Gtx 980 Or Gtx 980 Ti?

[The_Unlit_Torch 33]

@The_Unlit_Torch

Case: be quiet! Silent Base 800 (€ 110,83 )

Wifi Adaper: TP-Link TL-WN881ND (For le wifi, about 16 €)

SSD: 240GB Kingston SSDNow V300 2.5" (6.4cm) SATA 6Gb/s M... ( 84,79€)

Cooler: EKL Alpenföhn Brocken 2 ( 34€)

Drive:Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE (11,22€)

RAM:16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro (135,85*)

Power Adapter: 650 Watt Corsair CS Series ( 92,43*)

OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Home ( 99,61€)

GPU: 4096MB MSI GeForce GTX 970 (like 354€ )

Mainboard: Asus Z97-Pro Gamer Gaming (127 €)

HDD: 1000GB Seagate Desktop HDD (48,46€)

Intel Core i7 4790K 4x 4.00GHz (342,37)

______________________________________

1452€ = 13 642.6894 Swedish kronor.

This is my "setup" and I can just recommend it. It's not too expensive but it's great.

I don't see a CPU in there ;)

Well whatever I've already settled on the 4790K.

[Vertex 32]

lol why? such a waste of an SSD and tons of money.... since the SSD will only help with the game's initial load and then would make no difference keeping it running....

 

An SSD is the single best item you can have in your PC. Pretty much anything which involves loading will be sped up tremendously. I'm always the first person to load when the map changes for instance. And my computer boots up in ten seconds.

 

@The_Unlit_Torch

Case: be quiet! Silent Base 800 (€ 110,83 )

Wifi Adaper: TP-Link TL-WN881ND (For le wifi, about 16 €)

SSD: 240GB Kingston SSDNow V300 2.5" (6.4cm) SATA 6Gb/s M... ( 84,79€)

Cooler: EKL Alpenföhn Brocken 2 ( 34€)

Drive:Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE (11,22€)

RAM:16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro (135,85*)

Power Adapter: 650 Watt Corsair CS Series ( 92,43*)

OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Home ( 99,61€)

GPU: 4096MB MSI GeForce GTX 970 (like 354€ )

Mainboard: Asus Z97-Pro Gamer Gaming (127 €)

HDD: 1000GB Seagate Desktop HDD (48,46€)

Intel Core i7 4790K 4x 4.00GHz (342,37)

______________________________________

1452€ = 13 642.6894 Swedish kronor.

This is my "setup" and I can just recommend it. It's not too expensive but it's great.

 

Pretty good build, but there's afew things i'm not a fan of.

 

[*] The Kingston SSD has a higher defect rate than Intel for instance.

 

[*] MSI isn't the best for video cards based on benchmarks of noise, cooling effectiveness and frequency speeds. (asus or his are my favorites)

 

[*] The ram cost is excessively high and the i7 4790k isn't designed for faster than 1600. (you have 2133) Like gez, everyone has done this. Who ever looks here? "Memory Types DDR3 and DDR3L 1333/1600 at 1.5V" ARK | Intel® Core™ i7-4790K Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.40 GHz)

 

[*] If you're going for an custom air cooler, it should be because the stock sounds like a rocket taking off. (silent design) Buying a bigger rocket generally isn't the best solution. Bigger fans generate less noise than smaller fans and are much stronger at cooling.

[Matsi 35]

An SSD is the single best item you can have in your PC. Pretty much anything which involves loading will be sped up tremendously. I'm always the first person to load when the map changes for instance. And my computer boots up in ten seconds.

yes, LOADING.... and once that is done, it doesn't make a difference anymore. Isn't that what I said? yes, definitely put your OS and startup programs on it so you can boot fast, but don't buy more of them or bigger ones just for games, it's a waste.

[Vertex 32]

yes, LOADING.... and once that is done, it doesn't make a difference anymore. Isn't that what I said? yes, definitely put your OS and startup programs on it so you can boot fast, but don't buy more of them or bigger ones just for games, it's a waste.

 

It's bigger waste to buy an SSD period, if you're not going to all your games on it. If you need more space than 500gb, a 1tb sshd would be a good addition.

