Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General ›  Need budget build for BF4 @60fps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Need budget build for BF4 @60fps - Page 2

post #11 of 122
I would not get a i3 in this time and age, when theres i5 4670k for a couple of bucks extra, but I do believe the i3 performs better than the fx6300 in bf4, which shows that more cores is not always better. But the fx6200 is not a gaming cpu anyways, not for AA games like bf4. If cores was that important we would still use the old phenom x6...and we all know how good that cpus was in bf3 comapred to i5 and i7. How ever I believe that benchmark is for single play, not 64p multiplayer which is a big differance in terms of performance.
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
Reply
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by PachAz View Post

I would not get a i3 in this time and age, when theres i5 4670k for a couple of bucks extra, but I do believe the i3 performs better than the fx6300 in bf4, which shows that more cores is not always better. But the fx6200 is not a gaming cpu anyways, not for AA games like bf4. If cores was that important we would still use the old phenom x6...and we all know how good that cpus was in bf3 comapred to i5 and i7. How ever I believe that benchmark is for single play, not 64p multiplayer which is a big differance in terms of performance.
Lemme go onto BF4 right now and put my I7 at those settings of the I3 3440
Will edit back
2 cores/4threads @3.6ghz with GTX 660
post #13 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelectroxwolfx View Post

Lemme go onto BF4 right now and put my I7 at those settings of the I3 3440
Will edit back
2 cores/4threads @3.6ghz with GTX 660
The results wont be accurate. People who do that arent taking into consideration alot of things. They do change the core density between the i3's, i5's and i7's, among other things. Doing that is a waist of time.
Black Jarvis V1.9
(21 items)
 
Mazdaspeed6
(18 items)
 
 
  hide details  
Reply
Black Jarvis V1.9
(21 items)
 
Mazdaspeed6
(18 items)
 
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 122
a10-7850 + 250x radeon card works well when you oc the chip to 5gh
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4790K MAXIMUS VII GENE NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 G. 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G. WD Black Caviar 1.5 TB Samsung 840 Evo Samsung 840 Pro 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK PE 360mm EK PE 240mm EK 980 Plexi WB EK 140mm D5 Rad Top 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
MCP 655 D5 Windows 8.1 ACER XB270HU Corsair K70 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Enermax Maxrevo 1350W Caselabs S5 Corsair M65 Corsair K200 
Audio
Sennheiser PC 350 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4790K MAXIMUS VII GENE NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 G. 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G. WD Black Caviar 1.5 TB Samsung 840 Evo Samsung 840 Pro 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK PE 360mm EK PE 240mm EK 980 Plexi WB EK 140mm D5 Rad Top 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
MCP 655 D5 Windows 8.1 ACER XB270HU Corsair K70 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Enermax Maxrevo 1350W Caselabs S5 Corsair M65 Corsair K200 
Audio
Sennheiser PC 350 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADHDadditiv View Post

The results wont be accurate. People who do that arent taking into consideration alot of things. They do change the core density between the i3's, i5's and i7's, among other things. Doing that is a waist of time.
Even if it is "a little more powerful" It is as close to the example of performance he will recieve besides a smaller L3 cache. And the FPS difference would be minimal. We are talking maybe 1-4fpshttp://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
anyway, heres the link will be live in ~ 20min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhzWSoWaWGA&feature=youtu.be
Quote:
I would not get a i3 in this time and age, when theres i5 4670k for a couple of bucks extra, but I do believe the i3 performs better than the fx6300 in bf4, which shows that more cores is not always better. But the fx6200 is not a gaming cpu anyways, not for AA games like bf4. If cores was that important we would still use the old phenom x6...and we all know how good that cpus was in bf3 comapred to i5 and i7. How ever I believe that benchmark is for single play, not 64p multiplayer which is a big differance in terms of performance.
That Couple bucks extra is about $75 with tax money that could be spent on an ssd or a better Graphics Card.
Edited by xelectroxwolfx - 4/9/14 at 4:45pm
post #16 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by CravinR1 View Post

AMD play all current games just fine, and as BF4 illustrates; are better at future games. The 3570/4670k are great cpus, but in all honestly I quickly see a FX 6300 or 8320 doing better as games are more and more multithreaded to take advantage of the additional cores AMD offers. Continuing to recommend a quad core intel over a 6-8 core AMD reminds me of when people were recommending the E8400 over the Q6600 because the E8400 overclocked higher and no game will ever need more than 2 cores .... right ?

