• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Bang for the buck

hedgey said:
Anyone with any of those boards can get the bios, if its not installed already since its December 2015. Intel can't do anything to stop it. Period. Fact. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

You can get it to work but its a hack now. Intel do provide support probably better than AMD in that respect. A 6600k will be a better buy in the long run I suggest. Better resale value and no headaches' having to use unsupported bioses going forward.
 
Last edited:
jigger said:
The best bang for buck chip has to be one of the new FM2+ chips. Probably the 845.
Click to expand...

abui1806 said:
talking about best bang for the buck I still believe the G3258 is still the one. However, best bang for the buck doesn't mean that it has to be able to run everything smoothly.
Click to expand...

One of these is the right answer.

(Bit of a philosophical argument but) going from "nothing" to "anything" is the greatest "improvement", and therefore the best value.

To explain, I forget who said it but someone in the music industry was once asked what was the best value upgrade in their listening system. They said it was the first ever walkman they bought in the 80s, because before that they had no music at all, so that was the greatest "step up" possible.

Back to CPUs specifically, an 860K might get you 45 FPS while a 5820K gets you 92 FPS (in Tomb Raider, from here and here). "Per pound" that's 0.75 FPS/£ and 0.27 FPS/£. Put that way the AMD is nearly 3x better "value".

Others have a good point though, looking at the whole system budget will narrow the gap slightly, and averaging over say 5-10 years it might be better to get say one more powerful machine than have to upgrade in the middle because the system can't hack it.
 
The problems is bang per buck depends on how its defined. Otherwise you could show that someone giving away some old skt 775 era hardware for pennies or the cost of p+p would give you the most ' bang for your buck' .

Stil I'd rather pay £100's more to get some newer stuff capable of running modern games and apps better....!
 
I would say an i5 4670k. Can be had for less than a ton used, and will run anything very well indeed with a little oc. Only thing I notice since upgrading mine is less money in my pocket as I can't run any more or less with an i7 4790k and it's certainly not noticeably faster in any of the applications I use.
 
Caracus2k said:
The problems is bang per buck depends on how its defined. Otherwise you could show that someone giving away some old skt 775 era hardware for pennies or the cost of p+p would give you the most ' bang for your buck' .

Stil I'd rather pay £100's more to get some newer stuff capable of running modern games and apps better....!
Click to expand...

you can find more restrictions/requirements of how to choose a cpu for a specific purpose from the first post.

oh wait....
 
depends what you do. in some things its x2/3 times as fast.then you notice it.;)

also many forget that year where you thinking of upgrading and you wish the i5 you got was a i7 as it will probably last another year more.
 
The CPU was half the price of the i7 the motherboard was only £100, I'm sure it will serve me well until Cannonlake, Although I am thinking of just going i7 with kabylake but I'll probably see sense and just save my money ( or just spend it on Pascal ;) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom