Probably the worst tech video ever: Should you buy a core i7 for gaming!

[i_build_nanosuits]

Ok, first let me put things in perspective here:

 

this forum lately has seen a lot of ''the core i5-4690K will BOTTLENECK a GTX 1070/1080'' etc. i even seen people go as far as a GTX 970...whatever, i DON'T think it will...the core i5 is a GREAT CPU for gaming and probably more than you'll ever need, and a lot better bang for the buck vs.a core i7 for a GAMER.

 

That said...this guy is called ''GREG'' he operates a somewhat ''newish'' tech channel..he used to do space and biology content etc. but recently he dove into PC gaming tech pretty hard...problem is: HE IS A NEWBY...he don't understand how this works.

In this video, he say that at lower resolution the core i5 and core i7 will perform virtually identicle and higher resolution would ''unfairly leverage the CPU'' in short he think that the higher the resolution the MORE stress you put on the CPU...which, well...we all know that's not at all how it works...in fact it's the opposite, the lower the resolution the more breathing room you give to the GPU, hence the more frames you render therefore the CPU has to work harder due to the increase in draw calls demand.

 

Anyways, listen to the video, and PLEASE if you have some time go into the comment section and let him know how bad this video really is...we tried to explain stuff to him but all he respond is that a core i7 for gaming is a stupid idea and that unless you game at 4K a core i5 is better...

 

 

 

Also, the amount of ''Thank you greg you saved me 100$'' etc. in the comment section drives me INSANE!

Anyways...have a good day techy folks!

[zMeul]

I laugh on how you use the word "bottleneck" to describe what is a CPU bound game (scenario)

the perfect case study for this: ARMA III - why? because it's single threaded 

[ThinkWithPortals]

I think what he's getting at for the "Anyone who purchases an i5 for 4K gaming is a fool" statement is that if you can afford a GPU capable of gaming at 4K (eg. a GTX 1070 or 1080, Titan X/Titan XP, etc.) and you can afford a 4K monitor, you can probably afford an i7 over an i5.

 

Regardless, the video seems quite off the mark, although I like his videos in general.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I laugh on how you use the word "bottleneck" to describe what is a CPU bound game (scenario)

the perfect case study for this: ARMA III - why? because it's single threaded 

i agree...and core i7 single-threaded performance is the same as the core i5...but some games are simply VERY demanding on the CPU and can leverage multiple threads...will exibit better minimum FPS and more consistent frame pacing...just think about the witcher 3 for example, or fallout 4...

 

Anyways, that's beside the point...this guy tested a GTX 1070 @ 2560x1440 of course the CPU difference in that scenario (although very REALISTIC and conform to the resolution at which people will ACTUALLY use the hardware) is NOT really representative...the games he tested aren't the ones i would have picked, the resolution should be lower to really show how the CPU performs...like Digital Foundry videos for example: when they test for CPU performance they use an overclocked Titan X at 1080p...this is how you should do it.

[Morgan MLGman]

Let the crusade to educate retards begin then... Let me get my pitchfork! *goes off to the linked video comment section*

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, ThinkWithPortals said:

Regardless, the video seems quite off the mark, although I like his videos in general.

Same here, he makes good quality content in general and his videos are interesting...but he dove into a subject he does not fully understand for this video...

[PRTI]

Well if CPU Tech is not going as fast as GPU tech,soon we might even NEED a i7....

[Thorium19]

Honestly, the guy should use total war: warhammer or cities skylines to see just why an i7 works well these days. An i5 is still the bang for buck cpu, but the i7 really is seeing benefits now, even BF1 uses 6 to 8 threads at 80% load at times.

 

People who are going to make videos on subjects like this need to do some proper research and testing before publishing their results, otherwise people who do their research are just going to make a mockery of them, and those who haven't done their research will be lead astray by false information.

[AlTech]

About the Title of the OP: Probably the longest topic title ever, and yet should consider opening it?

 

About the OP:

 

Yeah sorry but this was kinda bad. This is very misleading.

 

The i7 6700K is suitable for a GTX 1070, GTX 1080 etc

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, Thorium19 said:

Honestly, the guy should use total war: warhammer or cities skylines to see just why an i7 works well these days. An i5 is still the bang for buck cpu, but the i7 really is seeing benefits now, even BF1 uses 6 to 8 threads at 80% load at times.

 

People who are going to make videos on subjects like this need to do some proper research and testing before publishing their results, otherwise people who do their research are just going to make a mockery of them, and those who haven't done their research will be lead astray by false information.

totally agree with you...ahhh it feel great to be understood finally...the comment section under this video has got me ragin inside but you guys put some balm on the wound...

core i5 ain't bad...but for a higher-end gaming machine, with a 1070/1080 or even a 980ti...core i7 makes a lot of sense right.

[Trevor87]

How can make this short.

The I7 for now for just  gaming is waste of money but if you are buying 1080 that different story. 

Games are getting more better at utilizing the cpu it might different story later on.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i agree...and core i7 single-threaded performance is the same as the core i5

no, not really: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1028 - CineBech R15 single threaded

that difference in cache size matters more than the difference in core clock

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, zMeul said:

no, not really: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1028 - CineBech R15 single threaded

 

that difference in cache size matters more than the difference in core clock

splitting hairs here, this is margin of error stuff...

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

splitting hairs here, this is margin of error stuff...

it margin of error only if it present in one case, but it can be reproduced across the board and across architectures

[AresKrieger]

The way to cause CPU dependency is throwing games into 1080p, thus making them entirely CPU dependent since a good GPU such as a 1080 will be running well over 100 fps in those scenarios thus requiring more CPU instructions

 

Also try playing fallout 4 with an i5 vs an i7 and you'll be wishing you had the i7

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

splitting hairs here, this is margin of error stuff...

Actually the cache is probably more important in most gaming cases, for instance fallout 4 get's its boost from the cache

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, zMeul said:

it margin of error only if it present in one case, but it can be reproduced across the board and across architectures

it's probably just that the core i7 has a higher boost clock or something...the amount of cache will come into play only if the CPU is processing a shit load of instructions...if you're saturating only one or two CPU cores you're certainly not running out of cache?

[Jumper118]

Even the big tech youtubers and review sites do stuff like this all the time.  Why does this need a special thread 

[Waqas409]

Oh this guy sometimes make weird videos, i was watching one of hisvideo where he was testing GT210 Graphics card and saying we will test this graphics card and the games that were popular on that era ( 2008-2009 ). But the fun fact he was testing all games on 1080p.

He didnt even know 900p, 768p and some other res were popular for gaming in 2008-2009

Same thing happened in this comment section, people were ragging about the resolution. lol 

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

Even the big tech youtubers and review sites do stuff like this all the time.  Why does this need a special thread 

Because i think it's sad to miss-lead people like that and i needed to let off some steam...and maybe some of you guys could hit the dislike button and let him know how wrong he is or something

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Also try playing fallout 4 with an i5 vs an i7 and you'll be wishing you had the i7

Actually the cache is probably more important in most gaming cases, for instance fallout 4 get's its boost from the cache

i'm aware that Fallout 4 run better on a core i7 (even though it still run like crap, even on my machine) but how much is due to more cache and how much is due to hyper-threading helping with advanced scheduling of critical processing is unknow as far as i'm aware?

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

it's probably just that the core i7 has a higher boost clock or something...the amount of cache will come into play only if the CPU is processing a shit load of instructions...if you're saturating only one or two CPU cores you're certainly not running out of cache?

yes, the i7 has a higher boost, by 100Mhz

but if you look at the i5 6600K, it has higher base clock compared to the regular one and it still doesn't surpass it

 

as for the L3 cache, it's shared, not split - it definitely matters

[Jumper118]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Because i think it's sad to miss-lead people like that and i needed to let off some steam...and maybe some of you guys could hit the dislike button and let him know how wrong he is or something

People should use common sense and use multiple sources a 6700k cost 50% more than a 6600k and it doesn't get you 50% more fps. Simple as that. 

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i'm aware that Fallout 4 run better on a core i7 (even though it still run like crap, even on my machine) but how much is due to more cache and how much is due to hyper-threading helping with advanced scheduling of critical processing is unknow as far as i'm aware?

Huh I thought it didn't use the hyperthreading properly, but I was wrong, oh well.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Huh I thought it didn't use the hyperthreading properly, but I was wrong, oh well.

i'm not sure, the performance while playing this game on my machine was all over the place to be honest...one minute and it was running great and the next i was struggling for 50FPS...so i don't know

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i'm not sure, the performance while playing this game on my machine was all over the place to be honest...one minute and it was running great and the next i was struggling for 50FPS...so i don't know

1866MHz RAM.