People please stop telling people not to get the 4790K for gaming

[Faceman]

Well, I have the money, and £50 more is not a problem to me specifically, it'll be more useful in the next year or two, and that's good nuff for me.

Go find the video of Linus talking with the Intel engineer.  Game developers are not going to make games for more than 4 cores, and for hyperthreading.  They make games for the masses in order to sell more copies.  We are a ways away from seeing a significant shift in the ways games are made.

[juretrn]

I have the I7 4790k. I love it.

But I only got it because I could afford it, other than that I wouldn't have.

I also personally have an i7 (920), but I only got it as there was no such thing as an i5 at the time.

[GlassBomb]

If your budget allows it, then sure. Get a 4790k. But as of right now, the 4690k is much better value.

Unless you are actually using your computer for work. Rendering, editing, etc. Then you should either get the i7, or the Xeon if you are on a budget and don't plan on overclocking.

[grimmjow660]

Also getting the i7 is also definitely worth it I you live near a microcenter with their bundles and sales. I got the 4790k and Asus z97 AR for $360.

[SHiFT]

Go find the video of Linus talking with the Intel engineer.  Game developers are not going to make games for more than 4 cores, and for hyperthreading.  They make games for the masses in order to sell more copies.  We are a ways away from seeing a significant shift in the ways games are made.

Well, if Watch_Dogs has made use of hyperthreading to SOME EXTENT, I am more than happy to get a 4790K, as it is not a lot more for MY BUDGET, and I am looking for components that will last a good while as I will not upgrade my PC for years. This is MY reason for getting it, and because its on an offer so its £30 more than that i5.. who wouldnt get it for that low difference.

[grimmjow660]

Well, if Watch_Dogs has made use of hyperthreading to SOME EXTENT, I am more than happy to get a 4790K, as it is not a lot more for MY BUDGET, and I am looking for components that will last a good while as I will not upgrade my PC for years. This is MY reason for getting it, and because its on an offer so its £30 more than that i5.. who wouldnt get it for that low difference.

Get the i7 if your budget allows it. You won't be disappointed.

[Faceman]

Well, if Watch_Dogs has made use of hyperthreading to SOME EXTENT, I am more than happy to get a 4790K, as it is not a lot more for MY BUDGET, and I am looking for components that will last a good while as I will not upgrade my PC for years. This is MY reason for getting it, and because its on an offer so its £30 more than that i5.. who wouldnt get it for that low difference.

For you, specifically it makes sense, for the majority of people, they want the most performance for the least amount of money with the most longevity.  The i5 is the answer to the majority of people.  It is not a good idea to prioritize the CPU over the GPU if your machine is for gaming.

[Faceman]

Get the i7 if your budget allows it. You won't be disappointed.

You wont be disappointed with the i5 either if the purpose of your rig is to game.

[GlassBomb]

Unless someone's budget (for a gaming Pc) is over $1,000 then I honestly can't recommend the i7 over the i5.

The extra 80~100 you spend on the CPU can be used for many other things to enhance your gaming experience. GPU, SSD, Monitor. To mention a few.

[Ialyrn]

Well, if Watch_Dogs has made use of hyperthreading to SOME EXTENT, I am more than happy to get a 4790K, as it is not a lot more for MY BUDGET, and I am looking for components that will last a good while as I will not upgrade my PC for years. This is MY reason for getting it, and because its on an offer so its £30 more than that i5.. who wouldnt get it for that low difference.

Where are you getting the £30 difference between the i5 and the i7? Because I can only find a minimum of £75 between the i5 4690k and the i7 4790k.

To anyone wanting an intel based system:

For gaming I would recommend the the i5 4670k personally, I don't see the point in paying £10 more for the i5 4690k. For anyone who does any sort of regular video work, 3d work, or anything else like that. I would recommend the 4770k. Again, I don't see the point in paying more (£26 in the i7's case) for such a small increase in performance. Especially when that differance could potentially be made up via overclocking.

[i_build_nanosuits]

For you, specifically it makes sense, for the majority of people, they want the most performance for the least amount of money with the most longevity.  The i5 is the answer to the majority of people.  It is not a good idea to prioritize the CPU over the GPU if your machine is for gaming.

...unless you plan on keeping the same platform for many years and play games maxed out all the times only upgrading the GPU once in a while? That's why i picked the i7 (and also because it wasn't that much more than a core i5)

[iceman0124]

With the new consoles raising the bar on the lowest common denominator, games will be more highly threaded soon, we should see some of that this year, and more the years to come. IMO the argument that the i5 is all you need for gaming on a new build today only holds water if your only concerned about playing stuff that's already out, or upgrade very often., if you plan on getting 4 years or more out of the CPU, I'd go i7. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

With the new consoles raising the bar on the lowest common denominator, games will be more highly threaded soon, we should see some of that this year, and more the years to come. IMO the argument that the i5 is all you need for gaming on a new build today only holds water if your only concerned about playing stuff that's already out, or upgrade very often., if you plan on getting 4 years or more out of the CPU, I'd go i7. 

