You are right! The CM 140XL competes well on temperatures...
...but the noise levels are ridiculous.
H110 strikes an amazing balance of performance and noise levels compared to the H105 or the CM140XL.
I honestly think unless going with a high quality AIO CLC unit like the H110 or better, it might not be worth it. I think at that point I'd rather go with a great air cooler.
Who wants > 50dBA noise levels with an AIO CLC? That basically defeats the purpose of water which is supposed to offer amazing performance + low noise levels.
Holly cow, the Swiftech H220 completely destroys the Cooler Master 240.
While the CM 120XL is running at 56 dBA and barely beats a $40 Thermalright True Spirit 140 that's operating a whisper quiet 37 dBA. Dang. Ya, I think I would not go with these Cooler Master AIO CLCs now that I looked at the benches.
Huh? I thought DX12 was meant to put less strain on the CPU, not more?
HELP! Unfortunately the RAM I ordered is no longer available (Ram DIMM DDR4 16B G.Skill Kit (4x4GB) 3000Mhz 16GRBB CL15 [F4-3000C15Q-16GRBB]).
Ram DIMM DDR4 16GB G.SKill 3000 CL15 KIT (4x4GB) 16GVRB Ripjaws 4 [F4-3000C15Q-16GVRB]
In Pc Per's tests, a 3.5 GHz i3 got 40 fps with a 390X at 1600p under DX 12.
An 8370 running at 4 GHz got substantially fewer.
The framerate improvement for the i3 was dramatic between DX11 and DX12. For the 8370 it wasn't.
The 6700K beat the 5960X.
If Ashes needed more than two real cores to perform well then the i3 should have lost to the FX, even if the FX architecture is that much weaker. 8 real cores should trump a dual core, especially one that isn't overclocked, every time in a game that truly leverages lots of cores.
Developers are likely going to do the same thing in general: target dual core i3s with 4 thread game engines. I doubt we'll ever see games requiring true quad core chips anytime soon in a shrinking PC market.
For a pure gaming box this question is a no-brainer. The 6700K is a better technical choice (particularly given its gaming performance per watt when comparing overclocked performance). Whether or not it's overpriced versus a 4970K or the 5820K is another matter.
lol not that crap again. please dont link to their BS videos. I already proved they were BS before when RussianSensation used to link to them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPh7rj_XVUY
I take a very popular and demanding game over a game that's I heard only because it has the first dx12 benchmark.
lol not that crap again. please dont link to their BS videos. I already proved they were BS before when RussianSensation used to link to them.
I am only referring Techno-Kitchen BS. they had video showing an oced 4790k could not even maintain 60 or even 50 fps in some games yet the 5930 was blowing it away. it was completes BS as I posted a videos in response to that and I was getting nearly twice the frame rate in those same spots they were testing. the 4970k SLI system they use has some issues as it's gpu usage plummets and its not because of the cpu like some people think. even the Eurogamer results showed how screwed up that earlier Techno-Kitchen video that RS used to link to was as they had much higher framerates too.Link? Have you also proven euro gamer to be BS too? Because their video also shows decent scaling beyond 4 cores
I am only referring Techno-Kitchen BS. they had video showing an oced 4790k could not even maintain 60 or even 50 fps in some games yet the 5930 was blowing it away. it was completes BS as I posted a videos in response to that and I was getting nearly twice the frame rate in those same spots they were testing. the 4970k SLI system they use has some issues as it's gpu usage plummets and its not because of the cpu like some people think. even the Eurogamer results showed how screwed up that earlier Techno-Kitchen video that RS used to link to was as they had much higher framerates too.
"Clock for clock, 5930k significantly faster than 4790k."
And costs $200 more than the 4790k or 6700k.
AGAIN I am referring to their earlier video. the crap they had showed before was nonsense yet people kept linking to it acting as if it a 4790k could not even get playable framerates in games like Crysis 3.Well, link to your video? Also, this video looks fine to me, frame rate looks good for a single 980.
AGAIN I am referring to their earlier video. the crap they had showed before was nonsense yet people kept linking to it acting as if it a 4790k could not even get playable framerates in games like Crysis 3.
All the Z170/6700K offers over the X99/5820K is a bit of clock speed, an edge that is irrelevant in everything but benchmarks because we are GPU limited currently. In real world game performance with the same GPU its a complete wash. I think the 6700K is a great CPU, but I'd still take the slightly slower 5820K all day long. My Handbrake encode speeds validate that opinion.
X99 buys you the ability to scale, both in core count and in real PCIe lanes. DMI 3.0 is nifty, but in a world where fast SSDs are gobbling up PCIe slots instead of SATA ports, those lanes are increasingly important.
I don't know why people keep throwing price out there. At the enthusiast level, $200 is negligible. Some of you will burn that in cooling solutions alone.
Oh, and we are finally seeing games that unleash the value of having those extra cores.
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/