Which is faster?

[Sly]

Mine (3 years old):
I5-750 (The one with the quad core)
4Gigs DDR3
Radeon 5850
1080p LCD

A friends proposal for his new rig (Member of my gaming clan):
I7 2600
8Gigs DDR3
Radeon 6770
1080p LCD

Now i just have to know. Which one will perform better? Because i thought the point of a budget gaming rig was to sacrifice non-essentials to get the graphics up. That's a rig i'd put together if i was building one for CAD work!

 

[Melon]

The 2600 rig will perform faster.

 

[dragonstongue]

yours on a gpu side, his def on the cpu side. Sandy-B are just faster clock for clock and thier IMC is more efficent

 

[Dangman]

Your build will be faster in games as your faster GPU will make up for your slower CPU. Unless your clan member does a ton of 3D and video editing/rendering, going for the i7 2600 is a waste of money.

 

[bigdogchris]

Now i just have to know. Which one will perform better? Because i thought the point of a budget gaming rig was to sacrifice non-essentials to get the graphics up. That's a rig i'd put together if i was building one for CAD work!

Most games are CPU bound now days so I would always take a faster CPU over faster GPU, especially when your consider the CPU will benefit you in ways outside gaming.

Your friend may be unaware but with the 6xxx series AMD, they took a step back in their naming scheme. Their 6800 series is the next gen equivilent as the 5700 series. So the GPU he's buying is equivilent (gen wise) to a 5600 AMD GPU, which is really low balling it for a gamer.

As for comments on his build, I think the idea of a budget build is your best bang/buck. I think he's making a mistake buying a 2600k and a 6770. He could buy an i5 2400 (which hits 3.4GHz) for $110 less, then use the money saved to buy a much better GPU and overall have a much better system. If he wants to OC he could buy a 2500k for $85 less than 2600k, still get similar OC's and still have $85 to buy a significantly better GPU.

A good resouce for 'budget builds' is Toms Hardware 'Best for Your Money' that they do every month. They typically cover CPU's and GPU's.

 

[Topweasel]

Most games are CPU bound now days so I would always take a faster CPU over faster GPU, especially when your consider the CPU will benefit you in ways outside gaming.

Your friend may be unaware but with the 6xxx series AMD, they took a step back in their naming scheme. Their 6800 series is the next gen equivilent as the 5700 series. So the GPU he's buying is equivilent (gen wise) to a 5600 AMD GPU, which is really low balling it for a gamer.

As for comments on his build, I think the idea of a budget build is your best bang/buck. I think he's making a mistake buying a 2600k and a 6770. He could buy an i5 2400 (which hits 3.4GHz) for $110 less, than use that money to buy a much better GPU and overall have a much better system. If he wants to OC he could buy a 2500k for $85 less than 2600k, still get similar OC's and still have $85 to buy a significantly better GPU.

You know you just contradicted your self and then explained why you were wrong?

What most people meant by CPU limited is on high end video cards, performance is leveling out because the video cards are so much more productive in games then CPU's. Though there are a few were the CPU tends to be the most important pick. So for example most will tell you that in todays games, getting a 7970 or 680 while doing 1080p gaming is silly, because even the fastest CPU's will hold back a card at that rez. So in this sense kicking the card down to a 7850 and getting a faster CPU or an SSD, will be more noticeable in games.

That said a 5850 is much better then a 6770. Which is really a 57xx card rebadged with an updated DX support. Both are reasonably fast processors and both are Quad core. So really the 2600k in a top of the line card is obviously faster, but a 2600k on 2.5 year old middle of the road card is going to be slower in almost anything on a faster card of that generation. Basically saying that a 6770 will top out before a 2600k but a 5850 might have some leg left even with a 2600k depending on the game.

 

[bigdogchris]

You know you just contradicted your self and then explained why you were wrong?

Sorry but I disagree. I see nothing contradictary about what I said.

A budget build is best bang/buck, which is a combination of a CPU/GPU that gets maximum results. Just because I said faster CPU is better in most cases, doesn't mean you have to get the absolute fastest CPU possible, because again we're talking about a 'budget build', see my previous definition. I believe a $200 2400 or $215 2500k and $180 GPU in most games will be better than a $300 2600k and $100 GPU. I stand by what I said.

