Did I go overboard with my new pc?

[Malastare]

To be fair....that system isn't exactly weak.

 

It's not weak, no.

 

However, I'll be building a new system this winter. I'll be paying $1500 (or less, depending on sales), and I'll have better single-display SWTOR performance than the OP.

 

I don't have any problem with the OP using their disposable income as they like. I just don't see why you'd spend vastly more money for a system that has the same or even less performance. Well, I guess I can. Some people like trying to work with super-high end components. Others consider a huge price to be a status symbol. I prefer having a system with higher performance.

 

The 20mb L3 cache more than makes up for the low clock rate.

 

It doesn't, actually. Benchmarks on actual games show that the increased cache doesn't generate higher performance and the chips with higher single-core clock rates (at the same/similar generation) have the better performance.

 

As with everything else, more is not always better. The purpose of the L3 cache is to have a place to store instructions that is faster the RAM. The amount you need is dictated by how quickly you can execute the instructions and how quickly the new set can be loaded from RAM. If you have fast RAM and only a single process which is the major consumer of the cache, then you don't really need a huge amount. These 20mb cache chips are designed for heavy multitasking. I know my employer is buying a bunch of them.... for VMs.

 

When gaming, there is one major process, and it doesn't really run through the cache faster than it can be loaded from RAM. Games are lots of looping. They benefit from faster cache, but not from an excessive amount of cache.

 

For right now a 4790 may have been a better choice but moving onto ddr4 and x99 is future proof at the very least.

 

There is no such thing as "future proof". Anyone who thinks they want it, or thinks they achieved it simply misunderstands the PC ecosystem. OP probably paid $3000 or more on this system. In two months, I'll pay $1500 and have higher performance. My system will continue to outperform the OPs until the point when games can completely load five or more 4GHz cores. Current games have trouble fully utilizing a single 4GHz core.

 

Future-proof, right?

 

That's what people with Pentium-Ds thought. Despite eight years of quad-core CPUs, games are still largely driven by single-core performance. In one year, the Broadwell CPUs will outperform the OPs system on single-core loads, and they'll cost less. The year after that, the next generation will have better performance. Games will start using 5GHz cores. Or perhaps two 5GHz cores. The OPs system will have eight cores... but only none of those cores will be as fast as newer chips.

 

Its not future proof. Future games will be built for the newest gaming-level hardware, and until some drastic changes occur in gaming development strategies, gaming loads will be largely dependent on single-core performance (even if they use multiple cores in a single-core manner).

 

Future proof doesn't exist. This is the major reason why experienced builders don't lay out huge amounts of money on systems. It's far more efficient to buy a $1500 system every eighteen months than to spend $3000 every three years.

[CelCawdro]

It's far more efficient to buy a $1500 system every eighteen months than to spend $3000 every three years.

 

Actually, that's equally efficient.

[Orizuru]

I'm not a fan of AMD cpus. I'd be curious to see benchmarks on your rig though. I haven't seen much with that chip paired with a 980 and I'm curious if the cpu might bottleneck the gpu when pushed too hard. It's an unlikely scenario outside of benchmarks though I think.

 

I'll never understand the obsession with over-priced Corsair memory though. If you know what you're buying there are much cheaper memory kits available from G Skill and a few other manufacturers without having to pay Corsair's middle-man markup.

 

What kind of cooling solution did you put in this rig?

[MillionsKNives]

Actually, that's equally efficient.

 

Not really. You'll go a lot farther with your money by getting incremental upgrades than you will by spending it all at once. Because of the constant growth in the technology, and how little that extra money actually buys you at that level, the second $1,500 computer is going to end up being more powerful than the $3,000 computer you would have bought a year and a half ago. And even if you compare them at the time of purchase the $1,500 is likely going to perform almost exactly the same as the $3,000 at half the price.

