Think am going too make the switch to the intel platform,

My ageing 1090t is feeling the strain, although in BF4 it appears to do quite well with mantle.

Also wanting a new monitor also, been looking at 27" 1440p(ips) and thinking the AMD cpu aint gona pump my 290x enough. So upgrading the monitor will have to come second


Have a few Q's for the ones that have them.

4770k or 4820(ivy-e) ? Leaning toward the 4770 to be frank.

MB, if going for the 4770k

Cant decide between the MAXIMUS VI HERO or Sniper Z87 board

Any views?

Cheers, Pete.

On BF4 the 8320 will do absolutely fine but if you play non mantle games or lightly threaded games, it will deffo suffer.

Go for the 4770k, over the 4820. Way i see it, the 4770k will live long enough that an upgrade will be very welcomed by the time it starts to struggle.

Board wise, the g1sniper if you like onboard audio, Gigabyte OC if you like hefty OCing features and plan to make sue of the ton of PCIe slots.

OC board is better than the hero.

What exactly is your current chip feeling the strain with?

Can I suggest an SSD (if you don't have one already) as you'll feel an awful lot more of an improvement if you go this route rather than CPU.

Otherwise a 4770K will be a good chip, not sure about what top-end board to recommend though as I usually go for middle-range. The 4830 will be overkill.

Sniper Z87 all the way, 4770k for the CPU

There is a benchmark thread floating about from someone who went from a 4770k to a 4820k. Gaming wise, they were the same but ofc motherboard was pricier. People say that it lets to upgrade to a hexcore but if you are only gaming, i still don't see the advantage of it.

Avenged7Fold said:

There is a benchmark thread floating about from someone who went from a 4770k to a 4820k. Gaming wise, they were the same but ofc motherboard was pricier. People say that it lets to upgrade to a hexcore but if you are only gaming, i still don't see the advantage of it.

Click to expand...

4820k isn't hexcore

Shivy011 said:

4820k isn't hexcore

Click to expand...

yeah?

Funny how the posts above are saying 4770K. It's very rarely more than a few per cent faster than the 4670K, and usually identical, even with three GPUs, but it costs a whopping 43% more.

Minimum FPS might change by more though, but surely it's not worth the extra.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/10

Shivy011 said:

4820k isn't hexcore

Click to expand...

He's aware, but the platform supports the hex cores.

With the op going 1440, I'd suggest he get the monitor first, the gpu grunt on 1440p is a fair whack more than 1080p, while I wouldn't pair an r9 290x with an fx83 at 1080, I wouldn't have the same reservations at 1440p, single gpu that is.

joeyjojo said:

Funny how the posts above are saying 4770K.

Click to expand...

OP said he wants a 4770k or a 4820k.

Martini1991 said:

He's aware, but the platform supports the hex cores.

With the op going 1440, I'd suggest he get the monitor first, the gpu grunt on 1440p is a fair whack more than 1080p, while I wouldn't pair an r9 290x with an fx83 at 1080, I wouldn't have the same reservations at 1440p, single gpu that is.

Click to expand...

I thought the chip I have would struggle even more if I jumped to 1440p res which is why I was going to do CPU and MB first. Or is a single 290x not enough for 1440p regardless of CPU?

linktoinsanity said:

What exactly is your current chip feeling the strain with?

Can I suggest an SSD (if you don't have one already) as you'll feel an awful lot more of an improvement if you go this route rather than CPU.

Otherwise a 4770K will be a good chip, not sure about what top-end board to recommend though as I usually go for middle-range. The 4830 will be overkill.

Click to expand...

Planetside 2 is what its straining on.

Already have a SSD.

Always had Gigabyte boards before so it seems stay with them then. was leaning toward the Sniper Z87 board.

Cheers for the response guys.

Planetside 2's pretty CPU bound.
A 290X is fine for 1440P for a lot of people.

But as you go up resolution, the CPU matters less, but I can't see that changing with games like Planetside.

What's your current motherboard? If it's not a decent AM3+ one capable of taking an FX8320 (While I absolutely don't recommend an R9 290X and an FX83 together at 1080p, think it's a very bad combination for the price, but at 1440P, while I'm hesitant to recommend it, I wouldn't be completely against it as I usually am) then go for the i7 if you want.

joeyjojo said:

Funny how the posts above are saying 4770K. It's very rarely more than a few per cent faster than the 4670K, and usually identical, even with three GPUs, but it costs a whopping 43% more.

Minimum FPS might change by more though, but surely it's not worth the extra.

Click to expand...

One thing those numbers don't show is that on games that are heavily multi-threaded (and work properly with HT cores which most do now - mostly older games that can stutter with HT on - though BF4 might require unparking cores) even when the numbers are the same the 4770K can feel smoother - even if its just down to background stuff like some networking or audio processing getting snuck in on spare time on a HT unit instead of waiting to be crammed onto an already maxed core.

Only reason really to go for the 4820K is if your planning on going high end multi GPU, make use of features like the virtualisation stuff the 4820K supports that the 4770K doesn't or may have a use for more than 4 real cores. For purely gaming and general desktop stuff with 1-2 GPUs the 4770K is generally the better buy.

Planetside 2 would be practically the same with a 4670k than with a 4770k if you are looking to save some cash.

Interesting article with .ini changes to make the game use 100% CPU usage (on a GTX 770).

http://www.hardwarepal.com/planetside-2-cpu-benchmark/



In this benchmark at 1080p, the 4670K is identical to the 4770K in avg and max frame rates, and 4% lower in minimum (51 v 53 fps).

The AMD chips do seem to struggle with this game, the FX 8350 managing 32/45/53 to the 4670K's 51/57/59, however minimum is still over 30 fps so perfectly playable.

99th percentile frame times would be really useful to see how much different it "feels".

That looks like it's using Vsync.

If Planetside 2's a game you're playing heavily, I'd probably just get the i5 4670K (Unless you had your heart set on an i7)

That's worrying, 4770 dosn't support VM , mmm may have to have a rethink. I do rum Vbox quite often.

I run *nix most of the time but use Vbox for package compiling and what not. Just game on windows.#

Edit:

Having said that, I probably don't use said features to the fullest with Vbox any way.

Was going I7 for some future proofing

Well at 1440p, i would be tempted by a 4770k just to push the extra grunt if i was considering Crossfire in the future. Planetside 2 would be fine with a solo 290x and a i5 but i am sure your rig will outlive your current game of choice.

Who knows what sort of demand (resource wise) games will have a year or two from now at 1440p. I like to think devs would jump at the chance to abuse the extra grunt new GPU's have delivered us.

pete910 said:

That's worrying, 4770 dosn't support VM , mmm may have to have a rethink. I do rum Vbox quite often.

I run *nix most of the time but use Vbox for package compiling and what not. Just game on windows.

Click to expand...

The 4820 suits your needs then?

That I believe isn't gimped for VM like the 4770k.

The 4770K supports some of the common virtualisation features IIRC but the 4820K has a more complete set of those features - I only really use the more basic ones (the odd debian VM for testing stuff) so not sure how big a deal that is.