Which is Best CPU For gaming at the moment?

[Denis_Twin]

Which is currently the Best CPU For gaming at the moment?

Considering fps, frametimes and overall gaming smoothness.

Which one would logically be more future-proof? Also doing multi-tasking tasks such as watching something, playing or working on something and so on, using photoshop and other such software, zbrush would be another work software or maya.

and why?

 

 

Thanks.

[Canada EH]

Intel 8700K for the throughput capability!

[DarkSmith2]

8700k/8086k, highest possible clockspeeds with good IPC and fast RAM.

[GoldenLag]

if you are purely gaming the 8700k/8086k is the best. the 2700x can be argued to be more future proof because of the extra core, but lags slightly behind in gaming atm. the 8700k is the best, i wouldnt count the 8086k since it is identical to the 8700k. 

 

if you are streaming and doing other productivity while also having a focus on gaming it is another story, but thats not the question at hand

[DarkSmith2]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

if you are purely gaming the 8700k/8086k is the best. the 2700x can be argued to be more future proof because of the extra core, but lags slightly behind in gaming atm. the 8700k is the best, i wouldnt count the 8086k since it is identical to the 8700k. 

 

if you are streaming and doing other productivity while also having a focus on gaming it is another story, but thats not the question at hand

slightly behind in gaming? 25% isnt slightly. Its slightly behind when both are at stock clocks.

[Denis_Twin]

Ive heard that the ryzen chips have less stutter than the intel ones. How true is that?

There is a guy here who played and showed his dips in performance in this game (which I intend to play) I am not sure since I have yet to see actual comparison benchmarks in zerg battles and such.

 

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

slightly behind in gaming? 25% isnt slightly. Its slightly behind when both are at stock clocks.

fair enough, but not everyone overclocks. 25% is only in highly singlethreaded games (as far as i know), which are still a thing but are falling out of fassion due to the newer cpu Designs. the 8700k is still the king of gaming and probably will be untill both the 8700k and the 2700x are both considered budget options. depending on how future multicore optimisation goes we might see a slightly faster 2700x in the future. similar to what happened with the 8350 and the 2700k(?)(the 8350 has cought up to it quite nicely in newer titles, still wouldnt recommend an FX CPU though)

[Denis_Twin]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

fair enough, but not everyone overclocks. 25% is only in highly singlethreaded games (as far as i know), which are still a thing but are falling out of fassion due to the newer cpu Designs. the 8700k is still the king of gaming and probably will be untill both the 8700k and the 2700x are both considered budget options. depending on how future multicore optimisation goes we might see a slightly faster 2700x in the future. similar to what happened with the 8350 and the 2700k(?)(the 8350 has cought up to it quite nicely in newer titles, still wouldnt recommend an FX CPU though)

I will play Guild Wars 2 and some future games, also moba games so I am still unsure, also Ive heard people still stutter with 8700k in gw2 but maybe its something other than ipc as said above.

Im still concerned and want to make the best one-time buy for this half decade (at least).

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

Ive heard that the ryzen chips have less stutter than the intel ones. How true is that?

There is a guy here who played and showed his dips in performance in this game (which I intend to play) I am not sure since I have yet to see actual comparison benchmarks in zerg battles and such.

 

as far as i know Ryzen chips may in some titles have lower minimum framerates, but as far as i know that arent that many titles. the Ryzen chips due however have less stutter when streaming and recording using OBS. (its due to sqedualing and the extra avavible threads)

[DarkSmith2]

7 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

fair enough, but not everyone overclocks. 25% is only in highly singlethreaded games (as far as i know), which are still a thing but are falling out of fassion due to the newer cpu Designs. the 8700k is still the king of gaming and probably will be untill both the 8700k and the 2700x are both considered budget options. depending on how future multicore optimisation goes we might see a slightly faster 2700x in the future. similar to what happened with the 8350 and the 2700k(?)(the 8350 has cought up to it quite nicely in newer titles, still wouldnt recommend an FX CPU though)

or as far as you consider "futureproofing" when upgrading a GPU. 2600k beats the shit out a FX8350 when faster graphics cards then those from back than are considered.

 

Same will happen with 2700x vs 8700k. Faster GPU -> 8700k lead will get bigger. The only futureproofing you get when you buy a 2700x is that you can upgrade because of AM4. And games wont profitably use 16threads within the next 10years i can guarantee. And if you dont consider overclocking you are wasting your time with answering "what is the best" and wasting money if buying an Intel K CPU.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, TwinDenis said:

I will play Guild Wars 2 and some future games, also moba games so I am still unsure, also Ive heard people still stutter with 8700k in gw2 but maybe its something other than ipc as said above.

