Cpu for gaming

[Soundsystem90]

Just now, Kloaked said:

>during beta

>isn't comparing an i5 to the i7 during beta

>didn't provide evidence again

LOL retail is even more demanding than the beta, look for your damn self and you will find many videos showing you what i said lol.

 

 

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, Soundsystem90 said:

LOL retail is even more demanding than the beta, look for your damn self and you will find many videos showing you what i said lol.

 

 

Any gaming benchmark I find is showing me the contrary to what you're saying.

 

Again, provide some evidence and I'll admit I'm wrong.

[Soundsystem90]

Just now, Kloaked said:

Any gaming benchmark I find is showing me the contrary to what you're saying.

 

Again, provide some evidence and I'll admit I'm wrong.

Oh yeah single player benchmarks, really makes sense does it not? vs multiplayer..

 

LMAO

 

 

 

 

 

Dat GPU usage though at 1440P LMAO

[MANIDY inc]

3 minutes ago, Soundsystem90 said:

Yup everyone else is lying.

Is an i7 better? not shit Sherlock.

 

Is it needed? Absoulty not 

[Guest Kloaked]

2 minutes ago, Soundsystem90 said:

Oh yeah single player benchmarks, really makes sense does it not? vs multiplayer..

 

LMAO

 

 

 

 

 

Dat GPU usage though at 1440P LMAO

Dude what? I didn't say single player, and your GPU should be working its ass off when you don't have v-sync enabled.

 

Do you pay attention to anything?

[Soundsystem90]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

Dude what? I didn't say single player, and your GPU should be working it's ass off when you don't have v-sync enabled.

 

Do you pay attention to anything?

His FPS goes above 60FPs all the time.. he's on an easy map, try the others.. constantly below 60FPs...

 

 

 

" no i have 16 gbs of ram and i5 6500 paired with gtx 970 lots of stutttering and bttleneck no i have 16 gbs of ram and i5 6500 paired with gtx 970 lots of stutttering and bttleneck "

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, Soundsystem90 said:

His FPS goes above 60FPs all the time.. he's on an easy map, try the others.. constantly below 60FPs...

 

 

 

" no i have 16 gbs of ram and i5 6500 paired with gtx 970 lots of stutttering and bttleneck no i have 16 gbs of ram and i5 6500 paired with gtx 970 lots of stutttering and bttleneck "

Do you know what a debate or argument is? You provide evidence to back your claim up that goes against what someone else is saying. The status quo has always been that an i7 is not worth the upgrade over an i5 for gaming since you don't get much of a gain in performance since at that point your GPU and maybe other components would be your bottleneck.

 

I told you the i7 or anything above that is a major diminishing return for the money since you don't get any noticeable gains above an i5 for gaming. Yet you keep linking videos that only show a single CPU being used, and not compared to an i7 or above.

 

You are also failing to understand what the OP wants to know, and if an i5 is worth it over an i3. Please get off of this forum section and stick with tech news and/or off-topic if you don't know how to actually help people.

[AlwaysFSX]

2 minutes ago, Soundsystem90 said:

There are no tests done, it's all done by evidence of the BF1 community.

Where's the evidence?

[Soundsystem90]

It's 2016 not 2010.

[Monarch]

13 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Sound argument, mate.

 

One more time: do you have a comparison of an i5 to an i7 for Battlefield 1?

 

He's actually right, but evidence is almost impossible to find because everyone benchmarks singleplayer (which usually isn't that CPU intensive) because it's easily repeatable with different hardware and the fact that what happens doesn't vary as much as it would in a multiplayer game. But I managed to find some evidence:

 

Crysis 3:

That's a big improvement with HT on, which proves that an i7 achieves much better MT performance.