 

Now, where I could actually see that money going to good use at that price point would be dropping down the CPU to something like the 4790k or 4690k (and RAM and motherboard obviously get downgraded here too) and the OP picking up two 980s in SLI. With a custom water loop, some aggressive overclocking, three way monitors and/or 4k resolution monitors, I could start to see that becoming worth it for an extreme enthusiast build. In my opinion, of course.

[Raansu]

There is no such thing as "future proof". Anyone who thinks they want it, or thinks they achieved it simply misunderstands the PC ecosystem.

 

You're over thinking things here. My last system I built was 6 years ago and I spent around $1800 and I only upgraded the gpu once and it still runs most games at max settings. Its starting to dip below 60fps and some games are giving issues because the hardware is getting old, but when people say future proof they mean a system that can run games at max settings without having to touch the pc for a few years. I'm well aware of how technology progresses, but if you think most people are going to rebuild their pc every year and a half you're nuts.

 

I could probably OC and do small upgrades on my current pc to boost it back up, but overall I want DDR4 for no other reasons than I just want it and I want a new pc which thanks to some columbus day sales I managed to get all the parts for pretty cheap and this system will last me for several years and at msot I'll drop some more ram or a new GPU into it.

 

As for the other guys CPU. I'm well aware that particular chip is more for workstation use than gaming, but that all comes down to the game. All games are not created equal and BF4 for example takes advantage of a larger L3 cache. If you look at the benchmarks a 4790 is last on the list and the 5960 is up near the top of the benchmark which was running at 2560x1440. I'm not saying it will be a huge difference and I agree that he should have gone with a cheaper chip, but the difference is not going to be major and for all we know he's not using it just for gaming.

[Malastare]

Actually, that's equally efficient.

 

No, actually its not.

 

At $3000 PC won't outperform a $1500 PC for most usages (counterexample: movie encoding, bitcoin mining, VM datacenter). In gaming or standard use, you'll see no appreciable difference. Eighteen months later, the new $1500 PC will be notably better than the $3000 PC and will continue to be better for the next eighteen months.

 

That is the point. The higher price doesn't buy you any performance increase, much less a 100% increase in performance, and you would have better average performance by spending the extra cash later to get a PC with the future hardware.

 

Of course, if you don't care about money, then feel free to toss your cash out as you like. My only goal in explaining this is to educate/convince the people who don't want to pay for luxuries that they can get better performance without having to spend as much money as the OP did.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

I'll never understand the obsession with over-priced Corsair memory though. If you know what you're buying there are much cheaper memory kits available from G Skill and a few other manufacturers without having to pay Corsair's middle-man markup.

 

Agreed, I've been sticking with Kingston lately ( past 3 years or so ) and haven't gone wrong and even before that I was into the low end Adata stuff. You will actually get no performance boost between the corsair stuff and pretty much any other brand. I mean how often do you read that it's the RAM timings that are the bottleneck of a system? Never?

 

This whole topic on future proofing is interesting as there are actually 2 sides to it. GPU and CPU. GPU wise you cannot future proof as things go now because the technology is just so quickly growing. Within a year most GPU's are outdated by 2 tiers usually in that you would actually see a significant boost by upgrading again.

 

CPUs however do not follow this trend.

For example over I think it is 6 years now I've went with an i5 4690K up from a I5 2500K up from a C2Q 6600 I think it was ... Whilst the Q6600 to the 2500K was a significant boost the upgrade to the 4690K wasn't really if you follow any sorts of benchmarks in gaming etc. , I just did it because I had spare cash and was upgrading my rig so thought may as well heh. People going around spending ridiculous amounts of money on CPUs really have no idea what they are doing imo. Malastare pretty much summed it all up in terms of CPU performance and why you don't see much in the way of performance boosts for the upgrades you pay for.

 

GPU wise who knows when it will stop becoming the bottleneck. Typically in gaming they are the bottleneck which is why you can always get that little bit more performance out of each generation without upgrading your CPU.

 

I guess only gaming coders would know why they don't really aim to use all the cores on CPUs. I would imagine they don't because it would ideally be pointless. The architecture they code around uses the GPU I believe over the CPU so it favour the CPU must surely be more work and effort since you are then looking down a quite custom engine and moving away from the likes of how directx and now mantle operate? So coding to use all cores under standard acrchitecture as I see it wouldn't really yield you much performance boost since you are still limited by the GPU? This is all guess work on my behalf mind you - I just don't believe they don't utilize the CPU fully because they "don't know how" when photoshop has no issues.

 

Another thing I wonder is when we will start see dual core and quad core GPUs in the same vein we see them with CPUs ( core probably the wrong word - Dual/Quad GPU )? I get that the concept of shader cores etc. making them somewhat multi core but in terms of true raw processing power like how you get the SLI / x2 cards now *shrug*.

 

That is the point. The higher price doesn't buy you any performance increase, much less a 100% increase in performance, and you would have better average performance by spending the extra cash later to get a PC with the future hardware.

 

Of course, if you don't care about money, then feel free to toss your cash out as you like. My only goal in explaining this is to educate/convince the people who don't want to pay for luxuries that they can get better performance without having to spend as much money as the OP did.

 

This is the whole point really . PC's are not like car's, you don't get better speed for your extra money most of the time. You just get the ABILITY of better speed that will never be realized - well actually I lie, one day it will but by then there will be much cheaper, efficient options released at the time to take advantage of increases in coding etc. which will still make the piece of hardware you buy now obsolete and a waste of money when you paid for it.

 

I guess one way to look at it is imagine a car they bring out that is $100K more than the price of the more economy model because it can run on a petrol that hasn't been invented/released yet and go twice as fast than the car before it once it is maybe released one day. All the while you paid $100K more for a car exactly as capable as the model $100K cheaper than it hoping that one day that special fuel is available.

 

Also on the car theme a lot of people spend extra money on looks etc. so if it's kudos you really want for your coin rather than waste it on over priced parts that won't give you any extra performance why not waste it on your PC looks and unique build types etc ( case, cooling, lights yada ya etc. ) then post pictures up of your proud new kick *** looking beast for people to enjoy. What I read on sites that do this sort of things it's almost always positive feedback where as if someone posted about buying the newest $1200 CPU no one would care and probably kind of laugh at the user as is the case in this thread. Hell people might as well go buy Xeons for gaming if they really want to waste money.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

As for the other guys CPU. I'm well aware that particular chip is more for workstation use than gaming, but that all comes down to the game. All games are not created equal and BF4 for example takes advantage of a larger L3 cache. If you look at the benchmarks a 4790 is last on the list and the 5960 is up near the top of the benchmark which was running at 2560x1440. I'm not saying it will be a huge difference and I agree that he should have gone with a cheaper chip, but the difference is not going to be major and for all we know he's not using it just for gaming.

 

Hang on though, let's not make that comparison without making a FULL and fair comparison if talking about BF4. Yes that CPU will yield better results than other CPU's ( barely ) but what sort of results would have been yielded had the extra money been put into SLI those cards of a 295x2 but with the slightly lesser performing CPU? I think you will find the GPU boost for the money wins out there and in terms of future roofing is much more "future proof".

 

I see where you are coming from with your upgrade and with the price you paid ... in that case then most arguments in this thread are null and void as it's always been a price vs performance debate for me.

 

Again the future proof argument comes back to GPU vs CPU. I think anyone here running Halswell or Halswell-E chips will be more or less future roof for 3 years without having to worry about needing to upgrade to run games at max settings. GPU wise though I think you would need upgrade within 18 months to still be enjoying running games at their absolute maximum at least for any single card build.

[BuriDogshin]

Actually, that's equally efficient.

No, because the second $1500 system is better than the $3000 system, and the first $1500 system has retained a lot of its value.

Edited October 14, 2014 by BuriDogshin

[BuriDogshin]

... overall I want DDR4 for no other reasons than I just want it.

OK, fine, but why would you tell other people that? Don't you realize how negative an impression of yourself you are creating?

 

I want ECC, but I can justify it.

Edited October 15, 2014 by BuriDogshin

[Raansu]

OK, fine, but why would you tell other people that? Don't you realize how negative an impression of yourself you are creating?

 

I want ECC, but I can justify it.

 

I have not once told people to go with the x99....I even straight up said the OP would have been better off with the 4970. I went x99 and DDR4 because I found the parts on a good sale. I didn't say everyone else should go do the same. Try following the conversation thats been going on the last 3 pages....

 

I don't see how having a casual conversation is leaving a negative impression.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Raansu

[MeNaCe-NZ]

I want ECC, but I can justify it.

 

What's with the obsession with ECC ( memory I assume? )? Second time I've seen you mention it ( previous being as though it was a bad thing if the OP hadn't bought it ).

 

Though it's always been debatable if it gives any performance boost or hinderance to gaming the results in most benchmarks are utterly minor.

 

In saying that also how can you not justify what would only be barely a $10 difference in chip price usually on say 8gig chips?

 

Add to that ECC is mostly spoken of and useful outside of terms of gaming like in high end workstations etc. ... the same type of workstations where those high end CPU's would actually be of use over the lower end ones that have been derided as a choice of purchase in this thread and it all becomes somewhat confusing.

[BuriDogshin]

What's with the obsession with ECC ( memory I assume? )? Second time I've seen you mention it ( previous being as though it was a bad thing if the OP hadn't bought it ).

 

The performance will be slightly decreased over non-ECC with the same timing specs, but only slightly because Intel Core processors are substantially insulated from memory speed by their caches. I doubt you'd notice it unless you ran a synthetic benchmark (something I used to do for a living, BTW: simulating and benchmarking processor designs).

 

ECC is Error Correcting Code: extra bits that accompany the data in memory, and on the busses between the processor and the memory. These extra bits allow the hardware to detect and pretty often correct errors that occur because of noise, cosmic rays, hardware failures, and so on. Servers use them because they improve stability and reliability: one bad bit can crash a system, and might have been the cause of your last SWTOR bug or crash, it is hard to know unless you have ECC. Importantly the ECC hardware can alert you to a failure in your memory system early on, thus allowing you to replace bad memory hardware before your software gets too screwed up.

 

I don't just game with my PC, I also do real work, so that kind of improvement in reliability and stability is worth paying something to get. That's not to say that a chance at reducing the frequency of SWTOR bugs and crashes isn't worth paying for in itself, of course.

[-Alma-]

I just ordered a new desktop. Currently playing on an old 2011 Alienware laptop. Here are the specs, tell me what you guys think.

 

Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z 990FX

Processors: AMD FX 9590 Octa-Core 4.7GHz (5.0GHz Turbo), 8MB Cache

Power Supply: 1.3 Kilowatt EVGA Supernova 1300 G2

Graphic Cards: Single 4GB NVIDIA GTX 980

Memory: 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum 1866Mhz (4x8GB)

 

Now this setup is probably overkill just for this game, but I'm tired of 15-25 fps everywhere.

 

My machine is half the spec of the above, yet I can play swtor full detail and achieve crazy high fps all day long, so yeah, much overkill PC for this game, but still, it will be good to have for future games that require more horsepowers.

[jagertharn]

 

I don't see how having a casual conversation is leaving a negative impression.

 

I'm getting a negative impression from a lot of the posts in here. A simple yes or no would have sufficed but no, now I redid the entire setup. And yes I realize that I will get no benefit from going with the CPU that I did get, but if I was to get into other things like video editing and heavy stuff like that, then this CPU is great.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

The performance will be slightly decreased over non-ECC with the same timing specs, but only slightly because Intel Core processors are substantially insulated from memory speed by their caches. I doubt you'd notice it unless you ran a synthetic benchmark (something I used to do for a living, BTW: simulating and benchmarking processor designs).