 

[dragonstongue]

Always better to have a balanced system-I agree with this. Most modern games are generally a balance needed for cpu and gpu, I think this is why Intel decided to do the HT again, may not be the most efficent way possible, but is much easier to code for 4 cores then 8 so they let the micro-code cpu side handle some of this.

Either way, its not a sound idea to have a very powerfull cpu tied to a mediocore gpu(not saying 6770 is crappy, but it doenst have to much horsepower for a "gaming" card) and conversly having a top end gpu tied to an older less efficent(processing wise) cpu is silly as well. Its all about balance.

Course this also does tie into what you use the machine for, sometimes it is beneficial to have a cpu heavy system, other times you can get away using a higher end gpu, really just depends on what your are doing. Any modern Quad core is plenty fine(AMD FX you would need an FX8 not the 6 or 4) GPU wise any middle range(for most people) is fine as well.

Put it this way, the best would be to take that 5850 AND the i7 2600 together with 8gb or so of system memory, very powerfull system there, though for "most things" a 2500k is plenty powerfull enough(tied with a decent motherboard)

 

[Deleted member 88227]

For a gaming rig, no need to go with hyper threaded CPUs since games don't benefit from it at all.

 

[dragonstongue]

For a gaming rig, no need to go with hyper threaded CPUs since games don't benefit from it at all.

very very few benefit from it, the ones that do are only a very small %, so really not worth the $ increase(2500 vs 2600 as an example) but to say none as in 0 is not totally true.

There is something to say about the overclocking side though. From my understanding more people had an easier time hitting a higher clock speed with HT off which would benefit more then HT on seeing as the vast majority of games are by far more reliant on raw clock speed then threading capability(this is especially true to use gpu well, they see a nice boost when clocked with a cpu also clocked)

 

[bigdogchris]

I agree that is a budget gaming build, Hyperthreading is negligible. [H] has shown themselves that games really don't benefit from more than 3 cores, so going from 4 to 8 logical cores I can't see as a big improvement.

 

[Topweasel]

Sorry but I disagree. I see nothing contradictary about what I said.

Most games are CPU bound now days so I would always take a faster CPU over faster GPU, especially when your consider the CPU will benefit you in ways outside gaming.

Then proceeded to go on about how a GPU, one that is only 2 steps down in the ATI model/performance stepping ladder was a bad mix.

CPU's are only bound based on A.) Resolution B.) Particular Video card. C.) The particular Game.

Only three games I can think of are particularly driven by CPU performance. BF3 Multiplayer, SC2, and Civ V. At that point its driven by card and resolution, meaning if you are running the resolution low enough, you shift the effort from the Video card to the CPU as the video card is able to handle every thing you throw at it. If you are getting to this point on a modern CPU (even a BD) then the FPS is already higher then it needs to be.

Actually CPU performance is the last thing I would look at for gaming performance and even on a lot of professional work. If its within the last 2-3 generations of CPU's I would almost always go Vid card first if you game, memory if its professional, SSD if its snappyness that you care about, then CPU if a particular use case needs a particular performance envelope or feature set.

 

[bigdogchris]

Then proceeded to go on about how a GPU, one that is only 2 steps down in the ATI model/performance stepping ladder was a bad mix.

CPU's are only bound based on A.) Resolution B.) Particular Video card. C.) The particular Game.

Only three games I can think of are particularly driven by CPU performance. BF3 Multiplayer, SC2, and Civ V. At that point its driven by card and resolution, meaning if you are running the resolution low enough, you shift the effort from the Video card to the CPU as the video card is able to handle every thing you throw at it. If you are getting to this point on a modern CPU (even a BD) then the FPS is already higher then it needs to be.

Actually CPU performance is the last thing I would look at for gaming performance and even on a lot of professional work. If its within the last 2-3 generations of CPU's I would almost always go Vid card first if you game, memory if its professional, SSD if its snappyness that you care about, then CPU if a particular use case needs a particular performance envelope or feature set.

You are taking two concepts and applying the wrong one to my statement. CPU bound can be said to be a game which the frame rate is limited due to a max CPU and CPU bound as the CPU has significantly more impact than the GPU, ie., Skyrim.

