Is CPU Performance Overrated in Gaming?

[Schmiddy]

People are shocked when they hear that I run Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Skyrim: Special Edition (with mods), Fallout 4 (with mods), The Witcher 3, and more on high to max settings with just an AMD FX 4300 ($70) and a GTX 1050 Ti. Meanwhile people are talking about getting the latest Ryzen 7 1700 ($300) or Intel i7 6700 ($290) processor for their gaming rig. Has CPU performance been oversold to gamers, or is there an actual application for these high performance CPUs in gaming?

[The Sloth]

5 minutes ago, Schmiddy said:

Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Skyrim: Special Edition (with mods), Fallout 4 (with mods), The Witcher 3, and more on high to max settings with just an AMD FX 4300 ($70) and a GTX 1050 Ti.

 

what resolution?  you don't run Witcher 3 at high to max settings with an FX4300 and a 1050ti at 1080p 60fps( 1080p 60 is a good sweet spot for pc gaming) 

[redbullvodka]

Honestly, most people got it a bit overdone.

Like, sure, the better the cpu, the better some things work.

 

But having a 20 core processor won´t help much tbh

 

But you can also be surprised how much performance you can get if you do like me, and go with a i3 3240, and then switch up to an i5 7600k

[The Sloth]

Just now, redbullvodka said:

i5 7600k

i5s are not worth it anymore, ryzen 1600 is much better. 

[Jurrunio]

CPU performance do matter. In ghost recon wildlands my 1070 is only running at 80% the fps benchmarks from reviews suggest because my i5-4460 is too slow. Of course you don't need 8 cores like Ryzen 7, but 4 high frequency cores are necessary to fully utilize a high-end GPU.

[manikyath]

i have an i7 4790k, because i multitask. while gaming.

 

i've yet to encounter a game that cpu necks at an fps that isnt in "add more anti-aliasing" framerate terretory anyways.

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, Schmiddy said:

Has CPU performance been oversold to gamers, or is there an actual application for these high performance CPUs in gaming?

If you want to achieve high performance in games, you need to have a high performing processor. You may be able to achieve 60FPS in the games you play, but that may be all you'll achieve or worse down the road when the minimum amount of work a processor needs to do for games increases or the bar is set higher.

 

Also the CPU still has to tell the GPU what to do. AMD render paths can suffer because in poorly optimized situations, since a single thread handles that work. NVIDIA render paths suffer because the CPU is scheduling the jobs for the GPU to do.

[Gamerguy207]

What your fps when I upgraded my fx 4300 to a i5 6700k I got at least a 30 fps improvement on my games

[Schmiddy]

I recorded some quick footage of the witcher 3 showing it run on high settings. I only ran around the map a little bit, and there's no fps counter etc, so if you guys are interested in something more comprehensive let me know. Give the video a little while to finish processing.

 

 

[ivan134]

Lol max settings, okay

[Schmiddy]

"high to max settings" as it varies by game. Obviously some games will perform better than others. please read my post thoroughly before making snide remarks.

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, Schmiddy said:

"high to max settings" as it varies by game. Obviously some games will perform better than others. please read my post thoroughly before making snide remarks.

You have no idea what you're talking about. High preset is not ultra preset. Second, it is clear to have no idea what a CPU does in games since you're doing a "CPU test" in an unpopulated area. Go do that test on the town. You don't even have an fps counter in your video. Also, do this test with fallout 4 or in geothermal valley in tomb raider and let me know how that goes for you if you think CPU power is overrated.

[Schmiddy]

I'm not saying the terminology varies by game, I'm saying my performance varies by game. My computer runs Skyrim Special Edition far better than it does The Witcher 3.

 

Like I said this was only a quick video I made, it was not meant to be a comprehensive look at the performance I was getting, but simply showing that I was running the game with a smooth frame rate at high settings. If people are interested in a comprehensive look at my computer's performance while playing these games at various settings then I can look into doing just that.

 

Please keep the insults to yourself, I'm only looking to have a civil discussion.

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, Schmiddy said:

I'm not saying the terminology varies by game, I'm saying my performance varies by game. My computer runs Skyrim Special Edition far better than it does The Witcher 3.

 

Like I said this was only a quick video I made, it was not meant to be a comprehensive look at the performance I was getting, but simply showing that I was running the game with a smooth frame rate at high settings. If people are interested in a comprehensive look at my computer's performance while playing these games at various settings then I can look into doing just that.

 

Please keep the insults to yourself, I'm only looking to have a civil discussion.

What insults? You're doing that all by yourself. You just said you didn't do a comprehensive test but you're questioning people who have. 

[Schmiddy]

17 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Lol max settings, okay

9 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted these statements as being snide / aggressive / insulting.

 

Like I said, this was only a quick demonstration. If you'd like further evidence of my computer's performance I can provide that at a later time.

[Mira Yurizaki]

31 minutes ago, Schmiddy said:

I recorded some quick footage of the witcher 3 showing it run on high settings. I only ran around the map a little bit, and there's no fps counter etc, so if you guys are interested in something more comprehensive let me know. Give the video a little while to finish processing.

 

 

If you want to add any credibility to this video, you need at least:

• Proof of your specifications, probably in the form of CPU-z + GPU-z or Speccy being up before launching the game
• An FPS counter. If you can't do FRAPS, Steam Overlay has one and you can have it on any game if Steam can launch it when you add it as a non-Steam game in your library.

Those are my two cents, anyway.

[ivan134]

First thing you need to do is get a basic grasp of this subject matter before even attempting to refute it. There are a plethora of videos and articles on the importance of CPUs and RAM speed available to you. Study all those. That should at least tell you why your method of testing CPU power in Witcher 3 is way off. Next time you want to do such a video, at the very least you need an fps counter. For this kind of video, you need to include frame times and minimum framerate too. 

[Schmiddy]

25 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

If you want to add any credibility to this video, you need at least:

• Proof of your specifications, probably in the form of CPU-z + GPU-z or Speccy being up before launching the game
• An FPS counter. If you can't do FRAPS, Steam Overlay has one and you can have it on any game if Steam can launch it when you add it as a non-Steam game in your library.

Those are my two cents, anyway.

I'll look to see about using OBS to create an overlay showing my task manager performance and CPU-z and GPU-z results, and I've recently discovered that Nvidia Shadowplay has a built in fps counter that can be enabled. I'll try to get a video together showing various games and my performance later today or tomorrow, depending on how much time i have available. Some things to keep in mind:

 

1: Recording software will impact my performance.

 

2: I only have a GTX 1050 Ti, but I will see if I can find any other benchmarks using the same game and settings with that same graphics card but a different CPU for comparison, but I get the feeling that may be a bit difficult.

 

Thanks for the input Yurizaki.

 

22 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

First thing you need to do is get a basic grasp of this subject matter before even attempting to refute it. There are a plethora of videos and articles on the importance of CPUs and RAM speed available to you. Study all those. That should at least tell you why your method of testing CPU power in Witcher 3 is way off. Next time you want to do such a video, at the very least you need an fps counter. For this kind of video, you need to include frame times and minimum framerate too. 

I'm only looking to discuss the general matter of whether or not CPU performance is overrated in PC gaming. I'm not looking to benchmark hardware performance or to refute entire studies. 

 

[ivan134]

22 minutes ago, Schmiddy said:

I'll look to see about using OBS to create an overlay showing my task manager performance and CPU-z and GPU-z results, and I've recently discovered that Nvidia Shadowplay has a built in fps counter that can be enabled. I'll try to get a video together showing various games and my performance later today or tomorrow, depending on how much time i have available. Some things to keep in mind:

 

1: Recording software will impact my performance.

 

2: I only have a GTX 1050 Ti, but I will see if I can find any other benchmarks using the same game and settings with that same graphics card but a different CPU for comparison, but I get the feeling that may be a bit difficult.

 

Thanks for the input Yurizaki.

 

I'm only looking to discuss the general matter of whether or not CPU performance is overrated in PC gaming. I'm not looking to benchmark hardware performance or to refute entire studies. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Schmiddy said:

People are shocked when they hear that I run Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Skyrim: Special Edition (with mods), Fallout 4 (with mods), The Witcher 3, and more on high to max settings with just an AMD FX 4300 ($70) and a GTX 1050 Ti. Meanwhile people are talking about getting the latest Ryzen 7 1700 ($300) or Intel i7 6700 ($290) processor for their gaming rig. Has CPU performance been oversold to gamers, or is there an actual application for these high performance CPUs in gaming?

 

[ShoshinUK]

@Schmiddy

Good for you mate, we all learn - me included by doing. Don't let some peoples remarks put you off, they are all wonderful people really!

From my experience of PC gaming, I found out that within reason the importance of your CPU speed can be significant in relation to FPS output.

It's more Application dependant. I played alot of Arma 3 and currently play alot of Squad. The CPU single core performance is very significant in these games, over GPU.

But less so in Insurgency.

I found out that overall balanced (but powerful) components is the way to go in a system to avoid bottlenecks and get the job done well.

And the core ones are CPU, GPU and RAM. The main areas each of these effect (the most) for me are:

1. CPU - drives the GPU and in some titles single core performance really hits FPS results
2. RAM - you need enough of it, and the speed of the RAM effects the min FPS in many titles when the title pushes the RAM hard

3. GPU - you need enough VRAM and bandwidth to cope with what your trying to do graphically

These arn't factual, scientific or complete thoughts, they are just my direct experience in the games I play. there are other factors I know less about and I may have worded things poorly. (I do push all the games I play hard re resolution and FPS with stability in mind).

Hope the info helps and look forward to your next video.

[Princess Luna]

I got married to an i7 6700 which I don't feel is enough and I don't even multi-task when I'm gaming

 

Intel fooled us all no i7 8700k this month, now just out of anger I'll only upgrade on Ice Lake.

[ShoshinUK]

6 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I got married to an i7 6700 which I don't feel is enough and I don't even multi-task when I'm gaming

Understood, but does that CPU bottleneck the GPU in any games you play? And what's your expectations re FPS and settings?

The i7 6700 would not do the job, for me in Squad, as Squad demands high single core performance to deliver high FPS. But in most games the i7 6700 is not a bottleneck unless your expecting extreme results (in which case the K series is the marketed chip range to get re over clocking, right?).

I have plenty of friends who play Squad and Arma at decent, acceptable FPS with the 6700. It's my expectations that demand more!

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, ShoshinUK said:

!

Oh I was joking really it is a terrific CPU it doesn't bottleneck my 1080ti FE Black Edition at all at least not on 2560x1080p80hz max out which is how I play ^^

[Suika]

2 hours ago, Schmiddy said:

is there an actual application for these high performance CPUs in gaming?

With the introduction of Ryzen 7, everybody has become professional streamers and popular YouTubers to justify their purchases.

 

Jokes aside, there is actually a point where a CPU can no longer handle a graphics card. Back when I had it, my 980 Ti was rendering frames faster than an i5 could, so I was losing out on GPU performance by running an i5. Similarly, Kyle from Bitwit recently did a video on AMD's R3 series and showed that the GTX 1060 is about the highest end card an R3 1200 / 1300X could handle (although I feel like there may have been some bottlenecking on the 1060). I don't think everybody needs an R7 or i7, but to some users they have their uses. I don't think anybody needs an i5 anymore, though.

 

I personally have a 5930k because it was on sale, but now that I've gotten used to having 12 threads available, I don't really want to go back.

[JoostinOnline]

2 hours ago, Schmiddy said:

but simply showing that I was running the game with a smooth frame rate at high settings.

In the least CPU intensive situation of the game, and without a framerate counter.