Hey /g/.
I've recently come into about $500 and want to do a full overhaul of my computer. I have decided to go Intel as everybody who has AMD CPUs tell me AMD is trash, but I honestly don't know what is good on the i5 line, and what I need.
I am using a Core2Quad Q9550 currently. I can tell you all about the C2D and C2Q series, but it seems like there is a different i5 for every week of the series' existence.
I also need to invest into a new MOBO and 8GB of DDR3 as my current motherboard is, obviously, DDR2 and Socket T/775. I also need $150 because I plan on doing another GPU.
I need something that will work for --"(>gayming<")-- and software development. I need to be able to run anything from Fallout 4 to poorly optimized games like Payday 2, and programming wise, simple things like Python GUI (literal Pentium III-core) all the way up to Unity. I also need something that can handle music production across FL Studio and Ableton.
I am not asking for tech support. If anything, I would just like to know where certain parts of the i5 series go where.
There are five different lines of i5s for desktop, and that doesn't include all the models in each series.
tl;dr general understanding of what i5s go where for what use
tl;dr what i5 for heavy gaming, light programming, music production
>ITT: high-end i5 vs. low-medium range i7?
>from fallout 4 to poorly optimized games like payday 2
Sorry op but thats not really that wide of a variety in terms of optimization
>>51290554
The cheap route for a good CPU is a Xeon E3 1231 V3 and an h97 motherboard. It has no iGPU, but I'm assuming you have a dedicated GPU.
>>51290626
Oh, and for the uninitiated, that CPU is a i7-4790 without an iGPU and 0.2 GHz slower. Exactly the same except for those two differences. it's also only $232.
>>51290554
Do you want to OC? Water cool? Anything special?
get a 6700k and overclock it
>>51290615
Sorry.
FO4
Payday 2
DR3
Watch Dogs (it's a game of slight interest, enough that I paid for it)
1. There is literally no $150 GPU that can run FO4. Period. Not even 800x600 low everything. It's Bethesda's typical unoptimized POS coding, and too new for even Nvidia to have good game-specific drivers out for it yet (meaning AMD might have one finally by Q3 2016).
2. Intel 6600 non-k locked i5+factory HSF. You will not be OC'ing on that budget, period. This gives the best bang-for-buck as there wasn't a mentionable 5000-series i5 that performed any better at anything, and the 6600 costs the same as the standard 4000-series i5 while performing slightly better and coming with a better chipset. Yes, this will mean DDR4 RAM, which is marginally more expensive than DDR3, but if you're coming off DDR2 you will want it for some margin of future-proofing (DDR3 is, as of now, effectively dead and even AMD's newer budget chips will be using DDR4).
3. Scrimp and save everywhere you can. Hold off on buying it at least another month or however long it takes you to scrape up another $100 to throw at a GPU. You can maybe find a new 290/280x for $200, and that does respectably in games at low-mid settings on 1080p (~30fps on FO4), but until you can drop $350+ you're either buying a card you will replace within a year, or you're buying a buttcoin mining card off fleabay that will crap out in a year.
>>51290665
the nvidia driver for fallout 4 was released on the 8th m8
>>51290673
Yes, and compared to the one that will be released somewhere around the 20th it's shit.
>>51290659
No OC or water cooling. I have a Hyper 212+ and five fans currently, not too worried about cooling
>>51290665
The GPU isn't the problem. I can SLI 750 TIs or sell the TI I have and buy up for two 660 OCs.
I was considering the 6600, but I was also considering that price point.
>>51290659
>$500 for everything but hdd's and case
>"do you want to OC or liquid cool?"
are you dense?
>>51290683
doubt it, FO4 is performing poorly for everyone, including console kiddies.
>>51290708
I know. Please refer to >>51290665
>It's Bethesda's typical unoptimized POS coding
>>51290695
Well right now, unless you're willing to gamble on a used CPU, there's no reason NOT to get the 6600/6600k unless you're willing to drop the money on one of the hexacore 5000-series i7's.
The 6600 performs better than the 4690 while costing exactly the same new.
The 6600 performs somewhere around 30% better than the 3000-series i5's while being only ~$50 more expensive. The 6600k performs somewhere around 40% better than the 3000-series while being ~$80 more expensive.
