed. otherwise, like GTA IV, it'd be just another bad console port.
realistically though, unless you either get a flagship GPU like a GTX Titan (you don't have to), or lower the graphics settings on par with a console's graphics quality, you're likely to face a GPU upgrade sometime in 2-4 years. whether you feel you wanna upgrade the CPU then is going to be future you's problems. you're likely to give yourself another year then.
realistically though, unless you either get a flagship GPU like a GTX Titan (you don't have to), or lower the graphics settings on par with a console's graphics quality, you're likely to face a GPU upgrade sometime in 2-4 years. whether you feel you wanna upgrade the CPU then is going to be future you's problems. you're likely to give yourself another year then.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 8
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram