CPU or GPU upgrade?

[Tytan64]

No, the OP doesn't want to prioritize a i7. I have the least amount of money of anyone in this conversation, yet there is a i7 in my PC. Because of priorities.

An i7 4790K would be overkill for gaming only. 

I run every game with my i5 4690K and a GTX 980 Ti without really stressing this CPU.

It's overclocked to 4.5GHz though.

[App4that]

An i7 4790K would be overkill for gaming only. 

I run every game with my i5 4690K and a GTX 980 Ti without really stressing this CPU.

It's overclocked to 4.5GHz though.

BS, pure BS. Do you know how I know it's BS? Because I was told a 4690k was enough for gaming, so I bought one. In August of 2015.

 

Look at my profile, do you see a 4690k in my PC. No, no you don't. Because even overclocked to 4.6GHz I had horrible fps dips in Fallout 4 and Cities Skylies. So I had to buy a 4790k.

 

No more problems in those two games. And everything else runs noticeably smoother.

 

So I formally call shenanigans on you.

[Tytan64]

BS, pure BS. Do you know how I know it's BS? Because I was told a 4690k was enough for gaming, so I bought one. In August of 2015.

 

Look at my profile, do you see a 4690k in my PC. No, no you don't. Because even overclocked to 4.6GHz I had horrible fps dips in Fallout 4 and Cities Skylies. So I had to buy a 4790k.

 

No more problems in those two games. And everything else runs noticeably smoother.

 

So I formally call shenanigans on you.

I have to admit that I don't own those games but I can hardly imagine the i5 4690K is that bad at it. I was talking about gaming in FullHD and "only" 60 fps. Maybe you're just running tripple 4k and that's the difference in our setups ^^

[App4that]

I have to admit that I don't own those games but I can hardly imagine the i5 4690K is that bad at it. I was talking about gaming in FullHD and "only" 60 fps. Maybe you're just running tripple 4k and that's the difference in our setups ^^

No, 1080p at 60hz. Problem is no one keeps up on the games released and their requirements. A year ago all you needed was a i5, things change. Now you need a i7 for ultra settings on a lot of new releases.

[Tytan64]

No, 1080p at 60hz. Problem is no one keeps up on the games released and their requirements. A year ago all you needed was a i5, things change. Now you need a i7 for ultra settings on a lot of new releases.

I searched on youtube for that usage and found this. most videos are about an i5 and a gtx 970. there the gpu is the bottleneck. but I also found one using a Titan.

Tell me what you think about it. Maybe hes faking something.

 

[App4that]

I searched on youtube for that usage and found this. most videos are about an i5 and a gtx 970. there the gpu is the bottleneck. but I also found one using a Titan.

Tell me what you think about it. Maybe hes faking something.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023

[Tyrius]

No, 1080p at 60hz. Problem is no one keeps up on the games released and their requirements. A year ago all you needed was a i5, things change. Now you need a i7 for ultra settings on a lot of new releases.

LLT has a video on this from april 2015 and before you come at me with "that's already outdated, the new games are different" I'm mentioning this because you brought up cities skylines and they included it in the video (around the 2min mark):

TL:DW: 4 Cores HT vs 4 Cores = 0 fps difference in that game

Sames goes for most other games, sometimes there are differences of a few fps, nothing I would consider "horrible" on the non-HT CPU

[Tytan64]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023

I've already read that article in the meantime because I seriously searched for it. They are talking about droping slightly below 60 fps from time to time but being over 60 fps most of the time. So yeah it seems like we found a few games where even an i7 4790K isn't powerfull enough ... or the games just not well programmed.

I think it's just like Crysis 3 was back then. You can't really play it without high end equipment.

You're right that the i7 has more performance on games using 8 threads but his CPU is less a problem for gaming than his GPU.

And an i7 4790K is 360€ where I live and the i5 4690K "only" 240€. I tend to spend that extra money on a better graphics card which gives me more power for the money in games ^^

[byalexandr]

Graphics card to R9 390. Minor bottleneck in CPU intensive games but @byalexandr had his 290 running on an i3 and he says it was fine

Yeah it only bottlenecks in games like ARMa which eats CPUs anyway.

[App4that]

LLT has a video on this from april 2015 and before you come at me with "that's already outdated, the new games are different" I'm mentioning this because you brought up cities skylines and they included it in the video (around the 2min mark):

TL:DW: 4 Cores HT vs 4 Cores = 0 fps difference in that game

Sames goes for most other games, sometimes there are differences of a few fps, nothing I would consider "horrible" on the non-HT CPU

And LLT says ram speed doesn't matter too. When Digital Foundry has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it does.

 

Buy what you will, I'm just trying to save you the headache I had to put up with. So if you won't listen to me about CPU, Tylenol works best.

[Dash Lambda]

And you have a 970, or do not run the game at ultra settings. All of them.

My specs are on my profile, and I literally went through every setting making sure each one was at max just in case the ultra preset didn't do that.

The only notable exception is V-Sync, which I disabled in the .ini (then capped my framerate at 60 so the engine wouldn't screw up) because I despise the input latency.

 

No, the OP doesn't want to prioritize a i7. I have the least amount of money of anyone in this conversation, yet there is a i7 in my PC. Because of priorities.

Oh really? I guess pairing a 4790K with a 290, in a gaming rig, is what you call "priorities".

 

EDIT: And by the way, what's your budget like to be so confident that you, out of all of us, have the least money?

[Tyrius]

Digital Foundry has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it does.

Is there a video by Digital Foundry showcasing an i5 and i7 with different RAM speeds? I always see them doing it on i3s...

To try to contribute to the topic, IMO as a rule of thumb in a gaming PC the GPU should always be the most expensive part (at least in the long run, it's fine to get a more expensive CPU now if you plan to pair it with a new GPU in the near future)

[App4that]

My specs are on my profile, and I literally went through every setting making sure each one was at max just in case the ultra preset didn't do that.

The only notable exception is V-Sync, which I disabled in the .ini (then capped my framerate at 60 so the engine wouldn't screw up) because I despise the input latency.

 

Oh really? I guess pairing a 4790K with a 290, in a gaming rig, is what you call "priorities".

Bahahaha!! You I like.

 

My 290 pulls 60fps at ultra settings in 1440 with 38 active mods and the texture distance doubled and the block set to 7. Something not possible with the 4690k I had. If I had a 970, might not have needed the i7.

[App4that]

Is there a video by Digital Foundry showcasing an i5 and i7 with different RAM speeds? I always see them doing it on i3s...

To try to contribute to the topic, IMO as a rule of thumb in a gaming PC the GPU should always be the most expensive part (at least in the long run, it's fine to get a more expensive CPU now if you plan to pair it with a new GPU in the near future)

2 years ago, this was true. Welcome to 2016. Now you need a i7, fast as fuck ram, and a SSD.

[don_svetlio]

Not worth going to an i7 for gaming. Even an i3 is fine for the most part

[Tyrius]

So you priorize PC components: CPU > RAM > Storage > GPU?

Give me links to results showing gaming performance gains from an ssd you made me curious

Also let me know how you know what demands games will have on what parts of your PC this year.

 

BTW what other games are you playing? Maybe they are especially CPU/RAM hungry like Rise.

[Dash Lambda]

Bahahaha!! You I like.

 

My 290 pulls 60fps at ultra settings in 1440 with 38 active mods and the texture distance doubled and the block set to 7. Something not possible with the 4690k I had. If I had a 970, might not have needed the i7.

I tried supersampling at 2560x1440 and 3840x2160. The latter made it dip to ~40 occasionally, the former ran at 60 without trouble.

I turned it off though, since it pushed the windows on my other monitors around and I wanted to have a video playing on one of them while I was in Fallout. Gets boring when you stop paying attention to the story.

 

As for the other stuff, I can try doubling my render distance and setting my block to 7... If you tell me what "setting my block to 7" means.

I don't really want to deal with mods though. I just have "any weapon any mod". 

[App4that]

So you priorize PC components: CPU > RAM > Storage > GPU?

Give me links to results showing gaming performance gains from an ssd you made me curious

Also let me know how you know what demands games will have on what parts of your PC this year.