Yes, DDR4 is slightly more expensive. It's like a $40 difference for 8gb. But the H170/Z170 chipset has features you will eventually need and probably currently want (USB-C/USB3.1, M.2x4, etc), and they're more energy efficient.
>>51290554
Get these parts:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132566
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117563
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220973
And since the CPU doesn't come with a cooler, reuse your existing one if you can or just get a Hyper 212 Evo
If the budget is $500 for a CPU, motherboard, RAM, and GPU...
Find yourself a used i5 3570k, along with a compatible motherboard, and 2×4 GB RAM, that shouldn't set you back anymore than $300. This leaves you with $200, which you can find yourself a used R9 290, or a new R9 280x.
>>51290653
Thank you. I'm doing a build for a friend and that is exactly in his price range and the performance bie wants
>>51290872
I just looked under the specification tab for that i5: it does come with a cooler. Stock coolers tend to be shit though so just go with what he suggested or better.
Not OP but how good is the i5-4460?
>>51290554
Get a 5820K
>>51291358
really good. I have it with a 280x, runs GTAV and everything else I've thrown at it at max settings with no problems
>>51291434
Neat, going to get it over a i3 this black friday.
>>51290683
How do you know when the next driving is coming out? My 970gtx is complete shit with my fx 8320@ 4.2mhz
>>51291772
how are you liking your 4.5+.5+.5+.5
core cpu
>>51291772
I don't know specific dates (hence the "somewhere around") but historically Nvidia will have a mediocre if not shit driver available at title launch that's like 3% better than the default generic driver, then about 2 weeks into the game they'll release an (more) optimized one once they get enough feedback of who has what and they're playing on which settings.
They've done this with literally every AAA or AA title released in the last 8 years.
buy all the skylake then replace your cpu everyday so it wont wear out easily
-not a shill
>>51290665
Wow, I can run it on my GPU which was released in... 2013 at 1680x1050 (still low everything)? and was $120 at the time... GK208 GT640 1GB... Enjoy whatever's wrong with your system, nerd
>>51290554
>everybody who has AMD CPUs tell me AMD is trash
absolutely no one said that accept intel shills
>>51291991
AMDRONe detected
>>51291991
>can't even spell "except" properly
>>51291977
Good for you. Because it fails to even launch on a 750Ti for me. Gets about halfway through the splash screen to even enter the game and hangs.
>>51291955
awesome thanks for the explanation
stress tested my 970gtx and everything capped out. The only issue is that the low gpu usage while ingame... fuck my life
>>51290708
> FO4 is performing poorly for everyone
What?
I got a gtx 660 and i5 3750k and I run at a steady 50 fps on high.
I haven't even fucked around with the ini yet.
Don't listen to these plebs OP. Get a quad socket Xeon E7-8890.
>>51293857
Kek
>>51293000
God Ray -> "Low", no impact on the game's visuals, ~50% better framerates.
Can I get feedback on this? Fresh from the oven: http://www.logicalincrements.com/games/fallout4/
logicalincrements.com
Get an i5
>>51293900
You forgot to mention
>Don't because fallout 4 is shit
I have amd fx 6300 and its gay as fuck
just get something good op don't fuck up
>>51293929
Different people like different things.
That said... Fallout 4 textures need work. I can see the pixels, and I am playing the game on ULTRA settings.
>>51293900
I'm not sure where you are going with this?
My game run on a three year old PC that I built back then, using your site to pick the parts, and I have yet to see a game that I can't comfortably run on very high, so kudos to you.
>>51293941
>I'm not sure where you are going with this?
Helping people pick a good gaming computer if they want to play Fallout 4. Also what settings to use in Fallout 4 so that you are playing the game instead of a slideshow.
>kudos to you.
Thank you. It is a community effort: I ask for criticism, and people give it to me, and I use it to improve.
>>51293953
Your next development should be a bot that automatically detects "help me with my build" threads and posts about logicalincrements
>>51293981
I am here often enough that that is not really needed.
>>51293997
You need to sleep sometime.
8 or so hours of shitty 'help me make a PC /v/' threads.
