Your rig

[ebfd11]

Challenge is right I know where my choke point is persay ... the video cards but it does run the game real well and in other games I do run most in ultra and high def. Ripley I understand where you are coming from too, but I also know that I looked at the whole machine not just the CPU. Please remember that everyone makes their decisions based upon what they want, not what you want for them.

LawnDart

[Masherbrum]

4770K w/ H80i and 2 LEPA fans
ASROCK Z97 Extreme 4
16GB Venegence Pro
EVGA Supernova G2 750w
EVGA 780Ti SC Reference
256GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD (Boot Drive only)
Multiple WD Platters
Creative Zx
Corsair 750D with 4 - Prolimatech Blue Vortex 140's
(3) 22" Acer monitors.

My PC is ice cold all around, but a steaming pile of chit.   One day I aspire to be able to build a decent PC.

[Bizman]

One day I aspire to be able to build a decent PC.

Do you mean something that can run e-mail and WordPad with ease, instead of tempting you to waste numerous hours playing some virtual flying game?

[Masherbrum]

Do you mean something that can run e-mail and WordPad with ease, instead of tempting you to waste numerous hours playing some virtual flying game?

Nah, I'll leave pc building to the experts.   

[mikev]

Nah, I'll leave pc building to the experts.

' naaaaaaaaa its not as hard as you think

[Chalenge]

I don't know. We're all talking about how much energy we can get out of a can of Spam while Ripley talks about why T-bone is a waste of money. Lawndart has a CPU that costs just $339, so "big expensive" is not a good descriptor (which is also not getting 4.0GHz for some reason).

What I see in this thread is that the 2011 system can be beaten by a well built 1150, and the 980 Ti is clearly a great purchase.

[Chalenge]

Challenge is right I know where my choke point is persay ... the video cards but it does run the game real well and in other games I do run most in ultra and high def. Ripley I understand where you are coming from too, but I also know that I looked at the whole machine not just the CPU. Please remember that everyone makes their decisions based upon what they want, not what you want for them.

LawnDart

You might look to see if your RAM is set to run at the proper speed. Your CPU is below specs, which makes me think your memory clock has your system held back. Loading the proper profile could get you to 4.0 GHz, but it still won't fix the GPU issue.

[Masherbrum]

' naaaaaaaaa its not as hard as you think

For some it is, some need to have their hands held.   

[BoilerDown]

an expensive CPU does _not_ bring you a sizeable benefit in gaming performance. Very poor bang for buck.

Versus what?  An i5, a quad without hyperthreading?  You're right, except if you want to do something like stream your gaming on Twitch or record it to your hard drive with OBS.  In that case, an i7 is essential, the hyperthreading has a benefit that far exceeds the cost to go from an i5 to an i7.

I think the i7 is worth the extra cost compared to what else I could spend the extra $100 on.  But its true that if I'm playing a benchmark instead of playing (and simultaneously recording/streaming) a game, it won't show any benefit there.

If you're talking about the Extreme series i7s though, then I agree with fewer reservations.  They really are only for those who can afford it because they want to.  They aren't needed, and the eight core (16 with hyperthreading) version will actually run games measurably slower, all else equal, due to lower clockspeed.

[Bizman]

BoilerDown, you've opened my eyes to an entirely new way of gaming. I belong to the generation who wanted to minimize all background activity for the best gaming performance. Instead/alongside that you deliberately want to run other tasks in the background. Tasks that make sense as both a marketing device and a social media event. Both are things that either don't interest me or are otherwise not my business, but I can comprehend that your way makes sense, too.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Versus what?  An i5, a quad without hyperthreading?  You're right, except if you want to do something like stream your gaming on Twitch or record it to your hard drive with OBS.  In that case, an i7 is essential, the hyperthreading has a benefit that far exceeds the cost to go from an i5 to an i7.

I think the i7 is worth the extra cost compared to what else I could spend the extra $100 on.  But its true that if I'm playing a benchmark instead of playing (and simultaneously recording/streaming) a game, it won't show any benefit there.

If you're talking about the Extreme series i7s though, then I agree with fewer reservations.  They really are only for those who can afford it because they want to.  They aren't needed, and the eight core (16 with hyperthreading) version will actually run games measurably slower, all else equal, due to lower clockspeed.

No I'm talking about a Pentium G3558 or i3 vs the 5-10 times more expensive i7. You gain maybe 0.5 fps by paying 5 times the price. Not smart.

[BoilerDown]

Its 20% slower by clock speed alone, ignoring all IPC deficits.  So as long as you're not GPU-bound, you should get a significantly better than .5 fps advantage with an i7 (or i5 for that matter) (most likely, its 20% faster).  Is it worth $230 (i5) or $330 (i7) instead of $70?  For me, yes.  If all you do on that computer is play Aces High, I could understand someone saying "no".

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Its 20% slower by clock speed alone, ignoring all IPC deficits.  So as long as you're not GPU-bound, you should get a significantly better than .5 fps advantage with an i7 (or i5 for that matter) (most likely, its 20% faster).  Is it worth $230 (i5) or $330 (i7) instead of $70?  For me, yes.  If all you do on that computer is play Aces High, I could understand someone saying "no".

You're always going to be GPU bound unless you run triple 980ti's. Countless benchmarks have shown this and the issue has been discussed on this bulletin board previously multiple times. Have you been living in the woods perhaps?

[Chalenge]

Uh, not precisely true (and no need to get nasty). Your GPU is A limiting factor, but in the world of SLI (or any level of multiple GPU) the scaling is CPU bound. The faster the CPU the greater the scaling. There are other issues, such as the non-native resolution issue pointed out in this thread already or parallelism. You could also just build a terrible system that chokes the CPU, so that even a superior CPU cannot deliver better FPS.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Uh, not precisely true (and no need to get nasty). Your GPU is A limiting factor, but in the world of SLI (or any level of multiple GPU) the scaling is CPU bound. The faster the CPU the greater the scaling. There are other issues, such as the non-native resolution issue pointed out in this thread already or parallelism. You could also just build a terrible system that chokes the CPU, so that even a superior CPU cannot deliver better FPS.

Listen folks it's really simple. A 70 dollar CPU combined to a 500 dollar GPU will give you, say, 250fps. A 350 dollar CPU combined to the same 500 dollar GPU will give you probably 252-255 fps. Is that worth the difference? To me it's insanity to pay for that.

Things of course change if you do CPU intensive work on the computer but most really, do not.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/pentium_20th_anniversary_series_g3258_processor_review,14.html