Is there any games that benefit the I7-4790k over the i5-4690k ?

[FineVisionz]

Is there any games that benefit the I7-4790k over the i5-4690k ?

 

Arma 3 Multiplayer?

[Aytex]

arma 3 yes. my firned had a i5 4690k and 750 ti and i have a i7 4790k and a r7 260x

i get about 10-15 more fps than him

 

haters about bottleneck can go somewhere else :c

[EMENCII]

@FineVisionz

Not enough to be noticed, I'd say...

Maybe with arma...

[C0LL0SS0S]

If you tell ARMA to use your HT cores, yes, but a little tip from me for free: Xeon 1231v3, best of both worlds 

[PC owner with questions]

Is there any games that benefit the I7-4790k over the i5-4690k ?

 

Arma 3 Multiplayer?

simply no

[TheMcSame]

There's quite a lot actually. ARMA though... It uses 2 cores (I think) and any difference would probably be down to clock speeds and other hardware differences.

[Enderman]

there are actually quite a few...

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/236946-who-said-games-used-only-a-couple-threads/

[FineVisionz]

So,  I should still go with the i5-4690k ?

[Abakan]

They didn't test many games, but one can't really argue with the results. An amazing amount of work.

 

Video link:

 

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

 

In my experience there are a few games that benefit, but very few that benefit more than a few percentage points. Personally I would save the money, grab an i5, and put the savings toward a better Gpu.

[i_build_nanosuits]

From my testing, many games do run quite a few threads and will spread the load across multiple CPU cores/threads when possible...but does it really benefit performance is another story?

Since in most cases the GPU will be the limiting factor to performance even with a stock i5-4690K (that's how powerful these CPU's really are)...so most of the time the difference will only be felt at 100+FPS which most graphics solutions can't achieve these days anyways. Still, some games will run and feel smoother with HT turned on with better minimum framerates and better frametime variance, but they are a few and far between. From my testing Crysis 3, Watchdogs, assassin's creed unity, battlefield 4 and GTA 5 are pretty much the only AAA titles in which you can see a real tangible benefit from hyper-threading (by that i mean that my GTX780 got maxed out in watchdogs ONLY once hyper-threading is turned on, otherwise the CPU will bottleneck the card and the result is less frames and some micro-stuttering here and there...but yes i know this is a badly optimised title and it should be better...but still it's a AAA title and when you build a PC you want them all to run perfectly, not only the best optimised games, at least for me)...but again, these are advanced cutting edge games using modern up-to-date game engines, so will this be a trend that will continue evolving or are these stand-out exceptions, i'll leave this call to you.

Here's a video i made a while ago testing watchdogs, the i5 and i7 are the last in the tests, check the GPU load and framerates and you'll see for this game it DOES make quite a difference even with ''just'' a GTX780 GPU at 1080p:

So, what i think of it? i think if you can afford it without having to lower your graphics card or something else you want to have it might help you down the road...especialy if you don't upgrade CPU and board very often, i think having an 8 threaded CPU right of the bat might allow you for an extra GPU upgrade down the road...but if you have to cut down everywhere on your built to fit the i7 in, not worth it.

[typographie]

Is there any games that benefit the I7-4790k over the i5-4690k ?

 

Generally speaking, there are some. Mostly fringe cases, and/or at exaggerated settings. In games that scale up to that many cores, they often don't scale well. The trend I've noticed across several games is that going up to four cores from two is a big improvement, but going to eight cores from four is a fairly modest difference.

 

To put it a more useful way, there aren't any games I'm aware of where an i5 (and an adequate video card) will not provide a good 60 FPS gaming experience, though there are a few games where an i7 might tighten up the minimum framerates a bit. For the price difference I think an i5 is still a pretty good buy.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Generally speaking, there are some. Mostly fringe cases, and/or at exaggerated settings. In games that scale up to that many cores, they often don't scale well. The trend I've noticed across several games is that going up to four cores from two is a big improvement, but going to eight cores from four is a fairly modest difference.

 

To put it a more useful way, there aren't any games I'm aware of where an i5 (and an adequate video card) will not provide a good 60 FPS gaming experience, though there are a few games where an i7 might tighten up the minimum framerates a bit. For the price difference I think an i5 is still a pretty good buy.

i agree, if you AIM for 120 or 144hz gaming THEN maybe it's a little bit more worth consdidering the i7 because when i test games on low resolution to remove the GPU limitations, i do realise the i7 can quite often reach the 150FPS mark where as the i5 will stall at around 115FPS or something like that...again no biggie, it's really a case by case analysis on what's the budget, what you do aside gaming, what's the GPU(s)/performance goals, screen resolution, type of games played the most etc.

in general, open world games with many units and/or NPC on the screen and lots of actions going on are the kind of games that are CPU dependant a bit more, and in such games the i7 tends to improve things a little bit...but AGAIN you do require an high-end graphics solution to see any benefit from it...if you game on an R9 280 or a GTX 760 n point in getting an i7 that's for sure...

BUT, if for example you play BF4 conquest multiplayer at 1080p 144hz with a GTX 980/980ti for example...and you are competitive and game a lot...aim for the best framerates possible with the lowest latencies and tightest frametime possible..the i7 might not a bad buy.

For me personaly what triggered my ''need'' for an i7 was the fact that i was using an overclocked amd FX-8320 with my GTX780 and MANY games where running like poop with very low minimum FPS so i tought to my self what the heck this card is worth 500$ and it's being slowed down by this 100$ piece of junk of a CPU what the hell...so i broke loose and litteraly bought the BEST available CPU for gaming at the time which happened to be the i7-4770K...i wanted something that would last 3 to 5 years without needing another upgrade...i could have got an i5-4670K but i knew i was going to sleep better at night having an i7 in there...but i'm a special kind.

I wanted an upgrade to the FX that would be a complete upgrade across the board, both in multi-threaded AND single-threaded performance, the core i5 trade blows in multi-threaded rendering and stuff with the FX...that's why i wanted the i7, it has more cache and it outperform the overclocked FX in EVERYTHING.

[Kratos]

I think there's actually difference, and of course in 90% or more cases, the 4790K will be a better choice if you just want more performance on the game.

The thing I don't think it's worth the cost, I've no idea of how many fps will the i7 gain but not that much to just bump out $100 extra (or 120€). Since performance per core is an important thing to look at when speaking of gaming, then yeah, the 4790K has the best performance per core on the market (I think), so it's just a matter of choice according to your budget of course.

I personally have a 4790K and I use it for gaming and video editing, very happy with it. 

[Elapo]

In my experience there are a few games that benefit, but very few that benefit more than a few percentage points. Personally I would save the money, grab an i5, and put the savings toward a better Gpu.

This. you'll get more from spending 100 more on a GPU than you'll get from spending 100 more on a CPU

Unless rendering, in that case i7 All the way, no doubts.