A haswell CORE has approximately the same execution resources as an ENTIRE PileDriver MODULE. The FX-6300 will never be better than the i5-4670K, and the FX-8320 will never be better than the i7-4770K. The Intel chips cost twice as much because in many ways, they are twice as good, which means that all of these chips can be value leaders in their price segments, but there is a very good reason AMD is only getting $120 for an FX-6300 while Intel gets $240 for the i5-4670K...

A single hawell core has 8 execution ports and a decoder/scheduler that can issue up to 4 instructions per cycle. An entire PileDriver module has 8 execution ports and a decoder/scheduler that can issue up to 4 instructions per cycle. Huh? wait? what? Yea, go back and read that again.

Combine the fact that a Haswell core has access to the same execution resources as an entire PD module, with the fact that it is strapped to a faster memory controller with lower misalignment penalties, higher bandwidth lower latency cache, and better branch prediction characteristics, and those resources can achieve higher useful saturation rates (less wasted cycles)*.

When PD was up against Ivy-Bridge, things were a little different. Ivy Bridge only had 6 execution ports per core. A PD module still had access to more execution resources than an IvyBridge Core, and that could mean a win in parallel workloads where the Ivy's better memory controller/cache/prediction characteristics weren't enough to overcome the raw access to compute resources. When it was Ivy vs PD, PD could be clocked to competitive performance because it still had some architectural advantages. Haswell has dissolved those advantages. The ONLY thing that a PD module has over a haswell core in terms of raw instruction performance at this time, is the ability to clock higher. The problem is that, the ability to clock 10-15% isn't enough to overcome the other advantages listed above (*).

So now that we have established that Haswell CORE and PD CORE mean very different things (with a PD core being almost precisely HALF the width of a haswell core) we can get past this "MOAR COARS" = better myth. As far as desktop workloads are concerned, having twice as many cores that are half as good is never a better thing.

When compared 1 thread per CORE (intel) vs 1 thread per MODULE (AMD), Intels approach still has access to the entire 8 execution ports and can still execute up to a theoretical 4 instructions per cycle, the only penalty vs having 2 threads per core is loosing the ability to issue FPU operations on the same cycle as an integer instruction. This is why the i5 and i7 perform basically the same in workloads up to 4 threads. AMDs approach here, cuts the available execution resources in half when the thread count is cut in half, only 4 execution ports can be used when 1 thread is run on a module, this limits compute throughput to a theoretical maximum 2.6 instructions per cycle.


My cell phone has more cores than an i3. Doesn't make it better.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 990X EVO R2.0 Sparkle GTX460 768MB ballistix tactical 2 x 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Toshiiba THNSNH 256GB Enterprise RE3 1TB Asus BD combo drive Artic A30 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Manjaro Linux Samsung 21.5" LCD E2009WFP E2009WFP 
PowerCase
Seasonic G 550W Modular Fractal Design Core 3500 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-6300, 4.7 GHZ@1.43V GA-970A-UD3P GTX 460 768MB Mixed DIMMs. 2x4GB + 2x8GB @ 1600-8-8-8 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Toshiba THNSNH 19nm 256GB 1TB Spinpoint F3 WD RE3 1TB WD RE3 1TB 
Optical DriveCoolingOSOS
yes CM Seidon 120V SolydK OpenSuse 13.1 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Linux Mint 9-32 bit // Linux Mint 17-64 bit  Manjaro Xfce Samsung 21.5" HannsG 21.5" sideways! 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sticky ATNG Rosewill Green 630W NZXT Gamma Basic Microsoft corded 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10-6800k 4.8GHZ @ 1.375V, 1.2GHZ iGPU Gigabyte GA-F2A85XN-WIFI HD8670D Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate ST1000DM003 Asus BC-12B1ST/BLK/B/AS Zalman CNPS5X Linux Mint 15 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG IPS224V-PN Logitec K360 FSP 400W Aurum S 80+ gold Prodigy 
Mouse
logitec M235 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 990X EVO R2.0 Sparkle GTX460 768MB ballistix tactical 2 x 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Toshiiba THNSNH 256GB Enterprise RE3 1TB Asus BD combo drive Artic A30 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Manjaro Linux Samsung 21.5" LCD E2009WFP E2009WFP 
PowerCase
Seasonic G 550W Modular Fractal Design Core 3500 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-6300, 4.7 GHZ@1.43V GA-970A-UD3P GTX 460 768MB Mixed DIMMs. 2x4GB + 2x8GB @ 1600-8-8-8 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Toshiba THNSNH 19nm 256GB 1TB Spinpoint F3 WD RE3 1TB WD RE3 1TB 
Optical DriveCoolingOSOS
yes CM Seidon 120V SolydK OpenSuse 13.1 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Linux Mint 9-32 bit // Linux Mint 17-64 bit  Manjaro Xfce Samsung 21.5" HannsG 21.5" sideways! 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sticky ATNG Rosewill Green 630W NZXT Gamma Basic Microsoft corded 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10-6800k 4.8GHZ @ 1.375V, 1.2GHZ iGPU Gigabyte GA-F2A85XN-WIFI HD8670D Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate ST1000DM003 Asus BC-12B1ST/BLK/B/AS Zalman CNPS5X Linux Mint 15 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG IPS224V-PN Logitec K360 FSP 400W Aurum S 80+ gold Prodigy 
Mouse
logitec M235 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdocod View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CravinR1 View Post

