gaming needing more than i5 and 8gb of ram?

[OCing Noob]

In a few years, i7s, 16 GB of RAM, and a high end card might become the recommended or required specs for games...

in few years there will much better CPUs will be in market and an i5 skylake will out run Haswell and D.C CPUs .

[dandrix]

hey guys i had a look at dying lights requirements and it seem to be getting harder for i5s is it not long for i7 to be the better option for aaa games and ram is at 8gb would it be wise to upgrade beyond that looking forward to hearing what you think as im new to the scence

Dying Light has minimum req for AMD a 8 core CPU, tho im running it on FX 6300 with ease, so yeah most system req these days are total BS.

[newtopc]

i5 and 8gb ram is plenty for gaming, its more than enough for most games even then newest games. Dont get i7, save $100. spend more on GPU and you will have better gaming experience or spend the $100 for extra monitor. (you can upgrade into 16gb light me in future) and i5 should be able to handle streaming easily, just down scale to 720p. i7 is only needed if you plan to stream at 1080p with no downscale.

 

I have my i5 2500k with 8gb ram for a few years, and I then upgraded to 16gb, which gives 0 performance increase. (i upgraded just because I had enough money finally.)

thanks man sticking with i5 ill check price diff on 8gb now gonna sli asus 970 and oc the i5 hope it keeps me going for couple of years

[Splashzed]

hey guys i had a look at dying lights requirements and it seem to be getting harder for i5s is it not long for i7 to be the better option for aaa games and ram is at 8gb would it be wise to upgrade beyond that looking forward to hearing what you think as im new to the scence

The i5 can handle all of the triple A games on the market for now even though games are getting more power hungry

[typographie]

hey guys i had a look at dying lights requirements and it seem to be getting harder for i5s is it not long for i7 to be the better option for aaa games and ram is at 8gb would it be wise to upgrade beyond that looking forward to hearing what you think as im new to the scence

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/956-dying-light-benchmarks/page5.html

I don't think an i5 is a serious issue in Dying Light.

[TheMcSame]

Recommended specs are exaggerated. Games don't need 8GB. 

 

An i5 is more than enough. ATM very few games show a significant benefit by jumping to an i7. Keep in mind that an i7 is just an overclocked i5 with hyperthreading at the end of the day. Most games aren't making use of those extra "cores".

[Sintezza]

 

Here you go. this says it all.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

thanks man sticking with i5 ill check price diff on 8gb now gonna sli asus 970 and oc the i5 hope it keeps me going for couple of years

With that high end of a build it would be nuts to scrimp on the CPU. Lots of new games effectively make use of 8 or more threads now, and they'll continue to if they want any hope of running well on the octacore consoles. With that said, Dying Light won't improve on an i7 vs an i5. I played it on my 4C/8T Xeon with RivaTuner States Server display on and it only loaded 4 threads. But it looks like the trend is starting to become games designed to run 8+ threads now:

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

[Dabombinable]

 

Here you go. this says it all.

 

RIP FX 9590

[D2ultima]

Here you go. this says it all.

That's old data. The load balance has been much improved since patches went around. It still favours cores 1 and 2, but I usually don't go above 70% load on a single core in it.

[SteveGrabowski]

That's old data. The load balance has been much improved since patches went around. It still favours cores 1 and 2, but I usually don't go above 70% load on a single core in it.

 

Yeah, it actually balances really well over four cores now, and I only saw it load four threads playing with Riva Tuner Stats Server on while running through the slums. With that said I only played with the stats on for 5 minutes since the display is really annoying lol, so maybe it can still use the extra threads when there are tons of zombies on screen, like on the bridge or something. I don't really feel like testing though.

[Sintezza]

That's old data. The load balance has been much improved since patches went around. It still favours cores 1 and 2, but I usually don't go above 70% load on a single core in it.

 

exactly,

 

So in other words, even the fact that Dying light has the capabillity to scale over all availeble threads.

It still does not realy matter.

 

An i5 is all you realy gonne need for a while.

The only advantage that you will have with an i7 for example, is that you will see less load on the main cores, but it still does not improve anything, basicly.

 

THats why the FX 8 core cpu´s, which have slower main cores, still fall behind on the haswell i5´s and such.

If you look at the FX6300 vs FX8 cores´s, then you basicly see, a slight improvement, because of the extra FPU that comes with the extra enabled module on the FX 8 cores.

But still it doesnt help that much.

There are some games who do take more advanice of that extra module and FPU, watchdogs is an good example. That game has also the capabillity to utilize all availeble threads.

However again, since amd FX cpu´s in general have slower cores. they still fall behind.

But thats just simply architecture lacking, SMT is way more efficient then CMT in general ussage. (especialy gaming)

[D2ultima]

So in other words, even the fact that Dying light has the capabillity to scale over all availeble threads.

 

An i5 is all you realy gonne need for a while.

 

The only advantage that you will have with an i7 for example, is that you will see less load on the main cores, but it still does not improve anything, basicly.

 

THats why the FX 8 core cpu´s, which have slower main cores, still fall behind on the haswell i5´s and such.

Actually, I've never seen a game split even load. Most, if not all, games I run on my computer note about 30% difference in load on my 1st core versus my 4th core. Some of that comes from other programs I run, as I never close steam/teamspeak/corsair headset software/chrome/music player/tweetdeck/etc. But the load balance is still "off" for pretty much every game. Most of that is from DX11's limitations. DX9 is even worse; I'll see 70-80% load on core 1 and about 20-30% on the others... which probably comes from my other programs more than the game.

 

Yeah, for pure gaming an i5 is great. Not denying this at all. But an i7 is only an upgrade. Games that DO use hyperthreading will benefit greatly. One such game is apparently watch dogs. Cryengine 3 and Frostbite 3 also seem to like hyperthreads.

 

Incorrect, actually. If a game doesn't use the hyperthreads, they might as well not exist. I've run games before (closed most everything else to check) and my hyperthread cores were sometimes as low as 0% utilization. Also, if a game doesn't use hyperthreading but you force a certain load to one of your hyperthreads anyway, it will hurt the game (as it's still "using" the physical core). And example is when I was streaming Final Fantasy 13 on PC. It's so single-thread heavy it's a joke, so I forced OBS to the latter 7 threads. I got intense lag and stuttering (not as bad as when I used all 8 threads though). I changed it to the latter 6 threads, ignoring the unused core #1's hyperthread, and the game didn't even act as if I was streaming. So no, hyperthreads don't benefit at all games that don't see/use them. Just like extra cores don't benefit games that don't see/use them. As far as Terraria is concerned, I have a single core CPU, for example. An i3 or an i5 or a Pentium G3258 won't matter, as long as clockspeed was the same on core #1.

 

Yes, worse IPC does hurt the AMDs. I know that. I don't recommend AMD CPUs to people that like to play large varieties of games and want high FPS counts for that reason. If someone is only going to play BF4 the whole time, that's all well and good. AMD won't hurt him/her there. But Dying Light/Final Fantasy 13/any UE3 DX9 game/etc? Screw that. Even an i3 might be better.

[PricelessNight]

a lot of times the minimum requirements aren't actually what the game needs. So you should be good i5 and 8gb should be enough  

[Dabombinable]

a lot of times the minimum requirements aren't actually what the game needs. So you should be good i5 and 8gb should be enough

When you run a game or program on a CPU that its not even supposed to support, you know that the minimum requirements are BS a lot of the time (I managed to get a few programs running on my LMC before its new HDDs failed-P3s can do more than most people would think possible.

[TheMcSame]

Shows it all for DL but there's FAR MORE games out there that don't have any major difference between i5 and i7 CPUs. Besides, isn't the optimisation really shitty in DL?

[newtopc]

thanks for all the info guys starting to understand it now main thing for me is to sli 2 gpu,s benchmarks seem to show good improvements not changing anything till i need to gonna be so proud of my first build