^^This

[Ialyrn]

With the new consoles raising the bar on the lowest common denominator, games will be more highly threaded soon, we should see some of that this year, and more the years to come. IMO the argument that the i5 is all you need for gaming on a new build today only holds water if your only concerned about playing stuff that's already out, or upgrade very often., if you plan on getting 4 years or more out of the CPU, I'd go i7. 

I have an Xbox one, it has not raised the bar at all; and neither has the PS4. Not even on the lowest denominator, as that belongs to android/ios tablets and devices. They are both far too underpowered, even the 360 and PS3 were not this weak when they released. Both of these systems are struggling to hit 1080p and 60fps (the X1 more than the PS4). Lets face it, pc gamers have been able to hit that staple for a long time now. Both Microsoft and Sony need to rethink how they make their consoles, and both of their systems need far stronger hardware. Especially with 4k gaming on the affordable Horizon (to a point). As it stands they are only 3 steps ahead of what they have replaced, and 10 steps+ behind even a £500 gaming pc (not including accessory's, only the tower itself).

 

[SHiFT]

For you, specifically it makes sense, for the majority of people, they want the most performance for the least amount of money with the most longevity.  The i5 is the answer to the majority of people.  It is not a good idea to prioritize the CPU over the GPU if your machine is for gaming.

Just ordered a ~£1500 rig with Vapor-X R9 290X, I didnt prioritise the CPU over anything.

[Faceman]

@Cokeman

 

This is the Tech Talk with the Intel Engineer, with a question specifically from me on June 20th of this year:

 

Start listening at minute 24:30

 

Q:  "Game developers have been telling us for years that Hyperthreading and more cores will have a more linear effect on performance, and for years this has remain untrue.  Do you think Hyperthreading will soon show more profound performance gains when it comes to gaming in the near future?  If so, how long?  It seems like it has been 3 or more years that recommended specs have been telling us to buy i7s, yet the performance difference is negligible when comparing an i5 and i7.  Does it make sense to try and "future proof" by going with an i7 over an i5."

 

A:  "No. Hyperthreading helps with highly predictable or repetitive workloads, something that is almost never the case with unpredictable game logic. Hence why HT is visibly better in synthetic benchmarks, video rendering and CAD, but more of an interference for on-the-fly geometry/ wireframe calculations in unpredictable game scenarios.  Realistically what game developers do is develop to the lowest common denominator, which is still 2 cores."

 

Another soundbite at Minute 33:30:

 

"Why would we release a consumer grade chip with 6 cores when software is not taking advantage of it?"

 

He says that rhetorically.

 

"Dual core is the bottom of the stack....We are moving forward as the software calls for it, but until we see demand for 6/8/10/12 cores in the mainstream world, what advantage would Intel have at releasing these parts, that can't really be utilized, it is really a niche place for 8 threads to be utilized."

 

The most telling moment of the stream starts at minute 60, there is too much to list word for word so I will quote the most important sentence:

 

Intel wants more thread utilization, they want to push us up the stack because the technology is there.  We are frustrated that software hasn't caught up, but when you look on Steam, and you see what kind of systems people have, the vast majority is dual core.  So if I'm a game developer I am designing the game for dual core because that is where the money is.

 

Listen to the whole stream because its very interesting, but starting from minute 60, and you will understand that games are not being made for more than 4 threads.

[tautvydas]

That isn't too bad, the 4790K + GTX760 would be terrible, but i5 + 760 is pretty typical

phew you got me scared there for a secon and if u can, will cooler master n300 case can gold cooler master hyper 212 evo ? and will any case fans affect my gpu temps ? (i know 80C is normal for gtx 760) but still i run pc for 7-12h a day! (play games now but trying to see if i can stream games witch requires some sereous power !)

[harrynowl]

phew you got me scared there for a secon and if u can, will cooler master n300 case can gold cooler master hyper 212 evo ? and will any case fans affect my gpu temps ? (i know 80C is normal for gtx 760) but still i run pc for 7-12h a day! (play games now but trying to see if i can stream games witch requires some sereous power !)

I think the N300 should fit the 212, it's 190mm wide.

 

Case fans can help with gpu temps, an intake near the GPU is always a good thing (e.g. low on side panel).

 

80c seems a bit toasty on a 760, I know they can run at that safely but a lot of the reviews and stuff show 60c

[79wjd]

Unless someone's budget (for a gaming Pc) is over $1,000 then I honestly can't recommend the i7 over the i5.

The extra 80~100 you spend on the CPU can be used for many other things to enhance your gaming experience. GPU, SSD, Monitor. To mention a few.

Id say 

$1000 is a bit low to be trying to squeeze in an i7. I'd put the price closer to $1500, anything under that and you can/should probably put that money towards something else in the system. Above that, well, you might as well get an i7. 

[iceman0124]

Being relatively weak by todays PC standards doesn't mean a whole lot in this regard. The bar has been raised from last gen to current gen, and as most titles are built around the consoles, the landscape is going to change and modern games going forward will be more highly threaded as thats what is ideal for the current base platform.

 

As for capabilities of current consoles, I wouldn't write them off just yet, what Sony did with The Last of US on PS3, is nothing short of amazing IMO, and that was with with near decade old tech. The first year of new platforms are always rough, its typically the third year where things really get interesting.

[Faceman]

Being relatively weak by todays PC standards doesn't mean a whole lot in this regard. The bar has been raised from last gen to current gen, and as most titles are built around the consoles, the landscape is going to change and modern games going forward will be more highly threaded as thats what is ideal for the current base platform.

 

As for capabilities of current consoles, I wouldn't write them off just yet, what Sony did with The Last of US on PS3, is nothing short of amazing IMO, and that was with with near decade old tech. The first year of new platforms are always rough, its typically the third year where things really get interesting.

PC Sales are on the rise and consoles are on the decline, there is a shift happening.  Also, because of how weak these "next-gen" consoles are, they aren't going to last as long as previous gen consoles.  In 2 years, something new will be out already, forget 3 years. All while the shift to PC will have been continuing.  Look on Steam and you see the vast majority of people playing games have dual core processors, if you're a game developer, you make games for the masses, not the niche.

[tautvydas]

I think the N300 should fit the 212, it's 190mm wide.

 

Case fans can help with gpu temps, an intake near the GPU is always a good thing (e.g. low on side panel).

 

80c seems a bit toasty on a 760, I know they can run at that safely but a lot of the reviews and stuff show 60c

i mean i get 80 when i do uncaped fps's on games i mean i go to 400+ fps but this can be fixed with v-sync but still playing something like ac black flag it swings from 60-75 dunno why (had to lower the resoliution because i dont like it when its on 80C (just a side no on my gpu back there is a sticker that says N760-2GD5/ OC does oc stands for over clocked ? )

[harrynowl]

i mean i get 80 when i do uncaped fps's on games i mean i go to 400+ fps but this can be fixed with v-sync but still playing something like ac black flag it swings from 60-75 dunno why

Is yours a reference style one? My 7950 doesn't even get that hot in bf4 (no vsync, ugh *shudders*)

[Ialyrn]

Being relatively weak by todays PC standards doesn't mean a whole lot in this regard. The bar has been raised from last gen to current gen, and as most titles are built around the consoles, the landscape is going to change and modern games going forward will be more highly threaded as thats what is ideal for the current base platform.

 

As for capabilities of current consoles, I wouldn't write them off just yet, what Sony did with The Last of US on PS3, is nothing short of amazing IMO, and that was with with near decade old tech. The first year of new platforms are always rough, its typically the third year where things really get interesting.

The PS3 is also using a vastly more complicated cpu/gpu arrangement, which is the only reason the console stayed relevant this long. The same goes for the xbox 360. If it wasnt for the custom chips and architecture in the last gen consoles, they would have been replaced long before the 8 year mark. The PS4 and Xbox one are using pc based hardware and architecture now, and it will hinder them, and their longevity.

[asquirrel]

In a purpose built rig, for playing most video games (I'm sure there are 1-2 out there that can actually make use of an 8 core monster) OP is wrong. Any dual core processor of 3.5GHz will be plenty of CPU for the next 4-5 years. The i5, the G3258, perhaps some AMD offerings (I'm not knowledgeable on AMD's offerings) will all be more than sufficient. Source: I play games on an i7 920 without issue.

 

Clock rate, as anyone should know, has very little to do with the *actual* measurement of how much work a CPU can get done in a cycle. That measurement is known as CPI (Cycle-per-instruction) and manufacturers do not publish that information. Hence, benchmarks are used to try and divine the CPI through pseudo real-world tests.

 

In my case, gaming is not the most taxing thing I do with my system. I spawn VMs. Sometimes 12-16 at a time. For that, I need cores. The extra cores of the i7 are a MASSIVE boost over an i5 or a G3258 in that case. I've also rendered video from time to time, though not enough to justify the extra cores in that case.

 

In the end, OP is correct if you are like me, and you do more than just play games on your system, but say 'it's a gaming rig' to move the conversation alone. OP is wrong if you use your PC like a glorified Xbone or PS3/4. In that case, a G3258 or i5 are plenty for you, and you can just suffer the lower performance when you decide you want to run more than 2 VMs at once.

 

Caveat: if you are a multiboxer, the i7 remains a useful choice for you, because you circumvent the problem of a single video game instance not using all of the CPU power by launching multiple copies of the program. That said, if you actually need the performance of an i7...you are probably well aware of *why* you need the performance of an i7.