Im still concerned and want to make the best one-time buy for this half decade (at least).

the 8700k will last half a decade no problem. though dont expect to be able to fit new CPUs in you socket 2 years from now. 

i cant speak for the stutter in gw2. the Ryzen chips due have an advantage in future mobo compatibility. you will be able to fit 4th gen Ryzen in a 1st gen mobo (with an BIOS update). other than that they are worse in gaming in general.

 

for now i think the 8700k will be the best option. 

[Denis_Twin]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

the 8700k will last half a decade no problem. though dont expect to be able to fit new CPUs in you socket 2 years from now. 

i cant speak for the stutter in gw2. the Ryzen chips due have an advantage in future mobo compatibility. you will be able to fit 4th gen Ryzen in a 1st gen mobo (with an BIOS update). other than that they are worse in gaming in general.

 

for now i think the 8700k will be the best option. 

or should I wait?

By the way both builds come at around the same price with i7 being slightly higher.

[Denis_Twin]

I think there has to be someone who tested on that game and found out which runs smoother, I still get 60fps with my current build but in big encounters the fps go a little down BUT there is stuttering in most occasions. Meaning I get 60 fps, it feels like 14-30 going back and forth.

Basically fps isnt everything, seen the benchmarks on fps, the intel one is better but still looking for overall smoothness.

Its not like Im going to play the top tier titles with a top tier gpu, I got my gtx980 currently and plan to keep it for a while regardless.

For me consistent smoothness>fps since I will be stuck with a 60hz monitor for a long while.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, TwinDenis said:

or should I wait?

By the way both builds come at around the same price with i7 being slightly higher.

unless you plan on waiting a year for new chips there isnt a point in waiting. 

8 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

or as far as you consider "futureproofing" when upgrading a GPU. 2600k beats the shit out a FX8350 when faster graphics cards then those from back than are considered.

 

Same will happen with 2700x vs 8700k. Faster GPU -> 8700k lead will get bigger. The only futureproofing you get when you buy a 2700x is that you can upgrade because of AM4. And games wont profitably use 16threads within the next 10years i can guarantee. And if you dont consider overclocking you are wasting your time with answering "what is the best" and wasting money if buying an Intel K CPU.

The 8350 has improved a lot since it got released, there is no question there. 

 

i dont know what to expect from multicore support, but if both major CPU manufactures move to 8-12 core mainstream processors we can at least expect threads/cores to scale past 6. in terms of wasting money there will allways be someone who mean to overclock but doesnt. and yes you are wasting money when buying a K series CPU without overclocking. the same is the people who buy non-k cpu with Z series mobo

[GoldenLag]

7 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

For me consistent smoothness>fps since I will be stuck with a 60hz monitor for a long while.

this can be achieved by turning on vsync. it locks the FPS to 60 and grant from what i know a smoother gaming experience. but it wont step over 60fps

[Denis_Twin]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

this can be achieved by turning on vsync. it locks the FPS to 60 and grant from what i know a smoother gaming experience. but it wont step over 60fps

Which is fine considering 60hz monitors and honestly I have no money to waste.

This is a one-time buy for probably the next decade and being future proof possibly includes an upgrade if needed and you never know what will or will not happen in the future, we do not even know the chips that will arrive in the next year but the value-for-money will have been fulfilled by then at least for the cpu part whichever it is.

Honestly I am locked behind a pre-build computer currently by dell and each of their parts is extremely expensive and limiting to an older generation of parts with special pattents in the whole thing which makes it hard to modify in any way or upgrade so for me its still worth it with whichever I go for, what I trully look for is smooth gameplay and currently having the vsync on makes the games smooth but not smooth enough to call it actually smooth if that makes sense, yes I get a smoother experience but its choppy like dragging me in an un-even ground while I watch the scenery... this vibratory feeling is what exists in my games if the conditions are met (such as loading assets, players etc).

These 2 CPUs will probably be a long way better for my 60fps experience thats for sure.

Which one I buy depends really... 