 

Fallout 4:

 

1920x1080, Ultra Settings, Titan X GPU	Low/Avg FPS
Core i3 4130 [?] (3.4GHz, two cores, four threads)	25.0 / 48.1
Core i5 4690K [?] (Max 3.9GHz, four cores, four threads)	30.0 / 64.5
Core i7 4790K [?] (Max 4.4GHz, four cores, eight threads)	51.0 / 80.7
FX-6300 [?] (Max 4.1GHz, six cores, six threads)	23.0 / 48.4
FX-8350 [?] (Max 4.2GHz, eight cores, eight threads)	30.0 / 55.5

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023

 

Also, people usually look at average fps, rather than frametime or minimum fps. CPU bottleneck often times causes microstuttering. I get it in pretty much all the latest titles and it makes games unplayable for me. Frametime spikes up to 35 ms or higher, which translates to a framerate of less than 30 fps. There's a good reason devs recommend i7's for latest games.

 

 

 

 

[Soundsystem90]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

I'm using my own mind. In my experience (my actual experience with i7s, i5s, AMD FX processors and so on), i7s do not offer anything significant for gaming over an i5.

You don't know what is in my system.

Probably.

I know exactly that it's an i5.

[Guest Kloaked]

3 minutes ago, Monarch said:

He's actually right, but evidence is almost impossible to find because everyone benchmarks singleplayer because it's easily repeatable with different hardware and the fact that what happens doesn't vary as much as it would in a multiplayer game. But I managed to find some evidence:

Thank you for actually providing something tangible.

I didn't say he was wrong about multiplayer being a changer when it comes to performance. The argument is more about the worth of an i7 over an i5.

 

4 minutes ago, Monarch said:

Crysis 3:

That's a big improvement with HT on, which proves that an i7 achieves much better MT performance.

Crysis 3 has been a known CPU hog since it came out, and it's no surprise that there's some gain there. Even the sources I regularly go to will show that even an overclocked 6600k will still fall a little short of a 6700k when it comes to Crysis 3, so I'm being as objective as possible.

 

But that is Crysis 3.

 

7 minutes ago, Monarch said:

Fallout 4:

 

1920x1080, Ultra Settings, Titan X GPU	Low/Avg FPS
Core i3 4130 [?] (3.4GHz, two cores, four threads)	25.0 / 48.1
Core i5 4690K [?] (Max 3.9GHz, four cores, four threads)	30.0 / 64.5
Core i7 4790K [?] (Max 4.4GHz, four cores, eight threads)	51.0 / 80.7
FX-6300 [?] (Max 4.1GHz, six cores, six threads)	23.0 / 48.4
FX-8350 [?] (Max 4.2GHz, eight cores, eight threads)	30.0 / 55.5

So if you'll notice, the 4690k and 4790k are not running at the same clock speed, and I'm 100% sure a 4690k can match or go a tad higher than 4.4Ghz out of the box without much of a problem.

 

Games like high clock speeds. The status quo for this has been clock speed > cores. This is why there was such a hype for that G3258 Pentium that could overclock super high and still be able to run Crysis 3 almost as good as the four-core parts except when it came to stuttering and minimum FPS during those high physics intensive scenes, which is where more physical cores (rather than threads because the G3258 has four threads total) would do good.

 

11 minutes ago, Monarch said:

Also, people usually look at average fps, rather than frametime or minimum fps. CPU bottleneck often times causes microstuttering. I get it in pretty much all the latest titles and it makes games unplayable for me. Frametime spikes up to 35 ms or higher, which translates to a framerate of less than 30 fps. There's a good reason devs recommend i7's for latest games.

I'm aware of all of that.

[Guest Kloaked]

12 minutes ago, Soundsystem90 said:

I know exactly that it's an i5.

How do you know?

[stealth80]

Whilst I agree that an i7 is overkill for the majority of games at this time, are we not advising people on items to purchase to give a good gaming experience for the forseeable future? 2 of the latest AAA games both show a preference towards extra cores, this is only going to become more common place over time. infact Witcher 3 showed quite a difference on an i7 vs an i5, not too much difference in FPS but the spikes were much less harsh on the i7 on both 4790k and 6700k

 

As for the OP, yes an i5 is fine

[TurkeyClub]

2 hours ago, aisle9 said:

Depends on the games you play. I'd consider the i3 to be the baseline for a gaming rig. It's a dual-core, yeah, but it's got four threads, it performs well in single-threaded applications (most games), it's cheap and it lets you upgrade to an i5 or i7 when it's showing its age.

 

An i5 is what I'd consider the typical gaming rig to be looking for. Great multi-thread, great single-thread, overclockable if you want that, and it's a true quad-core, which more and more games want. I'd wager that 95+% of games will run just fine on this CPU.

 

An i7 is needed only for outlier titles like BF1 and Cities: Skylines that eat threads like a fat dude at a cheeseburger buffet. If you're going to buy a bunch of those games, then an i7 is absolutely necessary. If you're only going to pick up one of those titles, or you don't intend to be buying every AAA game the second it comes out, you're fine with an i5, but Intel would certainly thank you for buying an i7, and they'd thank you even more if you were one of those who went around espousing that every gamer needs an i7 because three games aren't playable without it.

 

Here's a dirty little secret about an i5: if you buy it and it's not holding up to the workload, you can sell it off and buy an i7.

Thanks for the actual answer!  Should I spring for a k processor even though I can't get a z170 mobo?  It would stretch my budget too far.  

[aisle9]

48 minutes ago, TurkeyClub said:

Thanks for the actual answer!  Should I spring for a k processor even though I can't get a z170 mobo?  It would stretch my budget too far.  

If your plan is to buy a dirty-ho cheap H110 board just to put a system together (and they're as cheap as $40 right now) and step up to a Z170 as soon as one hits a magic number (they're already $100 or less in some cases), then yeah, a K is worth it. If the motherboard you're getting now is the one you're going to keep, then I wouldn't bother with the K.

[Monarch]

On 12/7/2016 at 2:32 AM, Kloaked said:

So if you'll notice, the 4690k and 4790k are not running at the same clock speed, and I'm 100% sure a 4690k can match or go a tad higher than 4.4Ghz out of the box without much of a problem.

 

Games like high clock speeds. The status quo for this has been clock speed > cores. This is why there was such a hype for that G3258 Pentium that could overclock super high and still be able to run Crysis 3 almost as good as the four-core parts except when it came to stuttering and minimum FPS during those high physics intensive scenes, which is where more physical cores (rather than threads because the G3258 has four threads total) would do good.

 

I'm aware of all of that.

 

You want to have both high single-thread performance and multi-thread performance. It is true that games mostly like high clock speed and rely on single core performance, but when there's a lot of action in a game you'll need more cores/threads as well in order to get good performance. Example: 

 

https://youtu.be/KzpYOHuSfaM?t=5m23s

 

Better MT performance and no microstuttering makes i7s worth the money imo. But even if you disagree, the i7s are objectively better and that's why devs are recommending them for the latest titles.

 

[smokefest]

On 12/6/2016 at 8:32 PM, Kloaked said:

Thank you for actually providing something tangible.

I didn't say he was wrong about multiplayer being a changer when it comes to performance. The argument is more about the worth of an i7 over an i5.

 

Crysis 3 has been a known CPU hog since it came out, and it's no surprise that there's some gain there. Even the sources I regularly go to will show that even an overclocked 6600k will still fall a little short of a 6700k when it comes to Crysis 3, so I'm being as objective as possible.

 

But that is Crysis 3.

 

So if you'll notice, the 4690k and 4790k are not running at the same clock speed, and I'm 100% sure a 4690k can match or go a tad higher than 4.4Ghz out of the box without much of a problem.

 

Games like high clock speeds. The status quo for this has been clock speed > cores. This is why there was such a hype for that G3258 Pentium that could overclock super high and still be able to run Crysis 3 almost as good as the four-core parts except when it came to stuttering and minimum FPS during those high physics intensive scenes, which is where more physical cores (rather than threads because the G3258 has four threads total) would do good.