AMD play all current games just fine, and as BF4 illustrates; are better at future games. The 3570/4670k are great cpus, but in all honestly I quickly see a FX 6300 or 8320 doing better as games are more and more multithreaded to take advantage of the additional cores AMD offers. Continuing to recommend a quad core intel over a 6-8 core AMD reminds me of when people were recommending the E8400 over the Q6600 because the E8400 overclocked higher and no game will ever need more than 2 cores .... right ?

A haswell CORE has approximately the same execution resources as an ENTIRE PileDriver MODULE. The FX-6300 will never be better than the i5-4670K, and the FX-8320 will never be better than the i7-4770K. The Intel chips cost twice as much because in many ways, they are twice as good, which means that all of these chips can be value leaders in their price segments, but there is a very good reason AMD is only getting $120 for an FX-6300 while Intel gets $240 for the i5-4670K...

A single hawell core has 8 execution ports and a decoder/scheduler that can issue up to 4 instructions per cycle. An entire PileDriver module has 8 execution ports and a decoder/scheduler that can issue up to 4 instructions per cycle. Huh? wait? what? Yea, go back and read that again.

Combine the fact that a Haswell core has access to the same execution resources as an entire PD module, with the fact that it is strapped to a faster memory controller with lower misalignment penalties, higher bandwidth lower latency cache, and better branch prediction characteristics, and those resources can achieve higher useful saturation rates (less wasted cycles)*.

When PD was up against Ivy-Bridge, things were a little different. Ivy Bridge only had 6 execution ports per core. A PD module still had access to more execution resources than an IvyBridge Core, and that could mean a win in parallel workloads where the Ivy's better memory controller/cache/prediction characteristics weren't enough to overcome the raw access to compute resources. When it was Ivy vs PD, PD could be clocked to competitive performance because it still had some architectural advantages. Haswell has dissolved those advantages. The ONLY thing that a PD module has over a haswell core in terms of raw instruction performance at this time, is the ability to clock higher. The problem is that, the ability to clock 10-15% isn't enough to overcome the other advantages listed above (*).

So now that we have established that Haswell CORE and PD CORE mean very different things (with a PD core being almost precisely HALF the width of a haswell core) we can get past this "MOAR COARS" = better myth. As far as desktop workloads are concerned, having twice as many cores that are half as good is never a better thing.

When compared 1 thread per CORE (intel) vs 1 thread per MODULE (AMD), Intels approach still has access to the entire 8 execution ports and can still execute up to a theoretical 4 instructions per cycle, the only penalty vs having 2 threads per core is loosing the ability to issue FPU operations on the same cycle as an integer instruction. This is why the i5 and i7 perform basically the same in workloads up to 4 threads. AMDs approach here, cuts the available execution resources in half when the thread count is cut in half, only 4 execution ports can be used when 1 thread is run on a module, this limits compute throughput to a theoretical maximum 2.6 instructions per cycle.


My cell phone has more cores than an i3. Doesn't make it better.

