Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-20-2012, 02:09 AM   #1
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,965
Default I have a GTX 670 & a PhenomII X6 1100T @ 3.8, how would a 2500k benefit me?

Hey all, i have a chance to upgrade to a new 2500k and a used Z68 mobo for $300 total (shipped and includes taxes) from my current PhenomII 1100T @ 3.8ghz & AM3+ setup (i'd just transfer the 8gb ram i have).

However, i just purchased a Gigabyte OC 670 and this things SMOKES every game i play @ 1080p @ 60hz!! (i upgraded from a 5870). I mean this video card is a BEAST for everything, even BF3 in MP.

Now, i'd love to upgrade to a 2500k & a Z68 because i know my CPU is outdated & i got a chance @ upgrading for cheap, but is it just a waste of a $300? For normal desktop use my CPU is already a beast, and for gaming i just don't see what else a 2500k can do for me since the GTX 670 is already killing everything. I'm not made of money, so would it really just be throwing away $300? Should i just save my cash and wait for Haswell?

Aside from reduced power consumption, please sell the 2500k setup for me! Thanks in advance.
__________________
Desktop: 4790k | Noctua NH-D14 | 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9 | Asrock Z97 OC Formula | Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI | 250gb Samsung 840 Evo & 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI & 2TB WD Black | Auzentech Forte 7.1 | Seasonic 760wt Platinum | DELL U2711 @ 1440p | Corsair 300R | Win 8.1
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN | i5 4200u | 8GB RAM | Nvidia 840m | IPS Matte @ 1080p | 256GB SSD | Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 02:40 AM   #2
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 6,477
Default

Since you have an AM3+ motherboard with 970 chipset i would wait for 8-core Piledriver, you will not get any performance increase in BF3 MP going to 2500K from 6-core Phenom at 3.8GHz.
AtenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 03:01 AM   #3
richierich1212
Platinum Member
 
richierich1212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Vallejo, CA (SF Bay Area)
Posts: 2,067
Default

Just wait now if you're happy with the performance.
__________________
HEAT
richierich1212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 03:49 AM   #4
richaron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poohbear View Post
...this things SMOKES every game i play @ 1080p @ 60hz!!
Upgrade why?? Wait for Vishera or Haswell. Or longer if your PC is running fine.
richaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 04:37 AM   #5
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,064
Default

300$ is a waste of money if you are coming from 3.8Ghz X6.
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 06:16 AM   #6
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,849
Default

I have this completely irrational tick in my head... I was thinking about buying an Intel setup, but something stops me because I like six cores and don't want to go to four. I could get a six core Intel setup, but that is pricey. And I know a 2600K with HT will out do my 1090T most of the time, if not all the time. But like I said, it's an irrational thing about six real cores vs. four and it stops me from doing anything right now. Which isn't all bad because it leaves money in my wallet.

Anyway, for you it would be an upgrade, but I don't know that it'd be worth the money it cost for the upgrade. But, I think the used Thuban market is pretty strong since Bulldozer was mostly a flop. So you could probably sell your setup for a nice chunk of that $300. But then again, if you're already getting 60FPS in everything you play, why bother? But, new tech is a lot of fun, too!

Sorry I was basically zero help.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
GO PACKERS!
SlowSpyder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 06:27 AM   #7
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,965
Default

thanx all for the feedback!

so, aside from reduced power consumption, a sandy bridge setup would provide no upgrade benefits for me yea? awesome! i'll just hold tight for haswell then....

thanx guys!
__________________
Desktop: 4790k | Noctua NH-D14 | 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9 | Asrock Z97 OC Formula | Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI | 250gb Samsung 840 Evo & 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI & 2TB WD Black | Auzentech Forte 7.1 | Seasonic 760wt Platinum | DELL U2711 @ 1440p | Corsair 300R | Win 8.1
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN | i5 4200u | 8GB RAM | Nvidia 840m | IPS Matte @ 1080p | 256GB SSD | Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 07:38 AM   #8
thebigbolgna
Diamond Member
 
thebigbolgna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In da woods
Posts: 5,226
Default

This is crazy.

An 1100T is no slouch. It will handle 1080p gaming just fine at 3.8GHz.

If you have the upgrade itch, wait for Piledriver.

As games are developed to use more Cores/Threads, AMD's performance is only improving.

Did you see how well AMD's 8150 is performing in the new Medal of Honor Warfighter? It's beating a 2600k. Hope this is a sign to come, I like having AMD around.
__________________
PC: Intel i7-4770k 4.5GHz | MSI Z97-GD65 | MSI 7970 Xfire 1150/1475 | 8GB DDR3-1866 | Yamakasi DS270SE 27" 1440p |
HTPC: Intel i3-4150 | MSI H81 ITX | MSI GTX 760 ITX 2GB | 8GB DDR3-1333 |
Tablets: Galaxy Tab S 8.4 + Dell Venue 11 Pro (i5-4300y | 128GB | 4GB)
Phone: iPhone 5s 64GB
Console: PS4
thebigbolgna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 08:30 AM   #9
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,965
Default

yea i saw that, hope more games in future use more cores so the 6+ core cpus shine!^^
__________________
Desktop: 4790k | Noctua NH-D14 | 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9 | Asrock Z97 OC Formula | Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI | 250gb Samsung 840 Evo & 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI & 2TB WD Black | Auzentech Forte 7.1 | Seasonic 760wt Platinum | DELL U2711 @ 1440p | Corsair 300R | Win 8.1
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN | i5 4200u | 8GB RAM | Nvidia 840m | IPS Matte @ 1080p | 256GB SSD | Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 08:39 AM   #10
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,182
Default

Your bf3 performance should be good with the 6 cores.
Rvenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 09:58 AM   #11
KingFatty
Platinum Member
 
KingFatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,635
Default

Maybe you need to get a 120Hz monitor, that way you can really see the boost to frames over 60 Hz and better justify the $300 cost?

Also, maybe calculate what your cost per frame increase would be. If you get 10 extra frames per second, that's $30 per frame, not a very good cost/benefit ratio.
KingFatty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:01 AM   #12
thebigbolgna
Diamond Member
 
thebigbolgna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In da woods
Posts: 5,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingFatty View Post
Maybe you need to get a 120Hz monitor, that way you can really see the boost to frames over 60 Hz and better justify the $300 cost?

Also, maybe calculate what your cost per frame increase would be. If you get 10 extra frames per second, that's $30 per frame, not a very good cost/benefit ratio.
Better justify the cost by doubling the price of the upgrade?
__________________
PC: Intel i7-4770k 4.5GHz | MSI Z97-GD65 | MSI 7970 Xfire 1150/1475 | 8GB DDR3-1866 | Yamakasi DS270SE 27" 1440p |
HTPC: Intel i3-4150 | MSI H81 ITX | MSI GTX 760 ITX 2GB | 8GB DDR3-1333 |
Tablets: Galaxy Tab S 8.4 + Dell Venue 11 Pro (i5-4300y | 128GB | 4GB)
Phone: iPhone 5s 64GB
Console: PS4
thebigbolgna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:05 AM   #13
Smoblikat
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,743
Default

Id say if all you do is play BF3 then it would be a down/sidegrade. If you play other games and max them then SB would be a HUGe upgrade. Dont wait for piledriver, its going to suck.
__________________
3770K|ASrock Z77 Extreme11|4x8gb DDR3 1600|4xHD6970|1440P 120hz - Buzzard
X6 1055T|ASUS M4A89GTD-EVO USB3|2x4gb Gskill 1600|HD4870X2 + HD48701gb - Virgo
2xXeon L5639|EVGA SR2|6x8gb DDR3|4x2TB
Smoblikat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:33 AM   #14
Hatisherrif
Senior Member
 
