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

[SHiFT]

Can we all just refrain from the OP's idea being stupid?

 

If you have the money, and it doesnt hurt your pocket, get the 4790K, it might be more beneficial in a year or two, who knows?

If you are on a budget, go with the 4690K as it will do just as fine for the current scenario.

 

Can we just END this topic once and for all? I feel sorry for the OP and this just got into an argument, rather than discussion afterall..

[i_build_nanosuits]

Upgrading a CPU is an every 3-6 year venture, depending on a persons discretionary income. At this point, today, 22 August 2014, very few games can use more than 4 cores or threads. That is ONLY because it has been less than a year since that last console generation was released, and it uses 8 cores. As more and more games switch being made exclusively for the new generation of consoles, and developers create new game engines to take advantage of the new hardware, we will start to see more and more games capable of using more than 4 total cores or threads.

If you are buying your CPU like a cellphone, something that you'll replace in two years or less, than yes go with something that is good enough for games right now. But if you are like more people, where its going be 3 or more years before you upgrade your CPU, the extra $100 for i7 is one of the best and reasonably priced investments you can make for your system. People disregard this because of their preconceived notions about "future proofing" being impossible. For the most part that statement is true, but we are at a point where hardware requirements in games are going to see a dramatic increase over what we have gotten used to over the last decade.

People also try to incorrectly say that games won't need that kind of hardware, and if they do, its only because they are unoptimized. There are games like CoD and Watch Dogs that support that position, but they are the exception, not the rule.

¨¨THIS, anyone saying the oposite is eiter someone with a core i5 that does not want to face the truth OR an uninformed person.

The reason why i bought the i7 instead of the i5 is to not have to defend my CPU choice to myself and convince myself that i did the right choice!

Going with the i7 means peace of mind...getting rid of all the ''WHAT IF's'' : What if in a year or two games DO start to go heavy and multi-threaded...WHAT IF I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT AN I7 INSTEAD?!...

With the i7 you know you've made the right choice because it's as good as it gets...

ALSO, to all the folks out there who consider an i7 an ''8 core'' or ''8 thread'' CPU, it's not!! Hyper-threading is just an advanced scheduling that makes better use of the CPU cores, for example it can feed an extra set of extruction to core 1 while core 2 is doing something else...it's just a more efficient way of processing the work load so it can help in many scenarios and not even only in games that use more than 4 thread, and BTW...AT ALL TIME your PC is running over 1000 threads and BF4 alone while playing multiplayer is actually running over 150 threads, proof? here:

 

 

THIS IS WITH BF RUNNING NOW:

 

So please stop with your i5 is all you need for gaming for ever or it will last as long as an equivalent i7, cause it's not!

Anyone telling you games only run 2 or 3 or 4 threads are complete bullshit, games run series of light threads throughout and a more powerful CPU is always welcome!

 

AND PLEASE SOMEONE QUOTE THIS SO THAT FACEMAN CAN READ IT! he put me on ignore so he wont see my post unless someone quotes it! thanks

 

That said, i would not recommend to lower the GPU quality to afford an i7, but if it fits in the budget and the plan is to not upgrade that for years and only keeping the GPu up to date, then i'd do it anyday.

 

[Guest]

It's kinda like having cable/fibre optic, do you NEED 100Mbps connections to use the internet and game? No.

Is the experience much better if you do?

Wrong with the internet connection everything is faster and better aids EVERYTHING you do on the internet. With the i7 it does NOTHING for a gaming rig. NOTHING!

Now for the wel rounded system bit if they are going for an uber system build with all the best parts where practicality is a non issue. By all means get the i7, but for someone who is on a $1000-$1500 budget (most common) it's CERTAINLY not for them.

Whether or not games will take advantage of more threads, and whether or not games start taking benefit from Hyper-Threading... These are two separate questions.

Hyper-Threading does not create additional cores. It can increase efficiency, but the amount of benefit it provides depends on how much inefficiency there is to begin with, which depends on how CPU resources are being utilized. It has been shown before that even in games that use more than 4 cores, Hyper-Threading still doesn't do anything. It is not just about how many threads the software can use, Hyper-Threading is only useful in certain types of software. It's simply not as versatile as having actual additional cores.

BF3's framerate cap makes max and average framerates less useful for comparison, but you can still compare the minimums (which are the most important anyway), and the difference (or lack thereof) between 4-core and 4-core w/ HTT, compared to 6-core without no HTT.

Let he of patience and calm mind speak.

I'll just sit here and get pissed off...

[Trik'Stari]

As games become more and more complex, I think it is likely that hyperthreading will eventually become a standard. Which would be nice. I like to see things get better and better, instead of just waiting for the LcD to catch up.

[Faceman]

 

-Source

 

You will also find in the CPU Benchmarks Tab that not all programs show worthwhile gains when going from i5 to i7.  When both processors are clocked to the same speed, the difference is within the margin of error for a lot of programs.

[Razzaa]

¨¨THIS, anyone saying the oposite is eiter someone with a core i5 that does not want to face the truth OR an uninformed person.

