Opinions on "Upgrading"

[Guest Kloaked]

I currently have a 2500k overclocked to 4.5Ghz being cooled by an NH-D14. It does the job, but here's my dilemma:

 

I'm going to be getting Watch Dogs (if it's good I'm going to play the shit out of it) and the recommended specs (assuming that means for ultra at 1080p) say you'd need at least an Intel 3770 or an 8-core AMD CPU.

 

Does anyone think you'd actually need an i7 or a 8350 for Watch Dogs, and (based on speculation and opinion) would it be worth it to upgrade? I got this CPU for free, so I'm not really going to be losing anything if I upgrade it.

 

I know the game isn't out yet, so speculation/opinion is what I'm asking for.

[Jumper118]

I currently have a 2500k overclocked to 4.5Ghz being cooled by an NH-D14. It does the job, but here's my dilemma:

 

I'm going to be getting Watch Dogs (if it's good I'm going to play the shit out of it) and the recommended specs (assuming that means for ultra at 1080p) say you'd need at least an Intel 3770 or an 8-core AMD CPU.

 

Does anyone think you'd actually need an i7 or a 8350 for Watch Dogs, and (based on speculation and opinion) would it be worth it to upgrade? I got this CPU for free, so I'm not really going to be losing anything if I upgrade it.

 

I know the game isn't out yet, so speculation/opinion is what I'm asking for.

recommended specs are bs. an i5 2500k@4.8ghz is on par with a stock 3770k anyway. just overclock a bit more and itll be fine.

[WoodenMarker]

There are plenty of people with worse specs and play the game just fine.

It doesn't get much better than a 2500k at 4.5ghz anyway. 

 

In the future, try the game and see how it runs before deciding on a preemptive upgrade.

[deathjester]

I currently have a 2500k overclocked to 4.5Ghz being cooled by an NH-D14. It does the job, but here's my dilemma:

 

I'm going to be getting Watch Dogs (if it's good I'm going to play the shit out of it) and the recommended specs (assuming that means for ultra at 1080p) say you'd need at least an Intel 3770 or an 8-core AMD CPU.

 

Does anyone think you'd actually need an i7 or a 8350 for Watch Dogs, and (based on speculation and opinion) would it be worth it to upgrade? I got this CPU for free, so I'm not really going to be losing anything if I upgrade it.

 

I know the game isn't out yet, so speculation/opinion is what I'm asking for.

 

They said you need a I7 to play Thief to. Know what happened when benchmarks came out?

 

I3 Ivy Bridge was faster then a 8350. Don't buy into the BS unless it is verified and I don't see how it will be on a RPG. This is probably just marketing for the consoles, since everyone is seeing giant frame drops in games like XB1 Titanfall, FF online in PS3 etc.

 

It IS possible they have some really silly setting like Tress FX for Tomb Raider (which killed GPU performance), on the CPU as far as physics. It can be turned off and it probably won't be amazing anyways. Maybe the wind can blow a can around a little cooler? 

 

I would wait man. You got nothing to look forward to until Devil's Canyon in almost all games. If you are gonna upgrade, do it then. At least then you are assured a decent clocker on Haswell (we hope). Sandy is still fantastic on a OC for gaming.

[Guest Kloaked]

There are plenty of people with worse specs and play the game just fine.

It doesn't get much better than a 2500k at 4.5ghz anyway. 

 

In the future, try the game and see how it runs before deciding on a preemptive upgrade.

 

Watch Dogs isn't out yet, though. Unless someone got to get a copy early? You got a source?

[Rheinwasser]

it wont hurt performance much, an if these like 2 frames bother you you could still overclock higher. but it's recommended specs so it will still run with like an 760k.

[othertomperson]

 

It IS possible they have some really silly setting like Tress FX for Tomb Raider (which killed GPU performance), on the CPU as far as physics. It can be turned off and it probably won't be amazing anyways. Maybe the wind can blow a can around a little cooler? 

 

 

 

I could have lived with the 10 fps performance hit if it didn't just make her hair spontaneously start break-dancing. Seriously, that's all TressFX seemed to do.

[deathjester]

Watch Dogs isn't out yet, though. Unless someone got to get a copy early? You got a source?

 

Here is a source. They said the same thing about Thief. I7 or 8350. I3 Ivy Bridge faster than 8350.

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html

 

How about a true CPU title. A MMO. Elder Scrolls Online. I3 Ivy Bridge > 8350.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-performance,3789-8.html

 

Non BS benchmarks from Russia that are laughable.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-10.html

 

Sandy Bridge still killing it. Anything that needs an I7 in this game is going to be a gimmick setting anyways, and a 8350 is not close to a I7 without a low level API and this is not a AMD Mantle game. This is a Nvidia game. Devs lie for money, devs pump up consoles. Ubisoft has a rough history with PC gamers and major ties to consoles. 

 

When the game comes out I will screenshot my 4770k at 10-25 percent usage for you. 

[Guest Kloaked]

They said you need a I7 to play Thief to. Know what happened when benchmarks came out?

 

I3 Ivy Bridge was faster then a 8350. Don't buy into the BS unless it is verified and I don't see how it will be on a RPG. This is probably just marketing for the consoles, since everyone is seeing giant frame drops in games like XB1 Titanfall, FF online in PS3 etc.

 

It IS possible they have some really silly setting like Tress FX for Tomb Raider (which killed GPU performance), on the CPU as far as physics. It can be turned off and it probably won't be amazing anyways. Maybe the wind can blow a can around a little cooler? 

 

I would wait man. You got nothing to look forward to until Devil's Canyon in almost all games. If you are gonna upgrade, do it then. At least then you are assured a decent clocker on Haswell (we hope). Sandy is still fantastic on a OC for gaming.

 

Wow I didn't even know about that Thief stuff.

I did play Tomb Raider on my setup and I didn't notice any frame drops with TressFX on (but I keep v-sync on so it just stays at 60 or lower), but this was just recently so I'm assuming there was some optimization there. Or I just have an adequate setup for it.

[Guest Kloaked]

*snip*

 

Oh my god, hahaha. Man that's sad.

 

Guess I'm keeping the 2500k for the time being.

[WoodenMarker]

Watch Dogs isn't out yet, though. Unless someone got to get a copy early? You got a source?

Had a brain fart and mixed up games in my head.

In either case, you should be more than fine with what you have.

[deathjester]

I could have lived with the 10 fps performance hit if it didn't just make her hair spontaneously start break-dancing. Seriously, that's all TressFX seemed to do.

 

Break Dancing hair. I couldn't have said it better. Got my GTX 770 I was like YES I can run l33t hair now. 30 minutes later...This hair sucks, I am turning this crap off.

[othertomperson]

Break Dancing hair. I couldn't have said it better. Got my GTX 770 I was like YES I can run l33t hair now. 30 minutes later...This hair sucks, I am turning this crap off.

 

I kind of don't want to belittle it too much because I think, as trivial as it might be, having hair that has strands and doesn't look like lego and behaves according to physics is kind of awesome and even if it comes with a performance hit people with rigs up to it should be able to get that. But that said, TressFX just seemed broken. Maybe it's because I'm on an NVIDIA based system but the sad truth is according to Steam's survey, so are most gamers and AMD just don't have the luxury that NVIDIA do when it comes to blocking out the competition.

 

Having said all of *that*, I had the same problem with Elizabeth's dress in Bioshock Infinite. Again, an AMD optimised title, but that was presumably (CPU) PhysX going mental so god only knows what was up there.

[Leonard]

recommended specs are bs. an i5 2500k@4.8ghz is on par with a stock 3770k anyway. just overclock a bit more and itll be fine.

Not true but your recommendation is sound. The i5 2500k @stock is no slouch let alone @ 4.8GHz.. I would more concentrate on the GPU that the CPU. Most, if not all quad CPUs are capable of playing games.

[Jumper118]

Not true but your recommendation is sound. The i5 2500k @stock is no slouch let alone @ 4.8GHz.. I would more concentrate on the GPU that the CPU. Most, if not all quad CPUs are capable of playing games.

What did i say that wasn't true? Also what voltage do you run your 3570k at?

[Leonard]

What did i say that wasn't true? Also what voltage do you run your 3570k at?

"recommended specs are bs" that isn't true. It is a good reference for what you can run  and how. Like a game may run with a intel quad duo CPU but it may be laggy even though it can run or the CPU may get to hot and just shut down the PC.

