oc i5 4690k @4.5 or 4.7 atm or oc in the future

Adel_Yasser · Feb 23, 2016

as the title says... which is a better option... AND PLEASE READ FULL THREAD!
put in mind: money is never an issue and it will be for full gaming, nothing else!
now it will be like this:

whether get the i5 4690k and get the hyper evo 212 and not oc as i get it but oc when i need to in the future... if i lack cpu power for games.... it will also be a kind of 4.2 or 4.3 because egypt is already hot as hell.

OR

get more money.... get the i5 4690k and the cryorig r1 and oc it as i get it and see the results for better gaming framerates... oc at 4.5ghz or even 4.7ghz on good temps.

please be aware it will be used with a seasonic m12ii 750w plus 80 bronze fully modular psu and an r9 390 or 390x sapphire and on 1080p ONLY.... yep not 2k or 4k as the lack and incredible prices in here....

blazorthon · Feb 23, 2016

If you want better performance, then you get the better cooler. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to ask.

If you're wondering if your power supply or other things will be limiting factors, don't worry about that. It isn't a top of the line PSU, but it's a reliable model. If you want to know whether or not the higher overclock will really be noticeable, well no, it probably won't be noticeably better since it really isn't a big performance advantage.

Adel_Yasser · Feb 23, 2016

blazorthon :

what im trying to ask is the price add that worth it?
is it better to oc when i get it or oc when i need to?
ive talked to many people and the path has been even so i need to take action whether to do this or that.

blazorthon · Feb 23, 2016

The problem is that whether or not it is worth it is something you need to determine. Comparing theoretical numbers, let's say the Evo gets you 4.2GHz and the R1 gets you 4.5GHz. That's only a 7% boost in performance at best. In games, you might get like a 4% or 5% performance boost out of it, if that. Are you going to notice the difference between say 50FPS and 53FPS? Probably not. However, the R1 could also hold you at 4.2GHz while generating less noise than the Evo. That might be more important to you.

geofelt · Feb 23, 2016

How high you can oc a 4690K is primarily determined by your luck in the silicon lottery.
Moreover, you will normally run out of a safe vcore of 1.30v before you run into thermal limits.

You will not notice any difference of two multipliers anyway.
A hyper212 is probably all you can effectively use anyway.

If money is not an issue, I suggest you use a i5-6600K.
The 14nm mfg tech runs cool. so you will have an easier time in a warm ambient environment.
Here are your odds of getting a good i5-6600K chip that
can get an overclock at a somewhat sane 1.40v
4.9 3%
4.8 38%
4.7 70%
4.6 85%

10tacle · Feb 23, 2016

Adel_Yasser :

FYI I have a stable 4.7GHz overclock on my 4690K but don't run it overclocked when gaming. There is little to no difference in FPS in my games when running stock vs. overclocked since most of the gaming load is on the GPU at higher resolution (1440p) and ultra quality + AA settings. At lower resolutions (1080p) you may see some slight FPS improvements in some games, but it won't be like jumping from 60fps to 75fps or anything...see this example ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5 ).

Now for productivity applications and content creation like video editing software, I do overclock it as it shaves off time in rendering. Regarding the cooler, since you already live in a hot part of the world and likely have warm indoor ambient temps, that alone would be a reason to get the dual-fan cooler solution R1 whether overclocking mildly or aggressively. Everyone gets different chips, and yours may or may not be a good overclocker when you get it (a good overclocker means less voltage at a certain overclock speed than others require, meaning less heat, and the opposite for a bad overclocker).

Adel_Yasser · Feb 23, 2016

10tacle :

alright if almost the results are almost not necessary for more than 2000 egp price change which is about 225 dollars.... ridiculuous as hell.... the guy who suggested the oc has an i7 4790k @4.5 and 980ti and he had some noticeable increase in some games to 7fps.....

so is getting a k processor anyways to futureproof good?

is going with i5 4690 and 16gb ddr3 kingston and H97 asus pro gamer mobo

or same with i5 but i7 4790

or get the i5 6600 and 16gb ddr4 and z170 mobo ( we have only one non oc mobo which is b150 mobo msi pro-vd... is it good or sufficient for gaming in anyway lol)?

which would you strongly recommend to only heavy games with r9 390 or 390x sapphire... and the 390 or 390x because of the futureproofistic 8gb vram... and ill go with r9 390 cuz the difference aint that huge and both 8gb and 1080p only...

Adel_Yasser · Feb 23, 2016

also is the stock cooler good for hot places? i dont have any air conditioners if applicable i have a 3-speed fan from the 80s

or should i take the piss and get a evo 212 anyways? and again and again gaming 1080p only.

geofelt · Feb 23, 2016

If you want to game in a hot environment, look towards the most power efficient components you can find.

Consider the merits of a strong i3 like the i3-6320.
It comes with an adequate cooler.
Use a suitably strong nvidia card like a GTX970 for 1080P gaming.

Use a SSD for the os and games.

Use a case with good airflow.
That means to me at least two 120mm intake fans.
If you use a M-ATX sized motherboard, the Silverstone TJ-08E and PS-07 are excellent.