The reason why i bought the i7 instead of the i5 is to not have to defend my CPU choice to myself and convince myself that i did the right choice!

Going with the i7 means peace of mind...getting rid of all the ''WHAT IF's'' : What if in a year or two games DO start to go heavy and multi-threaded...WHAT IF I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT AN I7 INSTEAD?!...

With the i7 you know you've made the right choice because it's as good as it gets...

ALSO, to all the folks out there who consider an i7 an ''8 core'' or ''8 thread'' CPU, it's not!! Hyper-threading is just an advanced scheduling that makes better use of the CPU cores, for example it can feed an extra set of extruction to core 1 while core 2 is doing something else...it's just a more efficient way of processing the work load so it can help in many scenarios and not even only in games that use more than 4 thread, and BTW...AT ALL TIME your PC is running over 1000 threads and BF4 alone while playing multiplayer is actually running over 150 threads, proof? here:

THIS IS WITH BF RUNNING NOW:

So please stop with your i5 is all you need for gaming for ever or it will last as long as an equivalent i7, cause it's not!

Anyone telling you games only run 2 or 3 or 4 threads are complete bullshit, games run series of light threads throughout and a more powerful CPU is always welcome!

AND PLEASE SOMEONE QUOTE THIS SO THAT FACEMAN CAN READ IT! he put me on ignore so he wont see my post unless someone quotes it! thanks

That said, i would not recommend to lower the GPU quality to afford an i7, but if it fits in the budget and the plan is to not upgrade that for years and only keeping the GPu up to date, then i'd do it anyday.

This is why I chose the i7 over an i5.

[Faceman]

@Nanosuits

 

L-O-Fing-L.  This coming from the guy who said the i5 is worse than the FX8 for gaming.  This coming from the guy who claims to be a game developer, gives us a fake name, and that fake name was a music engineer.  This coming from the guy who had to buy an Intel processor just to give himself clout after continually making a fool of himself and lying about himself. The i7-4790k is an 8 thread processor, wtf are you talking about? 4 Cores / 8 Threads.  I can't pick apart your silly post right now, but I will later.  What you say can and will be used to humiliate you, I have a litany of old posts from you and your warped way of thinking and lies.

 

I understand the sentiment of wanting to be prepared and to future proof, but game developers are not going to make it so that if you don't have more than 4 cores/threads you cannot play the game. The i5 is going to last plenty long, I don't plan to upgrade for many, many years because I will not need to.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

@Nanosuits

 

L-O-Fing-L.  This coming from the guy who said the i5 is worse than the FX8 for gaming.  This coming from the guy who claims to be a game developer, gives us a fake name, and that fake name was a music engineer.  This coming from the guy who had to buy an Intel processor just to give himself clout after continually making a fool of himself and lying about himself. The i7-4790k is an 8 thread processor, wtf are you talking about? 4 Cores / 8 Threads.  I can't pick apart your silly post right now, but I will later.  What you say can and will be used to humiliate you, I have a litany of old posts from you and your warped way of thinking and lies.

 

I understand the sentiment of wanting to be prepared and to future proof, but game developers are not going to make it so that if you don't have more than 4 cores/threads you cannot play the game. The i5 is going to last plenty long, I don't plan to upgrade for many, many years because I will not need to.

 

see...thats what i meant by ''having to defend my cpu choice on a stupid forum and having to convince myself i did the right choice''...see that, that's how crazy it can drive you when you don't get the best of them...you have to convince yourself with unrelevant and untrusty benchmark of old games to prove your say!

[Sintezza]

There are games that can utilize upto 8 threads, But they dont realy run that much better on an i7.

This is mainly because, those games can spread the loads over all 8 threads. this results in lower cpu loads on each core.

But in the end wenn you playing the game, this does not realy make that much sense, because the only diffrence you will see between the i7 and the i5 in those 8 threaded games, is that you got a much higher cpu load on the the i5, then on the i7.

But as long as the i5 is not hitting its limits, it does not make any sense.

 

Only if you gonne talk about CF or Sli setups from highend cards, then an i7 definitely makes sense over the i5 in those 8 threaded games.

Because the i5 will be quicker on its limit cause it allready has a higher load on its 4 cores..

and then you will see a bottleneck starting to show up.

 

Thats why i stated before that an i5 definitely will bottleneck a 290x CF or 780ti Sli, at a certain point.

But people are yelling and screaming at me, that i am wrong.

But i bolieve in my own theory uphere lol

[Faa]

Whether or not games will take advantage of more threads, and whether or not games start taking benefit from Hyper-Threading... These are two separate questions.

 

Hyper-Threading does not create additional cores.  It can increase efficiency, but the amount of benefit it provides depends on how much inefficiency there is to begin with, which depends on how CPU resources are being utilized.  It has been shown before that even in games that use more than 4 cores, Hyper-Threading still doesn't do anything.  It is not just about how many threads the software can use, Hyper-Threading is only useful in certain types of software.  It's simply not as versatile as having actual additional cores.