 

I'm aware of all of that.

 

On 12/6/2016 at 10:10 PM, TurkeyClub said:

Thanks for the actual answer!  Should I spring for a k processor even though I can't get a z170 mobo?  It would stretch my budget too far.  

 

On 12/6/2016 at 8:20 PM, Monarch said:

 

He's actually right, but evidence is almost impossible to find because everyone benchmarks singleplayer (which usually isn't that CPU intensive) because it's easily repeatable with different hardware and the fact that what happens doesn't vary as much as it would in a multiplayer game. But I managed to find some evidence:

 

Crysis 3:

That's a big improvement with HT on, which proves that an i7 achieves much better MT performance.

 

Fallout 4:

 

1920x1080, Ultra Settings, Titan X GPU	Low/Avg FPS
Core i3 4130 [?] (3.4GHz, two cores, four threads)	25.0 / 48.1
Core i5 4690K [?] (Max 3.9GHz, four cores, four threads)	30.0 / 64.5
Core i7 4790K [?] (Max 4.4GHz, four cores, eight threads)	51.0 / 80.7
FX-6300 [?] (Max 4.1GHz, six cores, six threads)	23.0 / 48.4
FX-8350 [?] (Max 4.2GHz, eight cores, eight threads)	30.0 / 55.5

 

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023

 

Also, people usually look at average fps, rather than frametime or minimum fps. CPU bottleneck often times causes microstuttering. I get it in pretty much all the latest titles and it makes games unplayable for me. Frametime spikes up to 35 ms or higher, which translates to a framerate of less than 30 fps. There's a good reason devs recommend i7's for latest games.

 

 

 

 

Guys....

i5's are struggling in BF1.. 100% usage all the time creates stuttering, lag spikes. IT DOES.. A LOT..

 

you need an i7 for BF1, rise of the tomb raider also is very cpu intense...

 

Source : 

I had an i5 4690k @ 4.6 ghz ( wich performs better than a stock 6600k ) and i had no probleme getting over 80 fps, but even if I had 80 fps, I would get many lag spikes and stuttering lag due to the CPU 100% usage all the time. ( yes I would then limit my fps to 60 to avoid cpu lag, but still the cpu even was 100% usage all the time even with the config )

YOU CAN'T JUST SAY I HAVE 80 FPS WITH MY I5 I DONT LAG.

It does'nt work like that... you will not have FPS lag, but you will get CPU lag, wich can be even worse than fps lag....

 

Since I have my i7 6700k, all the spike lags have disappeard.... no more cpu stuttering lag...

 

the i7 stays near 40% cpu usage and goes up to 80% sometimes in some maps... Wich tells a lot about the cpu power you need to run bf1 smooth..


Now all the people saying i5 is enuff... that was true last year and since the start of the intel i series....
BUT NOW and in the futur, games will use more than 4 cores more and more often, and an i7 will do a big difference ( not in FPS keep in mind, its the cpu usage that creates that lag, not the fps )


So short story : i5 was enough in the past years, it's still very good right now for 90% of games, but we can see that the futur seems to be : i7

 

 

You want to buy a cpu that has 100% usage in a game the day you get your computer ? In my opinion, it will become worst and worst in the next years, as more and more games will start using the benefits of the i7 hyper threading 8 cores...


That said... if you play league of legend.... call of duty..... some low cpu demanding games... an i5 is way enough..

for the 10% of games that requires a high end cpu, an i5 will not do the job if you want a perfect smooth gameplay. Some people will find it smooth with an i5 in bf1... they simply dont know the difference between lag and no lag... fun story : I had a friend sayin his amd was rockin bf1 with a gtx 660... when I arrived at his home ( cuz i cudnt trust him, ) he said look theres no lag, all good, then i told him, dude you are lagging a lot... he wasnt believing me... I had to open a fps shower, show him that he was under 30 fps all the time... then he realised he was lagging lolll ( i know this waas FPS lag and CPU lag, but just to say that many people dont even realise when they are lagging )

 

The next day I went to his home, he had settings turned down to low to get over 45-50 fps  haha

[Guest Kloaked]

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

Guys....

i5's are struggling in BF1.. 100% usage all the time creates stuttering, lag spikes. IT DOES.. A LOT..

