Build opinions i7-3770 k or non k.

DO NOT PLAN ON OVERCLOCKING.. besides evga 660ti superclocked (thats if i chose that over the 7870, witch advice would be nice on that aswell) witch PCU would best fit for GAMING HARD is it worth jumping from i5-3750k to an i7-3770 non k and use the 40$ for GPU or take a 660 non ti / 7850 and grab the i5 .. thoughts and comments appreciated (NEW TO THIS THANKS.)
28 answers Last reply
More about build opinions 3770
  1. I would go for the lower cost CPU and get the best GPU you can get for that money. As regards a 7870 or GTX 660 Ti, my personal preference would be the 7870 due to the OCing headroom it generally offers, and it handles AA a good bit better aswell.
  2. i dont really plan on OC i guess its going to be something ill get used to.. on another note ive decided to go for either now the EVGA 660Ti ***AND/OR*** HD 7950 .. in witch case i mostly plan on playing Diablo 3 and starcraft on Ultra witch i know Nv favors.. but im also looking into playing Crysis 3, B3, and Metro.. witch i BELIEVE ( dont quote me) AMD cards favor because of memory and 3D features what not. ON THE OTHER HAND physX is available for the 660Ti and i know more games are offering that about 26 as of now... so my question to EVERYONE IS --


    EVGA 660Ti vs HD 7950
  3. Get a i5, the i7 for gaming is $150 down the drain.

    GTX660, lmao HD7870 GE all the way.

    Quote:
    EVGA 660Ti vs HD 7950


    Easy.....HD 7950 and its not even close
  4. ... well how/why is that an easy decision.. because im having trouble with that


    also check this out please. input would be nice..


    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/387920-33-evga-7950
  5. XFX Double Discipation HD7870 GE - $240
    Sapphire HD 7950 OC - $310

    GTX660ti - $300

    The 660ti has exhibited a lot of limitations none more limited to its architecture accounts of choppy performance and stuttering despite rendering FPS close to a stock standard vanilla Dec 2011 HD 7950. AMD drivers and firmware and factory overclocks have seen the HD7950 represent the best value for money card on the market capable of delivering 680/7970 like performance on a slight clock bump along with AMD GCN architectures propensity to be pushed a long way sees the near $300 option as the best available right now.

    A HD7870 GE delivers similar performance to a 660, in between a 660 and 660ti at $70 less but much better AA performance.
  6. i5-3470
  7. Maybe you can pick up a i5 2400 for a steal.
  8. sarinaide said:
    XFX Double Discipation HD7870 GE - $240
    Sapphire HD 7950 OC - $310

    GTX660ti - $300

    The 660ti has exhibited a lot of limitations none more limited to its architecture accounts of choppy performance and stuttering despite rendering FPS close to a stock standard vanilla Dec 2011 HD 7950. AMD drivers and firmware and factory overclocks have seen the HD7950 represent the best value for money card on the market capable of delivering 680/7970 like performance on a slight clock bump along with AMD GCN architectures propensity to be pushed a long way sees the near $300 option as the best available right now.

    A HD7870 GE delivers similar performance to a 660, in between a 660 and 660ti at $70 less but much better AA performance.



    and your thoughts on PhysX... btw if i got the 660Ti id get it factory superclocked ,, but what do you think the advantages are of physX (witch amd can run but on CPU ) ? is PhysX worth it? is it the deal breaker?
  9. No, PhysX isn't worth it.
  10. i heard NVDIA favors blizzard games. for example... starcraft 2 ultra 66Ti> AMD HD 7950 but lets say B3 or far cry 3 on high/ultra HD 7950> GTX 660Ti ....... curious as to witch one run DIABLO 3 the smoothest/best/consistant
  11. If you don't plan to overclock, then there is no reason to get a k version of any intel CPU. Then a i5-3570 should be more than sufficient, due to i7 doesn't give that much better performance compared to the price.

    If using a single monitor, then the GTX 660 ti should be more than sufficient and it's faster than the Radeon 7870, no matter what anyone thinks or believes.

    I would also just like you notice that not everything you hear in here is true, so take it all with a grain of salt. Also what I say.

