i5 4440 with R9 280X - Worth?

The i5 4440 is not going to work with that motherboard. The 4440 uses the 1150 socket and the H61 is the 1155 socket. If you want to upgrade, you'll have to buy a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge CPU. I suggest the i5-3470.

CPU Support list: http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=4127

i5 3570 will be better.

Not really. The 0.2 GHz won't provide any gaming improvement. It's certainly not worth the extra $15USD.

You will be wanting to look at the Ivy i5 3xxx series chips. This is the cheapest I was able to find in your country.

http://www.snapdeal.com/product/intel-31-ghz-lga-1155/585000#bcrumbLabelId:704

Given the choice between Ivy or Haswell I choose Ivy every time lol. It performs about the same but Ivy bridge clocks higher from my experience and thats where the fun is for me lol.

Yes, the R9 280X is capable of running every game out at the moment maxed out with or without AA at 1920x1080 (higher than your resolution) except unoptimized games and Shadow of Mordor (downloadable textures that require 6GB VRAM).

Agreed, the 280x can handle any game right now on Ultra at the desired resolution.

Actually, the 3470 is a quad core, whereas the G2030 is a dual core; the performance will essentially double with the 3470 upgrade.


The R9 280X is a good choice, but there is one thing that would prevent me from recommending it: the cost of the 280X is higher than the 760. Since both cards are going to give you very similar performance, and the 760 will also play nicer with the Intel CPU than the 280X will, it's kind of pointless to spend extra on the 280X.

In Australia they're priced the same ($250). He was referring to the difference between the i5 3470 and the 3570 to which there is an incremental boost in stock speeds.

Funny how that played out. Lol

The 280x and GTX 760 will not perform similar.

A higher fps does not mean a more stable FPS. When you pair an AMD card with an Intel CPU, your performance will be less stable than pairing an NVIDIA card with an Intel CPU. Also, showing a graph with percentages, and not an actual frame rate, does not make a strong case. For all we know, the frame rate difference in that comparison could simply be 5 fps on a game with 80+ fps average; so your graph isn't very informative...

GPU Boss has some information- http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-280X-vs-GeForce-GTX-760
Hardware Compare is also a nice place to check- http://www.hwcompare.com/15839/geforce-gtx-760-vs-radeon-r9-280x/

If you look at the HW Compare charts, the only place the 280X comes ahead is in the RAM department. With all that extra memory, Texel and Pixel rate only differ 16% and 15%, respectively. When you look at the actual numbers, it's a petty comparison.

Again, a higher frame rate does not mean a more stable performer; and it also doesn't mean an overall better card. AMD cards can obtain higher FPS maximums, but also obtain lower FPS minimums, when compared to an NVIDIA card (at least, when using an Intel chip). The average frame rate will be about the same, but you will have less consistency in frame rates during gaming; and that's going to be the most pleasing experience. There's just no reason to go AMD over NVIDIA when the cost difference is upwards of $50, and the overall performance will be nearly identical. The only place you might get any noticeable performance inscrease is mining cryptocurrency.

Not to mention, the price of the GTX cards will be dropping very soon...

Logan, you have my name in there when you quoted Skylane. Tiny details.

Skylane, please don't take this in an offensive manner, but you're wrong. The 280x is a direct competitor for the 770 GTX. The 270x is the competitor for 760 GTX and there's not 1 review that I've read that says otherwise. You have highlighted the exact reason people don't like CPU and GPU Boss, because they don't represent anything when comparing two different architectures.Hardware specs can only give you limited information. For example, two different engines running a 5000 RPMs mean nothing when the number of cylinders and size of the cylinders also play a factor. You can only judge performance from benchmarks. You you can see what I'm talking about from list of reviews in the link below. Games are typically coded to lean towards one manufacture (Nvida/AMD). You'll see some reviews where the 770 loses to the 280x or the 760 beats the 280x.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviewdb/Graphics-Cards/AMD/R9-280X/

I haven't seen this correlation in CPUs/GPUs where Nvida is paired better with Intel and AMD products are better paired together. If anything, because Intel CPUs are getting substantially stronger than AMD's, it doesn't matter if you buy AMD or Nvidia GPUs, paired with an Intel CPU is the best solution for performance.

I don't completely agree with your higher FPS statement either. AMD cards across the board have higher minimums in BF4. This goes back to my statement about games being coded to benefit a manufacturer. Changing game settings also has a huge impact on stability.

The 280x is a great choice here.

I'm starting to think I like the name Skylane better... hmmmmmm..... And no offence taken. We're all here to learn/educate/be educated. At least, I hope so.

For the 760 vs. 280X comparison, I stand corrected. I know that different games are designed for different GPUs, but the information out there surrounding driver compatibility seems to be very mixed with "results" and "proof" across the board; and it's hard to know who I should really believe. I've yet to see anyone do a true comparison video of this (would love to do it myself to see what the truth is here), but the whole driver explanation I've seen makes the most sense to me. I could always be wrong, of course. The real problem I see is when you start comparing performance in one game to the next, because each game will be made to run better with a particular manufacturer's cards. That doesn't tell me there's better performance from one card than the other, because it's circumstantial.

Driver compatibility of CPU/GPU mixing is one of those things that I've heard over and over, and have never seen any proof of (for either side). But, when I've seen it explained to me in depth, it makes sense. Would love to put it to the test on my own, and record the whole experience, though... that would help end a lot of speculation.

The only place I would disagree with you is where you said, "You can only judge performance from benchmarks." I could be reading into that, but synthetic benchmarks don't give you much of a real-world performance insight; especially with online multi-player games. With benchmarks that measure live gaming performance, those are better... but I've not seen too much in-depth comparisons on actual performance; usually it's just the peak/average frame rate being shown; and that doesn't really tell me everything I would want to know. The information out there doesn't seem to answer a lot of the questions that arise when I start looking at it objectively, and try to figure out what the real differences are between the AMD and NVIDIA cards. Maybe there's something I'm overlooking?

But, let's say the OP does consider looking at the 280X; the 770 and the 280X are about the same price, and it appears to have very little performance difference when playing at 1080p. From the few reviews I randomly picked on your link, the differences I've seen are when you go beyond 1080p. Do you think it would be a little better to consider buying NVIDIA over AMD for that "just in case" factor of driver compatibility, or will the end result make it no longer matter?

It is still a decent chip, and that is a pretty good price.

I only play WoW, so cannot really say. AC:Unity plays like crap on everything, because Ubisoft sucks.

Well, I was going to buy a GTX 760, last year, but a friend offered me a brand new HD 7970 for less. :lol: Also, just because it is WoW, don't think it cannot be hard on a system. In last expansion, the outdoor world boss fights would drop me into the teens, easily. In a 25 man raid, I would drop into the 30's. I play on Ultra settings, generally. Also for the latest expansion, Blizzard made the game more GPU dependant, and intends to go further in that direction, to take advantage of high end cards. A 280x is faster than a GTX 760, anyway.

I have lost respect for you....

I'd like to add the returns from Mantle decrease depending on the strength of the CPU. If you have a weaker CPU, you can expect some significant gains. If you have a 2500 paired with a 280x, don't expect huge gains. I don't really want to place a number, but if the game is Mantle ready, it would be hard pressed to say anything more than 10 FPS.

I don't like FPS games, as they give me headaches, and I have little time for much else. Job and a g/f kinda make time limited. It was just a coincidence that my g/f had to work the weekend, and I was able to hit 100. :lol: