# Why are some people still saying a 4-thread i5 is good enough with a beefy GPU...



## P4-630 (Nov 30, 2019)

IMO it's not good enough anymore for gaming, especially for the latest AAA titles, and even some from years ago.
High fps AAA gaming? You can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Nov 30, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> IMO it's not good enough anymore for gaming, especially for the latest AAA titles, and even some from years ago.
> High fps AAA gaming? You can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.



Because the majority of people still game with GPU that are slower than a GTX 1070 and game on a 1080p/60 monitor and don't care if they are getting 40-50fps


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 30, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Because the majority of people still game with GPU that are slower than a GTX 1070 and game on a 1080p/60 monitor and don't care if they are getting 40-50fps



There are people pairing it with a beefy GPU, you don't buy such GPU for 40-50 fps.








						Will RTX 2070 work with my i5 6600 processor?
					

Hello I've ordered an RTX 2070 and I'm wondering if it will work properly with i5 6600 processor, I've heard that hardware can bottleneck and I'm curious to see if this will happen and what affects this has on gaming, I'm quite new to PC's so any advice would be helpful.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Nov 30, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> There are people pairing it with a beefy GPU, you don't buy such GPU for 40-50 fps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Apparently they don't care if their frames tank in modern games.





This is the biggest reason as much as I love Techpowerup's reviews They really need to incorporate 1% lows because any person is going to feel massive drops in frame rates.
At the same time if the person want's to pair a 2070 with a 6600k now and upgrade his cpu later if it isn't up to par I see no issue with it.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 30, 2019)

60 fps used to be the desired norm maybe for most people it still is.. 

trog


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 30, 2019)

I guess Í'll just copy paste a link for what I posted elsewhere just now, so we can put that myth to bed.

And no, 60 FPS or not is not all that important here either.









						Will RTX 2070 work with my i5 6600 processor?
					

I'm sorry, but it's you who is wrong here. A bottleneck happens when one component holds another one back (it cannot feed it fast enough). The scenario that you keep referring to is not a bottleneck: today's GPUs simply cannot deliver 144fps in most tiles, period. No CPU bottleneck involved.   I...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Enjoy


----------



## animal007uk (Nov 30, 2019)

I'm perfectly happy with my 4690K overclocked to 4.4ghz and happy playing all my games at 2k 72fps.

Don't care for most of the new so called AAA games because most i have played and they ain't that great to be honest.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 30, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> At the same time if the person want's to pair a 2070 with a 6600k now and upgrade his cpu later if it isn't up to par I see no issue with it.



The only 'issue' is that he'd be better off turning it around, because right now the 2070 is wasted performance (30% or more!) while in 1-2 years time, that same performance is cheaper. At the same time, there are fantastic CPU offerings _today_.



animal007uk said:


> I'm perfectly happy with my 4690K overclocked to 4.4ghz and happy playing all my games at 2k 72fps.
> 
> Don't care for most of the new so called AAA games because most i have played and they ain't that great to be honest.



You run an RX480 580... 

The key word here is _balance. _Your rig works fine because it is balanced well. And you avoid the games that give you stutter. Clearly a matter of perception 

Just to drive this home...


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Nov 30, 2019)

I've ran my 1080ti ftw3 on a 6600K @ 4.5 and it was quite fine for the vast majority of games I played at 4k at least - I suppose it *might* become an issue to use 1080p or 1440p, but honestly they're still viable.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Nov 30, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> The only 'issue' is that he'd be better off turning it around, because right now the 2070 is wasted performance (30% or more!) while in 1-2 years time, that same performance is cheaper. At the same time, there are fantastic CPU offerings _today_.
> 
> 
> 
> You run a 480...



I agree he would need to go into it knowing he needs a better cpu... a 1660 super is a much better fit otherwise.

I didn't chime in on that thread because I knew it would just become a pissing contest over whether quad cores without hyperthreading where still viable. Also pretty sure the OP never even responded to any of the advice.


