im not in a super rush to get a new comp though damn.
2500k vs 2600k streaming? - Page 3
Forum Index > Tech Support |
BBallTime
Canada21 Posts
im not in a super rush to get a new comp though damn. | ||
BBallTime
Canada21 Posts
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On December 26 2011 15:29 skyR wrote: Ivybridge is a die shrink and K variants are expected to have a max multiplier of 63 so yes they're going to be better overclockers. You have extremely high hopes if you think Kepler will saturate PCI-E 2.0. Id like to know more about ivy bridge, do you know of anywhere i can look for more info like this? (aside from google) | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On December 26 2011 18:37 BBallTime wrote: i dont get why they wouldnt include pci 3.0 in the panther point chipset though... Ivy Bridge does support PCIe 3.0. The problem is that PCIe 3.0 is completely useless outside of the telecommunications sector. | ||
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On December 26 2011 19:04 Cyro wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On December 26 2011 15:29 skyR wrote: Ivybridge is a die shrink and K variants are expected to have a max multiplier of 63 so yes they're going to be better overclockers. You have extremely high hopes if you think Kepler will saturate PCI-E 2.0. Id like to know more about ivy bridge, do you know of anywhere i can look for more info like this? (aside from google) I guess Anandtech if you haven't already read this? http://www.anandtech.com/show/5166/ivy-bridge-overview Besides that, there's not much more to know about Ivybridge. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On December 26 2011 19:09 skyR wrote: I guess Anandtech if you haven't already read this? http://www.anandtech.com/show/5166/ivy-bridge-overview Besides that, there's not much more to know about Ivybridge. Im getting a lot of contradicting information, i guess it means nobody has solid information yet | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
| ||
creepcolony
Germany362 Posts
On December 26 2011 05:15 jacosajh wrote: Yeah, a 2600k is a total waste of money for people who make a living doing streams. Yes youre right. As it is for 99.9% of everybody else. On December 26 2011 06:44 Zeke50100 wrote: An average increase of 20% additional performance for average use, and up to 30% for certain kinds of use (encoding being a big one) "doesn't matter," especially when we're talking about streaming that may or may not involve teh moniez? Right. .. Right. And, btw, those 20%-30% are artificially generated and are far away from reality. The thread title in itself should make everyone who knows what hes talking about chuckle a bit. No offense here, its ofc a legitimate question for someone who doesnt know. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On December 26 2011 19:40 creepcolony wrote: Yes youre right. As it is for 99.9% of everybody else. Right. And, btw, those 20%-30% are artificially generated and are far away from reality. The thread title in itself should make everyone who knows what hes talking about chuckle a bit. No offense here, its ofc a legitimate question for someone who doesnt know. Benchmarks have shown hyperthreading improves x264 encoding speed by 15-30% depending on settings, etc. | ||
HydraLF
Hong Kong626 Posts
On December 26 2011 19:40 creepcolony wrote: Yes youre right. As it is for 99.9% of everybody else. Right. And, btw, those 20%-30% are artificially generated and are far away from reality. The thread title in itself should make everyone who knows what hes talking about chuckle a bit. No offense here, its ofc a legitimate question for someone who doesnt know. I hope you are aware that jacosajh is being sarcastic?... I7-2600k is what you want to get if you are serious into streaming. | ||
HellGreen
Denmark1146 Posts
On December 26 2011 20:08 HydraLF wrote: I7-2600k is what you want to get if you are serious into streaming. Actually a dual computer setup would be way more efficient and possibly cheaper too. I've been getting reports that people face the same issues with 3930's as those with OC'ed i5 2500k's. | ||
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
On December 27 2011 14:56 skyR wrote: Lol how can a dual computer setup be cheaper when you're paying for two computers...? Have there been any recent "Buy one $300 processor; get one free" deals? :D | ||
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On December 27 2011 14:55 HellGreen wrote: Actually a dual computer setup would be way more efficient and possibly cheaper too. I've been getting reports that people face the same issues with 3930's as those with OC'ed i5 2500k's. What issues would those be? Aside from the bottleneck with screen capture at high resolutions you should have near linear performance scaling (think i read 94%) with extra cores | ||
BBallTime
Canada21 Posts
On December 27 2011 14:58 Zeke50100 wrote: Have there been any recent "Buy one $300 processor; get one free" deals? :D wow, where can i find such buy 1 get 1 free deals? lol if i sell the second one then its basically free. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
If I was to take my job that seriously, I would pay $100 even if a 2600k provided like 3% more performance. Especially for someone like day9, that probably makes over $100/hour from his stream. | ||
Boblhead
United States2577 Posts
On December 27 2011 16:18 jacosajh wrote: Well, if you're that serious into streaming, you're also probably doing other things like editing your videos for upload to YouTube and what-not. And whatever else you could potentially be doing. So a 2600k can be useful. If I was to take my job that seriously, I would pay $100 even if a 2600k provided like 3% more performance. Especially for someone like day9, that probably makes over $100/hour from his stream. You would have to have like 40k ppl to make that much money. I think idra said a 3 month period was around $3k or something on sotg once. afaik you could probably get a i5 2300 as a streaming computer for a 2 computer stream. and use a shitty one to play on. It would give me an excuse to keep my qx9770 setup. | ||
HellGreen
Denmark1146 Posts
On December 27 2011 14:56 skyR wrote: Lol how can a dual computer setup be cheaper when you're paying for two computers...? First of all, I said "possibly". Quite simply I was going off the idea that whoever was doing this already had one half of the setup (or at least close to it), which I actually believe is quite reasonable. But even assuming everything scales optimally (to be specific, I'm talking streaming here), you would need something like the i7 3930k (which is ~$600) to even compare the potential of a dual i5 2500k setup (which is ~$220 a piece). Depending on what you already have lying around and good rebates, I'd say that is at the very least close to being "possibly" cheaper. | ||
jacosajh
2919 Posts
On December 27 2011 16:21 Boblhead wrote: You would have to have like 40k ppl to make that much money. I think idra said a 3 month period was around $3k or something on sotg once. afaik you could probably get a i5 2300 as a streaming computer for a 2 computer stream. and use a shitty one to play on. It would give me an excuse to keep my qx9770 setup. I've read the average streamer gets like $10 per ad per 1,000 viewers. Some say it's slightly less than that, but even if you have like: 15k viewers with 33% using adblock, getting paid $5 per 1,000 viewers 10 x $5 x 3 ads per hour = $150/hour Plus day9 daily uses a much better approach to ads I think than the average streamer. He actually uses his ads in a way that makes sense not to turn it off. | ||
| ||