 

ECC is Error Correcting Code: extra bits that accompany the data in memory, and on the busses between the processor and the memory. These extra bits allow the hardware to detect and pretty often correct errors that occur because of noise, cosmic rays, hardware failures, and so on. Servers use them because they improve stability and reliability: one bad bit can crash a system, and might have been the cause of your last SWTOR bug or crash, it is hard to know unless you have ECC. Importantly the ECC hardware can alert you to a failure in your memory system early on, thus allowing you to replace bad memory hardware before your software gets too screwed up.

 

I don't just game with my PC, I also do real work, so that kind of improvement in reliability and stability is worth paying something to get. That's not to say that a chance at reducing the frequency of SWTOR bugs and crashes isn't worth paying for in itself, of course.

 

I understand the gist of ECC though probably not quite as in depth as you yourself do I was however curious why it seemed you were using it as an analogy towards over the top purchases when the price is more or less the same as non-ECC ram though I believe you need to use Xeon processors to get the full benefit of ECC ram in the first place as well as not many motherboards support it also, not sure if there is a cost factor involved in those that do? As for performance I read an interesting article not too long ago here that had it benchmarking ever so slightly better than non ECC memory which was interesting.

 

 

I'm getting a negative impression from a lot of the posts in here. A simple yes or no would have sufficed but no, now I redid the entire setup. And yes I realize that I will get no benefit from going with the CPU that I did get, but if I was to get into other things like video editing and heavy stuff like that, then this CPU is great.

 

Then I suggest next time you post your thread for what it is ... "Look what I can afford to buy, jealous?" as opposed to what people to think because generally the answer to your OP is yes it's overboard, stupidly overboard as is your new decision. If you wanted actual advice you wouldn't have started the thread posting the build you were getting then change it ignoring all advice to one with an equally "worthless" cpu in terms of SWTOR ( worthless in the sense you are basically pouring $700+ down the drain ).

Edited October 15, 2014 by MeNaCe-NZ

[MSchuyler]

It's really nice to see people waxing eloquent about their esoteric knowledge of the arcane traits of CPUs, memory, GPUs, motherboards, etc. and how one trait or another has an advantage, however slight, over another, and how someone buying "too much memory" is money wasted. Bravo! Kudos!

 

I wonder, however, if we aren't being a little too narrowly focused. Remember the arguments over which was faster, a Z80 or a 6502? And remember when the 8086 was surpassed by the 80286? And a 16 bit processor was that cat's meow? And Good Lord! You could put a special mod in your Apple ][ to get it to display 80 characters across instead of 40 and ALSO, LOWER CASE!!!!!!!

 

Now-a-days NVidia graphic cards' life spans are about 6 months. I think I bought my last NVidia LESS than 2 years ago and it was a 600 series. Less than 24 months later the "best" is (I think) a 900 series, 3 generations newer.

 

The point is that you don't buy a computer for TODAY'S requirements because they simply won't last, that is, unless you can afford to replace it every 6 months. And you don't buy the LATEST and GREATEST because they command a premium price. So the proper response is to buy one level down from the best there is so you don't get screwed on price, but you still have a rig that can last you through a few upgrade cycles, which are inevitable. Because you KNOW the publishers are going to push the envelope ever higher, because we all like the latest and greatest explosions.

 

Eventually, we'll get an immersive Holodeck. Until that time, don't begrudge people who are trying to push the envelope themselves. They are not buying for today's game and requirements, but tomorrow's. It's simply a game of leapfrog, and we're all playing it. We will all upgrade, because we must.

 

And besides, maybe our lives are ALREADY on the Holodeck. and we are avatars who don't know it.

[Raansu]

Two generations. They skipped the 800 series....Well technically there is an 800 series but its laptops only lol. Also, the 680 is still a pretty powerful card. Most games don't really push it too hard. Edited October 16, 2014 by Raansu

[Slightrider]

It's really nice to see people waxing eloquent about their esoteric knowledge of the arcane traits of CPUs, memory, GPUs, motherboards, etc. and how one trait or another has an advantage, however slight, over another, and how someone buying "too much memory" is money wasted. Bravo! Kudos!