100% usage isn't a bad thing. I don't know why people keep saying this. I get what you're trying to say, but 100% CPU usage all the time does not inherently create lag spikes or stuttering.

 

If i5's are struggling in BF1, why is someone I know with an older i5 not experiencing any of this? Why are the people who have issues going to Reddit and people with the same specs are reporting way better performance in multiplayer? I'm tempted to just buy the game myself and test this out, only to yet again find out what you guys are saying about this is BS - just like when everyone got so upset over the 970 only having "3.5GB of VRAM", which was total BS.

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

I had an i5 4690k @ 4.6 ghz ( wich performs better than a stock 6600k ) and i had no probleme getting over 80 fps, but even if I had 80 fps, I would get many lag spikes and stuttering lag due to the CPU 100% usage all the time. ( yes I would then limit my fps to 60 to avoid cpu lag, but still the cpu even was 100% usage all the time even with the config )

Firstly, why are you pointing out that an overclocked 4690k will outperform a stock 6600k?

 

Secondly, there could have been another bottleneck somewhere else in the system causing the issue. It's not always just your CPU or your GPU. It could even be the game itself being an issue.

 

...but because it's Dice there's no fucking way they are at fault, right? Lets rule that out I guess since everyone praises Dice like they're the studio to look up to even though they're owned by EA.

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

Since I have my i7 6700k, all the spike lags have disappeard.... no more cpu stuttering lag...

Not a fair comparison. You moved to a completely new platform that uses DDR4 memory which would help even more to relieve CPU bottlenecks.

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

Now all the people saying i5 is enuff... that was true last year and since the start of the intel i series....
BUT NOW and in the futur, games will use more than 4 cores more and more often, and an i7 will do a big difference ( not in FPS keep in mind, its the cpu usage that creates that lag, not the fps )

Because one game that may or may not have optimization issues may use more than four threads, or the problem may be between the keyboard and the chair, we should just assume that the i7 is the way to go going forward?

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

So short story : i5 was enough in the past years, it's still very good right now for 90% of games, but we can see that the futur seems to be : i7

 

Even though historically desktop i5 parts have been four cores for a long time, who is to say that future i5s won't be more than four cores?

 

Regardless, you're trying to make the point that i7s are basically a requirement right now, and they're not. The problem isn't with the i5.

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

You want to buy a cpu that has 100% usage in a game the day you get your computer ? In my opinion, it will become worst and worst in the next years, as more and more games will start using the benefits of the i7 hyper threading 8 cores...

So let me get this straight: you're recommending that people should by overkill parts? You literally just said that i5s are "still very good right now for 90% of games" (90% is a very wrong number, mate, but whatever). Why would you buy an overkill part for one game when you can just either figure out what the actual problem is, or turn a setting or two down a notch like normal people? You're literally inflating the requirement to have a good experience on a PC with a lie.

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

That said... if you play league of legend.... call of duty..... some low cpu demanding games... an i5 is way enough..

An i3 or even less would run those games. What a good comparison there, mate.

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

for the 10% of games...

Your number is wrong. How many games exist on the Steam store right now? Now how many games are supposedly requiring more than four threads?

 

Your number. Is. Wrong.

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

...that requires a high end cpu, an i5 will not do the job if you want a perfect smooth gameplay. Some people will find it smooth with an i5 in bf1... they simply dont know the difference between lag and no lag...

Now I'm thinking you're trolling.