Hatisherrif's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Serbia
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoblikat View Post
Id say if all you do is play BF3 then it would be a down/sidegrade. If you play other games and max them then SB would be a HUGe upgrade. Dont wait for piledriver, its going to suck.
Good thing you know it for sure so you can state that so boldly.
__________________
i5 2500K - 4.5GHz @ 1.320V|CM Hyper212 EVO|MSI P67A-C43 (B3)|8GB Kingston HyperX - 1600MHz 9-9-9-24|AMD Gigabyte HD 7950 - GPU:1150MHz GDDR5:1600MHz|CM Centurion|CM 500W|DVD-W/R|Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB|
Hatisherrif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:51 AM   #15
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoblikat View Post
Id say if all you do is play BF3 then it would be a down/sidegrade. If you play other games and max them then SB would be a HUGe upgrade. Dont wait for piledriver, its going to suck.
huh? can you give me an example of this HUGE upgrade? You do realize the Gigabyte Windforce OC GTX 670 is a monster yea? (It performs almost the same as a GTX 680 when Turbo Boost is activated). All my other games are hitting 50-60 FPS completely maxed out. What exactly is a 2500k gonna do for me? My monitor is 60hz, anything beyond 60fps wouldn't even register.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adam_the_giant View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingFatty View Post
Maybe you need to get a 120Hz monitor, that way you can really see the boost to frames over 60 Hz and better justify the $300 cost?

Also, maybe calculate what your cost per frame increase would be. If you get 10 extra frames per second, that's $30 per frame, not a very good cost/benefit ratio.
Better justify the cost by doubling the price of the upgrade?
lol too funny!
__________________
Desktop: 4790k | Noctua NH-D14 | 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9 | Asrock Z97 OC Formula | Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI | 250gb Samsung 840 Evo & 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI & 2TB WD Black | Auzentech Forte 7.1 | Seasonic 760wt Platinum | DELL U2711 @ 1440p | Corsair 300R | Win 8.1
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN | i5 4200u | 8GB RAM | Nvidia 840m | IPS Matte @ 1080p | 256GB SSD | Win8.1
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 11:24 AM   #16
KingFatty
Platinum Member
 
KingFatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poohbear View Post
All my other games are hitting 50-60 FPS completely maxed out. What exactly is a 2500k gonna do for me? My monitor is 60hz, anything beyond 60fps wouldn't even register.
I guess the question is using your current monitor would you notice an increase from your current 50-60 FPS to perhaps 70-90 FPS? (sorry that's just a guess based on foggy recollections of benchmarking scores)?

I'm thinking that without upgrading your monitor, you probably wouldn't see much of a change moving between those FPS ranges pre/post 2500K. Certainly not worth paying $300 for.

But if you already plan to get a 120 Hz monitor, then maybe that would enable you to appreciate that type of change by being capable of seeing it. But only if it's inevitable that you plan to move to 120 Hz. If you want to stay with your current monitor, I don't see this being a good upgrade now and maybe save your money for newer/future upgrades later.
KingFatty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 11:32 AM   #17
amenx
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,228
Default

1100t vs 2500k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288
amenx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 12:09 PM   #18
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poohbear View Post
Now, i'd love to upgrade to a 2500k & a Z68 because i know my CPU is outdated & i got a chance @ upgrading for cheap, but is it just a waste of a $300? Aside from reduced power consumption, please sell the 2500k setup for me! Thanks in advance.
I would wait until Haswell in your case. If you say your system runs well enough, no point in wasting $ right now. Haswell should launch around April 2013 on a new socket (1150).

Now if you played specific genres that love fast CPUs (MMOs, strategy), then it would be different. For most FPS games, especially the modern ones, you'll be mostly GPU limited at least until you get up to 2x GTX670s.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 07-20-2012 at 12:13 PM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 12:25 PM   #19
bl00tdi
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 31
Default

The 2500k is the better processor. Lower TDP and massive IPC advantage which more than offsets the fewer number of cores in most cases. When you take overclocking into consideration, it's no contest. A mildly overclocked sandy bridge is better at pretty much everything, multithreaded or not. This is coming from a 1090T owner. Now whether or not there is real value in you upgrading is another story. You could sell the 1100T and recoup some of that money.
bl00tdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 12:55 PM   #20
Hatisherrif
Senior Member
 
Hatisherrif's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Serbia
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amenx View Post
They are actually pretty close after you get through all the synthetic bullfeces and get to some compression or games (except in certain ones).

