Why the 4690K is a underperforming bottleneck!

[Sauron]

No, it's not. i5's perform significantly worse than i7's in CPU-heavy scenarios, which is exactly what Firestrike shows.

 

yeah... and games are not cpu heavy.

 

 

Theres no real performance benefit unless youre doing rendering they said.

 

This holds true in the majority of cases. You'll benefit from an i7 when it comes to rendering, heavy multitasking, compression and transcoding. Not in games. Firestrike is supposed to be a game-oriented benchmark, but since it stresses out all the components as much as it can at the end of the day its results are not particularly useful to understand what real world performance will be like. I'd also like to point out that cpu firestrike results are out there for anyone to read, so if you bought your cpu from recommendations and didn't even bother to check what the benchmarks looked like you shouldn't complain after running them yourself.

[TacticlTwinkie]

Witcher 3 shows improved fps in cities when using a 4790k verse a 4690k. A better CPU WILL give you higher fps. Why this forum is so unwilling to admit this I will never know.

yes, a better cpu will yield better fps in games in certain situations, but the $100 or so price difference between, say, a 4670k and a 4770k is better put towards the graphics card. Over there, your $100 will go farther in the majority of situations. But if budget isn't an issue, then neither is this.

[Monarch]

yeah... and games are not cpu heavy.

 

What? I just gave you 2 examples in my post above. Witcher 3 and Crysis 3. I've even linked videos that prove that. Some games are not CPU-heavy, some are. Witcher 3, GTA V, Crysis 3, BF4... pretty much all the latest titles are CPU heavy. Even the upcoming titles recommend an i7, and that's for a reason.

 

yes, a better cpu will yield better fps in games in certain situations, but the $100 or so price difference between, say, a 4670k and a 4770k is better put towards the graphics card. Over there, your $100 will go farther in the majority of situations.

 

CPU and GPU are the main components in a PC. Your framerate depends on the time it takes for the CPU to do it's job, pass the info to graphics card so it can then render frames. I don't understand why people think it's better to put money towards GPU. It doesn't make any sense. If the CPU takes too long to do it's job, you're bottlenecking the GPU and what's the point of having a high-end GPU?

[Sauron]

What? I just gave you 2 examples in my post above. Witcher 3 and Crysis 3. I've even linked videos that prove that. Some games are not CPU-heavy, some are. Witcher 3, GTA V, Crysis 3, BF4... pretty much all the latest titles are CPU heavy. Even the upcoming titles recommend an i7, and that's for a reason.

 

Yeah... 4 examples. Wow. Better dish out those extra 100 bucks on a cpu that will give me an extra 10 fps max instead of investing in a better gpu that would give me 20 then...

[App4that]

yes, a better cpu will yield better fps in games in certain situations, but the $100 or so price difference between, say, a 4670k and a 4770k is better put towards the graphics card. Over there, your $100 will go farther in the majority of situations. But if budget isn't an issue, then neither is this.

 

Yeah... 4 examples. Wow. Better dish out those extra 100 bucks on a cpu that will give me an extra 10 fps max instead of investing in a better gpu that would give me 20 then...

I can get a i7 4790K for 309.99us at Fry's 3 miles away from me, or a i5 for 234.99us at the same place. Not only does the i7 offer better gaming performance, but will do a better job in daily tasks while multitasking. For instance doing homework and wondering what you're smoking and why you won't share.

[Sauron]

I can get a i7 4790K for 309.99us at Fry's 3 miles away from me, or a i5 for 234.99us at the same place. Not only does the i7 offer better gaming performance, but will do a better job in daily tasks while multitasking. For instance doing homework and wondering what you're smoking and why you won't share.

 

doing homework? what sort of homework are you doing? lol. Either way that's still 70 bucks you could have invested in a better gpu. I'm not saying the i7 is a bad buy, but if you want a gaming pc and are on a budget your money is better spent elsewhere.

[Monarch]

Yeah... 4 examples. Wow. Better dish out those extra 100 bucks on a cpu that will give me an extra 10 fps max instead of investing in a better gpu that would give me 20 then...

 

It's not going to give you 20 if it's held back by the CPU. You buy CPU to have good framerate in CPU-bound scenarios, you buy a GPU to have good framerate in GPU-bound scenarios. Do you prefer having 100 fps in GPU-bound scenarios and 30 fps in CPU-bound scenarios over having 60/60 fps?

[Midnight]

Knowing my setup can run any game at a decent framerate at high settings on 1080p is enough. Having a good firestrike score is way more importajt as long as my games play at 60 or more fps

 

And I will tell you that is impossible. I don't think you understand the purpose of benchmarks.

[App4that]

doing homework? what sort of homework are you doing? lol. Either way that's still 70 bucks you could have invested in a better gpu. I'm not saying the i7 is a bad buy, but if you want a gaming pc and are on a budget your money is better spent elsewhere.

Calculus at the moment. Thanks Newton... GPU's are replaced at an alarming rate. I got my Vapor-x just a month ago and you already can't buy it. But it scores the same as it's replacement that costs up to 60us more. Can't do that with a CPU. You're stuck with what Intel or AMD have to offer, and can only use the socket it fits into, verses the GPU that doesn't really care. The GPU is by far the easier upgrade. Why not prioritize the CPU?

[Sauron]

It's not going to give you 20 if it's held back by the CPU. You buy CPU to have good framerate in CPU-bound scenarios, you buy a GPU to have good framerate in GPU-bound scenarios. Do you prefer having 100 fps in GPU-bound scenarios and 30 fps in CPU-bound scenarios over having 60/60 fps?

 

You're not going to have either 100/30 or 60/60, that's an exaggeration and you know it. You may have slightly lower minimums in games that are heavily multithreaded. Because cpu-bound does not necessarily mean it's going to use multiple threads. And the better gpu may be the difference between playing at 1440p over 1080p or between maintaining 60 fps in most cases with rare dips to 45 rather than having a consistent 50.

[Sauron]

Calculus at the moment. Thanks Newton... GPU's are replaced at an alarming rate. I got my Vapor-x just a month ago and you already can't buy it. But it scores the same as it's replacement that costs up to 60us more. Can't do that with a CPU. You're stuck with what Intel or AMD have to offer, and can only use the socket it fits into, verses the GPU that doesn't really care. The GPU is by far the easier upgrade. Why not prioritize the CPU?

 

that reasonment makes sense when considering whether to buy an i5 or an i3. An i5 is already a perfectly capable chip that will perform just like an i7 in the majority of situations, so sacrificing gpu horsepower for the sake of getting an i7 doesn't make that much sense. Of course the gpu is the easier upgrade, but you also won't be upgrading it every year (assuming you're on a budget, because if you're not you might as well get that i7). So going for a lower end gpu may mean you'll have a significantly worse experience for 3-4 years for the sake of a possibly slightly better one in a few select games when you upgrade.

[App4that]

that reasonment makes sense when considering whether to buy an i5 or an i3. An i5 is already a perfectly capable chip that will perform just like an i7 in the majority of situations, so sacrificing gpu horsepower for the sake of getting an i7 doesn't make that much sense. Of course the gpu is the easier upgrade, but you also won't be upgrading it every year (assuming you're on a budget, because if you're not you might as well get that i7). So going for a lower end gpu may mean you'll have a significantly worse experience for 3-4 years for the sake of a possibly slightly better one in a few select games when you upgrade.

it's a balancing act. Get the better GPU and save on the CPU and you'll be unable to run high settings because of the CPU. Same thing happens if you prioritize the CPU. Blow your budget on both and you're pumping 200fps through a 21" 1080p 60hz monitor.

 

I think this is what causes the phenomenon of over advising the i5. I probable come across as picking on the i5, that couldn't be further from the truth. I love my little CPU that could. I just don't harbor any allusions of grander.

[Monarch]

You're not going to have either 100/30 or 60/60, that's an exaggeration and you know it. You may have slightly lower minimums in games that are heavily multithreaded. Because cpu-bound does not necessarily mean it's going to use multiple threads. And the better gpu may be the difference between playing at 1440p over 1080p or between maintaining 60 fps in most cases with rare dips to 45 rather than having a consistent 50.

 

I have a 970 and an i5. I get 60 - 90 fps in Witcher 3 outside cities/villages, I drop to 40-50 in cities and villages. I get 70+ fps in Crysis 3 on some levels, but when there's grass and grass physics my cores hit 100% and down I go to ~30 fps. In these cases, my GPU usage drops as low as 60%. 

[Sauron]

it's a balancing act. Get the better GPU and save on the CPU and you'll be unable to run high settings because of the CPU. Same thing happens if you prioritize the CPU. Blow your budget on both and you're pumping 200fps through a 21" 1080p 60hz monitor.

 

I think this is what causes the phenomenon of over advising the i5. I probable come across as picking on the i5, that couldn't be further from the truth. I love my little CPU that could. I just don't harbor any allusions of grander.

 

Yeah, it's balance. And if you think about it you'll notice the range in which gpus are within 100$ of each other is r9 390 and below. If you can afford an i5 and an r9 390 or an i7 and a 280x, it makes a lot more sense to buy the first option. If instead you're considering an r9 390 or a 390x and the latter will keep you from getting an i7, hell no you shouldn't buy an i5. That's common sense. It doesn't mean i5s are "underperforming bottlenecks" and that people shouldn't recommend them.

 

I have a 970 and an i5. I get 60 - 90 fps in Witcher 3 outside cities/villages, I drop to 40-50 in cities and villages. I get 70+ fps in Crysis 3 on some levels, but when there's grass and grass physics my cores hit 100% and down I go to ~30 fps. In these cases, my GPU usage drops as low as 60%. 

