Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Is the Core i7 2600K really worth the extra cost over Core i5 2500K?

<< < (4/6) > >>

40hz:
Funny thing was, I started using nVidia when they got more friendly towards Linux than anybody else. Most really good graphics experiences on Linux came if you had an nV card installed. Prior to that I always opted for ATI.

Then they pooched on their Nix commitment...

Oh well. I've had my fling and I'm back with my old flame now.  ;D

Deozaan:
Hmm... That's good to know. I had an nVidia on my wishlist.

So what's a good ATI video card to add to my wishlist? I think the last time I used ATI was back when GPUs went in an AGP slot (rather than PCIe), so I'm kind of out of the loop on what is good for ATI/AMD. In fact I didn't even know that ATI and AMD merged or partnered or whatever. :-[

The nVidia I had in my wish list (GeForce GTX 550 Ti (Fermi) 1GB 192-bit GDDR5) is about $125-$150 (depending on if you count Mail In Rebates against the price or not), so approximately that budget range would be nice. But it's looking more like I'd go for the Core i5 which means I could perhaps afford to spend a bit more on the GPU if there was significant reason.

Carol Haynes:
The one I am using is a Sapphire Radeon HD-5670 1Gb DDR5 which supports 3 full HD digital displays and is pretty good on the games I have installed. In the UK it is about £80-£85 which makes it pretty good value.

If you do look at these there are a range of models with a variety of output formats - make sure that you get the one with 3 digital outputs (DVI, HDMI and Display port) - it comes with a DVI-VGA adapter and HDMI-DVI adapter. Sapphire also do Display Port-DVI adapters separately.

I have mine set up with 3 x 24" Samsung HD 1920 x 1080 screen and it is fantastic for the price point.

steeladept:
Here is a related question for those of you who know....Assuming you are not gaming or doing any high-quality artwork, is there any reason not to use onboard video?  From what I have seen, the onboard video cards are quite capable, even for gaming (as long as it isn't cutting edge games).  Is this true or do you still suggest a separate card...If it is not true, I would really like to hear the reasons you would suggest sticking to a separate card.  If it is true, perhaps Deo would like to consider that for another cost cutting area.

Oh, and just for the sake of argument, let's assume it is a single monitor.  That right there is the main reason I am considering a separate card, but if there are options there, I am interested to hear about them as well.

Deozaan:
Here is a related question for those of you who know....Assuming you are not gaming or doing any high-quality artwork, is there any reason not to use onboard video?-steeladept (June 03, 2011, 12:46 AM)
--- End quote ---

First of all, your assumption is wrong. I'm a gamer.  :D

Second of all there is no such thing as "Onboard Video" for the motherboards that maximize the efficiency allow overclocking of the CPU I'm getting.

IIRC, there are P67 and H67 motherboards for these CPUs, the H67 series enables the CPU's video abilities (Intel HD 3000) and the P67 series unlocks the CPU's overclocking abilities, but disables the built in video capabilities. Or something.

Anyway, the point is that I wanted to overclock so I'm getting a P67 series motherboard, so I'd need a discreet GPU anyway.

But I think you're right, and most people would be happy with the H67 mobo that has video stuff without a discreet GPU.

Here's a video detailing the features of these CPUs:



EDIT: added screenshot of slide seen at about 6:11 in the video above:



EDIT 2: I just realized that your question wasn't directed at me, but that it was a question in general about whether or not onboard video would be good enough in the scenario you described.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page