    Example:

    " The 660ti has exhibited a lot of limitations none more limited to its architecture accounts of choppy performance and stuttering despite rendering FPS close to a stock standard vanilla Dec 2011 HD 7950".

    I don't get a word of that. :pt1cable:

    GTX 660 ti and Radeon 7950 should be about equal. Some games run better on the 660 ti like Battlefield 3 and some run better on the 7950 like Dirt Showdown 3.

    Nvidia 600 series comes with Adaptive vsync, that is the way to stop stuttering and choppy performance, which AMD GPUs don't have.

    This video will explain the effects of adaptive vsync - featuring the GTX 660 ti:

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

    Nvidia GPUs also comes with PhysX which adds cool effects in a lot of games like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STi6rNeYZrY

    Nvidia also comes with TXAA which is the best AA possible, though there is only a few games using it so far:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzOb252sIco

    Nvidia also has the option turning FXAA on in every game, it is possible to enable it in some games, that is not many however:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmeNz0NTvFQ

    Hope this cleared your mind a little. Hope you'll figure it out soon! :)
  12. i guess it comes down to GTX 660Ti ..VS.. HD 7950 then huh?? ... decisions decisions... i heard AMD can apply physX but its from the CPU.. witch OC would come in, so ill keep the K lolol if i go that way atleast.


    so its a toss up i guess... any more opinions?

    GTX 660Ti vs HD 7950
  13. The GTX 660ti is faster in overall frame rates but not by much for $70 more, it is also limited in its memory bit interface which has shown up issues on higher AA settings.

    TXAA, MSAA, FXAA are all by and large similar, Nvidia are just puffing up the TX monica as something completely outlandish when its not. Adaptive V-sync is useful but it is not a sale pitch to make you really want to go out and buy it.

    Both have titles they favor over the competition.
    GCN is the better architecture over Kepler.
    Kepler is the faster architecture.
    AMD GPGPU is about 600% faster than Nvidia comparing highest end parts and Direct Compute makes AMD more flexible for professional systems.
    Physics and Cuda are useful sometimes but Physx is dying.

    HD7950 OC wins out here very easily for $10 more than a 660ti
  14. sarinaide said:
    The GTX 660ti is faster in overall frame rates but not by much for $70 more, it is also limited in its memory bit interface which has shown up issues on higher AA settings.

    TXAA, MSAA, FXAA are all by and large similar, Nvidia are just puffing up the TX monica as something completely outlandish when its not. Adaptive V-sync is useful but it is not a sale pitch to make you really want to go out and buy it.

    Both have titles they favor over the competition.
    GCN is the better architecture over Kepler.
    Kepler is the faster architecture.
    AMD GPGPU is about 600% faster than Nvidia comparing highest end parts and Direct Compute makes AMD more flexible for professional systems.
    Physics and Cuda are useful sometimes but Physx is dying.

    HD7950 OC wins out here very easily for $10 more than a 660ti



    i just saw a clip of physX on borderlands 2... must say i am quit impressed tho, lets say i dont OC (witch i will) i just dont want it as a factor for arguements sake .. who would come out on top Nv or AMD ... still a preferance thing, because i heard out of the gate the 7950 is ahead slightly. altho in games such as SC3 there is no comparison, GeForce takes the lead ... i am starting to like physX its a shame they dont apply it to more games, curious to see the new Metro and how it effects that.
  15. sarinaide said:
    The GTX 660ti is faster in overall frame rates but not by much for $70 more, it is also limited in its memory bit interface which has shown up issues on higher AA settings.

    TXAA, MSAA, FXAA are all by and large similar, Nvidia are just puffing up the TX monica as something completely outlandish when its not. Adaptive V-sync is useful but it is not a sale pitch to make you really want to go out and buy it.

    Both have titles they favor over the competition.
    GCN is the better architecture over Kepler.
    Kepler is the faster architecture.
    AMD GPGPU is about 600% faster than Nvidia comparing highest end parts and Direct Compute makes AMD more flexible for professional systems.
    Physics and Cuda are useful sometimes but Physx is dying.

    HD7950 OC wins out here very easily for $10 more than a 660ti


    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7870_jokerCard_Tahiti_LE/30.html

    Better value on GTX 660 TI.