In my budget build suggestion, I am still implying to get a faster CPU but not as fast as the one the OP's friend suggested because this is a 'budget build'. A slightly slower CPU can save enough to buy a significantly faster GPU. Overall the system performance will be better.

You're the guy who said in the other thread that SSD's do not help gaming experience, so I advise caution to anyone to listening to your "advice".

Stop trolling.

 

[Sly]

I specified the resolution 1080p (1960x1080) for that reason. 5850 is just enough to make BF3 playable as well as any game i threw at it... but just barely, i'd say it's on the edge of 1080p. The benchies are pretty high resolution, so even tho the 6770 may be slower than a 5850, does it matter on 1080p? Altho like i said, 1080p was already pushing the 5850, but we're talking about a 6xxx generation here. 1080p is mid or low end for an average gaming rig.

So essentially, can a 6770 run BF3 with everything turned up at 1080p? And not put you in stutter city.



I've managed to convince him to look for a 560 or a 6870, the ones i pointed him to was only about $60.00 more than the 6770 from the pricelist he had (it was a mall pricelist so it's probably higher than the online one i get mine from)

Atleast he's considering it. Some of the guys i've talked to before judge a video card by it's ram. The time a guy kept insisting his 1Gig video card should be able to handle a game was especially traumatizing. He says the game is shit because it wouldn't run, yet he doesn't know what GPU he's using, only the memory. Turns out he was using an onboard GPU and the 1Gig memory he kept bragging about was shared. Atleast these guys know the difference between a videocard and a discreet gpu. BF3 was pretty educational for them.



My own rig is probably not gonna be upgraded this gen. It's a three year old rig, the GPU can still handle the latest games and the difference between it and a 6870 is barely 10%, so there's really no motivation to upgrade when the only gain is 5fps. Previously, i upgrade when the next rig i can put together is twice as fast as my old one (for a reasonable price), in this last upgrade, my overall performance was only 50% faster. And this last one is only 10%? I'll skip to the next gen. Kinda depressing really since i'd usually be scrapping my rig right about now.

 

[Topweasel]

You are taking two concepts and applying the wrong one to my statement. CPU bound can be said to be a game which the frame rate is limited due to a max CPU and CPU bound as the CPU has significantly more impact than the GPU, ie., Skyrim.

In my budget build suggestion, I am still implying to get a faster CPU but not as fast as the one the OP's friend suggested because this is a 'budget build'. A slightly slower CPU can save enough to buy a significantly faster GPU. Overall the system performance will be better.

You're the guy who said in the other thread that SSD's do not help gaming experience, so I advise caution to anyone to listening to your "advice".

Stop trolling.

Um. But its true. You tell me how SSD's magically make your in game experience any better? SSD's are very great devices in make a computer feel better and more responsive. But one thing it doesn't do affect a game once textures, maps, and models have been loaded into memory on the system and in the video card.

But really you should pay attention to games that are "CPU" bound and the differences in performance with better CPU's in any task. A better GPU makes it easy to offload the bottleneck back onto the CPU. But the difference between a $100 and $500 in actual measurables like completing an encode, or adding a filter on photoshop, is measured in single digits in seconds. In games the difference between a i3 2100 and 2700K in all but maybe BF3 MP is again in a handful of FPS. It doesn't matter if a game is CPU bound at 1080p if you are getting 90-100 FPS. What does matter is if a game is struggling at a resolution even 1080p as a game gets more detailed, and you spent the extra 100 on 2500 over that i3 2300 instead of getting the 6950 over the 6770. Video card over CPU always.

 

[Topweasel]

I specified the resolution 1080p (1960x1080) for that reason. 5850 is just enough to make BF3 playable as well as any game i threw at it... but just barely, i'd say it's on the edge of 1080p. The benchies are pretty high resolution, so even tho the 6770 may be slower than a 5850, does it matter on 1080p? Altho like i said, 1080p was already pushing the 5850, but we're talking about a 6xxx generation here. 1080p is mid or low end for an average gaming rig.

So essentially, can a 6770 run BF3 with everything turned up at 1080p? And not put you in stutter city.