 

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

fun story : I had a friend sayin his amd was rockin bf1 with a gtx 660... when I arrived at his home ( cuz i cudnt trust him, ) he said look theres no lag, all good, then i told him, dude you are lagging a lot... he wasnt believing me... I had to open a fps shower, show him that he was under 30 fps all the time... then he realised he was lagging lolll ( i know this waas FPS lag and CPU lag, but just to say that many people dont even realise when they are lagging )

 

The next day I went to his home, he had settings turned down to low to get over 45-50 fps  haha

Pretty sure since you are using the word "lag", it's making it confusing. Low FPS is not lag, mate. If there's an actual lag between frames, that is stuttering, but low FPS does not inherently mean lag.

 

But that's cool you showed them what an actual playable framerate could look like for a first person shooter.

[Guest Kloaked]

2 hours ago, Monarch said:

 

You want to have both high single-thread performance and multi-thread performance. It is true that games mostly like high clock speed and rely on single core performance, but when there's a lot of action in a game you'll need more cores/threads as well in order to get good performance. Example: 

 

https://youtu.be/KzpYOHuSfaM?t=5m23s

 

Better MT performance and no microstuttering makes i7's worth the money imo. But even if you disagree, the i7's are objectively better and that's why devs are recommending them for the latest titles.

 

i7s relieve bottlenecks, which is why they recommend it. i7s have been recommended for AAA games for as long as I can remember, yet people get along just fine with an i5 somehow. People who review video cards, like LinusTechTips staff use Intel's X "Enthusiast" CPUs to relieve bottlenecks in their benchmarks.

 

I do not disagree that i7s perform better, but they do not perform good enough to justify the price for people who aren't going to always play these one or two games maxed out at whatever resolution when the money would be better spent in a better GPU.

 

The whole reason this was being brought up was because a member who is now banned was saying i5s are literally unplayable since BF1 supposedly has issues with i5 CPUs, and I was refuting that specific point. I did not ever say that i7s were not better than i5s.

[Monarch]

56 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I do not disagree that i7s perform better, but they do not perform good enough to justify the price for people who aren't going to always play these one or two games maxed out at whatever resolution when the money would be better spent in a better GPU.

 

The whole reason this was being brought up was because a member who is now banned was saying i5s are literally unplayable since BF1 supposedly has issues with i5 CPUs, and I was refuting that specific point. I did not ever say that i7s were not better than i5s.

 

Why would the money be better spent on a better GPU? I can't think of any game that's 100% GPU bound. Perhaps there are some, but most aren't. You get a good CPU to get good framerate in CPU-bound situations, you get a good GPU to get good performance in GPU-bound situations. You can pick only one if you specifically know what the games you'll be playing tax more and you know what you're trying to achieve, but I'd say it's generally a good idea to get a balanced system.

I believe the majority of gamers want smooth, high framerate gameplay over anything else, and so pairing an i5 with a high end GPU doesn't make sense. Not only will you get fps drops in CPU-bound situations, but you'll get something much worse, which is microstuttering. Pretty bad microstuttering. And most people do notice the stuttering. I've seen so many posts on so many forums where people blame devs for not optimizing their games. This includes BF1, BF4, GTA V, Crysis 3, Fallout 4, all the CPU heavy games basicallly. And almost all of those people own either AMD or i5 CPUs. But you can't blame them, they've been told so much that i5s are enough for gaming, but for them it clearly isn't enough. They see the stuttering, and it bothers them. Those people clearly need i7s, but they don't know that.

Also, since i5s are already struggling in a lot of games, they'll perform even worse in the future titles, and most people who build a PC will use it for several years and expect to be able to play future games as well. So in that respect, getting an i5 now is not a great idea.

 

And so I think when giving advice to people our default position should be that they should get a balanced system, unless they only play certain games and want specific things.

 

 

[Guest Kloaked]

2 minutes ago, Monarch said:

Why would the money be better spent on a better GPU? I can't think of any game that's 100% GPU bound.

