TR Forums

sandralambert wrote:

The way to rationalize more expensive CPUs to yourself is to count the cost of the motherboard and RAM. This may push the optimum to the middle of the processor series, but the bleeding edge top-end is never a good value.

Wow, somebody is actually thinking rationally for a moment?

This is what some others and I have been saying on Anandtech for a while now since Devil's Canyon hit: You can spend $200 on a mobo, $100 on cooling to overclock a $240 4690K to a realistic 4.5-4.6GHz at the end of the day, you would still barely beat a stock 4790K @ 4.4GHz on a MCE enabled $70 budget mobo in real-world gaming where the clocks of both are so high to be irrelevant either way, but while loses badly when it comes to HT optimized games and apps while the 4790K combo is $100 cheaper, no hassles and guaranteed clocks unlike OCing.

Beside, the 4690K is already stock 3.9GHz. Let's say a 4.4GHz OC is guaranteed with $100 extra on a HSF and OCing mobo. A mere +12% CPU OC would be close to unnoticeable in a real-world gaming situation...Might as well simply buy the 4790K, right?

So why is everyone still so obsessed with OCing? Because you "saved" $100 for not buying a superior chip in the first place? I simply don't get it. The days with pushing a $183 E6300 to the performance of a $1000 X6800, 2.66GHz i7-920 to 4GHz or 4.5+GHz 2500Ks with big boosts from stock clocks in long over.

99% of users are simply way better off with stock i5s or 4790K, budget mobos, cheapo standard RAM and put the saved money into far more important things that actually solve real bottlenecks like GPUs or SSDs. The ultimate irony of all this is how the top of the line chip for a mainstream socket arguably offers the best value in its lineup.

Keep in mind, though, the mobos that have the features that pro users want are the same that will be reasonably good for overclocking. And I'm not talking about the $200 mobos, I'm talking about the $100-120 range, which is where the mobos with enough SATA ports, PCIe slots, LAN interfaces, etc etc live.

Although I do agree with the base point: if one is spending more than a small amount of cash in order to be able to overclock, then whoossh, there goes the cash that was originally saved.

Meanwhile, my overclocked i2500k purrs along very nicely.

morphine wrote:

Keep in mind, though, the mobos that have the features that pro users want are the same that will be reasonably good for overclocking. And I'm not talking about the $200 mobos, I'm talking about the $100-120 range, which is where the mobos with enough SATA ports, PCIe slots, LAN interfaces, etc etc live.

Although I do agree with the base point: if one is spending more than a small amount of cash in order to be able to overclock, then whoossh, there goes the cash that was originally saved.

Meanwhile, my overclocked i2500k purrs along very nicely.

I agree that if you truly need features a $120 mobo offers, it is justifiable to get one and enjoy "free" overclocking. However, they are overkill for the vast majority of users. I have built plenty of gaming systems for people and none of them needed anything more than a feature set of a barebones mobo. In one case I got my friend a $50 board for his i5 2500 system. Saving $70 on mobo here for the GPU means a upping a 6770 to a 6870 which is an absolutely massive difference that it's a no brainer.

Other stuff like sound and Wi-Fi are better off with far better performing and portable USB peripherals if one demands quality. Basic 2.4GHz USB Wi-Fi is so hilariously cheap its not even worth paying extra for a mobo for.

Something like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813157512 would be perfect for said people at 70 bucks . A $50 jump on a mobo is already halfway to a 4790K, one might as well pay another $50 to get the far higher clocked HT enabled i7 with the $70 board which you don't need to OC. Which brings me back to my point in the previous post.