 

I wonder, however, if we aren't being a little too narrowly focused. Remember the arguments over which was faster, a Z80 or a 6502? And remember when the 8086 was surpassed by the 80286? And a 16 bit processor was that cat's meow? And Good Lord! You could put a special mod in your Apple ][ to get it to display 80 characters across instead of 40 and ALSO, LOWER CASE!!!!!!!

 

Now-a-days NVidia graphic cards' life spans are about 6 months. I think I bought my last NVidia LESS than 2 years ago and it was a 600 series. Less than 24 months later the "best" is (I think) a 900 series, 3 generations newer.

 

The point is that you don't buy a computer for TODAY'S requirements because they simply won't last, that is, unless you can afford to replace it every 6 months. And you don't buy the LATEST and GREATEST because they command a premium price. So the proper response is to buy one level down from the best there is so you don't get screwed on price, but you still have a rig that can last you through a few upgrade cycles, which are inevitable. Because you KNOW the publishers are going to push the envelope ever higher, because we all like the latest and greatest explosions.

 

Eventually, we'll get an immersive Holodeck. Until that time, don't begrudge people who are trying to push the envelope themselves. They are not buying for today's game and requirements, but tomorrow's. It's simply a game of leapfrog, and we're all playing it. We will all upgrade, because we must.

 

And besides, maybe our lives are ALREADY on the Holodeck. and we are avatars who don't know it.

 

 

Oh yeah! and partitioning 10mb(yes MEGAbyte!) hard drives, because they where "too big"....lol!

[MeNaCe-NZ]

The point is that you don't buy a computer for TODAY'S requirements because they simply won't last, that is, unless you can afford to replace it every 6 months. And you don't buy the LATEST and GREATEST because they command a premium price. So the proper response is to buy one level down from the best there is so you don't get screwed on price, but you still have a rig that can last you through a few upgrade cycles, which are inevitable. Because you KNOW the publishers are going to push the envelope ever higher, because we all like the latest and greatest explosions.

 

That's hardly a good blanket rule of thumb at all. As I already outlined there is a bigger difference in thinking on what to buy in terms of GPU than there is in terms of CPU. I think most are in agreement gaming isn't even at the point that it utilizing fully quad core technology as it is and think how long quad core technology has been around now ( 7 years since I bought my first quad I believe but no doubt longer ) and you can make a fair call that gaming architecture isn't coming in leaps and bounds in utilizing CPU technology as it is GPU technology. Thus it's safe to assume that buying anything over a quad core for gaming is indeed going to be a complete waste of money. I mean if they aren't utilizing four cores on most games one would assume it's going to be quite some time before they start utilizing 6 to 8, years on the current trend. Thus you focus for the core area on CPU's where it does make a difference and that's generally raw processing power and overclocking ability. As I said I upgraded my CPU and my old CPU benchs almost the same as my new CPU with a 2-3 year difference between them ( may even be better since I just can't get this new one to clock in at 4.5 like my older one ).

Thus CPU and GPU comparison in terms of upgrades seems to be more like apples and oranges to me.

 

If people don't want to begrudged ( or judged as is more the case here ) then they shouldn't create topics like this clearly asking to be judged and then ignoring all advice and pointers that come about as a result. If this OP really was building for tomorrow then he wouldn't be have bought that rig, he could have spent the same money and invested more heavily in GPU technology ( where upgrades DO make a difference ) which would at least be more "future proof" than his current decision.

[Heat-Wave]

So okay then, I see you guys hate amd. Here is a new config, cost about the same. not liquid cooled though.

Power Supply

SilverStone® 750 Watt Modular

Motherboard

Asus® X99 Rampage V Extreme

Processor

Intel® Core™ i7 5820K 3.3GHz

Memory

16GB - 4x4GB - 2133MHz - DDR4

Video Card

NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 980 4GB

 

I don't hate AMD, I use their video cards...