Currently consoles cost around 400 bucks and tether you to their exclusives and such (which are also made upgradable currently with the revised versions of their original units)

That said... paying another 300 bucks (or less) after 5 years is not a problem honestly, so my thought process tells me if ryzen brings something stronger to the table than i7s in the next 5 years or less, it will still be worth it wouldn't it? Its a duo-poly now so I expect good changes in the cpu market (which had been standing still for years with only small improvements here and there).

Technically this leaves room for game developers to increase their creativity and freedom to create better experiences since they will be less concerned about hardware. On that note this also applies to the software engineers looking to improve the efficiency of their software and game engine because hardware limitations exist.

Seen some clever designs and such, so all and all future-proofing is vague since the future belongs to the future but overall thats the point. We cannot really tell.

You are right on the note that intel has made their units imcompatible so if I want the 2nd next cpu or so it will be a hassle to upgrade and in the end will result in a waste of more money while with the amd4 choice it will be kinda easier and cost-effective.

Keeping in mind that fps is not everything, the smoothness of the game could also come from other stats that (I am not sure) amd's chips have an advantage such as frame times (perhaps?).

[DarkSmith2]

16 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

unless you plan on waiting a year for new chips there isnt a point in waiting. 

The 8350 has improved a lot since it got released, there is no question there. 

 

i dont know what to expect from multicore support, but if both major CPU manufactures move to 8-12 core mainstream processors we can at least expect threads/cores to scale past 6. in terms of wasting money there will allways be someone who mean to overclock but doesnt. and yes you are wasting money when buying a K series CPU without overclocking. the same is the people who buy non-k cpu with Z series mobo

Multicore support in games isnt a question of developer wanting it to do or not, they just cant. DX12 / Vulcan are the only Technical achievements in this direction but they do softcap at 6threads, if you look up the drawcall benchmarks.

 

Its just how multithreading works, you cant magically just add threads to a load. They are just extracting parts of the load like networking or physics and let it work on other threads. The things you can extract and assign to other threads is vastly limited. Even if it would not, developers would still try to optimize for lower computers and not the creme de la creme, goal is to reach as many buyers as possible optimizing games for the lowest hardware possible, not the highest.

Would be the 8th world wonder if within the next 10years gaming would take a 180° turn and support twice as much threads without any downside thats how unrealistic it is.

 

AMD and Intel are upping cores because poeple not only want to game on their pcs and more cores are desireable for many other usecases. They produce what is getting bought, its simple as that.

[GoldenLag]

9 minutes ago, TwinDenis said:

-snip-

Keeping in mind that fps is not everything, the smoothness of the game could also come from other stats that (I am not sure) amd's chips have an advantage such as frame times (perhaps?).

as far as i know the AMD chips have a different sqedualer to what intel uses. this has lead to better stream experience, but i dont know more far from that. i have seen benchmarks where intel has the lead in overall fps, but looses slightly due to minimum fps. this is probably due to loading occuring in select games, and that for some reason may hit intel harder. but im am purely speculating at that point and i wouldnt take anything i say for fact. 

 

if you are looking for smoothness in games the best way to achieve that is variable refreshrate like G-sync and freesync. the only AMD GPUs that i can say are good in terms of pricing are the rx 580. Vega is out of the question due to them still being inflated in many places. there will allways be fps drops, but variable refreshrate negates the effect of that. that is why Freesync is a thing on consoles, due to it helping the low overall framerate

[Denis_Twin]

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

as far as i know the AMD chips have a different sqedualer to what intel uses. this has lead to better stream experience, but i dont know more far from that. i have seen benchmarks where intel has the lead in overall fps, but looses slightly due to minimum fps. this is probably due to loading occuring in select games, and that for some reason may hit intel harder. but im am purely speculating at that point and i wouldnt take anything i say for fact. 

 

if you are looking for smoothness in games the best way to achieve that is variable refreshrate like G-sync and freesync. the only AMD GPUs that i can say are good in terms of pricing are the rx 580. Vega is out of the question due to them still being inflated in many places. there will allways be fps drops, but variable refreshrate negates the effect of that. that is why Freesync is a thing on consoles, due to it helping the low overall framerate

Yes, thats what Ive heard, higher fps but more stuttering is what I know about the intel chip of previous 1 previous gen. Basically its a stability vs speed dilemma. Also for the "Cores" arguement, there are games that greatly benefit from multiple cores even threats, for example final fantasy 15 when the hyperthreating is turned off it struggles, when its on it is smooth when tweaking the settings a little.

I am unsure of the current 2 chips and was asking for more detailed information.

Thanks though.