For anyone who is wondering:
These are my settings.
1/4
>>51290626
>Xeon E3 1231 V3
This does however have a locked multiplier, so when ordering your motherboard and RAM ensure you get decent components that can handle the extra speed you'll be wanting out of them when you overlock.
>>51294078
This is what the game looks like, on Ultra everything, 1440p. I get 50-55 FPS on my R9 290.
It does not look that bad, but...
2/4
>>51294093
This is what "Ultra" textures look like in Fallout 4.
3/4
>>51294101
I am honestly surprised at this. This... is not good.
This is what "Ultra" looks like.
:(
4/4
>>51294093
>50-55 fps on r9 290
now try walking.
>>51294078
>>51294093
>>51294101
>>51294108
I should put this on /v/ and watch the fanboys squeal...
>>51294108
>>51294101
>>51294093
>>51294078
how is the gameplay, overall?
>>51294093
>Ultra everything, 1440p. I get 50-55 FPS on my R9 290.
>>51294126
Honestly I couldn't care less about an RPG to be looks hitty, but what I can't handle is that it requires a fucking 980TI to look shitty.
>>51294108
>>51294101
>>51294093
>>51294078
>>51294133
he probably means while standing down looking at the ground. The moment something other than heself moves the game probably freezes.
>>51294151
>Implying it hasn't been spoiled for everybody for days now
nice maymay
>>51294108
am i looking at half life 2
>>51294124
Goes down to a HORRENDOUS 45 FPS.
Seriously, God Ray to "Low" alone is enough to double your FPS. If I set the Shadow Quality to "Medium", it becomes 55-60 FPS.
>>51294129
I am still in the starting area. I cannot judge, because I have been jumping up and down like a maniac looking for places to take screenshot for ~2 hours, and did not actually play the game yet.
Might be a very good game. Might not be. I have to play it first.
>>51294155
I have a Fury X at 1440p and hit 30fps in some parts.. No way he has 50-55fps with a 290.
Not really the GPUs fault though; the game is just terribly optimized.
>>51294181
>fury X
>30 fps
that's just fucking sad. I played the SW:BF3 beta on my gtx 760 and got the smoothest framerate and whatnot. And that's a FPS which are usually more visually demanding than RPGs.
I hope you didn't pay for Fallout 4. I wouldn't accept it as a finished product.
>>51294208
Oh don't worry, I torrented it. Literally the worst performing game I've ever played on my computer. Even DayZ doesn't dip as low as FO4.
Game is pretty fun, but it's jarring to go from 60fps when looking at a forest to 30fps when you turn 180 degrees.
>>51294226
>torrented it
Good because they don't deserve your money for this one. Can't believe there hasn't been such an outrage as with that Batman game.
>>51294133
>>51294155
>>51294181
>>51294208
I have the game open right now. Take a look at this screenie. I do not know how to make the FPS counter show in screenoshots, so I will be taking a picture of my screen like a standard /v/ pleb.
1/2
>>51294269
2/2
With just a 290, and on 1440p.
I could tweak the settings a bit more to make it always 60FPS, maybe.
Or maybe I need to go to different parts of the game, where it gets heavy. I have not left the starting town.
>>51294291
Wait until you get to the top of the Corvega Factory for one of the quests.
Everybody here https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/3s4v3c/technical_memo_fallout_4_pc_performance/ is complaining about terrible performance.
>>51294180
The fuck is Godray? Epic new name for lightning?
>>51294298
I will report back then, when I have done that. I am going to lower shadow quality, and maybe grass a bit.
>>51294301
nVidia male-bovine-excrement lighting.
>>51294301
Otherwise known as 'buddha rays'
I think they first appeared in STALKER clear sky.
>>51294354
>>51294335
So, those lens flare rays? But trademarked by Nvidia? Top kek.
>>51290554
AMD is breddy gud fgt.
>>51294335
nigga please, nvidia didn't invent them. They appear in real life, they're an astronomical/atmospheric effect.
They're not even the first to implement them.
They just lumped godrays into their goyware package to reduce performance for AMD cards even more.
>>51294269
>>51294291
Playing through Steam?
http://www.howtogeek.com/209710/4-quick-ways-to-see-a-pc-game%E2%80%99s-fps-frames-per-second/
>>51294409
Yeah, it does not show up in screenshots.