----------



## animal007uk (Nov 30, 2019)

Forgot to update my specs but i have an RX580 now got it very cheap only payed £70 for it and i also have an RTX 2070 but thats for a new build next year


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 30, 2019)

animal007uk said:


> Forgot to update my specs but i have an RX580 now got it very cheap only payed £70 for it and i also have an RTX 2070 but thats for a new build next year



Same difference  - see above


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Nov 30, 2019)

animal007uk said:


> Forgot to update my specs but i have an RX580 now got it very cheap only payed £70 for it and i also have an RTX 2070 but thats for a new build next year



Hopefully you don't go with another quad core....


----------



## animal007uk (Nov 30, 2019)

Nah i will get a dual core  Joking aside i'm planning on getting a 3900x for the next build.


----------



## Bones (Nov 30, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> I've ran my 1080ti ftw3 on a 6600K @ 4.5 and it was quite fine *for the vast majority of games I played* at 4k at least - I suppose it *might* become an issue to use 1080p or 1440p, but honestly they're still viable.


This is probrably the root of it.
As long as it's giving the performance the individual wants/expects it's all good. That naturally will vary between users - Some don't mind it, others simply must have the max framerates possible.

I'm currently running a GTX 970 in my 2700x build and it's doing great, had one of my Radeon VII's in and was doing well with that too but popped this card in to be sure it was still in working shape.
So far it's been running well.
I'm also running a 4K monitor and that does make a bit of difference in how things look - Sometimes all the little things will add up to a huge amount of difference.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 30, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> IMO it's not good enough anymore for gaming, especially for the latest AAA titles, and even some from years ago.
> High fps AAA gaming? You can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.










Please review. Seems good enough to me.
EDIT
There's also this;








And this;








And this one was most interesting;








EDIT2
Found another for consideration;


----------



## PooPipeBoy (Nov 30, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> High fps AAA gaming? You can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.



A quad core Core i5 can't do high FPS AAA gaming.
A Corolla can't be competitive at racetrack events.
So what.


----------



## Bones (Nov 30, 2019)

PooPipeBoy said:


> A quad core Core i5 can't do high FPS AAA gaming.
> A Corolla can't be competitive at racetrack events.
> So what.


A _stock_ Corolla can't be competitive unless the competiton is all stock Corollas.
If it's a modified Corolla it's a different story based on degree of modification, quality of work done, parts used to modify the vehicle AND what shows up for it to go up against...... And how one's luck runs that day. 

What a system is comprised of does determine alot of what you get, how it's tweaked is another thing and exactly what it's running is yet another factor - It all adds up to an end.
However, as long as the user is happy with what's going on that's the most important thing to worry about from any perspective - My likes do not determine another's and whether or not it's working "Good Enough" _for me_ only applies to me and my rig.


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 30, 2019)

We dont need Quad core or for that matter dual core. Single core CPU is all what we need games

More seriously, i agreed. Going Quad-core these days for gaming and if only 4 threads as well. It´s a dead end to walk down the path to. 4 cores/8 threads or just 8 threads is the bare minimum today. Triple AAA title these days uses past 8 threads and has moved on to 12 threads these days. For an optimum gaming exsperience today i all ways tell people to get a CPU with at least 12 threads like the Ryzen 3600 or maybe a used I7 8700K. I have seen to many youtube video that shows a CPU like a I7 9700K still can peak at 100 % load on all 8 cores/threads and that means at that moment the CPU becomes the bottleneck. Buying a 4 core cpu today and specially with out HT/SMT is so not the right thing to do.

You can just take me for an instance. I moved away from my I7 920 to at I7 980X as games wanted more than 8 threads and i cut see a difference switching cpu even with these old chips. FPS with 980X dit not become much higher, but minimum FPS became much more stable hence gave a better gamings exsperince as i no longer had stutter/lag spikes that i had with I7 920.


----------



## Voluman (Nov 30, 2019)

Because, it is. Probably. Most 'normal' people for 'normal usage' it is enough. And habits, past time sake, development circuitstandings.
But when i playing on lan with my nephew (i5 with 8gb vs i7 with 16gb) the i7 already loaded and in game while i5 is still loading screen. But if i dont see it directly, probably would be 'okay' even with i5 because the game experience its close the same.


