Is this gaming PC fairly well future proofed? Page 3

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • RobTheBuilder 24 Apr 2013 00:46:19 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @neilka you don't say...!
  • Widge Moderator 24 Apr 2013 09:41:27 13,727 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    superdelphinus wrote:
    perhaps controversially, I even think a 670 is overkill for the moment really, at least at 1080p. I 'only' have a 7850 and it runs everything I play very nicely with high/highest settings. Only thing I've had to calm down on is pCARS but that is pre-alpha and a bit of a dog optimisation wise.

    I wouldn't spend ~200 more for half a bell and a suggestion of whistle anyway...
    Yeah, I am on a 660 and understandably things like Bioshock push the envelope, and the stupidly optimised Metro 2033 really challenges at 1080p. Pretty much all else is well dealt with.

    Don't think I'd ever slap out more than 150 on a card, just to get those few games to hit their peak. Maybe I'd get a nicely discounted top line one from the previous generation.

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • richardiox 26 Apr 2013 00:53:41 5,707 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I thought vizz/alberto gave up on pc gaming in 2005 after HL2 came out? - yet he appears in every pc thread giving 'definitive ' advice on building a gaming system. Expert advice from a guy who considers the PS3 to be the pinnacle of hardware design The PS3! Fucking LOL
  • RobTheBuilder 26 Apr 2013 00:59:45 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    But it was an ingenious design that allows.. that allows... that...

    I need to spend time in other threads. ;)
  • Bremenacht 26 Apr 2013 01:11:23 19,269 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    richardiox wrote:
    I thought vizz/alberto gave up on pc gaming in 2005 after HL2 came out? - yet he appears in every pc thread giving 'definitive ' advice on building a gaming system. Expert advice from a guy who considers the PS3 to be the pinnacle of hardware design The PS3! Fucking LOL
    What I really dislike is seeing is seeing people like RobTheBuilder taking the trouble to give good advice only for narcizzini to imply that they're stupid and/or steal that advice and claim it was his idea in the first place. He's the Walter Mitty of IT advice. I'd not be surprised if he's never built a PC in his life.
  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 02:25:14
    What I really dislike is that every fucking thread he posts in becomes entirely about him and everyone trying to score points against him. It's fun every once in a while but to see it day in, day out. I swear some of you are constantly refreshing tech threads with baited breath, waiting for him.
  • Popzeus 26 Apr 2013 07:47:18 8,396 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    vizzini wrote:
    @Bremenacht

    Good one. Are you being serious? Because that's slander! Easy there.
    Actually it's libel.

    Get your facts right.

    Currently playing: Standing In A Car Park Simulator 2013

  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 09:43:47
    @Popzeus

    Thanks for the correction. I thought that it was bremenacht (twice) slandering me(and now richardiox), and Eurogamer that are libelling me by leaving their conversation in print(ie the publisher).

    I guess it is a case of all three have libelled me, short of a EG moderator eliminating the offending words to remedy the situation. If the general ethos for moderation around here, was people can attack posts, but not the poster 9as Armoured_bear wrote the other day), 99% of the stuff that causes problems wouldn't exist on the forum.

    @Widge
    Completely agree with the point you are making about 150 graphics for a gaming PCs, for no other reason than the very short lifespans between things like fermi and kepler architecture changes, and three graphics card changes per console generation roughly equates to the cost of console (450).
  • THFourteen 26 Apr 2013 09:57:25 34,184 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    My approach to gfx cards is generally to buy the best one for about 200 every two years.
  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 10:11:10
    @THFouteen

    Which is the similar approach Widge and I have suggested. But then my next piece of advice is where most people like RobTheBuilder disagree. If you are going to have three different graphics cards over a six year period, then it makes sense to buy the most advanced motherboard/memory and CPU technology within budget to span that six year gap imo.

    On the intel side of things, building anything other than the LGA2011 socketed motherboard (and the entry CPU) is highly unlikely to last two GPU upgrades now, never mind three.
  • THFourteen 26 Apr 2013 10:40:03 34,184 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I think it depends on the specific architecture that you buy, and whats available at the time.

    i bought one of the very first i7 chips (920) and one of the very first motherboards that supported that architecture, both cost a premium price at the time. Now, i can't upgrade the CPU as the newer i7s have a different socket.

    However, i've had it since january 2009 which is over four years, and i still don't really feel that it needs upgrading. its just clocked at stock, but i could easily overclock if i wanted to.

    But i think that was just luck at the time.
  • RobTheBuilder 26 Apr 2013 10:45:57 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @vizzini It does if you will utilise the extra, but for games alone there won't be much of an impact for the extra budget. I can't see having a top of the range i5 will be anything of a disadvantage, maybe it won't be the fastest in 5 years, but it certainly won't be a bad choice.

    If moving to the faster board type costs enough that it means lowering the spec of other components, then it's probably not worth it for this machine.

    Edited by RobTheBuilder at 10:49:18 26-04-2013
  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 10:51:12
    @THFouteen

    But because you bought the higher ned pentium class socketed system (LGA1366) the board will support Xeon class processors and is a Tri channel memory system. So the amount of memory you can put in it(and address simultaneously for three large address spaces) still makes it a superior system to the latest LGA1155 systems that are so popular on these boards, for new builds

    You'll get at least one more GPU upgrade from it and maybe decide to get a discontinued CPU at a knock down price because it has a much larger level 1 and level 2 cache that will alleviate memory bottlenecks.
  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 10:57:08
    @RobTheBuilder

    The only component that gets sacrificed is the +150 GPU, and the wisdom around here suggests that replacing them at the same rate as their short warranties is the optimum strategy. In life the general consensus is build with strong foundations. It is good advice.
  • RobTheBuilder 26 Apr 2013 10:59:10 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @vizzini But a CPU bottleneck is unlikely to be an issue unless using top of the range cards in Sli, and even then an i5 at 4ghz is hardly likely to be dragging it down at all.