Adel_Yasser · Feb 23, 2016

geofelt :

i can easily afford the i5 6600... i know the i3 6320 is good but there is some lack in 6th gen processors here and i wont take the piss

why get the 970? i mean its good and in my price range and all but srsly the 3.5gb fast vram wont do good shit for 1080p
look at rise or tomb raider and the division ..... look at upcoming quantum break vram consumption... all above 4gb for ultra settings 1080p.... and 3.5gb wont do any good in that case... whats coming is worse... and i wont take the piss to have a frame dropping and losing card in that matter.. whats coming is worse i repeat.... the 390 and 970 are pretty close id rather get the 390 and futureproof myself... i wont keep changing gpus when i change i will change the whole rig..... whats your opinion on this

.

also i will already get a hyperx savage 120gb ssd for the os and programs.... for some decorations and impressive-ness

also i dont have silverstone in my country ... probably a corsair spec 02 or 03 with extra fans will get the job done..... or even the better choice the spec alpha which will release next month

10tacle · Feb 23, 2016

Adel_Yasser :

If you are only getting 27FPS, you'll notice the bump to 34FPS more than you will from 65FPS to 72FPS...especially if your monitor's frequency is 60Hz. That's all I'm saying.

Adel_Yasser :

It's not so much a question of future proofing as it is being allowed to overclock to keep up with newer chips that come out. For example, an old Ivy Bridge i5 3570K overclocked to 4.4GHz may be more or less equal in performance to a new i5 6600K at 3.9GHz. Nothing in PC world is ever "future proof" but having a K-series chip and overclocking it extends the performance life of it when newer chip technology comes out.

Adel_Yasser :

An H97 motherboard does not have good overclock options. You need a Z97 chipset motherboard if you want to overclock successfully due to having more O/C control options. And there is really little to no difference in game performance between an i5 and i7 clock for clock. if you only game, it's not worth the difference to go to an i7 over an i5. Now if you are into using video editing software and other productivity applications, it's worth it.

Adel_Yasser :

At 1080p, the 970 and 390 trade blows. But at 1440p the 390 pulls away due to more VRAM. FYI I have two 970s in SLI and run 1440p and have never come close to using all direct access 3.5GB VRAM (Witcher 3, BF4, Battlefront, Project Cars, Crysis 3, Far Cry 4). Still, the 970 is an excellent oveclocker and can be overclocked to match stock 980 speeds (mine are). Also the 390X is a 980 competitor and is at a higher price point than the 390.

But the future appears to be games with more VRAM requirements even at 1080p. We can see that today with modifications to games like GTA5 and Skyrim. One thing to keep in mind is that the VRAM "use" you see in something like MSI Afterburner or GPU-Z is not what the card is actually using, but instead what has actually been allocated to be used. It takes professional level software to run tests on actual real VRAM use.

TJ Hooker · Feb 23, 2016

Adel_Yasser :

http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/page2.html

Comparing the R9 290 4GB vs the R9 390 8GB, there's no difference at 1080p. Even comparing between 2GB and 4GB versions of the R9 380 and GTX 960, the difference is small in most games. I think 4 (3.5) GB is fine for 1080p. Plus, the GTX 970 is more power efficient than the R9 390, so that means less heat that you have to worry about getting rid of.

geofelt · Feb 23, 2016

One needs to understand how VRAM is used.
A game needs to have most of the data in vram that it uses most of the time.
Somewhat like real ram.
If a game needs something not in vram, it needs to get it across the pcie boundary
hopefully from real ram and hopefully not from a hard drive.
It is not informative to know to what level the available vram is filled.
Possibly much of what is there is not needed.
What is not known is the rate of vram exchange.
Vram is managed by the Graphics card driver, and by the game. There may be differences in effectiveness between amd and nvidia cards.
And differences between games.
Here is an older performance test comparing 2gb with 4gb vram.
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
Spoiler... not a significant difference.

Actually, I give Kudos to the GTX970 engineers for a clever new use ofstorage hierarchy.
The problem was with marketing, not the product.

blazorthon · Feb 25, 2016

One thing nowadays going for AMD is undervolting has been shown to largely eliminate the issue of power consumption disparity relative to Nvidia. Of course, that only applies to someone who knows what they're doing, so practical applications are limited.

geofelt is also completely correct. VRAM will often be used up until there's almost no more to use, but that's mostly just because the driver doesn't bother removing unused or lightly used data until it needs to, so less VRAM capacity is generally not as big a deal as looking at capacity usage may imply. You might see say 6GB used on an 8GB card, but only 1.5GB of that is actually being actively used, so even a 2GB card would suffice and a 4GB card is plenty future-proofed for the situation. This is pretty common.

8GB or 6GB cards are mostly for future-proofing with multi-GPU setups at this time. Eventually, that and more will be needed, but not for quite some time at 1080p.

Then we look at things like the GTX 970's memory bus. Well, that last .5GB or so might be a lot slower than the rest of the memory, but I'll bet it's still faster than swapping over PCIe, especially from the hard drive, so it's not bad to have it over just the first 3.5GB.

Search

oc i5 4690k @4.5 or 4.7 atm or oc in the future

Adel_Yasser

Reputable

blazorthon

blazorthon

Glorious

Adel_Yasser

Reputable

blazorthon

Glorious

geofelt

Titan

10tacle

Splendid

Adel_Yasser

Reputable

Adel_Yasser

Reputable

geofelt

Titan

Adel_Yasser

Reputable

10tacle

Splendid

TJ Hooker

Titan

geofelt

Titan

blazorthon

Glorious

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page