 

1TB ssds are a complete troll though. It just means you don't know how to free up space properly. You can free up a good 50gb/500gb of space using disk cleanup and the community winapp2.ini for ccleaner. And put stupid things like torrent downloads which degrade the life of your ssd on sshd. Plus games you're only going to launch once or twice are fine on sshd.

[The_Unlit_Torch 33]

It's bigger waste to buy an SSD period, if you're not going to all your games on it. If you need more space than 500gb, a 1tb sshd would be a good addition.

 

1TB ssds are a complete troll though. It just means you don't know how to free up space properly. You can free up a good 50gb/500gb of space using disk cleanup and the community winapp2.ini for ccleaner. And put stupid things like torrent downloads which degrade the life of your ssd on sshd. Plus games you're only going to launch once or twice are fine on sshd.

My dad bought me some shifty 1TB HDD with an 8GB SSD section or something, I have no idea how it works.

[Izanagi 0]

It's bigger waste to buy an SSD period, if you're not going to all your games on it. If you need more space than 500gb, a 1tb sshd would be a good addition.

 

1TB ssds are a complete troll though. It just means you don't know how to free up space properly. You can free up a good 50gb/500gb of space using disk cleanup and the community winapp2.ini for ccleaner. And put stupid things like torrent downloads which degrade the life of your ssd on sshd. Plus games you're only going to launch once or twice are fine on sshd.

lol wut.

 

SSDs are nice, they speed up boot time and the general performance of Windows/your OS. You definitely don't need it for all your games, especially since loading times shouldn't be too crazy outside of heavily modded Skyrim (haven't played it in ages now, so vanilla might also apply) and other, similar games.

 

What SSDs should have:

Windows/OS (duh)

Your most frequently launched programs/smaller games

Games that have crazy long loading times/glitches/performance issues on HDDs (I think Arkham Knight got a slight performance boost from SSDs, but I can't remember where I read that)

 

What HDDs should have:

Most downloaded files

Movies and general media

Everything else.

 

I don't disagree with where you said it helps changing maps, which it does, but most people that have been on our servers to be members usually have all the most-used/good maps downloaded already. I also agree that SSHDs are a really good way to make consumers lose money/performance (Jack of all trades, master of none argument).

To finish off my insight into SSDs, 256 GB is probably enough. I have a 120 GB one (840 Evo) in my desktop at my mom's place and I have to go through it with something like Windirstat (did I spell that right?) every year or so, but it's good. Considering that you can buy a 256 GB SSD for around the same price as my Evo last year, it's definitely got a great cost: performance ratio.

 

Your build has a few ineffectiveness, I will point them out bellow:

 

The i7-4790k is significantly faster with a 4ghz base and 4.4ghz turbo. And can easily overclock to 4.8ghz on the water cooling solution you posted.

 

The other option is the new i7-5775R (3.3ghz base or turbo 3.8ghz) which is on the new intel broadwell architecture. Don't be followed by the ghz, it benchmarks approximately 3-5% slower than the i7-4970k but guarantees support for 1886 ramn. A stronger built in video card (with 4k res support) is also included so people who play light games (no first person shooters) don't need to buy a dedicated one.

 

The i7-4790k cannot support ram that fast. 1866 might be doable (even tho it says 1600). You got 2400 which is going to downclock and possibly perform worse due to higher cas latencies and timings. -$60

 

You can easily drop 150 watts on the power supply as even that's overkill. I'm willing to bet that build will use less than 450 watts with a i7-4790k 4.8ghz overclock.-$15

 

My mouse and keyboard costed $25 including taxes and shipping. Really decent for the gaming and fast typing. And isn't going to break nearly as quick. Three years now no issues. -$200

Logitech MK120 Wired USB Keyboard and Mouse - Black - Newegg.ca

-300 reviews on this product, 74% are five star, 89% are four star or higher.

 

 

 

You don't need that strong to achieve the 100% performance you're looking for. Think of it this way, you're running 1080p on the monitor you're going to get. The 980 is for 4k resolutions which has three times the pixels. The 970 is overkill for 1080p so you never have to worry about drops. (It's actually designed to run 1440p)

 

 

 

I can confirm this statement as my video card (r9 270x) is half as powerful as the 970 and still holding max fps on ultra 1080p with a couple demanding settings tonned one notch down.

 

Mechanical keyboards are on a whole 'nother level though. I have two (one Kailh (sadly) blue switch and one cherry mx red switch. They have greater than longevity (for example, my dad's IBM mechanical keyboard lasted for over 20 years), are usually even nicer to type with, since you can get feedback (idk what the exact term is) and the actuation force is based on your needs/hands. They're not essential, but saying that they'd break quickly (or implying, which is what your post sounded like) is just incorrect.

 

It's actually the complete opposite, most games relay more heavily on the CPU than the video card. The video card is just that component which takes what's processed and sends it to the screen. The CPU on the otherhand is the brain of your computer which does a lot of the work.

 

The i7-4790k only has four cores and that extra ghz will make a difference on more complex games like Battlefield 4 or Natural Selection 2.

 

A common issue you will run into on lower ghz is the first thread getting maxed out. It's really tempting when making a game to just put most of the things on the first thread, and create a few others to prevent overloading. In this scenario, 3.9ghz (4690k) vs 4.4ghz (4790k) will make a huge difference especially in the future.

 

Edit: If you're looking for a more cost effective solution, the i5-5675C (3.6ghz) would about 1-2% be stronger and alot cheaper than the i7-4690k. (3.9ghz) It's on Intel's new broadwell architecture which is an improved version of Haswell in their tick-tock method of doing things. Plus the power usage saves you a dollar or so per year.

 

lolwut.

 

Games rely a lot more on the CPU in nearly every case, with exceptions including the games you just mentioned and stuff like WoW, where raids and shit really depend on the CPU.

Moving along, GPUs don't just take what's processed. GPUs are really, really good at doing a bunch (a bunch is an understatement) of simple calculations really quickly. CPUs love doing complex calculations. Most games (bar their physics engines and other stuff like that) don't use CPUs to perform most of the tasks, like Anti-Aliasing and rendering (exceptions to this include emulators like PCSX2, which are more CPU reliant.). While a good CPU is absolutely integral to the performance of Windows and programs that rely mostly on it, video cards have a lot more of an impact. If you want proof, look at benchmarks of games on sites like Tom's Hardware, where the CPU is kept constant and the GPUs are changed, then the opposite. In most well-made games (Read: Not a shitty port), the CPU will net, at most, a 10-20 increase in FPS. In most cases the difference between a GTX 960 and a GTX 970 (or a 970 and 980 at higher resolutions) will gain more. That 10-20 FPS estimate I made was based off of Skyrim. If we include just Intel processors, you'll be lucky to see a 10 FPS gain in most games.

 

I definitely agree with you on the PSU. Since SLI 980s (or even 970s) for 1080P is overkill, 600w is perfectly fine here.

 

Sorry if it seems like I'm being harsh or nitpicky, but I really hate faulty info being tossed around.

 

@Hushpuppy (I'd quote your post if xenforo or whatever we're using atm wasn't being shit and not doing it properly), processors really make a difference in streaming games/video editing (CUDA acceleration my ass, Adobe Premiere). Aside from that, you're correct.

 

Now, back to the OP @The_Unlit_Torch : If you're planning to stick to your monitor and are absolutely deadset on one of these GPUs, get a 980, since a 980 TI is beyond overkill, like others have said. You'll probably be fine with a 970, in all honesty.

 

Manufacturer recommendation: I haven't shopped for cards in a long time, but I'd sincerely recommend EVGA (honestly not sure if they offer support where you're from). They have decent coolers (except on their first rev. 970s, which they've shuffled out). Their customer service/support is one of the best in the business. Their trade up program (not sure about the name) is also a consideration.

 

[/wall]

[Vertex 32]

My dad bought me some shifty 1TB HDD with an 8GB SSD section or something, I have no idea how it works.

 

That's called an SSHD. Software automatically selects frequently used files and puts them in SSD space. It's not nearly as good as having all SSD space, but it's definitely better than your conventional drive. Windows being a pig, could still hinder load times of games on the same drive tho.

[Vertex 32]

SSDs are nice, they speed up boot time and the general performance of Windows/your OS. You definitely don't need it for all your games, especially since loading times shouldn't be too crazy outside of heavily modded Skyrim (haven't played it in ages now, so vanilla might also apply) and other, similar games.

 

To finish off my insight into SSDs, 256 GB is probably enough.

 

Most people will not need to buy a 1tb regular drive if they get a 500gb ssd. $220 goes directly toward speed, nothing else will make your loading times any faster these days. Etheir that you spend $170 (with your 256gb recommendation and 1tb hardrive) and only half your things load fast. Is the opportunity cost really worth saving $60? I don't think so. This is really basic economics, is sad most people cannot do it.

[The_Unlit_Torch 33]

That's called an SSHD. Software automatically selects frequently used files and puts them in SSD space. It's not nearly as good as having all SSD space, but it's definitely better than your conventional drive. Windows being a pig, could still hinder load times of games on the same drive tho.

I'm not even sure I want Windows, it takes up so much fucking space it's not even funny.

But thank you for explaning :-)

[Vertex 32]

I'm not even sure I want Windows, it takes up so much fricking space it's not even funny.

But thank you for explaning :)

 

Linux just isn't there yet in terms of the graphical user interface. Both Mac and Linux lack of game support as well. I've used xp, vista, 7, 8, ubuntu, mint, gentoo, centos and a couple mac versions personally.

 

Windows will do you perfectly fine honestly. You can run a disk cleanup after finishing updates. There's also the community winapp2.ini file for ccleaner to free up more gigabytes; Plus each steam game wastes about 5 to 15% of disk space which can be cleaned up as well. I freed 30gb/111gb of space using these.

 

I would personally recommend windows 7 for six-nine months, then using your free ticket to upgrade to 10 when all the bugs are fixed. You will see notice a lot of improvements on 10 (which is an improved version of 8) in-terms of resource usage.

 

Microsoft doesn't want to admit it, but they use tick-tock like method just Intel does. Much like the famous economic theory of using stages at a production plant, it works out significantly better.

• 2000 -new version,
  
• xp -polished,
  
• vista -new version,
  
• 7 -polished,
  
• 8 -new version,
  
• 10 -polished.
  

[Vertex 32]

Games rely a lot more on the CPU in nearly every case, with exceptions including the games you just mentioned and stuff like WoW, where raids and fudge really depend on the CPU.

Moving along, GPUs don't just take what's processed. GPUs are really, really good at doing a bunch (a bunch is an understatement) of simple calculations really quickly. CPUs love doing complex calculations. Most games (bar their physics engines and other stuff like that) don't use CPUs to perform most of the tasks, like Anti-Aliasing and rendering (exceptions to this include emulators like PCSX2, which are more CPU reliant.). While a good CPU is absolutely integral to the performance of Windows and programs that rely mostly on it, video cards have a lot more of an impact. If you want proof, look at benchmarks of games on sites like Tom's Hardware, where the CPU is kept constant and the GPUs are changed, then the opposite. In most well-made games (Read: Not a fudgety port), the CPU will net, at most, a 10-20 increase in FPS. In most cases the difference between a GTX 960 and a GTX 970 (or a 970 and 980 at higher resolutions) will gain more. That 10-20 FPS estimate I made was based off of Skyrim. If we include just Intel processors, you'll be lucky to see a 10 FPS gain in most games.

 

This is a complete shit post.

 

Raid depending on the CPU?

-A raid is when you ether split or duplicate the sectors on your hard drive. It has nothing to do with your CPU.

 

I made an estimate that the GPU gives me 10-20 more fps?

-Learn how to measure properly in units. Measure the total fps of your CPU and GPU output separately is how you compare without guessing.

 

A CPU will net at a 10-20 increase in FPS?

-You cannot guess that without running a profiler on the game. Pulling stats from your a$$.

 

If we include just Intel Processors?

-Lets include the Intel i3-5005U with 2 cores and 2ghz. It's so weak you can't even play Skyrim.

[Hushpuppy 104]

This is a complete fudge post.

 

Raid depending on the CPU?

-A raid is when you ether split or duplicate the sectors on your hard drive. It has nothing to do with your CPU.

 

I made an estimate that the GPU gives me 10-20 more fps?

-Learn how to measure properly in units. Measure the total fps of your CPU and GPU output separately is how you compare without guessing.

 

A CPU will net at a 10-20 increase in FPS?

-You cannot guess that without running a profiler on the game. Pulling stats from your a$$.

 

If we include just Intel Processors?

-Lets include the Intel i3-5005U with 2 cores and 2ghz. It's so weak you can't even play Skyrim.

Before this argument gets too heated, I come bearing benchmarks

 

CPU Benchmarks - Compare Products on AnandTech

 

GPU 2015 Benchmarks - Compare Products on AnandTech

 

Those are the differences in frame rate for GTA V for different CPUs and GPUs respectively. Benchmarks are love. Benchmarks are life. (Benchmarks for othere games are there as well if you feel like looking around, I just figured everyone loves GTA so its a good start)

[Izanagi 0]

This is a complete fudge post.

 

Raid depending on the CPU?

-A raid is when you ether split or duplicate the sectors on your hard drive. It has nothing to do with your CPU.

 

I made an estimate that the GPU gives me 10-20 more fps?

-Learn how to measure properly in units. Measure the total fps of your CPU and GPU output separately is how you compare without guessing.

 

A CPU will net at a 10-20 increase in FPS?

-You cannot guess that without running a profiler on the game. Pulling stats from your a$$.

 

If we include just Intel Processors?

-Lets include the Intel i3-5005U with 2 cores and 2ghz. It's so weak you can't even play Skyrim.

 

I mentioned WoW. A raid is this. I would've capitalized it if I meant that kind of RAID (BECAUSE IT'S AN ACRONYM)

 

 

As you can see from @Hushpuppy's post (thanks m8), there's concrete evidence. Between an i5 and an i7, there was almost no net increase in that example. A lot of other benchmarks, like Far Cry 3's, Far Cry 4's, and others prove this. You can also look at the links @Hushpuppy provided (seriously, thank you) for more.

 

By Intel processors (especially considering this range) I'm talking mainly about the i5 and above. You know what I meant, but you're just trying to be a smartass.

 

If I'm pulling stats from my ass, how about you back up yours? Please don't use games that are famous for being CPU dependent, since they don't show what the AVERAGE experience should yield. (I'm looking at you, Skyrim)

[Vertex 32]

Between an i5 and an i7, there was almost no net increase in that example.

 

Wanna see what my i7 looks like? It's 2.2ghz with 4 cores. What would the i5 on the benchmark have? Likely 3.6ghz. Can you compare 2.2ghz to 3.6ghz? No you cannot because the performance will varry by up to 30% depending on the architecture used. (Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell etc) I can tell you're making an un-informed argument without even knowing this really basic information. Again one of those people who fall for the brand name instead of the performance. Which is quite common, becuase Intel spends a lot of money to make that happen.

 

If I'm pulling stats from my butt, how about you back up yours? Please don't use games that are famous for being CPU dependent, since they don't show what the AVERAGE experience should yield. (I'm looking at you, Skyrim)

 

And congrats, you just benchmarked the game engine which far cry uses, which supports gpu abit more. The thing is, you can still play a game like farcry on low 1080p with a new weak video card, but you cannot do it with a weak CPU. If you cut off 75% of someones lung they will still breath. But if cut off part of their brain, they will die. The CPU is essentially the brain whereas the video card is the lung. The CPU will start to fade fps instead of cutting out suddenly, but that's completely beside the point.

 

I bet you do not know this either. The CPU has 4 cores and the GPU only has 1 core. The amount of work which the GPU has to do is significantly less important than the CPU. The GPU is all peperating the image for the screen; wetheir it's AA (Anti-Alising) to round off those square effect from pixels or having to do more pixels because someone is benchmarking 1440p instead of 1080p which computer monitors use.

 

Lets take this AA (Anti-Alising) one step further, because you expressed interest in your last post. The higher the resolution, the less AA you need. This is becuase pixels becomes signicatly smaller and it's alot harder to see that everything is built from squares. The new apple iphone has 1080p resolutions which is the same as your computer monitor. They don't even need more than micro amounts of AA becuase you still couldn't see the pixels are square with overpowered eye glasses. The contrast in the actual screen sizes is so damn large, it's not even funny. The people making those benchmarks usually decide to keep AA the same and measure fps which doesn't always give a true reflection; Nor does the whole 1440p thing give a proper representation as almost every damn computer monitor in 2015 is 1080p.

 

Without the CPU there would be nothing for the GPU to prepare for display on the screen. The first computer actually had no graphics on the screen other than font; Or when you write your first computer program it will displaying "Hello World" on the screen. This demonstrates the concept having solid brain a lot more important.

 

By Intel processors (especially considering this range) I'm talking mainly about the i5 and above. You know what I meant, but you're just trying to be a smartass.