    For a 4-5 year span of gaming, this CPU is more than adequate for high performance. The slightly faster board is an option, but I would only go for it if the budget allows doing so without lowering the spec of any other components.
  • Deckard1 26 Apr 2013 10:59:51 29,118 posts
    Seen 40 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Buy 2 lbs of voxels and sprinkle them over the motherboard as well.

    Fish fingers and chips pretty straight forward.

  • RobTheBuilder 26 Apr 2013 11:00:31 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @vizzini Agreed. But given the expected use time of the machine, I don't think it's fair to say that the top spec i5 is a weak foundation.

    We are arguing about a very strong foundation versus a more expensive very strong foundation.
  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 11:09:10
    @RobTheBuilder

    No I disagree. We are talking about an LGA1155 product that was an intentionally retrograded design of the chipset features used for LGA1366/LGA2011 socketed boards. Much like the Celerons were Pentium class fabricated chips that failed QA and then had certain circuitry removed(with an acid process) to make a throwaway market at a lower price point.

    Retrograded designs are not strong foundations.


    And CPU's L1 and L2 caches sizes always make a difference to throughput. I also believe you can put atleast one Xeon in the some of the LGA1366 boards that will raise the memory bandwidth 1.5x(25GB/s → 38GB/s iirc),
  • Widge Moderator 26 Apr 2013 11:09:17 13,727 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I've generally found the "best bang for buck" processors tend to do the job nicely. A few years down the line, a new technology will always pop up that breaks down the barriers, with the new midrange stuff eclipsing the upper tier expensive range of before.

    Keep in that range and you'll always be fine, with one or two compromises on the ridiculous spec pushing games.

    On that front, I am quite glad that I have gone to front room gaming. The biggest challenges to my setup have come through monitor upgrades. Going 4:3 to 16:9, getting 16:9 up to 1080p resolution. Now I'll be locked on that and my cards will only ever be asked to do "so" much.

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • Dirtbox 26 Apr 2013 11:11:33 78,763 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    There are still plenty of gamers using original dual cores without significant enough problems to warrant a full upgrade, too much emphasis is placed on the CPU whereas the requirement for a high end CPU is pretty much non-existent in gaming.

    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

    Edited by Dirtbox at 11:14:35 26-04-2013

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • RobTheBuilder 26 Apr 2013 11:12:37 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @vizzini I see your principle, but I still think calling a top of the line i5 a weak foundation is wrong.

    Neither is a bad option, providing the budget stretches far enough. The more expensive one may prove an advantage down the line, but that's their choice as to how much they spend.

    I think what we are talking about here is the difference between 80fps and 85fps on most games at high settings. Sure the higher number is better, but for the cost it's not a vital improvement.

    Edited by RobTheBuilder at 11:13:47 26-04-2013
  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 11:20:18
    @Dirtbox

    The bottleneck for a system with good longevity is always throughput via interfaces (like PCIexpress, SATA, memory and RAM bandwidth and memory channels, L1 & L2 caches), and all these benefits get tied to a motherboard chipset, which are in turn tied to the highest end CPUs. For commerical reasons the highest end CPUs get a different socket.

    It is the reason why Pentium Pro chips were still useful at high end desktop even when Pentium 2 arrived, and why Xeon chips aren't redundant at the same rate of their desktop counterparts. The dualcore and quadcore chips starting with E(Conroe iirc), are Pentium class products that overlap between Xeon class and desktop, hence their long shelf life.
  • LeoliansBro 26 Apr 2013 11:23:57 44,722 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    BORING.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Widge Moderator 26 Apr 2013 11:27:29 13,727 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    In a couple of years, some fancy pants processor will come out requiring a new motherboard standard. I don't buy foundations, I buy what will do me the job at the time, knowing that I'll probably have to rip it to pieces when the advantages of new technology come to fruition.

    I've not upgraded yet within the same motherboard architecture.

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 11:32:40
    The cost of an extreme edition i7 is about 500 bones. If you'ld have bought the top of the line core i7 cpu when they first came out it would cost you more than a standard core i7 and an upgrade to a CPU that outperforms it 3 years down the line.

    Even if you're right about the value of buying a great cpu It just makes no sense.
  • RobTheBuilder 26 Apr 2013 11:33:34 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @bitch_tits_zero_nine Which is my point. It's a lot extra for not too much extra performance (especially in games)
  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 11:34:42
    quite
  • Deleted user 26 April 2013 11:36:01
    @Widge

    I'm not so sure about that now. Based on Intel's recent work with a co-processor card Xeon Phi, it is possible that the host systems will become slow upgrades that follow advances in hard drive interfaces, PCIExpress and that the computer upgrade path might become almost entirely removed to the other side of PCIExpress to being a coprocessor card that eliminates the GPU, by becoming a hybrid high end CPU/GPU/memory

    @btich_tits_zero_nine

    That wasn't what I said. You buy the cheapest(cost effective) CPU that takes you into the different tier of technology(LGA2011 in this case).
  • RobTheBuilder 26 Apr 2013 11:36:17 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The question was "Is this PC fairly well future proofed."

    The answer is yes.

    Is it the absolute best thing you could buy with any budget? No, but whether that fits their budget is up to them.
  • THFourteen 26 Apr 2013 11:39:59 34,184 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    We can buy math coprocessors again?!

    Yipeeeeeeeee!
  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply