Quad-Core Gaming Roundup: How Much CPU Do You Really Need?

[kipper]

Just got an email with this in... thought it would be useful for LTT.

 

 

 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need

[Howhurl]

This is why I love Pcper. The level of their dedication to put things to the test amazes me.

[Chasem121]

I need ALL the CPU

[MaxTheMonster]

MOOOOARRR COOOREESSS

[Sam Z Man]

I love it!

[othertomperson]

9590 absolutely decimated by an i3 4130. Ouch.

[Sam Z Man]

9590 absolutely decimated by an i3 4130. Ouch.

Not surprising.

[othertomperson]

Not surprising.

 

Perhaps not, but it's useful to have data instead of relying on preconceptions. Also all the more reason to choose the i3 over 6300 as the budget option.

[Snadzies]

TL:DR i5 is the go to gaming CPU.

In other news the sky is blue and water is wet.

[Hieb]

Higher framerates and higher in-game settings = more CPU load.

[Catman007]

Tests like this depress me. Seeing i7 ripping games apart where others "struggle" on 1080p makes me wanna buy APU and 720p monitor and finish the torture. You cant compromise these days. 1080p standard is melting away rapidly I mean, it all comes to same amount of money in the end.

[Megahurt]

9590 absolutely decimated by an i3 4130. Ouch.

I crunched the numbers and at 1080p DX, the i3 beats the 8350 by 5 fps with the 290X, but the 8350 does better than the i3 with a 980 by 8 fps, so I don't know where your "decimated" comes from.

[Prysin]

so technically all you need is a 860k to get 60FPS in 1080p in many if not most games if you get a R9 280X/R9 380....

 

Well.... that is interesting for sure.

[kipper]

So buying an R9 390 with my Phenom II was not a total lost cause then?
 

I mean consider the high OC on my chip...

[Hieb]

Tests like this depress me. Seeing i7 ripping games apart where others "struggle" on 1080p makes me wanna buy APU and 720p monitor and finish the torture. You cant compromise these days. 1080p standard is melting away rapidly I mean, it all comes to same amount of money in the end.

 

Well keep in mind that the i7 was only running away at framerates that pretty much nobody plays at. It was pulling away at 150+ FPS with a GTX 980 at 1080P... but the GTX 980 is not a 1080P card. I expect in this situation someone would have a higher resolution monitor or be using DSR, or turning on antialiasing, or running at ultra settings in-game.

 

Also worth noting is that an i7 offers almost nothing over an i5 at present time in games, they just happened to compare the 4790K (4-4.4GHz) to an i5-4430 (3-3.2GHz) so the i7 had a 33% higher clock speed... so it appears that the point of no-more-bottlenecking is somewhere around a 4570 or 4690K for these games at least.

 

Remember it's not the power of the GPU that causes the bottleneck. Higher settings and higher framerate produce more CPU load (since the CPU has to process certain settings and has to process data for each and every frame... so more frames = more stuff for CPU to process). So as you use more powerful GPUs in these games without also changing the settings or resolution, framerate increases dramatically. And that's why the gaps between the different CPUs show at the high end, because it's reaching the range of framerates where some CPUs can no longer keep up (like an i5-4430 at 150 FPS in Bioshock lol).

 

120/144Hz Gaming:

• X79 or X99 six-core or eight-core i7
• overclocked quad-core i5 or i7

Locked 60 FPS Gaming (99% above 60 FPS):

• i5-4460 or better

Mostly 60 FPS Gaming (periodic dips below in demanding games/triple A titles):

• i3-4130 or better
• FX-8

Basic gaming experience between 30 and 60 FPS with nice graphic settings:

• Athlon X4, FX-4, FX-6, Pentium (if it will run the game in question even)

[Prysin]

Well keep in mind that the i7 was only running away at framerates that pretty much nobody plays at. It was pulling away at 150+ FPS with a GTX 980 at 1080P... but the GTX 980 is not a 1080P card. I expect in this situation someone would have a higher resolution monitor or be using DSR, or turning on antialiasing, or running at ultra settings in-game.

 

Also worth noting is that an i7 offers almost nothing over an i5 at present time in games, they just happened to compare the 4790K (4-4.4GHz) to an i5-4430 (3-3.2GHz) so the i7 had a 33% higher clock speed... so it appears that the point of no-more-bottlenecking is somewhere around a 4570 or 4690K for these games at least.

i second this. I see little "raw" performance in the CPU department for my current setup (4790k @ 4.4 GHz core OC + R9 295x2). But then again, i play at 3440x1440. So i have once again joined the "struggle" for stable 60+ FPS

[Agent181]

This is why I haven't upgraded yet from my current system it may be old as hell but it can still keep up, not as great as the new stuff but it's still great for its age

[FLUFFYJELLO]

I crunched the numbers and at 1080p DX, the i3 beats the 8350 by 5 fps with the 290X, but the 8350 does better than the i3 with a 980 by 8 fps, so I don't know where your "decimated" comes from.

The decimation comes from the fact that the i3 setup is ~1/3 the price of a 9590 setup.

[Megahurt]

The decimation comes from the fact that the i3 setup is ~1/3 the price of a 9590 setup.

The 9590 was never a good buy to begin with, you can get an 8320 or 8320E and overclock it to close to the same performance anyway.

[Demonking]

The 9590 was never a good buy to begin with, you can get an 8320 or 8320E and overclock it to close to the same performance anyway.

Doesn't matter still bottlenecks high end Cards.

[Catman007]

Well keep in mind that the i7 was only running away at framerates that pretty much nobody plays at. It was pulling away at 150+ FPS with a GTX 980 at 1080P... but the GTX 980 is not a 1080P card. I expect in this situation someone would have a higher resolution monitor or be using DSR, or turning on antialiasing, or running at ultra settings in-game.

 

Also worth noting is that an i7 offers almost nothing over an i5 at present time in games, they just happened to compare the 4790K (4-4.4GHz) to an i5-4430 (3-3.2GHz) so the i7 had a 33% higher clock speed... so it appears that the point of no-more-bottlenecking is somewhere around a 4570 or 4690K for these games at least.

 

Remember it's not the power of the GPU that causes the bottleneck. Higher settings and higher framerate produce more CPU load (since the CPU has to process certain settings and has to process data for each and every frame... so more frames = more stuff for CPU to process). So as you use more powerful GPUs in these games without also changing the settings or resolution, framerate increases dramatically. And that's why the gaps between the different CPUs show at the high end, because it's reaching the range of framerates where some CPUs can no longer keep up (like an i5-4430 at 150 FPS in Bioshock lol).

 

120/144Hz Gaming:

• X79 or X99 six-core or eight-core i7
• overclocked quad-core i5 or i7

Locked 60 FPS Gaming (99% above 60 FPS):

• i5-4460 or better

Mostly 60 FPS Gaming (periodic dips below in demanding games/triple A titles):

• i3-4130 or better
• FX-8

Basic gaming experience between 30 and 60 FPS with nice graphic settings:

• Athlon X4, FX-4, FX-6, Pentium (if it will run the game in question even)

 

Yes I know but man at 1080 that is a gamers standard for now (majority of ppl plays on it) gets the most out of the build. My point is that if you save money on CPU you actually expect to play on higher then 1080 to use that GPU to fullest so it means getting better monitor. Save on PC spend on monitor for more then 1080. As for cards its a different story but i like to get what I paid for. I agree that for gaming i7 or i7 isn't that important but the charts made me realise some stuff about my own setup and i felt depressed a bit