• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Questions about i5-4590 build and replacement mobo for a q6600

A

Arkitech

Diamond Member
I'm finally moving on from an old q6600 build to a 4590, primary purpose of the computer will be for gaming and as a htpc.

If possible I'd like to go max/ultra settings on a wide number of games, many of which are older and new ones too of course. (destiny, sleeping dongs, skyrim, watch dogs, etc.) I'm trying to decide to between either a GTX 960 or 970. Any suggestions? Is the $100 difference between the cards noticeable enough to spend the extra cash? I should mention that at the moment I will be using a 46" 1080p as a monitor until later in the year when I can afford to go with a pair of decent monitors. Also whats an affordable option for a mobo and a big roomy case?


Last question involves a replacement mobo for a q6600. I bought an acer desktop some years ago and the board is starting to die. About a year and a half ago I got a Radeon 7770 along with a ssd to get some extra life out of it. The card is still good so I would like to just replace the mobo with one that does at least 8gb so I can move up to a 64bit os. I loathe the cramped acer case so I would like to find something a little bigger to work with. The pc will be given to my 7 and 8 year old kids to do some light gaming (dolphin emulator, watching videos, etc.) Is it possible to upgrade the case, mobo and ram for under $100? (I currently have 2x2gb pc2-6400 ram mods installed)


Thanks for any input guys, sorry if these questions are little long.
 
GTX 970 is almost 50% faster with 1.5GB more usable VRAM so yeah it's worth the money if you can afford it.

Why i5-4590 in particular? Get whichever i5-4xxx is the best value per GHz.

And as always... please answer the questionnaire that helps us help you.
 
As far a gpus go, AMD has some really good values in the 280/280x, 290/290x categories right now. The nVidia GTX960 is overpriced for the performance it gives. The 970 is a good value, despite the flack about not having a true 4gb vram. But unless there is some particular reason/feature that makes you want to go nVidia, those AMD cards I mentioned are compelling values.
 
lehtv said:
GTX 970 is almost 50% faster with 1.5GB more usable VRAM so yeah it's worth the money if you can afford it.

Why i5-4590 in particular? Get whichever i5-4xxx is the best value per GHz.

And as always... please answer the questionnaire that helps us help you.
Click to expand...

I primarily used Tom's Hardware guide as a reference for the cpu, it seemed like a good value. I don't plan on ocing anything so the 4690k would be a waste. What would you recommend and why for a solid performing cpu at a good price?


I'll do the questionaire as soon as get back to my desktop.
 
Last edited:
frozentundra123456 said:
As far a gpus go, AMD has some really good values in the 280/280x, 290/290x categories right now. The nVidia GTX960 is overpriced for the performance it gives. The 970 is a good value, despite the flack about not having a true 4gb vram. But unless there is some particular reason/feature that makes you want to go nVidia, those AMD cards I mentioned are compelling values.
Click to expand...
I haven't done much research on gpu's apart from Tom's Hardware, this is really my first day of research. I'll have to check out the latest AMD offerings.
 
lehtv said:
GTX 970 is almost 50% faster with 1.5GB more usable VRAM so yeah it's worth the money if you can afford it.

Why i5-4590 in particular? Get whichever i5-4xxx is the best value per GHz.

And as always... please answer the questionnaire that helps us help you.
Click to expand...

Assuming MCE, a 4440 hits 3.3GHz max all cores, a 4590 hits 3.7GHz and a 4690 hits 3.9GHz. For a simple BIOS switch, 600MHz extra in a few seconds is what I would pay for.

OP I'd say HAF XM I use one for my gaming box, haven't used Core 2 for a long long time so unsure about Q2. And ahem, sleeping dongs - :awe:
 
I would not get a GTX 970 until we are sure nvidia will handle the 3.5 + 0.5 VRAM issue properly.

It's not clear if they will offer a way to disable the broken 0.5 for safety, or if there will be problems in a year or two when they stop adding new 970-specific fixes to their drivers. I keep my cards for several years (I still use my GTX 680) so I wouldn't buy a 970 knowing it might stop working well.

Right now I'd only get a 960, 980, or a Radeon.
 
The 970 works great for current games at 1080p.

If it was just a 3.5 GB card, or if nvidia offered a way to disable all use of the performance-killing extra 512 then I'd recommend it. Until they do that, I worry that future games will trigger the stutters and stalls that use of the 512 can cause.

Maybe you'll be able to get around it with game setting or resolution changes, but as long as the card reports 4 GB available when only 3.5 GB is safe to use that's not a certainty. Even if settings changes work, you might have to overcompensate -- like going to 720p when 1080p would work if the game engine knew it was really only a 3.5 (good) VRAM card.

If you accept those risks, then it's a good card.
 
Last edited:
I just don't think it's even realistic to expect any future game to use more than 3.5GB of VRAM on 1080p at settings the GTX 970 can smoothly handle.
 
lehtv said:
I just don't think it's even realistic to expect any future game to use more than 3.5GB of VRAM on 1080p at settings the GTX 970 can smoothly handle.
Click to expand...

I agree. I haven't seen the pathological case demonstrated in any real games yet. That's probably because the pathological case requires a bunch of things to happen at the same time:

1. The game needs to use more than 3.5 GB of VRAM (otherwise the slower region will never be used).
2. The game needs to use less than 4 GB of VRAM (otherwise you're going to main memory, which is slower than any of the VRAM).
3. The game needs to heavily access the VRAM mapped between 3.5 GB and 4 GB in a frame-blocking way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top