(01-31-2015, 11:41 AM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: A game that needs more than 3.5 GB of VRAM? Seriously?
Star Citizen
(01-31-2015, 11:41 AM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: If requirements are reaching that sort of benchmark, it'll probably be time to upgrade anyway. Regardless, I don't have the budget for anything above a 970. I will need a mobo that can mount a second 970 though, I intend to buy a second maybe a year from now or when the price has decreased enough to make it worthwhile.
Terribad idea.
Better buy single 970 and stick with it or extend the budget to buy 980. SLI and Crossfire are pure waste of money. Screw the adds and run around the net do the FPS numbers and compare.
Lets say Card X have graphic output of 1, when you buy 2x X you expect to receive output of 2 but in reality you get 1,2-1,6 at maximum depending on the game.
Also does not forget that it is idiotic to add second card of the same type later because it would not be the best buy option- either it would be outclassed by newer models for the same price and would be extremely expensive because it is not produced any-more.
Realistically it is better to buy middle to high end graphics and sell them after two years for 50% of their bought value while buying the new mid-to high end graphic to replace it.
At the end of the 2 years cycle you have brand new competitive middle-high GPU that would last another 2 years running on max all the new games for the price of 2 outdated SLIed/Crossfired GPUs that would need replacement anyway and would preform worse then the said brand new middle-high end GPU. Another dirty trick is that newer games are supported by only newer version of Direct X and newer Sharder version- so even if you have 4 GPU SLI- brutal powerful on paper when they are directX 9 or 10 you cannot play the newest games since they are not supported.
One CPU-Mobo can do well 4 years after boosting the graphic on year two and with some healthy overcloak. Here is example how my 4 years old i-2500k does compared with your CPU choice: http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsect...ng=english
Your brand-new CPU would be 3% faster then my 2011 CPU great right?
Also note that it is idiotic to buy 4690k, buy 4670k instead for OCing there is no difference- both go at 4,5 without a problem. Use the difference to boost from 970 to 980 with adding some more money. Most games tend to be GPU bottlenecked nowadays, so buying better GPU is more important. CPUs as I showed havent changed much in performance since 2011 till nowadays.
Noctua NH-D14 is a way too expensive - I would suggest to drop it and replace it with something cheaper that does the same thing, if you are reasonable( you want your CPU to last longer then 6-8 months) you wont OC more then 4,5-4,7 depending on the chip, so the extra cooling that would be needed to reach lets say 5 is useless. I run Thermalright True Spirit 140 that have same temps as the Noctua NH-D14, it also have the same noise level but cost half the price. I do use another dirty trick to level up the said 4-6 degrees difference by using the best thermal paste available- Phobya HeGrease Extreme (must buy paste safes 30-40$ worth of cooler price).
May be next gen games in 2016-2017 would utilize better multi-core CPUs and may be Star Citizen would run better on newer CPUs however I run Dying Night (2015 game at max at steady 60 FPS only by removing N-vidia add-ons (I have ati 7870 LE) on my 2011 based rig- got both CPU and Mobo second hand in 2012, then got GPU update at begging of 2013 and cost less then 400 € currently.
A lot of the stuff that you would read in the internet is pure bulshit marketing, that is far away from reality. May be greatest example would be that I have exact the same ram as yours bought for 28 E for 8 GB in 2012. Now the same Ram cost double the price per GB.