![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
not if he wants to get the most out of a 280x. in fact he would be limiting his current card in some cases. and with a 120/144 hz screen he will not even come close to getting those framerates in most cases no matter how much gpu power he throws at it with that cpu.
yeah that gpu and a cooler that will allow a nice oc into the mid 3 range will be good. still will be a little limited in a few games but overall just fine. plus a good cpu cooler can usually be transferred to the next build too.
you can think that all you wont but its not true as there are a few cases where it will. Hitman Absolution, Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, and Fallout New Vegas still occasionally dip below 60 fps in spots even with my 2500k. even oced to 4.4 it will still happen too but far less often. and yes its from the cpu as lowering the res will still give the exact same performance and ocing will bring the framerate up. but of course 95% of the time that cpu will be just fine at 3.8 and let the 7970 do all its capable of.
and how many games really go past 4 cores? Crysis 3 yes but those others, the 2500k at 4.4 would be faster. heck overall the 2500k at just 4.0 nevermind 4.4 would easily be the faster gaming cpu. and you seemed to have forgotten your own claim of "will not be bottlenecking whatsoever". the other 3 games I listed I know it will not even maintain 60 fps so again don't making sweeping statements. and some other stuff you are saying does not matter. dont say a game cant be cpu intensive just because its single player. and there are plenty of unoptimized games but so what? if they need more cpu power then they need it and the reason why does not change that fact.
and so you think those are the only parts of the game? again with my cpu even at 4.4 I dip below 60 fps in a few spots in Hitman. it was much worse with my cpu at stock. all you have to do is run the bench to see that. in Tomb Raider there parts of the game that are super gpu limited and parts that are cpu limited. with my cpu at stock I would dip below 60fps in few areas. it is after all the same engine as they use in Hitman. and as I already mentioned, Fallout, NV will certainly dip below 60 fps in even with my cpu at 4.4 but at stock it was even going below 50 fps. and those are just games that go below 60 as there would be more games that could not reach there full potential but framerates would be high enough not to matter unless trying to run 120hz. I am not saying its a big enough issue to matter because its not but again please stop claiming there is no bottleneck at all. as I already said to just get the 7970 and oc that cpu into the mid 3ghz range and be done.
no those are cpu limited areas as faster cpu leads to higher framerates. the dips I am referring to in Fallout NV have nothing to do loading. there are just some really unoptimized areas. again all I am saying is its silly to makes blanket statements that a certain cpu will never bottleneck.
so you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. you want to make broad sweeping statement and stand by it for no other reason than to be stubborn. a faster cpu speed in those spots makes the game faster. I know damn well because I tested them at different cpu speeds after seeing dips below 60 fps. get over yourself and accept that it can happen. and other than Crysis 3 there I doubt there is any other game where that older i7 at 4 would beat a 2500k at 4.4. the 2500k already has about a 10-12% advantage at the same clocks so it would take that 860 at 4.8 just to match it if games are not effectively going beyond 4 cores which is the cases 99% of the time.
yes I have already said its rare and I have already said its no reason not to get the 280x or 7970. its not a big deal but I hate when people claim there will be no bottleneck at all and that will never happen. I, like many others, run my cpu oced for a reason and thats because it helps in some cases. and since I like to run vsync it was more noticeable in those rare cases where even 60 fps could not be maintained. I am now looking forward to the new g-sync though. lol
so you just want to keep on I guess. I was talking about its clock for clock speed and made that clear I thought. in cpu limited areas, the 2500k at 4.4 will be faster than an older 860 at 4.0 in 99% cases and even you know that.
looking at ALL games, a 2500k at 4.4 is easily the faster overall cpu compared to the 860 at 4.0. and can an 860 even typically oc to 4.0 anyway?
oh I am not trying to say it would be noticeable in most cases. if trying to maintain just 60 then it likely never will except in few spots in certain games. I am just going back to him acting like the 860 is the better gaming chip.
I could see with ht off in bf3 when it came out. 860 would of performed better with ht off when the game came out as well. Had massive issues with ht for a good amount of time after release.