• 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.

GPU vs CPU & Video Card

iFixem

iFixem

iFixem

Associate
Joined
14 Jun 2012
Posts
5
Hi Guys and Guyesses(!)

Looking for some genuine help and advice here. I'm planning to do my first own-build PC soon and need some advice re CPU/MOBO. I've done repairs/upgrades to PCs before and should be up to the assembly/configuration stuff.

Main uses will be: (Desktop)

Dual-boot Linux (Ubuntu) & Windows 7 (would like option of going to Win 8 later but without significant slowdown)

Internet/Office-y type stuff - some video-on demand

Minor graphic editing - GIMP, diagrams etc

Some programming/compiling programs, mainly in Visual Studio 2010/2012

Some audio/video ripping/converting

Occasional gaming - mainly Oolite - with some of the more graphical expansion packs (OXPs) - kids may want to play other stuff at some point.

(Current monitor is DVI-LCD @ 1900x1200 ish - LG L225WT)

Like everyone these days I'm looking to get the best bang-for-buck. Was looking at Bulldozer, but the advice here and elsewhere seem to suggest Ivybridge i5-3570K may be the way to go - but I'm happy to go AMD or Intel.

I need this system to be "fairly" future-proof (useable that is - allowing for updates to .NET and antivirus etc to slowdown the system - that was why I first started playing with Linux!) for the next 4-5 years - current PC is approx 6 years old and the hardware is struggling with the OS - even with XP - because of the .NET and security updates - have optomised EVERYTHING I can!! - If you want a laugh I'll post hardware specs and some basic performance indicators (boot times etc)

My specific questions are:

1) would I be better to go for a non-GPU cpu and separate video card - if so, would the performance be better than a "modern" GPU cpu? If so, which ones do you advise? - I'd prefer not to overclock at this time, but might do so later.

2) if I go down the GPU route and later (or now) add a separate video card, am I likely to get conflicts or will the integrated graphics part of the chip just be sitting there twiddling its'...thumbs(!)

3) does the integrated graphics bottleneck main CPU performance - ie if I put a GPU with (say) 16GB of 1866MHz DDR3, it seems to me that a GPU would still have to use system memory for the graphics core to use...that would mean less physical RAM is available to the "main" CPU and because the graphics core is (physically) further away from the RAM, data moving/instructions would be slower than a dedicated graphics card with on-board RAM sending...or am I missing something really basic here???

Really sorry for the looong post, but I really need to get this straight in my head before I spend my cash.

Many thanks in anticipation for any help or advice.

iFixem
 
Hi There

Shopping list:

Case + PSU
RAM
MOBO
Graphics solution
HDD
Internal cables
Optical drive (DVDRW essential - Blu nice option)
OS (Thought about Win 7 Ultimate - to give the media options & the business stability/tools)
I have 3 x IDE HDD I'd like to reuse - have sourced bidirectional adaptors at approx £9 ea

Think that's all(!)

Budget is £750-£800 maxxed out - would prefer to come in under budget - as would my wife(!)

iFixem
 
PS I've sourced Coolermaster Case + 700W for £135, Win 7 ult £135, Optical £50, RAM 16GB 1866MHz £96 - leaving approx £300-350 for the rest.
 
I take it computer will be used for proffesional things more rather than gaming?

If it is more for work related stuff than gaming, I would go for a beefier cpu than a beefier GPU.

For instance rather than a 3570k and say a GTX 670, if for work, better of getting a 3770k and a cheaper but still capable gpu.

Will put down some ideas after lunch.

I would say even a AMD FX chip is in the running here, but the mobo is not up to date interms of technology support. No PCI-E 3 etc.....
 
iFixem said:
3) does the integrated graphics bottleneck main CPU performance - ie if I put a GPU with (say) 16GB of 1866MHz DDR3, it seems to me that a GPU would still have to use system memory for the graphics core to use...that would mean less physical RAM is available to the "main" CPU and because the graphics core is (physically) further away from the RAM, data moving/instructions would be slower than a dedicated graphics card with on-board RAM sending...or am I missing something really basic here???
Click to expand...

I'd like to know the answer to this question.
I currently use my PC for non gaming purposes and have a slow discrete video card.
Would using the integrated GPU on the CPU, lower CPU performance?
 
Hi!!

I've done some trawling of benchmarks, and it suggests that for LOW-end gaming, the integrated graphics are more than capable, but MID & HIGH end still needs a separate card.

Have a look at:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/1/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/8

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...ridge-replace-discrete-video-cards-for-gaming

Still no definitive answer to the original question 3...

What I'll probably do, is go for the 3770K and initially NO graphics card, but add a fairly capable one in about 1-2 years when the prices reduce++

Will keep trawling

iFixem
 
the HD4000 will do SWTOR playable at 720p at 20-40Fps in med detail didn't try anything else with it as i was just waiting for my 7850 to turn up.

it kicks the arse of the 5450 by the way i tried swapping out my HTPC card whilst i was waiting and its a drastic change.

If you able to play games without turning it up to max then you should be ok with quite a large number of games. at least anything pre 2010.
 
You won't see any benefit going from an i5 to an i7 in Visual Studio, that much I can tell you with certainty.

However an SSD will make a nice difference when compiling.

(an i5 is only approx 30% loaded when compiling in VS2010).

Occasional Gimp use doesn't warrant an i7 either. The only reason to buy an i7 is if "Some audio/video ripping/converting" will be your *primary* usage of the PC.

As for "futureproofing"... you can't. Intel's next-gen CPUs will not be compatible with this gen or the previous gens.

I'd personally save some cash and buy an i5.
 
I went from [email protected] to Core [email protected].
Using mechanical HDD, there was a speed increase when using VS2010.
Sometimes when Resharper would be doing its thing, VS2010 would slow down on the C2D CPU. But with the i7, this never happens.

I then upgraded from HDD to SSD and the only difference I noticed was when VS2010 was loading up my project.

I could do a test and shut down hyperthreading on the i7, to see if VS2010 runs any slower, but I think it will be marginal.

It all depends on pricing though. If you can get an i7 for a reasonable amount, then get it. In a few months, you wont be worried about £30 odd. However, if you are going to have to pay a significant amount extra for the i7, then you might opt for the i5.

In my case, the i7 was £35 more than the i5, so I opted for the i7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom