CPU choice

[lcpiper]

Good info kirbj, Thank You.

Time to let this one die folks

 

[USMCGrunt]

Gonna qualify the GPU-bound portion of this comment with an Anand Bench of the 4570S vs. the 4790K.

Scroll all the way down to the gaming benchmarks and note that the 4570S is a 2.9ghz base clocked 4C/4T part.

Typed out this long ass rebuttal about how terrible and useless that graph is...until I realized it was a 4790 vs 4570....aka i5 vs i7....comprehension fail, lol.

Oh and USMCGrunt, Anadtech's statement that "majority of modern games are GPU bound anyways", carries less weight if a title you really want to enjoy does make heavy use of the CPU. From what I can tell Bethesda's do, I always enjoy them, and it's Fallout 4 coming out in just a couple of months that is driving this entire rebuild.

Gamebryo, I believe the engine that Bethesda uses on its massive RPG games such as FO3 and the Oblivion series, is craptacular and is gonna cause all kinds of quirky pains in the ass regardless if you use an i3 or an i7 EE. I have lots of fond memories of the last few Oblivion games and FO3 was good...but dealing with the game engine's quirks can be trying at times.

I get the heat issue, I have a smaller room for gaming and it heats up nicely with a pair of 290Xs going full tilt. If you're still running on liquid, find better fans or add more. I understand that your wanting to keep total heat output to a minimum but I'm really not seeing 20w making the difference....if you can still find one...get a 30w incandescent light and you'll find the heat output is negligible...next, get a pair of 100w and finally...stick the 30w next to the 2 100w and I doubt your gonna feel the added heat of the 30w. Anyways, I know you've got your parts but I, like many others on here, feel your obsessing over nothing.

OH and while you want this topic to die, its on the internetz...NOTHING DIES TILL WE SAY IT DOES! lol.

 

[lcpiper]

USMCGrunt, I see where you are going and you are right about Gamebryo, but they don't use Gambryo anymore. With Skyrim they started using the Creation Engine and Fallout 4 is supposed to be using an updated version of that engine. Below is a wiki on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Engine

I can say this, it was very interesting to open my Task Manager with the performance tab open showing the load on the processor cores of my i7 Razer Blade laptop and watch it while playing Skyrim. That game makes use of every core and every thread. It takes advantage of your hardware.

 

[USMCGrunt]

USMCGrunt, I see where you are going and you are right about Gamebryo, but they don't use Gambryo anymore. With Skyrim they started using the Creation Engine and Fallout 4 is supposed to be using an updated version of that engine. Below is a wiki on it.


I can say this, it was very interesting to open my Task Manager with the performance tab open showing the load on the processor cores of my i7 Razer Blade laptop and watch it while playing Skyrim. That game makes use of every core and every thread. It takes advantage of your hardware.

That's kind of unfortunate....cause I had a hell of a time getting Skyrim to play nice with my system....been awhile but I think it had to do with crossfire....I had just assumed it was Gamebryo because it "felt" the same.

Edit:

Creation Engine is an in-house engine created by Bethesda Game Studios (XnGine being the previous in-house engine by Bethesda). After using Gamebryo to create The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and Fallout 3, Bethesda decided that Gamebryo's graphics were becoming too outdated and began work on Creation Engine for their next game, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. The engine is based on Gamebryo and still has code from it inside Creation Engine.

That explains the feel, lol.

 

[lcpiper]

Yes it does. I did the same thing again last night for awhile. I fired up task manager and put it on the Performance tab, slected CPU so I could see all 8 threads, then starte playing Skyrim. This time it was a little different than what I thought I remembered seeing the other night. This time it looked like each core was being loaded heavier on one thread and the other threads were only doing light work loads. It still looks like they are all being used, but it didn't look as evenly devided as before. It suggests that hyperthreading is less important to the Creation Engine then I had thought earlier. Of course plenty of people play Skyrim with no problems on i5 CPUs and I doubt Bethesda would put a title out there that wouldn't run on an i5. Still, it should run better on an i7 all the same. It is obvious that there is much going on in the game that makes good use of the CPU.

 

[USMCGrunt]

My understanding, is work that isn't coded for multicore processors gets round robin'ed by the O.S. to the thread that is least busy, which would explain what you saw, a mix of multicore aware programming and stuff that isn't......or just data that requires serial processing with a mix of parallel capable data. The O.S. doesn't really care if it's an i5 with four physical cores or an i7 with 4 physical and 2 logical per physical core.

The i7 should perform better with its larger cache sizes alone, regardless of the data workload. Hopefully, Bethesda makes some headway with the modified Creation Engine to make it a little more friendly to all the different PC configurations out there.

 

[lcpiper]

I ordered an 3.4Gig i7-4770, over Amazon for $280 on Sunday. I expect I'll be happy with the purchase.

 

[a3venom]

i dont understand why would someone buy a nice motherboard when they are not planning to OC?
why would you not a get a 50$ cheapest possible motherboard? motherboard quality is probably the least important thing in a build when you dont OC.

 

[M76]

i dont understand why would someone buy a nice motherboard when they are not planning to OC?
why would you not a get a 50$ cheapest possible motherboard? motherboard quality is probably the least important thing in a build when you dont OC.

It's like buying a sports car but never putting your foot down. Some people do that too.

 

[HoffY]

i dont understand why would someone buy a nice motherboard when they are not planning to OC?
why would you not a get a 50$ cheapest possible motherboard? motherboard quality is probably the least important thing in a build when you dont OC.

umm.. for the hugely obvious reason that the cheaper boards dont always have the features you want (that have nothing to do with OCing).

 

[GearChoices]

The Creation Engine in Skyrim is just an updated version of the same Gamebryo and renamed. The engine update was no bigger than when they updated it in Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc... They just renamed it Creation Engine to hype the heck out of Skyrim as having a new engine, when in reality it was just another minor update they do for every game they release.

Hopefully they have actually done a massive overhaul with Fallout 4, but it would be a big mistake to place any bets on it. If they have not overhauled it enough to make it 100% 64-bit and 100% multi-threaded across four entire CPU cores, it is going to be sad if people let them get away with that in late 2015.

 

[PGHammer]

i dont understand why would someone buy a nice motherboard when they are not planning to OC?
why would you not a get a 50$ cheapest possible motherboard? motherboard quality is probably the least important thing in a build when you dont OC.

Several reasons - the least of which is allowing for an upgrade path.

Unlike my last build (where I went CSM/mATX for budget reasons) there is NO reason to do so with Z97; if anything, going mATX is more expensive than going ATX. Also, Z97 (merely as a chipset) has a lot to recommend even if you don't overclock at all. The only real alternative for non-overclockers to Z97 is B85 - which not only not as common, but costs too close to Z97.

 

[a3venom]

Well i guess he might need it, but why do people recommend, on popular youtube channels for budget gaming builds with a locked CPU, a "good quality mobo".
What features would a budget gamer need that a 39.99 mobo doesnt have?
Mobos are the hugest ripoff in the industry i Believe.
Nobody needs ddr4, or higher speed ram, no one needs all that sata/pci fancy shit either

 

[zaniix]

Well i guess he might need it, but why do people recommend, on popular youtube channels for budget gaming builds with a locked CPU, a "good quality mobo".
What features would a budget gamer need that a 39.99 mobo doesnt have?
Mobos are the hugest ripoff in the industry i Believe.
Nobody needs ddr4, or higher speed ram, no one needs all that sata/pci fancy shit either

define "good quality mobo"

Too me that just means a brand you trust with the features you want. Maybe you want the better sound components for an extra $50 rather than buy a separate card for $100

Maybe it is also important is match the color scheme of your case.

Every person has to make their own choice, do what works for you.

