Is the superclocked version of this worth the extra $18? Why or why not?
1875288
I would say yes because in addition to factory overclock, mine came with a nice aluminum backplate that costs $20 itself to add to other versions and provides more rigidity to the card and better cooling.
1875289
The video card is pretty fast in and of itself. There are many versions of this card from EVGA. Unless you are hooking up multiple monitors, you may simply want to go with the one with the best price.
1875290
In my personal opinion yes the extra speed is worth it. Typically when you get a high clocked card you get a higher 'binned' chip which basically means it was tested to perform stably at the higher speeds than stock. It won't guarantee you more headroom after the initial overclock but in my experience most of the time they do AND end up clocking higher and are more stable because of the more rigorous testing by EVGA.
1875291
Generally evga is really good with their overclocking. All super clocking is, as far as I know, is just factory overclocking. So, is it worth $18 for you to not have to figure out safe metrics to overclock it with yourself? If the price is only that much I tend to buy the super clocked.
1317422
The biggest improvement is in the TIM (thermal interface material) which will improve temp's, resulting in a better overclock. Many enthusiast replaced the TIM on the 4670K's and lowered their temps by 10-20*C. I haven't seen any benchmarks published but I would be surprised if there's more than 5% improvement on any of the test.Also, there is an improvement on the integrated graphics.
525699
Get the one with ACX cooling instead.EVGA GeForce GTX 780 Ti Superclocked w/ACX Cooler 3GB GDDR5 384bit Dual-Link DVI-I DVI-D HDMI DP SLI Graphics Cards 03G-P4-2884-KR
816917
Yes, perfectly. Been running the FX-8320 in this mb for morre than 2 years. It does use more powwr than a similar benchmarked Quad i5 (2500K). About 10 watts more on average. So if you plan on using it in a Media Center PC or something running all the time you'll pay a bit more in electricity. However the upfront cost savings on the AMD was $50 less than the i5 at the time. There might be a largr delta in price now, the i5's seem to have gotten more expensive. There is also a FX-8320E which is less expensive and sips a lttile less power because of it's lower base frequency. It turbo boosts to the same peak frequency though, so probably the same performance. Yes, perfectly. Been running the FX-8320 in this mb for morre than 2 years. It does use more powwr than a similar benchmarked Quad i5 (2500K). About 10 watts more on average. So if you plan on using it in a Media Center PC or something running all the time you'll pay a bit more in electricity. However the upfront cost savings on the AMD was $50 less than the i5 at the time. There might be a largr delta in price now, the i5's seem to have gotten more expensive. There is also a FX-8320E which is less expensive and sips a lttile less power because of it's lower base frequency. It turbo boosts... » Read More Yes, perfectly. Been running the FX-8320 in this mb for morre than 2 years. It does use more powwr than a similar benchmarked Quad i5 (2500K). About 10 watts more on average. So if you plan on using it in a Media Center PC or something running all the time you'll pay a bit more in electricity. However the upfront cost savings on the AMD was $50 less than the i5 at the time. There might be a largr delta in price now, the i5's seem to have gotten more expensive. There is also a FX-8320E which is less expensive and sips a lttile less power because of it's lower base frequency. It turbo boosts to the same peak frequency though, so probably the same performance. « Show Less
2025122
It's hard to answer this without more detail on your setup (motherboard, memory, overclocking, etc), but my experience with this chip in a different build is that it's borderline - you may max out cores. If you're thinking about buying this chip now (that is - you *don't* already own it) I'd suggest getting the FX-8320 instead, which only costs a little more, runs cooler, and responds well to overclocking (I've been running both of these chips with Evo 212 coolers at 4.5GHz for several months 24/7 and the FX-6350 runs MUCH hotter).
1357863
No, there might be ways to slightly overclock it or force the 4 cores to run at highest turbo speed but the improvement is insignificant. Get a K version if you really want overclock.
2104158
One is Superclocked and for the money is better to get from EVGA IMHO... it will not make a WORLD of difference but EVGA Superclocked Edition still runs very cool and no extra power needed... and will give just ever so slightly smoother gameplay.... I almost always buy the EVGA Superclocks because the price isn't usually anymore and even SOMETIMES less than standard!!! Plus I dont' like to Overclock myself so the little extra that a product can be overclocked will come out of the boxed overclocked.
277183
The Gigabyte version is very quiet. Evga is the number 1 seller for a reason though. My choice would be to wait till the 800 series releases.
1357859
No, you need to get the i5-4690K to have it overclocked, I think it's $20 more.
810861
Only if you are a "hardcore" overclocker. (Or interested in OC'ing now or anywhere down the line)Both cards are really great but both only truly shine when OC'ed.
1210566
I will go for this one!! I really love it!! If you get the 780 you can get 10-12 more fps, is really up to you. You can take advantage that 780 are at low price.
138810
It's really your preference. I myself prefer 6000k the 8000k is noticeably more blue. But it isn't too bad, On a 55w system it does bleed out alittle bit.
158420
No just hyper threading on I7 not worth extra money unless you do 3d disign or other intensive apps if it's just basics and gaming go with I5 the I7 will only improve fps by like 3-5 on games
2097682
Yes, the boost and base clock is superior. Cores are the same; so you would have, really, a little advantage. It has a cooling fan that help keep the temp a tad bit down. If you are getting this for video games, you will great results for last gen titles, but not so much for current games. Games like Skyrim or Battlfeild 3 or CODBO 2 will get great results, hence the reason I bought this. Battlefield 4 doesn't run as smooth as people would like. The GPU RAM (along with the other specs) makes it kinda tough running any settings on high or above. This disappointed me. My plans are to get another GTX 660 and SLI. This is not the best choice if you want to run current gen games on max settings. I would recommend buying two of these, or a GTX 770. If price is a problem, then the GTX 760 is basically a 660 for current gen, by that I mean it runs today's titles with acceptable performance. I hope this helps.
1764251
It helps if you're doing any significant overclocking. I run mine at 1.1GHz and some high voltage level that I don't remember offhand, and without heatsinks I couldn't do that with stability. Even at lower clock speeds, the 10-20 celsius difference can make you "feel" better, although I don't know how much of a realistic difference it will make in terms of functionality and useful lifetime.
2173941
This one has the higher base clockspeed and it also runs cooler.and i think that it can also be OC, so this one the best choice
1997955
Depends on what you're doing with it. Most games are not going to take full advantage of 6 cores. Given that, and the drop in speed per core, you aren't going to see a big performance upgrade. If you're doing heavy multi-tasking, or other cpu-intensive things, like encoding, transcoding, and what have you, the extra cores will definitely come in handy. But it's not going to suddenly give your computer new legs. A cheaper option would be to buy a good cooler and overclock your processor a bit. The Phenom II X4 9xx series is known for being very receptive to overclocking.