 

CPUs are bound to last 10 to 15 years. If you get a good one (i7), you won't need to replace it as soon. (the cpu is going to become too weak before it dies) I cannot say the same for video cards because mine (like many others) died after 5 years of frequent use. AMD 4850 which has manufactured near the end of 2008 and five years later held 60-80fps on all low 720p with newer complex games. It only costed about $150 back when I bought it. The ranking system back then rated this is a weaker level 8, with stronger level 9's still available. But today's video cards are pretty much just optimized for higher resolutions and more AA.

 

To conclude, anyone who says having a full lung instead of a having a good brain is most important, they are absolutely wrong. While the having the right amount of horsepower for your screen (video card) may be required, you should always invest in a solid brain. (CPU) The brain (CPU) is something you never want to replace, but you can always do a transplant for a lung. (GPU)

[Hushpuppy 104]

Wanna see what my i7 looks like? It's 2.2ghz with 4 cores. What would the i5 on the benchmark have? Likely 3.6ghz. Can you compare 2.2ghz to 3.6ghz? No you cannot because the performance will varry by up to 30% depending on the architecture used. (Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell etc) I can tell you're making an un-informed argument without even knowing this really basic information. Again one of those people who fall for the brand name instead of the performance. Which is quite common, becuase Intel spends a lot of money to make that happen.

 

 

 

And congrats, you just benchmarked the game engine which far cry uses, which supports gpu abit more. The thing is, you can still play a game like farcry on low 1080p with a new weak video card, but you cannot do it with a weak CPU. If you cut off 75% of someones lung they will still breath. But if cut off part of their brain, they will die. The CPU is essentially the brain whereas the video card is the lung. The CPU will start to fade fps instead of cutting out suddenly, but that's completely beside the point.

 

I bet you do not know this either. The CPU has 4 cores and the GPU only has 1 core. The amount of work which the GPU has to do is significantly less important than the CPU. The GPU is all peperating the image for the screen; wetheir it's AA (Anti-Alising) to round off those square effect from pixels or having to do more pixels because someone is benchmarking 1440p instead of 1080p which computer monitors use.

 

Lets take this AA (Anti-Alising) one step further, because you expressed interest in your last post. The higher the resolution, the less AA you need. This is becuase pixels becomes signicatly smaller and it's alot harder to see that everything is built from squares. The new apple iphone has 1080p resolutions which is the same as your computer monitor. They don't even need more than micro amounts of AA becuase you still couldn't see the pixels are square with overpowered eye glasses. The contrast in the actual screen sizes is so damn large, it's not even funny. The people making those benchmarks usually decide to keep AA the same and measure fps which doesn't always give a true reflection; Nor does the whole 1440p thing give a proper representation as almost every damn computer monitor in 2015 is 1080p.

 

Without the CPU there would be nothing for the GPU to prepare for display on the screen. The first computer actually had no graphics on the screen other than font; Or when you write your first computer program it will displaying "Hello World" on the screen. This demonstrates the concept having solid brain a lot more important.

 

 

 

CPUs are bound to last 10 to 15 years. If you get a good one (i7), you won't need to replace it as soon. (the cpu is going to become too weak before it dies) I cannot say the same for video cards because mine (like many others) died after 5 years of frequent use. AMD 4850 which has manufactured near the end of 2008 and five years later held 60-80fps on all low 720p with newer complex games. It only costed about $150 back when I bought it. The ranking system back then rated this is a weaker level 8, with stronger level 9's still available. But today's video cards are pretty much just optimized for higher resolutions and more AA.

 

To conclude, anyone who says having a full lung instead of a having a good brain is most important, they are absolutely wrong. While the having the right amount of horsepower for your screen (video card) may be required, you should always invest in a solid brain. (CPU) The brain (CPU) is something you never want to replace, but you can always do a transplant for a lung. (GPU)

The question is not which does more work in your PC, the question is if it is more worthwhile to pump extra money into your CPU or GPU, and I have produced benchmarks (and there are more on that site if you want to fish around) proving its more cost effective to put your money into a GPU for a gaming application. Regardless of how it SHOULD work, in real life sometime stuff works out different. Unless you can produce benchmarks or something real proving otherwise, there really isn't a point in continuing this discussion.