    Kepler has more performance per watt, than GCN - SO kepler is the best. Just look http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-review-gk106-rounds-out-the-kepler-family/16.

    Computing doesn't really matter if gaming is the main concern.

    Show me where it says PhysX is dying. You really must hate anything but AMD. :)
  16. vinman222 said:
    i just saw a clip of physX on borderlands 2... must say i am quit impressed tho, lets say i dont OC (witch i will) i just dont want it as a factor for arguements sake .. who would come out on top Nv or AMD ... still a preferance thing, because i heard out of the gate the 7950 is ahead slightly. altho in games such as SC3 there is no comparison, GeForce takes the lead ... i am starting to like physX its a shame they dont apply it to more games, curious to see the new Metro and how it effects that.


    The guy is a fanboy. He keeps on argumenting without statistics or anything supporting his statements. If you look what I just posted, then GTX 660 ti clearly beats the Radeon 7950 when it comes to value. Same goes as the architecture. I'm not here to say that AMD is bad, the Radeon 7870 is a great GPU for the money, but I think it lacks technologies such as those that comes with Nvidia. I right now am using a Radeon 6770 - Just to clear out I don't own Nvidia at this very moment.
  17. Your profile says GTX660 though :lol:
  18. ............lmaoo


    im using ONE monitor if that makes any difference .. any good sources for benchmark for diablo 3, crysis 2-3, Metro ?? like actual... reliable.. ones ... ahaha
  19. FinneousPJ said:
    Your profile says GTX660 though :lol:


    I just returned my desktop to the shop, so I'm stuck with the "good" old Radeon 6770 ;)
  20. Well, since you're arguing about nVidia may I inquire the reason?
  21. @ this lvl of hardware its pointless to argue... I have a GTX 460 1Gb/256bit and can play Starcraft 2 (witch was mentioned above) on ultra @ 45FPS+ @ 1080p. SO, GTX 660ti or Radeon 7950 its pointless to argue. I would get the best priced one and the one that has the better cooling (temperature and loudness are very important to me). Personally i would get the 7950, 384bit memory bandwith, 925MHz default core clock with latest BIOS, enaugh OC headroom.... I really dont like the 192bit memory bandwith on the GTX 660 (its the only thing that i dont like)... even if the performance hit isnt that major atm
  22. crisan_tiberiu said:
    @ this lvl of hardware its pointless to argue... I have a GTX 460 1Gb/256bit and can play Starcraft 2 (witch was mentioned above) on ultra @ 45FPS+ @ 1080p. SO, GTX 660ti or Radeon 7950 its pointless to argue. I would get the best priced one and the one that has the better cooling (temperature and loudness are very important to me). Personally i would get the 7950, 384bit memory bandwith, 925MHz default core clock with latest BIOS, enaugh OC headroom.... I really dont like the 192bit memory bandwith on the GTX 660 (its the only thing that i dont like)... even if the performance hit isnt that major atm



    i hear ya... i believe that HD 7950 may be the better card, so it comes down to... DO I WANT PHYSX, is that worth it to me, would i play those games? ALTHOUGH , GeForce favors blizzard and i am a die hard SC3 and D3 fan. witch both of these cards can run flawlessly aswell as battlefield 3 and others. crysis 3 i cant max anyway because they RAPED EVERYONE. so reallyyyyyyyyyy seems to me..... its now a matter of ...


    MEMORY/BANDWIDTH ..VS.. PhysX !?!?!?!?!?!
  23. FinneousPJ said:
    Well, since you're arguing about nVidia may I inquire the reason?


    Because I believe the current generation of GPUs are in Nvidias favor. All the new technologies that Nvidia has offered with the 600 series were superior to the ones AMD offered.

    If the OP would be playing on multiple monitors I would have recomended AMD. Because AMD has the best multiple monitor support and performance.

    If AMD had similar technologies it would be another story.

    Also updating AMD GPUs aren't as easy as the Nvidia GPUs. Now don't get me wrong. The drivers Nvidia are making are not necessarily better when we're talking performance. I just haven't been able to update my Radeon 6770 since 2011. Everytime I update it, it causes bluescreen and I've tried just about everything. Again, I'm not saying that this is how EVERY AMD user ends up, it might be some software problems, or some hardware problems. I cannot tell at this moment.

