Inevitable spec me a Sandy bridge system thread to join the billions of others....

mythicdawn07 said:
£1500 to spend, basically only use it for gaming.


Must be future proof only need OS, have monitor,keyboard etc.


Lets see what you guys can come up with, really want my new system ordered Asap i'v waited long enough for SB :D
Click to expand...

setup your trust account ont hese forums an duse the for sale section once it is done

great for 2nd hand stuff
 
i did not even reply to you to say it was laughable i replied to someone else though as your suggestion was the same i guess i kind of did :P it should have said anything but the 2600k was laughable.

shocked by an i5 matching the i7 though surely thats not right? all the fps are the same in the graph, even the 6 core so they are not being used 100%. a benchmark or some game that could push them more would see the i7 pull ahead surely? more cache, HT, better silicone for better clocks? im confused now on why its even called an i5.

gonna re think my build now cpu wise but everything else is still unchanged imo.i would still go for a 580 as you can pre order for £400.certain games struggle for 60fps on that card nevermind a 570 so if you have the money why not just pay the premium to enjoy the game maxed?


im not having a digg but i5 and 570 is midrange and i7 580 is high end that cant be disputed and theres nothing wrong with that.im just saying personally i like to upgrade gpus and leave the rest alone, hence why i would always spend the big money on those parts.u can upgrade the cpu too but thats going to cost the same money you could have put in earlier in the build.he doesnt know a lot about computers he says so he might not want to swap out a cpu.

if u have the money just go for it.hell drop the ssd and get 2x 570's and the i5 if it can match the i7.for a gamer this makes more sense as sli 570's will tear **** up! you could easily survive without an ssd until 25nm and 400mb reads are common and upgrade then if you wished.i might even consider this myself.
 
Last edited:
If a game can only use 3 cores, then whether your cpu has 3, 4, 6 or 8 doesnt matter, the game can still only utilise 3, the others are just sat idle, the only reason the 980 pulls ahead is cos of its higher stock clock speed
i7 is designed for cpu intensive tasks such as rendering and encoding, i5 is more suited to gaming, games are, always have been and prob always will be massively gpu dependant

Theres nothing wrong with getting a 580 if you can afford it, as long as you realise youre paying a premium for minimal gains, a SSD can be had for the difference and will make the whole system feel much smoother and snappier, but youre right if you want pure gaming performance then 580 is best
 
95thrifles is completly right here. Have two RL friends who recently bought 2 new gaming computers. One went completly overboard and spent around 1100 k around 3 months ago with I7, because he literally has money to burn. The other went for a budget build of around 650 with the I5 760. They both went with the same GPU and literally there is zero difference in game between the two.

Makes much more sense if you was planning on spending around 1500 to spend around 800 to 1000 on a i5 with sli GPU and save the rest of the money for a future cpu/mobo upgrade in 2 to 3 years time.

ps you dont mess with the 95thrifles! He knows his stuff.
 
Well this thread has been enlightening, i'll wait untill the 9th apparently OC are bringing out 7 new PC's just hope the rest are a lot better than the 3 we have seen as to be fair the T-rex wasnt that great for the price.

If theres nothing there i like i'll shop around abit then look into 9s suggestions. (Forgot his full name 9thritles? lol.)
 
ok im back from reading toms reviews on sandy bridge and i think theres more than meets the eye on that 1fps higher min framerate on the 2500k.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,review-32090-18.html

check the min fps on the 2600k in metro 6.6 v 12.2 :O thats the important part for me and i really did not expect this.

in both 2560x1600 and 1920x1080 res it clearly shows this weird min fps behavior and only goes away at 1680x1050.

why is this? i mean the 2600k has the clock advantage of 100mhz as well and HT.i thought it might of been HT hurting the minimum fps but other cpu's in that list have HT and have good minimum fps.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom