Cpu for gaming

[Guest Kloaked]

2 minutes ago, Monarch said:

 

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...

Before I rebuilt my system, I had an overclocked 2500k with a GTX 980 with 16GB of 2133MHz memory. I ran TW3, GTA5, Fallout 4 all just fine without serious performance issues. I didn't get any microstuttering or serious frame rate drops - only time my FPS dropped was when I got into Novigrad during the day, but even then it wasn't even below 50 and I had everything maxed out including Hairworks on if I recall correctly.
 

28 minutes ago, Monarch said:

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.

You're not saying anything new here, and again, I never said games were 100% GPU bound, so I don't know why you're bringing that up again.

 

29 minutes ago, Monarch said:

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.

Skylake CPUs have actually gotten a good performance increase over other CPUs, which is what got me to upgrade from the Z77 platform.

 

You ideally want to get a balanced system for your budget, which will most of the time only have room for an i5 (since they're good enough) and a good mid-range or high-end GPU.

 

35 minutes ago, Monarch said:

I think I've been perfectly clear. They're not enough.

Yet everything you've said is purely anecdotal, just like my argument.

 

36 minutes ago, Monarch said:

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?

Not me, because I went with a 6600k that I overclocked.

[A Damn Crab!]

I hear the FX 9590 is a good choice.

[Ryoku]

On 2016-12-06 at 5:19 PM, Soundsystem90 said:

The difference is huge though.

Playable vs unplayable. GG

 

Games are not getting easier to run.

I don't have any issues playing BF1 with my 4670k, and by that i mean I haven't seen my FPS go below 100.

[Monarch]

2 minutes ago, Ryoku said:

I don't have any issues playing BF1 with my 4670k, and by that i mean I haven't seen my FPS go below 100.

 

On low settings, you're playing by yourself and staring at a wall? 

 

16 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Before I rebuilt my system, I had an overclocked 2500k with a GTX 980 with 16GB of 2133MHz memory. I ran TW3, GTA5, Fallout 4 all just fine without serious performance issues. I didn't get any microstuttering or serious frame rate drops - only time my FPS dropped was when I got into Novigrad during the day, but even then it wasn't even below 50 and I had everything maxed out including Hairworks on if I recall correctly.
 

You're not saying anything new here, and again, I never said games were 100% GPU bound, so I don't know why you're bringing that up again.

 

Skylake CPUs have actually gotten a good performance increase over other CPUs, which is what got me to upgrade from the Z77 platform.

 

You ideally want to get a balanced system for your budget, which will most of the time only have room for an i5 (since they're good enough) and a good mid-range or high-end GPU.

 

Yet everything you've said is purely anecdotal, just like my argument.

 

Not me, because I went with a 6600k that I overclocked.

 

Everything I said is based on my experience and the evidence I posted, as little as there is, it's all I could find and I explained why that is. But it is enough to prove hyperthreading can increase performance up to 30% and that you get much smoother gameplay with i7s (little to no microstuttering). I guess you're one of those people not sensitive to stuttering so that's why you're satisfied with an i5. Many people including me aren't, and for us i5s are definitely not good enough. Why do you think DICE listed 6600k as a minimum requirement for BF1? They know how their game works and how CPU heavy it is, and they know there's a lot of frametime spikes with i5s.

[smokefest]

3 hours ago, Kloaked said:

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Now I'm thinking you're trolling.

 

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.

i didnt even take the time to read you as soon as i read " i want to try it by myself to know " i stopped to read lolllll

I tried it. you can believe what you want. I know how an i5 does in bf1. And As i said, i know how many people exist on this earth that will say they dont lag with a p4 and a voodoo 128 mb in crysis 3 all ultra 4k 144 hz,, we all know some1 like that... loll

I tell you my friend, a 4690K @ 4.5 ghz beats a 6600k stock easily in games...


Proof : 

 

 

[Guest Kloaked]

13 minutes ago, Monarch said:

Everything I said is based on my experience and the evidence I posted, as little as there is, it's all I could find and I explained why that is. But it is enough to prove hyperthreading can increase performance up to 30% and that you get much smoother gameplay with i7s (little to no microstuttering). I guess you're one of those people not sensitive to stuttering so that's why you're satisfied with an i5. Many people including me aren't, and for us i5s are definitely not good enough. Why do you think DICE listed 6600k as a minimum requirement for BF1? They know how their game works and how CPU heavy it is, and they know there's a lot of frametime spikes with i5s.

They also said an AMD 6350 for minimum and an 8350 for recommended.

 

I'm not basing any of this off of stuff that I read from someone else, this is also my experience. I know what stuttering is because I had that issue in Witcher 3 at certain points in the game, and fixed it with faster memory. I also know what stuttering and low fps looks like because there was a point in time when I was gaming on a cheap HP laptop with an AMD APU.

 

3 minutes ago, smokefest said:

I tell you my friend, a 4690K @ 4.5 ghz beats a 6600k stock easily in games...

You don't have to prove that to me. I was pointing out that the comparisons that you're finding aren't fair comparisons, and that one you just linked is no different. How are you going to compare two unlocked CPUs and only overclock one of them? I know why you may make the comparison, but you're using it like the 4690k is somehow better, but you know, you can overclock a 6600k

[smokefest]

Just now, Kloaked said:

They also said an AMD 6350 for minimum and an 8350 for recommended.

 

I'm not basing any of this off of stuff that I read from someone else, this is also my experience. I know what stuttering is because I had that issue in Witcher 3 at certain points in the game, and fixed it with faster memory. I also know what stuttering and low fps looks like because there was a point in time when I was gaming on a cheap HP laptop with an AMD APU.

 

You don't have to prove that to me. I was pointing out that the comparisons that you're finding aren't fair comparisons, and that one you just linked is no different. How are you going to compare two unlocked CPUs and only overclock one of them?

yes the point was that the 4690k oc > 6600k STOCK , i tho that was clear but heh lolll

Their minimum yes.. since when minimum means no lag ?? you cleary have no experience lolll minimum always been shitty gameplay in games bro

[Guest Kloaked]

2 minutes ago, smokefest said:

yes the point was that the 4690k oc > 6600k STOCK , i tho that was clear but heh lolll

Their minimum yes.. since when minimum means no lag ?? you cleary have no experience lolll minimum always been shitty gameplay in games bro

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Overclocked CPUs are better? No shit? This is news to me! /s

[A Damn Crab!]

I don't understand the arguments. Clearly i7's show a good advantage in various games?

LMAO someone got banned even wow. But it seems he was right though.

[Monarch]

14 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

They also said an AMD 6350 for minimum and an 8350 for recommended.

 

AMD was their hardware partner, not sure if it still is, but I guess they didn't want to humiliate them by listing their best one as recommended.

[AlwaysFSX]

20 minutes ago, A Damn Crab! said:

I don't understand the arguments. Clearly i7's show a good advantage in various games?

LMAO someone got banned even wow. But it seems he was right though.

EVIIIIIIIIIDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENCE.

 

Can't be provided.

[A Damn Crab!]

Just now, AlwaysFSX said:

EVIIIIIIIIIDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENCE.

 

Can't be provided.

FX 8350 won't bottleneck a TITAN XP.

 

Until we get evidence i am right.

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

EVIIIIIIIIIDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENCE.

What's that?

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, A Damn Crab! said:

FX 8350 won't bottleneck a TITAN XP.

 

Until we get evidence i am right.

In that case I could provide evidence. In this, no.

 

You still can't.

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, A Damn Crab! said:

FX 8350 won't bottleneck a TITAN XP.

 

Until we get evidence i am right.

I see you ended up making another account like you said.

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, Kloaked said:

What's that?

A myth apparently.

[xxMega11xx]

I would get like a 6700k because of the speed and the ppc

[A Damn Crab!]

Just now, Kloaked said:

I see you ended up making another account like you said.

I'm new here. Only got chance to come on since my son is out with his father.

[A Damn Crab!]

4 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

In that case I could provide evidence. In this, no.

 

You still can't.

I think others here could too.

I used a reversal of the technique you guys like to use

[Monarch]

26 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Overclocked CPUs are better? No shit? This is news to me! /s

 

He's saying his OCed i5 was faster than the fastest one available - the 6600K, and he still had lag spikes and stuttering.

[AlwaysFSX]

4 minutes ago, A Damn Crab! said:

I think others here could too.

I used a reversal of the technique you guys like to use

In what manner, so far no evidence has been provided for differing opinions.

[A Damn Crab!]

Just now, AlwaysFSX said:

In what manner, so far no evidence has been provided for differing opinions.

I agree on both sides there is no ACTUAL evidence, not sure how you seem to think you or anyone else is on the right side though since both sides are mimics of each other.

 

[A Damn Crab!]

Actually i take that back the person who posted the evidence of a game benefitting significantly was @Monarch and that is factual evidence, but that don't seem to cause stuttering due to 100% pegged CPU load, but i don't have Crysis 3 myself so i can't say. I only have BF3 too since that was the last good BF game DICE made.

[AlwaysFSX]

5 minutes ago, A Damn Crab! said:

I agree on both sides there is no ACTUAL evidence, not sure how you seem to think you or anyone else is on the right side though since both sides are mimics of each other.

Here's the thing about that, the person who starts the disagreement with everyone else holds the burden of proof. It's their job to tell us why we're wrong and provide evidence for that. Until then, they are wrong.

[Guest Kloaked]

13 minutes ago, Monarch said:

He's saying his OCed i5 was faster than the fastest one available - the 6600K, and he still had lag spikes and stuttering.

And like I said, a stock unlocked CPU compared to an overclocked one is an unfair comparison, and still doesn't show the evidence that you guys are correct.

7 minutes ago, A Damn Crab! said:

I agree on both sides there is no ACTUAL evidence, not sure how you seem to think you or anyone else is on the right side though since both sides are mimics of each other.

 

Because the status quo has always been to get an i5 and the highest end GPU that you can afford since most games will play better on a higher end GPU than going to an i7. You should only get an i7 if you have the budget for it after the GPU is able to run the game at the frame rate you want it at.

 

I have never said an i7 is not better than an i5 for gaming. I am 100% on board with the idea that an i7 relieving any CPU bottlenecks that will come up when compared to an i5.

 

This whole thing erupted originally when someone who ended up being banned for calling me a cunt and continuing to be abrasive and toxic was saying that you absolutely need an i7 or you will not have a "playable" experience all because of one game; a game that may or may not have optimization issues, or maybe even playing on 64 man servers with the game completely maxed out will indeed eat your system alive unless you have the top end of the top end of systems.

 

All this because OP was wondering if an i5 was worth it over an i3, not if an i7 was worth it over an i5.