Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

New Ivy Bridge Gaming vs Sandy Bridge Gaming

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 1, 2012 9:07:14 PM

I need some feedback from you guys. I'm building a new system within the next 2 months and am having difficulties deciding on which one of two to go with. The first is a Sandy Bridge unit with the following core components:

GIGABYTE GA-X79-UD3 LGA 2011 Motherboard
2x GIGABYTE GV-N680OC-2GD GeForce GTX 680 (Whenever they actually become available)
G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400
OCZ Vertex 4 VTX4-25SAT3-256G 2.5" 256GB SATA III - SSD
Intel Core i7-3820 Sandy Bridge-E 3.6GHz

The second, built based on the Ivy Bridge is essentially the same with just differing MB and CPU

GIGABYTE GA-Z77X-UD5H-WB LGA 1155 Intel Z77 Motherboard
2x GIGABYTE GV-N680OC-2GD GeForce GTX 680 (Whenever they actually become available)
G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400
OCZ Vertex 4 VTX4-25SAT3-256G 2.5" 256GB SATA III - SSD
Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz

Oddly enough the Sandy Bridge is more expensive. I recognize that the Intel 4000 video is pointless with dual GTX-680 cards but which build is going to give me better performance? The games are only Skyrim, World of Warcraft, D3, etc...

I went with Gigabyte MB over ASUS only because all my research shows ASUS has re-defined the words "poor service". I can obviously be swayed or I wouldn't be asking here. First which of the two CPU's do you think would be the better build and secondly, any suggestions on improving the individual components.

Best solution

a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
May 1, 2012 9:33:34 PM
Share

I think both the Sandy and Ivy you will be happy with. Having said that, Ivy is somewhat of a disappointment in terms of performance. Intel claimed that they would be about 20 percent performance improvement over Sandy.

Realistically, both Tomshardware and Hardware Secrets have already run their benches, and turns out that realistically that number is 6 percent (and in some cases not an improvement at all). Which considering the fact the Sandy Bridge i5/i7s already greatly exceed performance needed for modern games, the extra 6 percent is irrelevant. You need to be aware however that the new Ivy Bridges run substantially hotter than Sandy Bridge chips, which may limit your overclocking aspirations if you have any.

Most games rely on the Graphics card more than the CPU. While its true that some games (especially multilayer games) can rely on the CPU more, ANY quad core on the market today is more than capable of performing exceptionally when paired with a powerful video card such as the GTX 680 (yes even the antiquated AMD Phenom IIs are up to snuff), being that you're planning on using 2 GTX 680s, you're talking "holy crap power!".
'
You're right, the HD 4000 graphics are not really going to come into play with a powerful card. HD 4000 graphics really aren't all that impressive in the first place. (With no video card AMD Fusions can take them to school)

Anyway, to cut to the chase, honestly you can't go wrong either way. I would get whichever is cheapest (assuming you can live with the fact that, again, the Ivys get a lot hotter in overclocking conditions than Sandys)

For games like Skyrim, WOW and D3, you don't even need 2 GTX 680s. Honestly, I'd just get one. My boyfriend has a GTX 460 with an i5-2400, and he runs Skyrim fully maxed on his machine even with that older generation video card. Heck, he could even jump on my computer and get the same result. Diablo 3 is not really that system challenging either. and WoW is even less system demanding than those. I honestly think you'd be better off not spending the extra 500 bucks on the second 680.

As far as Asus vs Gigabyte. I have a Sabertooth board, while I have no experience to relay with Asus tech support. I have dealt with Gigabyte. My build originally had a Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 motherboard, it died 3 weeks after my build, and Gigabyte tech were both rude and inept to me on the phone. Which prompted me to contact TigerDirect and exchange the board for the Asus Sabertooth, which I'm very happy with.
May 1, 2012 9:37:23 PM

go for the ivy bridge, since it's use lower power and overclockable
Related resources
May 1, 2012 9:37:24 PM

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I'm running 3 monitors. The only reason for the dual cards. Sorry about that. I'm running a 27" surrounded by 2 24" monitors all running at 1920 x 1080.
May 1, 2012 9:38:06 PM

Do you have an actual need for 32GB of RAM, or is it a 'just because I can' thing? Personally, if it's for gaming, I'd save the money and drop to a i5 3570k, as HT is almost useless for gaming. Drop to 16GB RAM. And only one 680 for now. The only reason to go "bigger" for the foreseeable future would be for multi-monitor set up. But, none of the games you listed support that, anyways.

EDIT: Got sidetracked before posting, lol. Didn't see the multimonitor post. But still, do any of the games you listed support it? I haven't played Skyrim to know about that one...
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
May 1, 2012 9:42:03 PM

Sinister:

I agree on that was well. I did the 16GB "because I could", and I've never even managed to use 8GB.
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
May 1, 2012 9:46:23 PM

Silvaine said:
Perhaps I should have mentioned that I'm running 3 monitors. The only reason for the dual cards. Sorry about that. I'm running a 27" surrounded by 2 24" monitors all running at 1920 x 1080.

I can understand that then. But like I said, if you have the money go for it. But honestly those games you mentioned, even my putzy 550 TI Amp Edition can handle those. Maybe you have less financnial limitations than I, but I honestly couldn't see myself needing a 500-600 dollar video card let alone 2 of them. It may be worthwhile to consider two cheaper ones like 560 TI's. The GTX 680s are great, but there are much cheaper cards more than capable of smashing thru any game on the market at fully maxed settings.
May 1, 2012 10:12:11 PM

nekulturny said:
I can understand that then. But like I said, if you have the money go for it. But honestly those games you mentioned, even my putzy 550 TI Amp Edition can handle those. Maybe you have less financnial limitations than I, but I honestly couldn't see myself needing a 500-600 dollar video card let alone 2 of them. It may be worthwhile to consider two cheaper ones like 560 TI's. The GTX 680s are great, but there are much cheaper cards more than capable of smashing thru any game on the market at fully maxed settings.



This will likely have to last me for several years, the only reason for the overkill on the cards. Not sure what the next several years will bring for my needs, so while I can afford it now, I won't be able to for awhile.
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
May 1, 2012 10:21:20 PM

I see what you're saying. And yes that system should give you great performance for years.

Although honestly 32GB of RAM is serious overkill, even with that goal in mind. Like I said, I haven't even managed to use 8GB of my RAM. At the time I bought my 2 8GB sticks they were 80 bucks a piece, if I could take it back I would have just gotten 2 4GB sticks and added 2 more later should I actually had the need for them. DDR4 will be coming out in about 2 years, but like I said, per Windows Task Manager, I've never come close to using 8GB, and I can't see that even in the future (say 5 years down the road) that any more than 16 will be necessary for a gaming system (maybe not even 8GB) Something to think about. I would get 2 8GB sticks now and play it by ear from there.
May 1, 2012 10:28:51 PM

nekulturny said:
I see what you're saying. And yes that system should give you great performance for years.

Although honestly 32GB of RAM is serious overkill, even with that goal in mind. Like I said, I haven't even managed to use 8GB of my RAM. At the time I bought my 2 8GB sticks they were 80 bucks a piece, if I could take it back I would have just gotten 2 4GB sticks and added 2 more later should I actually had the need for them. DDR4 will be coming out in about 2 years, but like I said, per Windows Task Manager, I've never come close to using 8GB, and I can't see that even in the future (say 5 years down the road) that any more than 16 will be necessary for a gaming system (maybe not even 8GB) Something to think about. I would get 2 8GB sticks now and play it by ear from there.


In which case I may choose to reduce my RAM. It is overkill.
May 13, 2012 11:38:45 PM

Best answer selected by Silvaine.
!