 

[Deleted member 83233]

I would get a good quality board regardless. Power components being a big factor in that, decent cooling being another, as well as quality network and audio components in some cases. Just because you're not pushing the board, doesn't mean it won't be more reliable with better quality components. Less noisy (electrically) more able to be upgraded, etc. Who knows, peoples' tastes change too. Maybe after one gets bored with things, OCing is the next step.

Having a decent quality, reliable, cool, quiet, feature-packed board is enough on its own I would think.

 

[a3venom]

Isn't it just like buying a more expensive HDMI Cable?
Both parts will usually have same wty too.

thanks for no flame.

 

[Deleted member 83233]

I guess if you don't mind relying on the warranty, it wouldn't matter THAT much for many people. I actually design circuits and PCBs though, so I really appreciate quality component choices. When I do my own builds, I always use high quality components. It actually makes a big difference in many cases. Not in all cases granted, but I just buy everything in bulk now, and go with quality. When I get a motherboard, I tend to look at it in the same way. I'd rather that my board ran reliably for the life of my system than have to replace it, even if it's covered.

Buying an HDMI cable is a little different. I use decent quality cables, purely because I want them to work, but I'd never buy something way off the scale like those Monster ones that were ridiculously priced. A cheap but decent one is good enough. I just don't want total crap to where I have to worry about it breaking internally or something. I would never go out of my way to buy an expensive one.

With active electronics though, there are electrical noise levels to consider, tolerances on component values, voltage ratings, MTBFs, etc. etc. All of this can add up to something reliable, or just on the edge of possibly breaking on you during its life cycle. I don't know if you were around for the leaky-electrolytic-capacitor era of motherboards. A few brands were using cheap knock-off caps, and they would leak and cause the board to fail. Pretty lame. Some of the brands were even considered higher end back then. Shortly after everyone started using Nichicon, Rubycon, Panasonic, etc. and the problem went away.

Anyway, there are points of diminishing returns, but there are also sweet spots, and crap too.

 

[lcpiper]

i dont understand why would someone buy a nice motherboard when they are not planning to OC?
why would you not a get a 50$ cheapest possible motherboard? motherboard quality is probably the least important thing in a build when you dont OC.

Sorry, I have been remise in keeping up with this thread. Umm, I'm sorry, but I don't get your logic. Cheap shit is cheap shit, whether it's a motherboard or a hard drive. Cheap motherboards are thin, easily damaged, connectors come off at the most minor pressure. Heatsinks are poorly mounted, caps are not durable and fail early.

Cheap shit is cheap shit. Overclocking has nothing to do with it

 

[lcpiper]

Oh, and for an update and another thank you.

This weekend I finished the build, I had to hold off waiting for a new Corsair Hydro H50 because I just don't get whatever the trick is for how to mount those stock intel HSFs. I just can't make them work.

Anyway, I did the build Saturday morning, finished around 1:30 in the afternoon. Loaded Windows7, drivers, got it on the networked, transfered data, and started updates looking to get it to the point where I could upgrade to Windows 10. It took several rounds, many rounds actually of doing updates of Windows7 before it finally installed the update for the Windows 10 update app.

So far, I am damn happy. It's not whisper quiet, but I don't hear it all across the house either and that was very important. It's running terrificly, nothing wrong at all. I am very happy that you guys helped me see that an i7 was the way to go, that there are places to cut costs and places where a compromise is not what I would be happy with. I am very happy with the ASAS STRIX GTX 960 at 1080p, the card is terrific for that level of gameplay with all my Bethesda Titles and World of Tanks and Warships.

Thank You all for your assistance and your willingness to argue your points long enough that the conversation exposed for me what I needed to see, and hear

 

[PGHammer]

So if neither of the i5 chips I am considering have hyperthreading then games that can leverage multicore CPUs will not use more then one core anyway?

And that would mean, if I understand correctly, that your statement;

Isn't correct, because these chips can only use one core for a single application, no multithreading, "boost" will work just fine, and regardless of any power or heat considerations the 4690 won't run any faster then the 4490S would.

I mean if I am getting this correctly, you need an i7 to take advantage of any multicore supported software.