To the OP: Upgrade only if you can find a better deal, like $100 max. Since I know this is highly unlikely, just wait for a new generation of CPUs. No need to rush.
__________________
i5 2500K - 4.5GHz @ 1.320V|CM Hyper212 EVO|MSI P67A-C43 (B3)|8GB Kingston HyperX - 1600MHz 9-9-9-24|AMD Gigabyte HD 7950 - GPU:1150MHz GDDR5:1600MHz|CM Centurion|CM 500W|DVD-W/R|Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB|
Hatisherrif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 12:56 PM   #21
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bl00tdi View Post
The 2500k is the better processor. Lower TDP and massive IPC advantage which more than offsets the fewer number of cores in most cases. When you take overclocking into consideration, it's no contest. A mildly overclocked sandy bridge is better at pretty much everything, multithreaded or not. This is coming from a 1090T owner. Now whether or not there is real value in you upgrading is another story. You could sell the 1100T and recoup some of that money.
Well then lets stick to my story as you say, is there any real value in me upgrading? I already know the 2500k is better, but in my situation, with this ridiculously powerful OC 670 that i have, i just don't see any benefits, even if the 2500k is overclocked. How exactly, please be specific, would it benefit me? Nobody's answering this question, i already know the 2500k is better, but in my situation it just goes to show some "upgrades" are pointless.

i HATE IT when i upgrade and see next to no performance improvement. I've had that happen going from a 64gb C300 to a 240 Vertex 3 Max Iops (best of best SSD until recently). Despite the crazy numbers on paper it simply didn't show a noticeable performance increase. I have a feeling if i upgraded to a 2500k the same thing would happen. For web browsing and general computer use i'd notice no difference, in games i'd notice no difference, so what's the point? seems like none at all (aside from power consumption)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
Now if you played specific genres that love fast CPUs (MMOs, strategy), then it would be different. For most FPS games, especially the modern ones, you'll be mostly GPU limited at least until you get up to 2x GTX670s.
ok, can you give me an example of a strategy game that a GTX 670 can't handle well with a X6 1100T? i'm looking @ starcraft 2 benchmarks which have it running @ 130 FPS @ 1080p with a sandy bridge @ 4.7, so with my set up it'll drop to 80-90fps? lol that's still way over 60fps. Shogun 2 is the only RTS game that gets 65fps @ 1080p, so i imagine it'd drop to 40-50 in heated battles, which is still perfectly fine as its not an FPS. I don't play MMOs so that doesn't matter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KingFatty View Post
I guess the question is using your current monitor would you notice an increase from your current 50-60 FPS to perhaps 70-90 FPS? (sorry that's just a guess based on foggy recollections of benchmarking scores)?

I'm thinking that without upgrading your monitor, you probably wouldn't see much of a change moving between those FPS ranges pre/post 2500K. Certainly not worth paying $300 for.

But if you already plan to get a 120 Hz monitor, then maybe that would enable you to appreciate that type of change by being capable of seeing it. But only if it's inevitable that you plan to move to 120 Hz. If you want to stay with your current monitor, I don't see this being a good upgrade now and maybe save your money for newer/future upgrades later.
yes but the human eye can't notice any difference beyond 50-60fps, you simply can't perceive any difference and anyone that says they do is just fooling themselves. So it'd really just be for bragging rights if i'm playing @ anything beyond 60fps. i certainly don't care for 3D stuff so there's no point in getting a 120hz monitor.
__________________
Desktop: 4790k | Noctua NH-D14 | 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9 | Asrock Z97 OC Formula | Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI | 250gb Samsung 840 Evo & 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI & 2TB WD Black | Auzentech Forte 7.1 | Seasonic 760wt Platinum | DELL U2711 @ 1440p | Corsair 300R | Win 8.1
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN | i5 4200u | 8GB RAM | Nvidia 840m | IPS Matte @ 1080p | 256GB SSD | Win8.1