I've managed to convince him to look for a 560 or a 6870, the ones i pointed him to was only about $60.00 more than the 6770 from the pricelist he had (it was a mall pricelist so it's probably higher than the online one i get mine from)

Atleast he's considering it. Some of the guys i've talked to before judge a video card by it's ram. The time a guy kept insisting his 1Gig video card should be able to handle a game was especially traumatizing. He says the game is shit because it wouldn't run, yet he doesn't know what GPU he's using, only the memory. Turns out he was using an onboard GPU and the 1Gig memory he kept bragging about was shared. Atleast these guys know the difference between a videocard and a discreet gpu. BF3 was pretty educational for them.



My own rig is probably not gonna be upgraded this gen. It's a three year old rig, the GPU can still handle the latest games and the difference between it and a 6870 is barely 10%, so there's really no motivation to upgrade when the only gain is 5fps. Previously, i upgrade when the next rig i can put together is twice as fast as my old one (for a reasonable price), in this last upgrade, my overall performance was only 50% faster. And this last one is only 10%? I'll skip to the next gen. Kinda depressing really since i'd usually be scrapping my rig right about now.

Couple of things.

A.) The 5850 was a high end cards. The 6850 was a mid range card that was a minor upgrade to the 5850, because well it was slotting in that spot in performance but for a much cheaper price. The actual replacement was the 6950, which was actually quite faster.

B.) Its already on the next gen. The 7850 is as fast pretty much as a 6950, and again the step up from your card the 7950 is again faster making it about 50-60% faster then your card.

C.) Again 6770 is a step down. Since the 6850 was taking a new spot and price bracket, the x700 performance was actually unchanged from the previous generation. Meaning it might have if it was new card, been as fast, not faster then your 5850, it was/is quiet a bit slower.

D.) BF3 is the only real game engine out right now that can put any real pressure on Video cards. It is also in MP, a burden on CPU's (recommend a 4 core CPU). It was baaaaad before it, nothing since Crysis 1 had put any strain on video cards, and by now all but Llano based graphics where capable of playing it comfortably. Because of that even mid range cards were doing well at 1080p levels. Something unheard of 5 years ago. That's why people started gaming on 27-30" monitors and technologies like Eyefinity were created. As a new engine, designed to be as stressful on a system as possible (as an engine to be used in development for several years), like the big ones before it, to comfortably play it, you really need to get a really high end mid range card, or a high end card to get the most out of it even at 1080p. Wouldn't suggest anything lower then a 6850, making the choices a 6850-6870-6950-570-7850-6970-7870-7950-580-7970-680 in chain of performance. Sweet spot probably being the 7850 till we see a 670.

 

[dragonstongue]

I was going to mention same thing, with the 6k gen, the numbers got mixed some, it(6770) has more inline with the performance of between a 5770 and 5830 then it does a 5850 and the 7750/7770 I wouldnt recomend at all for a "gaming build" as the 6850/6870 are close enough and much more powerfull. "budget" wise I would go 6850/6870/7850 Radeon wise, or 550Ti/560 non ti GeForce wise. Sweet spots I would say are now 6870/7850 and GTX560 nonti/Ti for "budget freindly powerfull enough card" for getting the most for your coin 560 448 core/7850/7870. Really depends, as I see often enough rebates and such that make the difference of getting the more powerfull card=bang/buck or not getting it.

6870 is hard to argue with as is the GTX560 really nice cards for the cost, the 7850 is pretty dang close so its worth mentioning, who knows what Kepler will bring to the table, only a short while more to see the "budget" freindly cards.

Think Radeon wise x700 are "tier 1) budget freindly" but do lack alot of power that the x800 series "tier 2)gaming grade" have, the X900 series are "tier 3) performance/enthusiast grade" and have alot of extra firepower but do up the cost quite a bit most times. For Nvidia x50 is thier "tier 1) budget" x60 is thier "tier 2)gaming grade" x70/x80 are thier "tier 3) performance/enthusiast grade" I know others may argue this, but it is the easiest way to sum them up.

Chalk it up as tier 1)can play games with medium settings/res decently well. tier 2) can play games at a high res/higher settings quite well. tier 3) can play most any game very high res/highest settings very well. tier 4) these are the X2 style cards made of of the "gaming grade" line, these are generally the best performance at a high cost, but can handle 99% of what you can throw at them i.e dual/quad sli or dual/quad crossfireX exceptionally well.