 

BF3's framerate cap makes max and average framerates less useful for comparison, but you can still compare the minimums (which are the most important anyway), and the difference (or lack thereof) between 4-core and 4-core w/ HTT, compared to 6-core without no HTT.

That test was a bit flawed, dude claimed that 6 cores (3930K) makes a difference over 4 cores (2500K) with no HT. 

Here's a proper one I did:

People should read what I marked in bold, really read it.

 

Thats why i stated before that an i5 definitely will bottleneck a 290x CF or 780ti Sli, at a certain point.

But people are yelling and screaming at me, that i am wrong.

But i bolieve in my own theory uphere lol

Well a CPU hitting 100% doesn't really mean it's bottlenecking, who cares what the CPU load actually is when the GPU(s) are complety max'ed out?

You're not wrong about the i5 being a bottleneck for a SLI/CF setup but it's a myth that i7's would make a difference (not a silly 15%) that's 100$ worth it. I don't really know how much performance a 4930k adds to a i5/i7 but I doubt its a gamechanger.

 

see...thats what i meant by ''having to defend my cpu choice on a stupid forum and having to convince myself i did the right choice''...see that, that's how crazy it can drive you when you don't get the best of them...you have to convince yourself with unrelevant and untrusty benchmark of old games to prove your say!

I hope you realize that Hyperthreading has a theoretical performance improvement of literally 100%, exactly "What the hell?". That happens, but it's quite rare and even if that happens you'll never notice it and no benchmarks will show this. I'll give an example; when you have two threads having no data related with each other, low instr lvl parallelism, a single thread might be only able to use 1/8th of the execution resources at a time but with HT it can use 2/8th at a time doubling in this case your performance by twice as much. IBM has up to 8way SMT (HT), yes 8 threads per core meaning it could keep all 8 execution resources within a single cycle busy in my example.

Get a real 8 threaded game out, a 5960x outperforming a 4670k by 100% at the same clock speeds - there's a big chance that a 4770k will barely add any performance to the 4670k and also being outperformed by 100%. There's just no fixed performance gain from HT for games, nor there are any guarantees that it will always add performance or make it more futureproof.

____________________

The fact still remains; there's no reason to get a 4770k over a 4670k - getting tired of people beating a dead horse over and over, eyeballing on the future instead of facing the reality. If i7's made such a worthy difference in every case, obviously we all would have recommended it but we aren't. The 4790k's better binning makes more sense than Hyperthreading, probably my only reason why I would take that i7. Why would I say that? More singlethreaded performance is always welcome here, anything else can fuck off. I'd honestly prefer Intel canceling X99, getting rid of Hyperthreading for mainstream, raising the xeon prices by 5 times atleast so they finally focus on improving IPC instead of throwing useless cores at us.

Many of you would disagree but a 4670K > 4930K for gaming. 

[Sintezza]

I totaly agree about the 4670K  > 4930K for gaming.

Because the haswell cpu´s are faster core for core then the ivy cpu´s.

 

Also if the cpu is hitting 100% load and the gpu is maxed out, then indeed it does not make any sense.

Because then there is not bottlenecking.

[Sintezza]

 

[Faa]

 

I totaly agree about the 4670K  > 4930K for gaming.

Because the haswell cpu´s are faster core for core then the ivy cpu´s.

 

Also if the cpu is hitting 100% load and the gpu is maxed out, then indeed it does not make any sense.

Because then there is not bottlenecking.

 

Well if you're one of those "I want the max 24/7 overclock out of my chip", a 3930k/4930K consumes so much more power than you'd be ending up most likely with a custom loop if you weren't happy with the noise output from a 240mm AIO. You still deal with issues like VRM throttling, in my nzxt switch 810 with Be quiets at 1000 rpm it was throttling after 30secs at full load lol. If you've been lucky and your 4670k does 4.8GHz at 1.25V orsomething, you could run it with a cheap nh-u12s at 800 rpm during gaming in a case with no intake fans along with a cheap asrock motherboard orsomething and you still have better performance than a 3930K at 5GHz that consumes 6 times more power.

But anyways if the 4930K costed as much as the 4670k and the boards as well, you'll never manage to convince someone getting the 4670k - it's something the majority always will disagree with. Theyre just the CPU's I hate the most especially the X version, the 5960x is hyping everyone already but it looks like its going to consume a shitload more than a 3930K/4930K and I'm afraid they clock averagely just 4.0GHz. Sure it did better in a few games but with tons of GPU's, then you hear a few futurestuff but 4K is the future where it doesnt matter what cpu you have. It would take a while before we'll end to be CPU bound again at 4K lol.

Now you have to deal with the 4790/4770 sellers here, can't stand them and HT adding averagely 30% apparently makes it a lifechanger for productivity. You rather take a 8320 over a 4790k for productivity imo. I might as well copy his thread title swap the 4790k with a 4930K and start a thread - it wouldn't be any different than this. 

[infamous_last]

It's funny to think these same arguments about HT were being hashed out in the P4 days.

May as well be a console peasant arguing that 30fps is all the human eye can see.