Last edited by poohbear; 07-20-2012 at 01:11 PM.
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 01:05 PM   #22
Hatisherrif
Senior Member
 
Hatisherrif's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Serbia
Posts: 226
Default

From an owner of Phenom II X4 955 who still has a much weaker graphics card than you: even an HD4890 was bottlenecked by the Phenom II in some games. I am not talking about a 10fps difference, I'm talking about the minimum framerate going from 9 to 40. I cannot say that your CPU is exactly the same as mine, but in badly threaded games that require high IPC and good single-core performance, the i5 2500K would probably blow your Phenom away. And it would be noticeable.

But, as I mentioned already, only in some games. Some remained absolutely the same. It all depends on which component bottlenecks your system in a specific case.
__________________
i5 2500K - 4.5GHz @ 1.320V|CM Hyper212 EVO|MSI P67A-C43 (B3)|8GB Kingston HyperX - 1600MHz 9-9-9-24|AMD Gigabyte HD 7950 - GPU:1150MHz GDDR5:1600MHz|CM Centurion|CM 500W|DVD-W/R|Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB|
Hatisherrif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 01:15 PM   #23
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 6,477
Default

Yes there are games like SC2, Skyrim, Civ V and F1 2011 that will get a nice performance boost over the Phenom X6. If you play that games and you want to spend $300 then an Intel IvyBridge (3570K) will be a nice upgrade.

But, if you dont play that games or you dont want to spend that $300 now your Phenom X6 at 3.8GHz will be just fine, especially for BF3 MP.
AtenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 01:37 PM   #24
poohbear
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatisherrif View Post
From an owner of Phenom II X4 955 who still has a much weaker graphics card than you: even an HD4890 was bottlenecked by the Phenom II in some games. I am not talking about a 10fps difference, I'm talking about the minimum framerate going from 9 to 40. I cannot say that your CPU is exactly the same as mine, but in badly threaded games that require high IPC and good single-core performance, the i5 2500K would probably blow your Phenom away. And it would be noticeable.

But, as I mentioned already, only in some games. Some remained absolutely the same. It all depends on which component bottlenecks your system in a specific case.
well thats certainly not the case with me, if my x6 @ 3.8ghz is bottlenecking a 670 @ the fps im getting @ 1080 (avg 60fps), then a 2500k is a completely pointless upgrade. I'll just stick with what i have till haswell.

@ atenra, i fail to see how playing SC2 @ 130fps on an ivy bridge instead of my current 90fps would qualify as a "nice upgrade"?
__________________
Desktop: 4790k | Noctua NH-D14 | 16GB (2x8gb) Crucial Ballistex @ CL9 | Asrock Z97 OC Formula | Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI | 250gb Samsung 840 Evo & 240gb OCZ Vertex 3 MI & 2TB WD Black | Auzentech Forte 7.1 | Seasonic 760wt Platinum | DELL U2711 @ 1440p | Corsair 300R | Win 8.1
Ultrabook: Zenbook UX32LN | i5 4200u | 8GB RAM | Nvidia 840m | IPS Matte @ 1080p | 256GB SSD | Win8.1

Last edited by poohbear; 07-20-2012 at 01:40 PM.
poohbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 01:50 PM   #25
Hatisherrif
Senior Member
 
Hatisherrif's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Serbia
Posts: 226
Default

It would in cases where you get 50fps.
__________________
i5 2500K - 4.5GHz @ 1.320V|CM Hyper212 EVO|MSI P67A-C43 (B3)|8GB Kingston HyperX - 1600MHz 9-9-9-24|AMD Gigabyte HD 7950 - GPU:1150MHz GDDR5:1600MHz|CM Centurion|CM 500W|DVD-W/R|Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB|

Last edited by Hatisherrif; 07-20-2012 at 01:52 PM.
Hatisherrif is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.