Literally every game requires a GPU of some sort. It's not going to be 100% GPU bound (I never said that), but the GPU is where most of the work is being done.

 

13 minutes ago, Monarch said:

I'd say it's generally a good idea to get a balanced system.

That's literally why it's i5 > i7 unless you can afford it so that the extra money is going toward a better GPU since most games are more GPU bound than CPU bound. This is how it's been for the longest time and it hasn't changed.

 

14 minutes ago, Monarch said:

I believe the majority of gamers want smooth, high framerate gameplay over anything else

 

But seriously..

 

15 minutes ago, Monarch said:

so pairing an i5 with a high end GPU doesn't make sense.

Yet you say you should get/recommend a balanced system.

 

Am I in the twilight zone? Are you trolling me?

 

16 minutes ago, Monarch said:

Not only will you get fps drops in CPU-bound situations, but you'll get something much worse, which is microstuttering. Pretty bad microstuttering. And most people do notice the stuttering. I've seen so many posts on so many forums where people blame devs for not optimizing their games. This includes BF1, BF4, GTA V, Crysis 3, Fallout 4, all the CPU heavy games basicallly. And almost all of those people own either AMD or i5 CPUs. But you can't blame them, they've been told so much that i5s are enough for gaming, but for them it clearly isn't enough. They see the stuttering, and it bothers them. Those people clearly need i7s, but they don't know that.

Also, since i5s are already struggling in a lot of games, they'll perform even worse in the future titles, and most people who build a PC will use it for several years and expect to be able to play future games as well. So in that respect, getting an i5 now is not a great idea.

 

I wouldn't even bring in AMD CPUs into this discussion, but even in some games they're usable. i5s are significantly better than those for gaming, especially when they're overclocked.

 

They've been told i5s are enough for gaming because they are enough. I don't know what else to say since I'll basically be repeating myself like I have already in this thread. We're going back and forth with anecdotal evidence anyways.

[Monarch]

24 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Literally every game requires a GPU of some sort. It's not going to be 100% GPU bound (I never said that), but the GPU is where most of the work is being done.

 

The GPU is where most of the work is being done, but that's why GPUs are more powerful processors than CPUs. Since it's the CPU that has to process everything and prepare instructions for the GPU, you need a good CPU as well. Otherwise when there's a lot going on in the game your framerate will drop. The only 100% GPU-bound things are AA and resolution.

 

24 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

That's literally why it's i5 > i7 unless you can afford it so that the extra money is going toward a better GPU since most games are more GPU bound than CPU bound. This is how it's been for the longest time and it hasn't changed.

 

But seriously..

 

Yet you say you should get/recommend a balanced system.

 

Am I in the twilight zone? Are you trolling me?

 

That's where you're wrong. A system with a high end GPU worth $400+ and an i5 (mediocre CPU) worth < $250 is not a balanced system. And when you take into account that games have become more CPU intensive, while the CPUs haven't increased much in performance in the recent years you realize you ideally want an i7 with even something like a GTX 970, 1060, R9 390, etc. to get smooth gameplay in CPU-bound scenarios. Otherwise you get horrible microstuttering and fps drops.

 

24 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

They've been told i5s are enough for gaming because they are enough. I don't know what else to say since I'll basically be repeating myself like I have already in this thread. We're going back and forth with anecdotal evidence anyways.

 

I think I've been perfectly clear. They're not enough. They are decent enough to those who don't mind stuttering or are on a tight budget, but seriously who doesn't mind fps drops and microstuttering?

[Guest Kloaked]

2 minutes ago, Monarch said:

 

So why do you have an i5?

[Monarch]

Just now, Kloaked said:

So why do you have an i5?

 

Because I bought it in 2013, back when games weren't this CPU intensive and didn't benefit much from extra threads/cores. Now it gets maxed out in almost every AAA title. Titanfall 2, BF1, TW3, Fallout 4, GTA V, Mafia III...