Hmm, what is kind of worrying me is that The Witcher 3 (one of the reasons I'm upgrading has a minimum requirement of a 2500k. It's starting to look like games are on the brink of pushing the i5s to the lower end. Or is the i5 4960k that much better than the 2500k? Or are they grossly over shooting their min required specs?

That case looks really nice, might swoop on that one.

About a year ago I bought a 760 2gb instead of the 4gb variant because everyone told me that 4gb was overkill for gaming. Now anyone will tell you that 4gb is the minimum for high res or ultra settings on newer games.

I think it is best to spend the money now on a better product than to have to replace it in a year or less, cpu is a pain in the ass to replace compared to ram or a gpu.

The future is always changing.

This is true. This happened to me when I got my 955 way back. It was beyond sufficient for games aND then not much longer after I felt forces into upgrading to an i5 2500. Wish I still had that, computer lol.

I think I might spend the extra 100 on the i7, plus who knows, I might take a fancy to some cpu intensive programs for editing and would once again feel like I was forced into upgrading or go along with sub optimal hardware.


I was talking with my friend who bought a 970 and sold me this 280x and he says he regrets "upgrading" because the nvidia cards have slower speeds for rendering textures and he said he was able to really tell. What should I be looking for in terms of specs for a gpu when I upgrade. I don't really understand the different speeds they have for like texel rate, etc. What makes a card more superior when both have specs that are around the same but both are better at different areaa? I ask because I don't want to end up upgrading my graphics card only to feel like I purchased something not really upgrade worthy.

Thanks for all your help guys

This post was edited by SiDeWaYz on May 13 2015 08:51pm