 

I loved their older Thunderbird chips and the first wave of Athlon XP chips, they ran circles around the Pentium 4 crap that Intel was putting out at the time.

 

I love whoever provides the best bang for the buck. Right now, nVidia is giving AMD some real challenge with the 970/980 cards, I'd be really temped by those, for a single monitor setup.

 

Regarding your setup, unless you really need the bigger chip, save your money and get a 4 core Intel CPU. The 970 GPU will save you 40% over the 980 and run about 20% slower.

[Heat-Wave]

As for liquid cooling....I personally don't care for it nor find it necessary unless you plan on doing crazy overclocking. I had liquid cooling once and it was incredibly annoying. Every 6 or 8 months I had to take the pc apart to clean the radiator and the tubing and what not and replace the water coolant etc....Just a PITA.

 

Closed loop liquid cooling is fine, the primary reason to do it, IMHO, isn't overlocking... It is noise...

 

My machine is liquid cooled both on the CPU and GPU, both are running at stock speeds, I have no need to overclock. What I do want is a silent machine...

 

As for changing out the cooling, that is for custom loops, if you buy a prebuilt closed loop unit you should never have to do that.

[Ivy_Blackrose]

I have a top of the line gaming rig and guess what it makes no difference swtor runs like i was playing on a pentium 1 Edited October 16, 2014 by Ivy_Blackrose

[MeNaCe-NZ]

I love whoever provides the best bang for the buck. Right now, nVidia is giving AMD some real challenge with the 970/980 cards, I'd be really temped by those, for a single monitor setup.

 

For the 970 yeah, that's a surprisingly good performer for price. It's close though since you can grab a r9 290x for $370 now so $740 to crossfire them which is about $190 more than a single 980. I guess then you could argue might as well SLI 2 970 for slightly cheaper still since it gets only slightly worse performance. Still I would probably SLI/Crossfire either over a 295x2 or one of those stupidly priced titans. There isn't too much to set them apart currently except the slight difference in price.

 

I have a top of the line gaming rig and guess what it makes no difference swtor runs like i was playing on a pentium 1

 

If you are talking FPS and you are running a top end rig then you are most likely doing something wrong.

[MSchuyler]

That's hardly a good blanket rule of thumb at all. As I already outlined there is a bigger difference in thinking on what to buy in terms of GPU than there is in terms of CPU.

 

It actually is a very good rule of thumb. I really hate it when people say, "You're missing the point!" but you're missing the point. You're not only being pedantic, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. These differences in components don't mean diddly squat in the greater scheme of things because the shelf life of any given component is measured in months, not years. Given this rapid pace of change it makes no sense to quibble over details that won't matter in another year or two. You may LIKE to do it for the sheer joy of it (and that's fine), but from an efficiency standpoint you're wasting your time.

 

The lifecycle of a PC in industry today is three years, five years for cash-strapped non-profits that can't effectively amortize equipment anyway. At that point you're going to lift up the radiator cap and jack a new PC underneath. The whole thing. You're NOT going to swap out a GPU or spend time grappling with how many registers or cores it has. It's a moot point because you're darned lucky if the buss interface is even the same for a new card. It's the same for the OS. Does anyone ever upgrade their OS? Of course not! You just buy a new computer that has a new OS installed. And once again, it might be smarter to get one less than the newest fad. You really don't want to get stuck with Windows Millennium. Windows 8 might be stable enough by the time Windows 10 comes out.

 

The bottom line is that OP did just fine here, and this pedantic criticism of his decisions, including his motivation for even posting, is just awkwardly silly. This should be a lesson to him on why never to post here because you'll get a load of ignorant crap no matter what you say. OP is going to get a new computer in three years anyway, and so will you. Meanwhile nobody but the OCD-impaired really gives a rip about the differences between a 680 and a 780, Just buy the latest known good working one and be done with it. Otherwise you'll never have time to play the game.