Question about graphic card & about directx

[kendo65]

Just like to point out that in the two UK-based retailers that I usually use for PC components (Scan and OCUK) there are currently NO socket 1366 or 1156 i7s cheaper than the i5-2500K.

Closest was the quad core i7-950 at 188 (pounds) compared to the 2500K at 166.

Cheapest 6-core was i7-970 at 440 pounds.

And the i7-8xx's start at 206, and are considered inferior to the SBs.

Basically to get any better performance than Sandy Bridge you need to spend a huge amount more. And even then it may not be worth it if you don't run highly threaded applications.

[jf1981]

Hi,

Better graphical effects with newer card ?
e.g. gtx 260 --> serie 5 ?

Or just smoother & faster ?

Regards

[sg1221]

Originally Posted by jf1981

Hi,

Better graphical effects with newer card ?
e.g. gtx 260 --> serie 5 ?

Or just smoother & faster ?

Regards

Sheesh jf........I don't think your microphone is working ....lets just go get a beer

sg

"But you guys! Video Editing! Seriously, i7 is cheaper and better than i5! You guys, pay attention to me, despite everything I ever said being either wrong or a lie, or a longwinded quote from Wikipedia."

"LISTEN TO ME!!!!"

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

"But you guys! Video Editing! Seriously, i7 is cheaper and better than i5! You guys, pay attention to me, despite everything I ever said being either wrong or a lie, or a longwinded quote from Wikipedia."

"LISTEN TO ME!!!!"

You are an ass clown
http://www.compusa.com/applications/...283&CatId=4074
http://www.compusa.com/applications/...&Sku=I69-2500K

-i7 is $40 more, but double the threads and better memory cache. Also thats a expensive i7, I have seen ones for cheaper than the i5 there. So before you act like a smart ass, maybe read, also read the person above who edited his post because he got the cpus confused. Yet all you do is make stupid comments (which is typical of too many on this forum) which completely lack a purpose other than to troll, which you are not doing well in any case. Love how you didnt reply to my question though.
I also dont need to quote from wikipedia - 1. Because you obviously have problems with reading anything past one or two lines and two because it has nothing to do with wikipedia and the info wouldnt be there anyway.

Fail troll.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Just like to point out that in the two UK-based retailers that I usually use for PC components (Scan and OCUK) there are currently NO socket 1366 or 1156 i7s cheaper than the i5-2500K.

Closest was the quad core i7-950 at 188 (pounds) compared to the 2500K at 166.

Cheapest 6-core was i7-970 at 440 pounds.

And the i7-8xx's start at 206, and are considered inferior to the SBs.

Basically to get any better performance than Sandy Bridge you need to spend a huge amount more. And even then it may not be worth it if you don't run highly threaded applications.

Wrong, the older gen i7 quads perform better overall substantially per $ than the newer sandybridge i5s - this is due to the fact that they both can OC to the same level, while i5 has faster architecture because of the shrink, the i7 will "Always" beat it on anything heavily threaded, and often beat it on 4 threaded apps because the i7 uses the extra threads to run the os etc, while the i5 cannot do that (no hyperthreading).

[jf1981]

Thanks to avoid dispersion, I ask a simple question, it has not yet been answered to.

Originally Posted by jf1981

Thanks to avoid dispersion, I ask a simple question, it has not yet been answered to.

Get the best video card you can afford! Unless you are using a directx9 card you are not missing out on any graphical features until they add DX11 support.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Wrong, the older gen i7 quads perform better overall substantially per $ than the newer sandybridge i5s - this is due to the fact that they both can OC to the same level, while i5 has faster architecture because of the shrink, the i7 will "Always" beat it on anything heavily threaded, and often beat it on 4 threaded apps because the i7 uses the extra threads to run the os etc, while the i5 cannot do that (no hyperthreading).

Really don't want to keep this going, (OP still hasn't got an answer and it's a question I'm interested in myself) but It is just incorrect that:

'the older gen i7 quads perform better overall substantially per $ than the newer sandybridge i5s'

recent tests in MANY magazines and websites demonstrate that the i5-2500K outperformed all but the most expensive i7s in everything but highly multi-threaded apps.

My last post showed that the extra performance also comes at a cheaper (MUCH cheaper for comparable performance) price than the i7s too.

The ONLY proviso in all this is whether or not you intend to run heavily multi-threaded apps. In this case, as you say, the top-end i7s will be better, but even then many people would be put off by the extra expense.

---------------------

Now - can someone answer this?:

gtx560ti 2GB OR gtx570 1280MB ???

for CoD obviously, , at 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 and for high settings.

Originally Posted by kendo65

Now - can someone answer this?:

gtx560ti 2GB OR gtx570 1280MB ???

for CoD obviously, , at 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 and for high settings.

You might have to wait for them to get everything ironed out, but I would probably go for the 2GB version. It's going to pay off if you are gaming at the higher of the two resolutions and want to up the details.

As for the OP's question, like pretty much every hardware question, get the best you can afford unless it's one of the specialty cards that only gives you a 5% FPS boots more than another card $300 cheaper.