0
Vulpesveritas, on 19 June 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:
Well, keep in mind the 7970 is also quite a bit faster in GPU computing, and if you do any overclocking it is faster. The 670 is a great card, however I like more options personally... but that's me. In the end, either is fine.
As far as CPUs go, thank you for posting a CPU that is not the one I was using. I was using the 4/4.2ghz FX-6200, which is a faster gaming processor, and slightly faster than the 1100t BE.
Also, thank you for using a couple of nearly four year old games for your benchmarks as well. lol. Keep in mind more and more games take advantage of extra cores, and DX11 reduces the CPU usage of a processor. And that at those settings the CPU didn't really make much of a difference on frames per second in the DX11 title. On the first run, the 1100t, despite being a hexacore, was slower than a quad core based on an older AMD architecture with a slightly higher clock rate, showing that it was not taking advantage of multithreading like most modern titles.
As far as CPUs go, thank you for posting a CPU that is not the one I was using. I was using the 4/4.2ghz FX-6200, which is a faster gaming processor, and slightly faster than the 1100t BE.
Also, thank you for using a couple of nearly four year old games for your benchmarks as well. lol. Keep in mind more and more games take advantage of extra cores, and DX11 reduces the CPU usage of a processor. And that at those settings the CPU didn't really make much of a difference on frames per second in the DX11 title. On the first run, the 1100t, despite being a hexacore, was slower than a quad core based on an older AMD architecture with a slightly higher clock rate, showing that it was not taking advantage of multithreading like most modern titles.
I updated the previous post to explain further. And trying to find a benchmark on an FX-6200 is quite difficult.
Also the source is this: http://www.anandtech...fx8150-tested/8 Yes, Civ 5 has an advantage there, from all the AMD processors, in fact. Then you have the power consumption, which is a bit problematic in comparison. Sure, if you don't care about your power bill it might be fine. In the end, the GPU is going to be the larger of the power consumption, not the CPU.
The only FX-6200 review I've found within a couple of minutes that is a bit more recent (though the engine is old as hell, but there are no other benchmarks):
Source: http://www.pcper.com...lldozer-Refresh
Mighty fine when overclocked. But if not? Still inferior to the 1100T. But if we included overclocking, then we can't ignore i5 2500k's overclocking capabilities.
As for the GPU Computing, yes, 7970 is better. However, what requires, for an average gamer, that much power for GPU computing? Is it even relevant? Maybe for curiosity's sake, but even as an enthusiast I find little usage for it. Alright, if it isn't relevant now, then it might be relevant in the future, but by then maybe one should get a better video card.
To get back on track:
Just note that ibuypower isn't exactly the best site to order from. They tend to have quality control issues, though that was from a few years ago that I have heard and read and etc. You can google it yourself if you'd like to see if they are indeed reliable. This is largely from a hardware standpoint. But at the same time, don't select the crappy hardware. There is one thing about ibuypower what not to do: Never ever select the overclocking service, because they do it sloppily. It may be too much voltage, or the memory ratio is completely off.
Don't get me wrong, I used to recommend them until the ones I recommended ibuypower to started complaining about it.
Cyberpower might be a safer bet. Might. But personally, I'd rather build everything, but it's only because I've built a good amount already.
As for the PSU, don't underestimate 650W. On a very good PSU, that's more than enough. If it's a poor cheap PSU, that might barely cut it. The Corsair TX650 is more than enough for most CPUs + GTX 670.
Edited by Lakevren, 20 June 2012 - 12:24 AM.
