Question about graphic card & about directx

[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 Bobb4

I bought the i5 2500k - But I am not going to argue with your logic, as money does not appear to be a deciding factor for you.
For me it was and the i5 2500k serves me well. I am however interested in your statement that battlefield 3 will utilise 8 cores.
I have not played any game yet that has come even close to using even 3 cores effectively let alone 4 properly.
For what you do for a living 8 cores may be the way to go.
But the i5 2500k is a good cpud that overclocks well and if you want to blow most of your budget on a graphic's card which is what clod demands then the small performance boost an i7 gives is not worth the money


Just realised you also suggested cheaper options than mine in the i7 line. Have to agree with you on that.

Wrong you did not read correctly - I said 8 threads, not 8 cores. Over that BFBC2 already uses 8 threads.
You have been playing the wrong games then - and over that if you read properly I said in the near future. I5 2500k is a good cpu, but its better to get the older gen i7. Please make sure to read what I say (and thank you for noting it, its funny that I get smack talked in the meantime) because I said threads not cores, then you assumed I use this pc for a living - which I dont, I use it for gaming and graphics design is a hobby (I said I have multiple pcs running for my job, and this is summer job when I am not at school and the pcs are mostly pretty crappy.)

[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.

[squidgyb]

e: ignore me. if I have something useful to say I'll edit it in...

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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.

"many magazines" doesnt really count as a source...
That being said you havent read the post - the i7 can be clocked to more or less the same OC clock as the i5 can, they are both the same price (930/920 cheaper and 940/950 slightly more) but they have double the threads. Now its getting really tiresome, but do you seriously think the thread count of apps wont be increasing rapidly from now on? New phones coming out are dual core, the new ipad 5 is probably a dual too. BFBC2 runs 8 threads. Now even if you only run 4 threads, so even with the i5 - the clock is the same, the i5 SB wins slightly interms of speed because of the new mem/arch BUT the i7 can run the OS and other apps using the spare threads and comes out even or on top. In addition this gap will only increase into the future.
I5 SB will always lose to a i7 N unless its a K version SB then you can OC it, then its even until you get to newer software and the I7 wins. Its the better longterm buy.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

"many magazines" doesnt really count as a source...
That being said you havent read the post - the i7 can be clocked to more or less the same OC clock as the i5 can, they are both the same price (930/920 cheaper and 940/950 slightly more) but they have double the threads. Now its getting really tiresome, but do you seriously think the thread count of apps wont be increasing rapidly from now on? New phones coming out are dual core, the new ipad 5 is probably a dual too. BFBC2 runs 8 threads. Now even if you only run 4 threads, so even with the i5 - the clock is the same, the i5 SB wins slightly interms of speed because of the new mem/arch BUT the i7 can run the OS and other apps using the spare threads and comes out even or on top. In addition this gap will only increase into the future.
I5 SB will always lose to a i7 N unless its a K version SB then you can OC it, then its even until you get to newer software and the I7 wins. Its the better longterm buy.

"many magazines" doesnt really count as a source...

Your capacity to discount evidence that doesn't fit your desired conclusion is impressive. This being an Internet forum and not an academic journal it seems a little OTT to supply detailed references.

You're still maintaining that the i7s are cheaper. At the suppliers I usually buy from they aren't:

The 930 is 229.99 at OCUK (and currently out of stock with no ETA) against 179.99 for the i5-2500K.

Regarding number of threads - with SBs you have a choice of 4 core hyper-threading with the 2600K - equivalent to the lower i7s. There is possibility that 6-core SBs will be coming out for the 1155 socket.

Even if that doesn't happen, I could replace my motherboard AND get a new 6-core cpu for less than I would have to pay to get the cheapest 6-core i7 currently.