 

That, believe it or not, is poor optimization of the cryengine. Grass physics or not, the dip shouldn't be that high. That said, again, these are just a couple of cases and the video you posted shows that even with an i7, the grass will bring you down to 40 fps. Tell me, would buying an i7 and a 280x have given you a better experience in your opinion? I think not.

[App4that]

Yeah, it's balance. And if you think about it you'll notice the range in which gpus are within 100$ of each other is r9 390 and below. If you can afford an i5 and an r9 390 or an i7 and a 280x, it makes a lot more sense to buy the first option. If instead you're considering an r9 390 or a 390x and the latter will keep you from getting an i7, hell no you shouldn't buy an i5. That's common sense. It doesn't mean i5s are "underperforming bottlenecks" and that people shouldn't recommend them.

 

 

That, believe it or not, is poor optimization of the cryengine. Grass physics or not, the dip shouldn't be that high. That said, again, these are just a couple of cases and the video you posted shows that even with an i7, the grass will bring you down to 40 fps. Tell me, would buying an i7 and a 280x have given you a better experience in your opinion? I think not.

It's not the advising of i5's that's the issue, it's how they're recommended. What you just said here is correct, but what I see on the forum is "a i5 is fine for gaming, you won't need anything else", I see this all the time and it needs to stop. It sets up unrealistic expectations, that are completely the fault of the person advising a i5.

[Sauron]

It's not the advising of i5's that's the issue, it's how they're recommended. What you just said here is correct, but what I see on the forum is "a i5 is fine for gaming, you won't need anything else", I see this all the time and it needs to stop. It sets up unrealistic expectations, that are completely the fault of the person advising a i5.

 

The correct way of saying it, and the way i say it, is "in most games there is no difference, you should invest more on your gpu". If I see a guy who wants to sli 980tis I won't tell him to buy an i5 over an i7.

[Imabigmac]

Whatever happened to just playing games? Seriously the i5 over i7 or 8350, etc debate is settled in one way, does your game play or not smoothly? It will be smooth with a i5 or an i7. So for 95% of gamers either cpu will

Work. For the 5% either cough up the money to be able to play the game at max everything year after year or get over it.

I play games in my free time to have fun, yes cranking the settings haveing a smooth experience does make it more enjoyable, but in 3+ years i have owned my 3570k never have i felt my game play wrecked by cpu power.

[SteveGrabowski0]

It's not the advising of i5's that's the issue, it's how they're recommended. What you just said here is correct, but what I see on the forum is "a i5 is fine for gaming, you won't need anything else", I see this all the time and it needs to stop. It sets up unrealistic expectations, that are completely the fault of the person advising a i5.

 

Yeah, I can't believe how many times I'll see people buy 980 Ti and $100 watercooler, $150 board, and then cheap out on the CPU with a 4690k instead of 4790k or 6600k instead of 6700k. The i5 is absolutely the best price to performance gaming CPU on the market and most gamers here should buy them instead of i7s, but I'll never understand the i5 when you're throwing big money at your other components.

[App4that]

Dude, it's probably because the i5-4690K is the cheapest CPU out there that doesn't bottleneck a 980 Ti.

Define bottleneck? If you're losing fps because of the CPU, I'd call that a bottleneck.

[NumLock21]

Bottleneck for me is when the CPU or the GPU holds the PC back so it doesn't reach its full performance.

Bottleneck is created by the user

[App4that]

Bottleneck for me is when the CPU or the GPU holds the PC back so it doesn't reach its full performance.

Like losing fps, which means a 4690K bottlenecks a 980ti depending on the game.

[App4that]

Really?

Yes, really. The 980ti is very close to the Titan, watch what happens when they enter the city.

 

[App4that]

I don't see a frame drop.

What point are you trying to make?

Then you didn't watch when they enter Novigrad... The i5 loses over 10fps to the i7. That's a bottleneck.

[ManWithBeard1990]

Well, a benchmark like this will test both cpu and gpu, drawing complex scenes and running physics as fast as possible and of course, an i7 will do it faster. For games this does not matter so much because you aren't in fact, trying to run the whole game as fast as possible. You're merely trying to draw what the game wants to show on the screen as fast as you can and that requires a little CPU power, but mostly GPU power. There's only so much CPU power a real game needs because a proper physics engine always runs at a fixed speed. AI, too, runs at a fixed speed. All CPU power you have left, then, is wasted. Your i5 will not perform as well as an i7 in a benchmark DESIGNED TO MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE IN PERFORMANCE between the two processors. That's what it's for, that's what it does. This doesn't mean the i5 is a bottleneck in the slightest because it doesn't prevent your GTX 970 from showing its full potential. If anything, the lower clock speed of the i7 is a bottleneck here because if you hadn't noticed, your graphics score is better than his. That's more likely due to driver improvements though.

[App4that]

But this is a Titan X, so that doesn't necessarily mean that the i5 bottlenecks the 980 Ti... 

Here is the same test using the 4790K and different GPUs, the 980 ti loses a few frames. Nothing major.