 

My CPUs 4.7GHz voltage runs stable with 1.105v but CoD Ghosts needs a bit more voltage so it now runs at 1.120v 

 

proof

[deathjester]

"recommended specs are bs" that isn't true. It is a good reference for what you can run  and how. Like a game may run with a intel quad duo CPU but it may be laggy even though it can run or the CPU may get to hot and just shut down the PC.

 

My CPUs 4.7GHz voltage runs stable with 1.105v but CoD Ghosts needs a bit more voltage so it now runs at 1.120v 

 

proof

cpuid.png

 

There is a difference between a phone it in port that runs bad on everything and a game actually needing that chip.

 

http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/call-of-duty-ghosts-pc-performance-analysis/

 

COD Ghosts is one of the worst ported games ever. 

[Leonard]

There is a difference between a phone it in port that runs bad on everything and a game actually needing that chip.

 

http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/call-of-duty-ghosts-pc-performance-analysis/

 

COD Ghosts is one of the worst ported games ever. 

Never said that CoD Ghosts is not a well ported game just that my OC need a bit more voltage for it to be stable is all.

[deathjester]

Never said that CoD Ghosts is not a well ported game just that my OC need a bit more voltage for it to be stable is all.

 

That has to do with the cpu being stressed at 100 percent load in the menu screens prob. 

 

You were close to stable just not stable under a full real load. You can run lots of games or applications without true stability. Find one that pushes the chip and you crash pretty quick. 

 

COD really pushed CPU's in loading screens haha.

 

For instance I could run windows, surf the internet for prob a month at 4.7 at 1.26ish volts volts and not crash and even play some single player games without crashing. If I loaded Guild Wars 2 or Planetside 2? I would crash within seconds. I need much closer to 1.3v for that speed and I can't do it on a 30 dollar air cooler. 

 

Those multiplayer cpu titles will get a unstable chip every time.

[othertomperson]

You were close to stable just not stable under a full real load. You can run lots of games or applications without true stability. Find one that pushes the chip and you crash pretty quick. 

 

"True stability". There's a nebulous term. You can't prove stability, only instability. I've ran benchmarks over night before and been completely fine, then thirty seconds of SETI@home and oh look bluescreen.

[Leonard]

That has to do with the cpu being stressed at 100 percent load in the menu screens prob. 

 

You were close to stable just not stable under a full real load. You can run lots of games or applications without true stability. Find one that pushes the chip and you crash pretty quick. 

 

COD really pushed CPU's in loading screens haha.

 

For instance I could run windows, surf the internet for prob a month at 4.7 at 1.26ish volts volts and not crash and even play some single player games without crashing. If I loaded Guild Wars 2 or Planetside 2? I would crash within seconds. I need much closer to 1.3v for that speed and I can't do it on a 30 dollar air cooler. 

 

Those multiplayer cpu titles will get a unstable chip every time.

Actually i was stable in MW3 but as i installed Ghosts and launched it, bam it crashed and as Linus and Slick says, "if it is stable in all programs except one then it is not stable" so i just increased the voltage. I was able to get 4.9Ghz with 1.215v easily but since Ghosts that increased to 1.298 with the temperature of 78C on the hottest core and yes i know the CPU can take it but 80C is the highest i am willing to go and 78C is to close for me.

[Jumper118]

"recommended specs are bs" that isn't true. It is a good reference for what you can run  and how. Like a game may run with a intel quad duo CPU but it may be laggy even though it can run or the CPU may get to hot and just shut down the PC.

 

My CPUs 4.7GHz voltage runs stable with 1.105v but CoD Ghosts needs a bit more voltage so it now runs at 1.120v 

 

proof

cpuid.png

true. they are just a guide line but they are usually a bit misleading.

 

that voltage is incredible to run 4.7ghz! surely your chip could easily do 5+ghz?   

[Leonard]

true. they are just a guide line but they are usually a bit misleading.

 

that voltage is incredible to run 4.7ghz! surely your chip could easily do 5+ghz?   

Yes it could but i am leaving that for about two years from now when i delid it and then i will OC it to the max and get some more years out of it. I am sure i will get like 5.4GHz or somewhere in that vicinity..

[Jumper118]

Yes it could but i am leaving that for about two years from now when i delid it and then i will OC it to the max and get some more years out of it. I am sure i will get like 5.4GHz or somewhere in that vicinity..

that will be epic that must be one of the best ivy chips out there