Upgrade or naw?

[jnmbhj]

I currently have an 8350 as my CPU but I am trying to run my 7970 ghz in crossfire and it just doesn't seem to be working well. I get massive frame dips In battlefield 4 and need something that will last me a little longer. I want to try to sell my cpu and motherboard to pay for a 4790k but I am not sure if I will get a noticeable improvement. I am a little tight on budget but I can shell it out if need be. I need your option. Should I sell and upgrade or should I just keep my system as is and try to save up for a next release.  

[Speedyv]

You can upgrade to a 4690K and not a 4790K if you are just gaming.

[mr.skyrim_pc]

Wait for broadwell.

[OnekillWalter]

you have fps dip with BF4? before upgrading, did you try dat ?

 

got to your bf4 doc (C:\Program Files (x86)\Origin Games\Battlefield 4) and go to properties of Bf4 and Bf4_86. go to compatibilities and select execute as administrator. do this on both. and i did it for origin too.

 

and do what this video says. it works for me.

[dragoon20005]

Save more for Broadwell

[Faceman]

All you need is an i5, but yes you are bottlenecking that dual GPU setup with an FX8.

[jnmbhj]

 

you have fps dip with BF4? before upgrading, did you try dat ?

 

got to your bf4 doc (C:\Program Files (x86)\Origin Games\Battlefield 4) and go to properties of Bf4 and Bf4_86. go to compatibilities and select execute as administrator. do this on both. and i did it for origin too.

 

and do what this video says. it works for me.

 

I did not have this issue using a single card. It is a heavy CPU bottleneck. 

[jnmbhj]

You can upgrade to a 4690K and not a 4790K if you are just gaming.

 

All you need is an i5, but yes you are bottlenecking that dual GPU setup with an FX8.

I forgot to mention I do a whole lot of multitasking and I will do video production quite soon. And I can get a good deal from microcenter 4790k for $250 

[CoolaxGaming]

To anyone saying wait for broadwell, it is more of a low power mobile processor architecture. Not an enthusiast mainstream.

The enthusiast mainstream will be sky lake.

[i_build_nanosuits]

did that upgrade a couple months ago and it was worth it and the microcenter deal bundles are awesome look at te 4790k and z97 AR for 349$ or the MSI gaming 5 for 359$...its amazing prices.

[SteveGrabowski]

I wouldn't go i5-4690k with games written to run on 6 cores in the consoles. It would suck to buy an i5 at the end of the quad core era, and that could be coming since everyone knows console ports aren't really optimized for us on PC's. I'm not confident 4C/4T is enough to last right now like it was for Sandy Bridge until now when games had to be written with strong single core performance in mind because of the XBox 360. Not even confident 4C/8T is enough, but that's where I bet with my money since I can't afford to spend on the X99 platform for hexacores and I'm not going to spend $500 on an i7-4930k.

[SoftenButterCream]

Like coolax said. Just continue saving up and wait for Skylake.

[Faceman]

I wouldn't go i5-4690k with games written to run on 6 cores in the consoles. It would suck to buy an i5 at the end of the quad core era, and that could be coming since everyone knows console ports aren't really optimized for us on PC's. I'm not confident 4C/4T is enough to last right now like it was for Sandy Bridge until now when games had to be written with strong single core performance in mind because of the XBox 360. Not even confident 4C/8T is enough, but that's where I bet with my money since I can't afford to spend on the X99 platform for hexacores and I'm not going to spend $500 on an i7-4930k.

Thats just not going to happen.  Game devs aren't going to all of a sudden require more than 4c/4t for gaming.  We are just not starting to see games requiring more than 2 cores.  You really think its going to jump from 2 to 6?  Its just not going to happen.  Game developers make games for the lowest common denomination, and that is still 2c/2t.  Just look on Steam Hardware Survey.  48% of their users are still using dual core CPUs.  The 2nd highest being 4 core at 42%.  If anything, we will see a shift from 2 to 4, but not to 6.  A 4c/4t CPU is going to last you a very long time.  If you're really worried about it, and have the money to do so, by all means go with the i7, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that 4c/4t is not going to be enough for the next 3-5 years.

[SteveGrabowski]

Thats just not going to happen.  Game devs aren't going to all of a sudden require more than 4c/4t for gaming.  We are just not starting to see games requiring more than 2 cores.  You really think its going to jump from 2 to 6?  Its just not going to happen.  Game developers make games for the lowest common denomination, and that is still 2c/2t.  Just look on Steam Hardware Survey.  48% of their users are still using dual core CPUs.  The 2nd highest being 4 core at 42%.  If anything, we will see a shift from 2 to 4, but not to 6.  A 4c/4t CPU is going to last you a very long time.  If you're really worried about it, and have the money to do so, by all means go with the i7, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that 4c/4t is not going to be enough for the next 3-5 years.

 

But they don't make the games for us because they think we're pirates and we buy games cheap in Steam sales; they make them for PS4 and XBox One players. I hope you're right since that means my Xeon will be a killer gaming CPU for years, but I don't trust most developers to optimize for us. We're not the target audience. I keep going back to that Eurogamer article from last year when they asked a bunch of devs off the record whether the i5-3570k or the FX-8350 was the more future proof gaming CPU, and they all said the FX-8350 for the 8 cores since their target machines are essentially octacores.

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

 

Buying new - choosing a platform

 

Intel or AMD? Since the arrival of Intel's Core 2 Duo processors, AMD has struggled to remain competitive, remaining in the game by offering its higher-tier parts at very competitive prices. In recent years it has bet the farm on multi-core performance - its latest flagship, the FX-8350, offers eight cores at 4.0GHz with no overclocking restrictions, while its Intel competitor - the Core i5 3570K - offers four cores at 3.4GHz. In a world where single-core performance still dominates, the Intel offering is still considered the better buy - it's certainly more power-efficient and has more overclocking potential.

 

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

 

Perhaps it's not entirely surprising - Crytek's Crysis 3 is a forward-looking game in many ways, and as these CPU tests by respected German site PC Games Hardware demonstrate, not only does the FX-8350 outperform the i5, it also offers up an additional, minor margin of extra performance over the much more expensive Core i7 3770K - a processor that's around £100 more expensive than the AMD chip. Only the six-core Intel Core i7 3930K - a £480 processor - beats it comprehensively.

[Faceman]

But they don't make the games for us because they think we're pirates and we buy games cheap in Steam sales; they make them for PS4 and XBox One players. I hope you're right since that means my Xeon will be a killer gaming CPU for years, but I don't trust most developers to optimize for us. We're not the target audience.

They might not optimize for us, but they aren't going to alienate 50% of their potential market.

[SteveGrabowski]

They might not optimize for us, but they aren't going to alienate 50% of their potential market.

 

I'm not following the 50% of their market. No way PC gamers account for that.

[Faceman]

I'm not following the 50% of their market. No way PC gamers account for that.

50% of their PC gaming market*

[SteveGrabowski]

50% of their PC gaming market*

 

But devs are already saying to hell with 50% of the PC gaming market by having their games not even launch on 2C/2T CPUs.

[Faceman]

But devs are already saying to hell with 50% of the PC gaming market by having their games not even launch on 2C/2T CPUs.

I don't know if you're following with the conversation, but that is what I already said.  We are just now seeing the shift from 2c/2t to 4c/4t.

 

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

 

--"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."

 

--"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 summarize:

 

Intel wants more thread utilization, they want to push us up the stack because technology is there.  They 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 stream starting from minute 60, and you will understand that games are not being made for more than 4 threads.

 

"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."

 

---------------------------------------

 

They have definitely started to say to heck with 2 core gamers, but this must be done to push the industry forward.  It will be a push from 2 to 4, not 2 to 6+.

[SteveGrabowski]

I don't know if you're following with the conversation, but that is what I already said.  We are just now seeing the shift from 2c/2t to 4c/4t.

 

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

 

--"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."

 

--"Realistically what game developers do is develop to the lowest common denominator, which is still 2 cores."

 

The XBox 360 was the lowest common denominator this year. Next year it won't be. We're not the target audience of games.

 

 

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."

 

There are plenty of games that are designed to run on more than 4 cores.

 

 

 

 

 

Intel knows they can stick with quad core because AMD's lousy per core performance means they can't make Intel pay for not having mainstream hexacores and better right now. And this is a biased source: Intel doesn't want you to be ready. They want you to buy their i5 and i7 right now and then to upgrade again in a couple of years.

 

 

The most telling moment of the stream starts at minute 60, there is too much to list word for word so I will summarize: Intel wants more thread utilization, they want to push us up the stack because technology is there. They 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.

 

No, if I'm a game developer I am designing the game for the dual Jaguars since PS4 and XB1 are where the money is and since no one is going to expect an XBox360 port going forward.

 

 

 

Listen to the stream starting from minute 60, and you will understand that games are not being made for more than 4 threads. "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."

 

This is nonsense. If this held then Pentiums would be as good as i3s in games.

[Faceman]

@SteveGrabowski

 

That stream was this year, when the XBONE was already available.

 

Just because a game can use more cores, doesn't mean it benefits performance wise.  If that were true, FX8s would be trumping i5s, but we don't see that happening. The only game that we see an FX8 outperforming an i5, is Dragon Age inquisition, and its only be 2fps, both at stock.

 

Games are being developed for at least 4 cores now, not 6.  An i3 is much better buy than a Pentium if you plan to keep your CPU for any length of time.  Pentium is only good as a very temporary solution, or if you never plan to play games that really need more cores.