LIES!!!
Upgraded
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k Asus Hero Nvidia Geforce GTX 980ti KPE Kingston  
RAMHard DriveOSPower
Kingston  Crucial M500 SSD Win 10 EVGA Supernova 750w G2 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Enthoo Luxe Logitech G600 Steel Series 
  hide details  
Reply
Upgraded
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k Asus Hero Nvidia Geforce GTX 980ti KPE Kingston  
RAMHard DriveOSPower
Kingston  Crucial M500 SSD Win 10 EVGA Supernova 750w G2 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Enthoo Luxe Logitech G600 Steel Series 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 122
Ok, lets do this. I will also include a Windows 8.1 OS as well as that will be a necessity to hit the performance level you want.

CPU: AMD FX-8320: $151.99
Motherboard: ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 - $135.98
Memory: HyperX 8GB DDR3 1600mhz - $64.99
Video Card: eVGA GTX 750 Ti - $154.99
Power Supply: Rosewill CAPSTONE-550-M - $84.99
Case: Rosewill CHALLENGER Computer case - $49.20
Hard Drive: Segate Barracuda 1TB HDD - $58.24
OS: Windows 8.1 64-bit OEM - $99.99

Grand Total before shipping: $800.37


My priorities in this type of build are as follows:

  1. CPU
  2. Motherboard
  3. Video Card
  4. Power Supply


Everything else was as low as I would go for any build that I would do personally.

  • CPU: FX-8320 - It can run BF4 on a 64p multiplayer server at around 110-120 fps average, and it's inexpensive for what you get. Getting an i3/dual-core i5 for this game is a bad idea if you wish to play on 64 player servers... trust me. I've tried... and it sucks.
  • Motherboard: ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 - It can provide sufficient power without throttling (and overclocking in the future if you wish) to the CPU. It's a very solid motherboard.
  • Memory: 8GB DDR3 1600mhz - it works, and that's all you need.
  • Video Card: eVGA GTX 750 Ti - low power requirements, fairly low price, will play BF4 medium/high settings easily @ 1080P.
  • Power Supply: Rosewill CAPSTONE-550-M - This power supply has a good reputation for stability and efficiency. It's also not terribly expensive either.
  • Case: Rosewill CHALLENGER computer case - It works, and it's cheap.
  • Hard Drive: Segate Barracuda 1TB HDD - per your requirements.
  • OS: Windows 8.1 64-bit OEM - WINDOWS 7 SUCKS FOR BF4!!! You need Windows 8 at minimum for best performance.

You can get a cheap $15 optical drive too if you need it.


Yes, the price is $800 + shipping, but that system fulfills your requirements AND you still have quality components too. Several builds before mine have issues. Some of the components I would not wish on my worst enemies (yea, they are that bad), and some of them didn't include an OS. (or included the WRONG OS. Windows 7 is a bad idea for BF4)

This is the system I would build if I had a limited budget like you do. I caution you against going lower than what I have recommended. If you can find a cheaper case or RAM, go for it. Anything else is either risking the performance or stability of the system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xelectroxwolfx View Post


That's the performance of a "simulated" i3? That's terrible!!! The framerate drops into the 40's and sometimes 30's easily. An FX 8320 at stock which costs $20 more would never drop that low provided the GPU is taken out of the equation. I guess I need to make a video now.
Edited by Mad Pistol - 4/9/14 at 5:55pm
Everest - Intel
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 7 MSI Geforce GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X 16GB (2x8) Patriot Viper 1866Mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate 3TB, WD 500GB HDD, WD 640GB HD Samsung 850 EVO 512GB Samsung DVD-Burner Corsair H110 w/ Dual Aerocool DS 140mm fans 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro Dell S2716DG (1440p, 144hz Gsync) AOC U3477 PQU (3440x1440 IPS) Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Evga SuperNOVA 750 G2 NZXT Phantom 530 Black Logitech G502 Proteus Core Corsair MM400 
AudioAudioAudio
Creative Sound Blaster E5 DAC/AMP Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones HyperX Cloud Headset 
  hide details  
Reply
Everest - Intel
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 7 MSI Geforce GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X 16GB (2x8) Patriot Viper 1866Mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate 3TB, WD 500GB HDD, WD 640GB HD Samsung 850 EVO 512GB Samsung DVD-Burner Corsair H110 w/ Dual Aerocool DS 140mm fans 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro Dell S2716DG (1440p, 144hz Gsync) AOC U3477 PQU (3440x1440 IPS) Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Evga SuperNOVA 750 G2 NZXT Phantom 530 Black Logitech G502 Proteus Core Corsair MM400 
AudioAudioAudio
Creative Sound Blaster E5 DAC/AMP Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones HyperX Cloud Headset 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 122
You seriously believe that a i5 4670k is worse than a fx 8320 in bf4 multiplayer 64p? I have a hard time believing that dude. I play bf4 multiplayer with my setup and get like 110-150 fps on custom settings aith 2x AA and I doubt a fx8320 paired with the rest of my components would play smoother because the cpu would bottleneck probably.