 

BTW what other games are you playing? Maybe they are especially CPU/RAM hungry like Rise.

If me, no. I prioritize everything. My entire rig is as balanced as possible. An SSD won't impact fps in most cases, it helps with load times. I run double textures only because my SSD makes that possible.

 

Just about everything I play is CPU, RAM hungry. Because I play the games as they release lol. Developers are developing for the new consoles and their multiple cores. This will get worse with DX12 games and favors more than 4 threads.

[App4that]

I tried supersampling at 2560x1440 and 3840x2160. The latter made it dip to ~40 occasionally, the former ran at 60 without trouble.

I turned it off though, since it pushed the windows on my other monitors around and I wanted to have a video playing on one of them while I was in Fallout. Gets boring when you stop paying attention to the story.

 

As for the other stuff, I can try doubling my render distance and setting my block to 7... If you tell me what "setting my block to 7" means.

I don't really want to deal with mods though. I just have "any weapon any mod". 

The block count is in the ini files. That and the console are where the changes that make a difference happen.

 

But you run Nvidia, I have AMD peasant problems. Like I said, I bet my 4690k would have been able to keep up if I had a 970.

[Dash Lambda]

The block count is in the ini files. That and the console are where the changes that make a difference happen.

 

But you run Nvidia, I have AMD peasant problems. Like I said, I bet my 4690k would have been able to keep up if I had a 970.

You really should prioritize the GPU in a gaming rig. That's why an i5 is best for gaming, because the difference between an i5 and an i7 in game is peanuts compared to the difference between a 960 and a 970, or a 970 and a 980, and so on.

 

*I'll let you know the results with those settings after I screw around a bit.

[App4that]

You really should prioritize the GPU in a gaming rig. That's why an i5 is best for gaming, because the difference between an i5 and an i7 in game is peanuts compared to the difference between a 960 and a 970, or a 970 and a 980, and so on.

 

*I'll let you know the results with those settings after I screw around a bit.

All I can say is not in my experience. And I'd say my experience was purely anecdotal if Digital foundry hadn't made so many videos proving that a i7 was better than a i5.

[Dash Lambda]

All I can say is not in my experience. And I'd say my experience was purely anecdotal if Digital foundry hadn't made so many videos proving that a i7 was better than a i5.

I never said an i5 was better. An i7 will definitely perform better in every workload, the problem here is that it won't perform that much better than its i5 counterpart. You only go for an i7 if you have money left after your GPU.

[App4that]

I never said an i5 was better. An i7 will definitely perform better in every workload, the problem here is that it won't perform that much better than its i5 counterpart. You only go for an i7 if you have money left after your GPU.

But I've had both. I've had a Firestrike score of 17k with a 4690k, and a 11k score with a 4790k. In most of the games I play, they play better with the 4790k. In Fallout 4 and Cities Skylines the difference is playable or not playable.

 

I had to sell a GPU to get the 4790k, forgot to mention that.

[Dash Lambda]

But I've had both. I've had a Firestrike score of 17k with a 4690k, and a 11k score with a 4790k. In most of the games I play, they play better with the 4790k. In Fallout 4 and Cities Skylines the difference is playable or not playable.

 

I had to sell a GPU to get the 4790k, forgot to mention that.

Ouch... Was it dual 290 or did you swap out for one?

 

*Also, I just finished screwing around in fallout. I doubled all the render distances, turned up particles, set grid to 7, and changed a few other things like foliage density and whatnot. It didn't drop below 60.

Though I did notice what might have been VRAM artifacts... Might have to back off on my VRAM overclock...

[App4that]

Ouch... Was it dual 290 or did you swap out for one?

 

*Also, I just finished screwing around in fallout. I doubled all the render distances, turned up particles, set grid to 7, and changed a few other things like foliage density and whatnot. It didn't drop below 60.

Though I did notice what might have been VRAM artifacts... Might have to back off on my VRAM overclock...

Yeah, I get those too. Majorly annoying when snipping. Backing off my overclocks didn't help.

 

Oh, and I sold a 390. Had a 290/390 CF