You just need a multicore CPU - basically, any CPU with two or more cores. In terms of Intel CPUs, you can go all the way back to LGA775, and as far down as - don't laugh - a Celeron Dual-Core. My first multi-core build was, in fact, based on a Celeron DC E1200! I still have not only that selfsame E1200, but both successors - the E3400 that immediately replaced the E1200, and the Q6600 that replaced the E - when the motherboard failed that originally housed the E1200, it did NOT take down the CPU, or anything else - I pulled the CPU, swapped in a replacement motherboard, and kept right on keeping on. That same replacement motherboard (in mATX) has thus seen three CPUs - all multicore.It has seen Windows desktop OSes, Windows *server* OSes, four flavors of OS X, - and that's JUST the bare-metal installs. (And yes, that includes both Celerons.) Not even the Celerons have hosted an x32 OS as the default - where it has, it was only until an x64 OS could replace it. (Celeron and a server OS? If you are using a server OS as a workstation OS - something that Windows Server HAS a past in being - going back to Windows NT Advanced Server, it's certainly doable - Windows Server 2008 is, after all, the *immediate* predecessor to the GUI-less Microsoft Hyper-V Server.) One area that multiple cores DO get leveraged is in terms of virtualization - with OR without EPT/SLAT. (While Windows 8 has ALWAYS required EPT support, Windows Server - where Hyper-V began, doesn't (and won't even START until Windows Server 2016).) However, where else are multiple cores leveraged in terms of non-server usage? Despite Windows NT being, at the minimum, SMP-aware (going back to the original NT 3.1), multithread-ready (from the beginning) and despite the near-ubiquity of multicore simply since Core 2 and the derivatives thereof (including Atom), multicore is still WOEFULLY underutilized - and ESPECIALLY in terms of non-server usage. What is the excuse?

 

[USMCGrunt]

You just need a multicore CPU - basically, any CPU with two or more cores. In terms of Intel CPUs, you can go all the way back to LGA775, and as far down as - don't laugh - a Celeron Dual-Core. My first multi-core build was, in fact, based on a Celeron DC E1200! I still have not only that selfsame E1200, but both successors - the E3400 that immediately replaced the E1200, and the Q6600 that replaced the E - when the motherboard failed that originally housed the E1200, it did NOT take down the CPU, or anything else - I pulled the CPU, swapped in a replacement motherboard, and kept right on keeping on. That same replacement motherboard (in mATX) has thus seen three CPUs - all multicore.It has seen Windows desktop OSes, Windows *server* OSes, four flavors of OS X, - and that's JUST the bare-metal installs. (And yes, that includes both Celerons.) Not even the Celerons have hosted an x32 OS as the default - where it has, it was only until an x64 OS could replace it. (Celeron and a server OS? If you are using a server OS as a workstation OS - something that Windows Server HAS a past in being - going back to Windows NT Advanced Server, it's certainly doable - Windows Server 2008 is, after all, the *immediate* predecessor to the GUI-less Microsoft Hyper-V Server.) One area that multiple cores DO get leveraged is in terms of virtualization - with OR without EPT/SLAT. (While Windows 8 has ALWAYS required EPT support, Windows Server - where Hyper-V began, doesn't (and won't even START until Windows Server 2016).) However, where else are multiple cores leveraged in terms of non-server usage? Despite Windows NT being, at the minimum, SMP-aware (going back to the original NT 3.1), multithread-ready (from the beginning) and despite the near-ubiquity of multicore simply since Core 2 and the derivatives thereof (including Atom), multicore is still WOEFULLY underutilized - and ESPECIALLY in terms of non-server usage. What is the excuse?

Dude....this was one hell of a difficult post to even begin to follow. Separate your anecdotal evidence from your obvious knowledge on the subject and get rid of all the (side mentionings) or (whatever you'd) call doing (this) cause it's very distracting.

 

[Dayaks]

Just realized this thread was necroed after typing a lot.

Anywho I agree with the 4690. I've used it in three builds. I just chose it over Skylake too. It's a beast for gaming.