New System Build (previously GPU Upgrade Recommendations)

I'll do it in a min min because now i have my din dins.
Please dont hate me.

@torsion here is the basic overview which i think is what you are after.

I also have CPU-Z but for some reason it wont show the specs for the RAM or the graphics

 

That screen is just what we can find on Intel ARK. What I was after was your in-game FPS with various settings / resolutions.

 

I can get those if you want. What sort of settings and maps would you want me to get FPS pictures for.
Here are the ones that i posted in the thread that got cleaned but i can get some more if you want, just ask.

 

I was under the impression the i5-6600k and the RX 460 were a pretty good match, seeing as the RX 460 is better than the 750 Ti and a little worse than the GTX 950. Is the i5 drastically better than the RX 460?

 

Good matches:
INTEL
Celeron w/ Integrated
Pentium w/ GTX 1050 Ti
I3 w/ GTX 1060 3GB / RX 470
I5 w/ GTX 1060 6GB / RX 480
I7 w/ GTX 1080
AMD
APUs w/ Integrated
FXs w/ 1050 Ti / 1060 6GB

 

IMO anyone telling you to "match" CPU & GPU is either oversimplifying or doesn't have a great understanding of how this works.

 

So, basically, you're saying the 6600k and the RX 460 are good for me? Little confused by your statement here.

 

"Matching" CPU/GPU is just an oversimplification - it's for people who either can't or won't get their nose into it and read all of the necessary benchmarks.

Even if you ONLY play BeamNG.drive (I assume you want to do other things) your end goals will determine where your big bottlenecks are. FPS & resolution goals on one hand, simultaneous vehicle goals on the other.

Most games besides BeamNG are more limited by GPU than CPU, but there are many exceptions and everything is a moving target. OTOH minimum FPS / stutter / frame times are a big deal to lots of people and those appear to be heavily influenced by the CPU, at least up to a point. (I haven't built a rig for myself since that data started showing up.)

VR presents a closely related, but still special, set of goals... basically it's all about maintaining FPS to prevent sickness of course, and there are various crutch systems in place to help with that... in that case it's a matter of how willing you are to lean on those systems and sacrifice quality.

Nobody is going to recommend pairing a $1,000 GPU with a $100 CPU or vice versa... but there is a TON of wiggle room depending on your requirements. Pairing a $300-400 graphics card with a $100-200 CPU isn't necessarily crazy. Neither is pairing a $200 graphics card with a $200-1,000 CPU depending on the use case...

EDIT: In other words, unless you have an unlimited budget you'll be making a calculated sacrifice somewhere. There isn't a magic balance/match of CPU/GPU performance which always makes sense. You'll have to define your goals and determine where you can afford to sacrifice some.

 

I'll tack on one more thought. I personally have never spent less on a GPU than CPU. I'm not saying that this is always the correct "ratio" - as I wrote before there isn't a magic number here. I am saying that typically for a gaming system [which is not purely intended for BeamNG at 1080p60] the GPU budget should be higher than the CPU budget.

 

Thanks a lot. Looks like I'll be saving up a few more months so I can swap from RX 460 to GTX 1060.
--- Post updated ---

 

You're welcome. The upshot is that there's really nothing stopping you from building the whole system today, sans graphics card. When you save up the extra cash - buy it and enjoy! No pressure though: since your motherboard supports using Intel's integrated graphics, which is much more powerful the GT 620 you have now, you'll be able to game better than ever already.

I know I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating. If you've got the cash for everything but the GPU, just go ahead and do it without the GPU.

 

I think that's what I'll do then.

It is sort of sad to see my discrete graphics card outperformed by an integrated chip. Oh well...
Major thanks, torsion. It's great to have someone knowledgeable to guide me through this process.
--- Post updated ---

Those are some pretty impressive numbers and settings compared to what my E5500/GT620 can do. I wonder what I'll be able to get out of the 6600k/HD530...wow.

 

You're welcome.

I've really been floored with the iGPU that Skylake has. Intel has been pushing towards this for a few generations, but previous ones didn't quite make it IMO - impressive but not enough. Skylake is starting to really, honestly chip away at the bottom end. If they can continue that level of progress who knows what they'll achieve?

If possible please share your results with the 6600k/HD530.

 

@torsion About skylake, using CPU-Z it says that my processor is an i7 6600U and has codename Skylake-U/Y. Every program including beamNG and even specs sheet say that the CPU has a max speed of 2.50ghz but i have consistently seen it go over 3.0 for extended periods of time. I heard around here a while ago somebody saying that having the skylake associated with the CPU meant that it was much better than the normal CPU.

 

In terms of raw clock-for-clock CPU performance it's really only incrementally better than it's predecessors. For example, here is a comparison between two very closely spec'd CPUs: the very old i5-2500K and the i5-6600. They are separated by just as many generations as their names imply, yet the widest gap you'll find in performance is about 35%. Mostly you'll see that they are a bit closer: 20-30%. [For the record, back when the 2500 and 2500K were released the only difference between them was the unlocked multiplier - not like today where the K parts come with a higher clock.] For a bit newer comparison there's the 4670K vs the 6600K. Again, these are very closely spec'ed (and positioned) CPUs. Here we may see up to 15% difference, but also benchmarks where the gap is narrowed to 5-10%.

While the new performance and improved turbo adds up... really I would say that stock Intel CPUs haven't gotten a lot more powerful since the second generation of Intel Core i processors. Worth noting? Yes. Worth buying? Generally yes. Worth writing a letter home to mom about? Probably not.

The iGPU, on the other hand, is markedly more powerful than the iGPU's used in earlier generations.

If what you have is an i7-6500U then it's maximum Turbo frequency is actually 3.1Ghz. Your laptop motherboard can interfere with Turbo (on purpose) in various ways. With that said it's quite possible that keeping the unit cool with a "laptop cooler" could let you run at Turbo for even longer or at higher freqs (like 3.1Ghz rather than 3.0Ghz).

 

Turbo Boost kicked in. Read about it here.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...ology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html

 

I finally did it. Until the RX 480 arrives the iGPU is pulling, and it sure is pulling hard. Here's my specs.

i5-6600k @ 4.2 GHz
MSI Z170 Krait Gaming 3x
Patriot Viper CL16 3400mhz DDR4 (2x4GB)
PNY CS1111 SSD
Corsair Carbide 100R

Although it is difficult to give a solid quantitative performance figure for a game as varied as BeamNG, I would say I am very happy with how it is doing. I'm seeing consistent 45+ fps at medium settings in maps like Altitude.

Although 45fps may not impress many, it is nearly a 3x performance jump for me. Now that I can truly experience the game I almost want to get into content creation...

 

Congratulations! Thanks for sharing the info. Overall is the experience smooth? Do you get any performance "hitching" "or stuttering" at all?