How exactly does a i5 4670k suck in bf4 64p, can you explain? Did you get lower fps or drops, or what was the issue? Bf4 would be the only game where a fx8320 might be on pair with a i5 4670k or similar because the game use 8 cores, but how many games use that? When the time comes that most games use that many cores all current cpus and gpus will be too slow anyways.

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/10/bf4/charts/bf4_cpu_radeon.png

I dont see any amd in the top here...
Edited by PachAz - 4/9/14 at 6:15pm
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
Reply
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by PachAz View Post

You seriously believe that a i5 4670k is worse than a fx 8320 in bf4 multiplayer 64p? I have a hard time believing that dude. I play bf4 multiplayer with my setup and get like 110-150 fps on custom settings aith 2x AA and I doubt a fx8320 paired with the rest of my components would play smoother because the cpu would bottleneck probably.

How exactly does a i5 4670k suck in bf4 64p, can you explain? Did you get lower fps or drops, or what was the issue? Bf4 would be the only game where a fx8320 might be on pair with a i5 4670k or similar because the game use 8 cores, but how many games use that? When the time comes that most games use that many cores all current cpus and gpus will be too slow anyways.

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/10/bf4/charts/bf4_cpu_radeon.png

I dont see any amd in the top here...

I said i3/dual core i5. I never said anything about an FX 8320 being better than an i5 4670k. Unfortunately, the i5 4670k costs roughly $70-80 more than an FX 8320, and in BF4, the performance difference is non-existent. In other games, though, it's a different story with the i5 4670k being generally better, especially on older titles. The i5 4670k is a great CPU, but compared to an FX 8320, it is a bit expensive.

And trust me, an FX 8320 can play BF4 without dropping below 60 fps, even on a 64-player server. I'll upload a video soon as soon as I can to show you. thumb.gif


EDIT: Pardon my french, but what the hell is the context of that graph? I see 1080P and ultra settings, and that's it. I just played a round on my GTX 780 (generally slower than a 290X in BF4) and it can do a lot better than 45-50 fps average. It's more like 75-80 fps AVERAGE on Ultra settings on every 64-player server. I bet that graph is from the BF4 beta, right? That is so out of context it's just laughable. rolleyes.gif
Edited by Mad Pistol - 4/9/14 at 6:41pm
Everest - Intel
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 7 MSI Geforce GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X 16GB (2x8) Patriot Viper 1866Mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate 3TB, WD 500GB HDD, WD 640GB HD Samsung 850 EVO 512GB Samsung DVD-Burner Corsair H110 w/ Dual Aerocool DS 140mm fans 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro Dell S2716DG (1440p, 144hz Gsync) AOC U3477 PQU (3440x1440 IPS) Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Evga SuperNOVA 750 G2 NZXT Phantom 530 Black Logitech G502 Proteus Core Corsair MM400 
AudioAudioAudio
Creative Sound Blaster E5 DAC/AMP Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones HyperX Cloud Headset 
  hide details  
Reply
Everest - Intel
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 4790k Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 7 MSI Geforce GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X 16GB (2x8) Patriot Viper 1866Mhz  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate 3TB, WD 500GB HDD, WD 640GB HD Samsung 850 EVO 512GB Samsung DVD-Burner Corsair H110 w/ Dual Aerocool DS 140mm fans 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro Dell S2716DG (1440p, 144hz Gsync) AOC U3477 PQU (3440x1440 IPS) Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Evga SuperNOVA 750 G2 NZXT Phantom 530 Black Logitech G502 Proteus Core Corsair MM400 
AudioAudioAudio
Creative Sound Blaster E5 DAC/AMP Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones HyperX Cloud Headset 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General ›  Need budget build for BF4 @60fps