    Also, the only GPU that ever has gotten a 10 out of 10 on techpowerup's reviews is a GTX 670, which also tells its own story.
  24. vinman222 said:
    i hear ya... i believe that HD 7950 may be the better card, so it comes down to... DO I WANT PHYSX, is that worth it to me, would i play those games? ALTHOUGH , GeForce favors blizzard and i am a die hard SC3 and D3 fan. witch both of these cards can run flawlessly aswell as battlefield 3 and others. crysis 3 i cant max anyway because they RAPED EVERYONE. so reallyyyyyyyyyy seems to me..... its now a matter of ...


    MEMORY/BANDWIDTH ..VS.. PhysX !?!?!?!?!?!


    If playing on a single monitor with 1080p, you will never use all that mem bandwidth anyway.
  25. lostgamer_03 said:
    Because I believe the current generation of GPUs are in Nvidias favor. All the new technologies that Nvidia has offered with the 600 series were superior to the ones AMD offered.

    If AMD had similar technologies it would be another story.

    Also updating AMD GPUs aren't as easy as the Nvidia GPUs. Now don't get me wrong. The drivers Nvidia are making are not necessarily better when we're talking performance. I just haven't been able to update my Radeon 6770 since 2011. Everytime I update it, it causes bluescreen and I've tried just about everything. Again, I'm not saying that this is how EVERY AMD user ends up, it might be some software problems, or some hardware problems. I cannot tell at this moment.

    Also, the only GPU that ever has gotten a 10 out of 10 on techpowerup's reviews is a GTX 670, which also tells its own story. :)

    I don't understand. You returned your 660 because you believe nVidia is better. Does not compute :(
  26. FinneousPJ said:
    I don't understand. You returned your 660 because you believe nVidia is better. Does not compute :(


    My desktop, mate. The GPU was fine, but the quality of my case was so bad, it was litteraly falling apart and I had gotten the wrong harddrive in it, so I decided I wanted my money back. Nothing wrong with the GTX 660, it's an okay card if you want the features of the high-end 600 series, while remaining on a lower price-point.

    It ran everything I threw at it at ultra settings at 1080p. Except in Far Cry 3 where MSAA needed to be left off. :)
  27. Alrighty, that's what I was trying to ask.
  28. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7870_jokerCard_Tahiti_LE/16.html

    Just to get the cherry picks out the way, Metro 2033 remains the ultimate benchmark game, not only does it have a downloadable synthetic it is probably the most accurate gaming synthetic for GPU and CPU performance and is consistent at it. It is overlooked because AMD do pretty well in it but truth be told if a system runs Metro at full settings it is pretty darn strong.

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7870_jokerCard_Tahiti_LE/16.html

    GCN as a arch adapted from its November 2011 release to current and have achieved parity with Nvidia priced competitors on lower clocks and lower cost. Zero core technology lets you run a HD7970 on 1w in idle state, lower up to 35% power at non-idle state and still achieve the high performance, Overclocking and heat the Radeons achieve well over the OC headroom of a nvidia card, the HD 7950 OC from Sapphire was rated the top GPU for 2012, the HD7970 Toxic is the fastest single GPU available and the fastest eyefinity 6 single GPU available. The HD7990 is around 25% faster than the GTX690 although not officially AMD's it is using AMD technology so great work by the boys at Powercolor.

    In general terms the 660ti is around 5% faster at $70 more, the HD7950 OC is $20 more but delivers OC performance like a HD7970 on minor clock bumps. I don't give a crap about performance/watt I care about performance/dollar and AMD is sadly or happily doing really well there.

    1) AMD on lower clocks achieve parity or better performance than higher priced Keplers.

    2) Directcompute is far more practical than Cuda and Physx because it actually is supported by game engines and professional systems. Physx and Cuda is very limited and not really that beneficial.

    3) Zero core tech, unrivaled by Nvidia.

    4) Drivers, 12.4 to 12.11 have seen a vanilla out the box 2011 7970 perform 25% faster than it came out on just drivers, there goes the AMD drivers are crap myth.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel i7 Intel i5