Also: BEHOLD! A triple A game, that costs $60, released in 2015. Look at these textures!
And might I remind you, this screenshot is on Ultra settings!
>>51294464
Mods will fix it! Stop triggering me, you entitled bigot!
>>51294464
I'm so glad I was too poor to build good PC's the first ten years.
It cured me totally from graphic whoring.
>>51294464
i find this totally lulzy, graphic whores will be pissed as fuck because graphics is probably THE only advantage they can name for fallout 3/4 over the real fallouts
>>51294482
Mods will fix this reflection glitch, too, right?
How can they release a game in this state?
>>51294537
Kek, it looks like a reflection of your screen.
Talk about 4th wall.
>>51292076
thats odd my hd5970 is even running this game altho on low.
>>51294537
i hate seeing my face in the reflection of the reflection of my monitor.
I can run FO4 pretty much all Ultra settings on an R9 270 and i3 processor.
>>51294557
>>51294601
I asked the dog to stand on a puddle, so you can see how stupid this bug is. Any puddle I come across, has this glitch where it reflects a background that does not exist.
Bethesda!!!!!!!!
>>51294638
That dog looks like shit.
>>51294521
Fallout 3 was shit, I tried replaying it before FO4 came out. New Vegas is good though and Bethesda has learnt some lessons from their Brotherhood of white knights crap in 3.
>>51294537
>How can they release a game in this state?
If it runs without crashing they still did better than Skyrim.
Skyrim was nearly unplayable for the first couple days of release until they started rolling out emergency patches. It took them a few more months to get things to be mostly settled.
Oblivion was a bit better than Skyrim on release, and Morrowind was better than Oblivion. They all had some pretty bad bugs and crashed shitloads though.
This is nothing new for Bethesda, especially with Oblivion and Skyrim when they stopped developing for PC-first and started just releasing the PC version as an afterthought that they could fix later.
>>51294638
Look at that fucking cone
>>51294650
I like the fan theory that the exiled BoS in F3 is the TRUE BoS we know from 1 and 2, while the white knights broke away like the bleeding hearth liberals they are.
>>51294645
Next gen seems to just be code for 'blur it a little bit'
>>51294655
Why not fix the bugs and release a few months later? Are they so desperate for $$$ that waiting a few months to release a more polished game would bankrupt them?
Look at this. What is this?
>>51294726
My perception is that this trend started becoming widespread around 2005, when developers started to find their projects becoming more and more complex, and more costly, so that they didn't have the financial luxuries to keep developing an already massively expensive project going forward. Publishers were demanding they keep strict release deadlines regardless of the consequences.
Over the 10 years that have followed, they have since learned that consumers are mostly willing to put up with this shit, so nothing has changed.
Personally my backlog is big enough that I no longer buy games on release. It's basically always better to wait at least a 2-3 months.
>>51294831
Oh, and in addition to project complexity/costs, around 2005 is when consoles started to really all go online, which meant that patches could be made available to both PC and console versions, which helps to support the "fix it later" approach.
>>51294831
>they have since learned that consumers are mostly willing to put up with this
For how long, I wonder?
>>51294831
>>51294850
And don't forget the DLC policies.
>>51294856
Longer than you think. Stupidity of people is infinite.
>>51294856
DESU I don't expect it to change at this point.
The industry is getting old enough that the newer generation of gamers have been experiencing this their entire lives. It's perfectly normal and to them there's not going to be any real reason to expect a "flawless" product on release.
Not only that, but the introduction of paid "Early Access" on Steam further shows that not only are tons of people willing to play a flawed game sooner, they are willing to pay for the privilege.
ZEN
E
N
>>51294726
>Why not fix the bugs and release a few months later?
They cut out mounted combat and spears from Skyrim on purpose, so they could release on 11/11/11.
That should tell you everything you need to know about Bethesda.
I haven't yet dipped below 45 fps with this build.
I have an i5 4690k OCed to 4.4 and I'm very pleased with it
Not only in fallout but in general, how good is the GTX 950?
>>51290653
>buying a damaged 4790