----------



## er557 (Nov 30, 2019)

there's more to gaming smoothness than fps, it depends on the windows scheduler, the amount of ram you have, the more the better, loading times will be better, and of course the other things windows does while you game, especially that today's games are multi core aware and can be very taxing on the cpu with their AI and what not, specifically so in high referesh monitors. So the trend is indeed to have more cores, with as fast mhz as possible. But what do I know, I game @72 threads....


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 30, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> IMO it's not good enough anymore for gaming, especially for the latest AAA titles, and even some from years ago.
> High fps AAA gaming? You can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.


That's your opinion but looking at benchmarks for virtually all non-cowboy AAA 2019 games I see quad cores are still capable of producing playable results at 1080p 60fps.


----------



## BrainMuncher (Nov 30, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Please review. Seems good enough to me.


9400F and 8400 are both 6 cores, that's 50% more cores


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 30, 2019)

BrainMuncher said:


> 9400F and 8400 are both 6 cores, that's 50% more cores


I think his point was more the i5 quads being compared to the i5 hexa


----------



## Vario (Nov 30, 2019)

I think enthusiast forums lose track of how the average gamer operates, for them the joy is in playing the game and they don't upgrade until the games don't run well at all.  Buy a $1000 system, play it for 8 years, repeat.  Sometimes these guys will buy a high end GPU mid way through.
Personally I am on something of a 4-5 year upgrade cycle.
You can go a long ways before it barely runs.  I know a guy running a Sandy Bridge i7 laptop with Intel integrated graphics playing GTA V, same guy is hoping to run RDR2 on it, maybe its possible with lowest settings, who knows.


----------



## Toothless (Nov 30, 2019)

I'm just going to say my girlfriend runs a 4690k and 1070 with no issues in any game at all. I'll still have quads running for the next few years since for 99% of my use cases and people I build rigs for don't need anything more.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 30, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Apparently they don't care if their frames tank in modern games.
> 
> View attachment 138067View attachment 138068View attachment 138069
> 
> ...


The quad CPUs tank when paired with a 2080ti and monitor capable of handling 100fps+.  You figure most people with a quad are using something like a GTX 1060 or AMD 580 at 1080p 60hz and probably have settings at very high rather then ultra then the FPS drops are not as severe.



Vario said:


> I think enthusiast forums lose track of how the average gamer operates, for them the joy is in playing the game and they don't upgrade until the games don't run well at all.  Buy a $1000 system, play it for 8 years, repeat.  Sometimes these guys will buy a high end GPU mid way through.
> Personally I am on something of a 4-5 year upgrade cycle.
> You can go a long ways before it barely runs.  I know a guy running a Sandy Bridge i7 laptop with Intel integrated graphics playing GTA V, same guy is hoping to run RDR2 on it, maybe its possible with lowest settings, who knows.


A long time ago when WoW first launched I raided with a player who used Intel integrated graphics.  His fps would dip down to 10fps at times.  For most people an awful gaming experience but he was happy as a clam he could play the game and not have to spend money for a dedicated graphics card...


----------



## Jetster (Nov 30, 2019)

While it may take a small hit in some games, 4 cores if still the standard even with a 2080.


----------



## john_ (Nov 30, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> There are people pairing it with a beefy GPU, you don't buy such GPU for 40-50 fps.


There is something stuck in my mind for years, if not decades. People buying the best CPU, the best GPU, the best motherboard and the best RAM, only to buy last the worst, but cheapest PSU. Another example is a cousin of mine. About 12 years ago he wanted a PC just so he can use a PCI satellite card to watch full HD contend. I created a list of parts and added a simple HD 2400 graphics card. It wasn't meant to play games or anything. Not even run 3D screensavers. The HD 2400 ended up not good enough for the task. I said him to go back at the shop and ask to replace it with an HD 2600. He bought an HD 3870, the most expensive AMD card of the time.

Most people don't know or wish to invest the time to learn about hardware. So they aren't going to throw too much thinking on their next PC. "What did my friend said about a gaming PC? That I need a strong graphics card. So I go out and buy the most expensive graphics card and then, with whatever is left, the rest of the hardware. If that means a cheap PSU, a cheap motherboard, the minimum amount of RAM, a hard disk and a 4 core CPU, then 4 core CPU it is".

Also most people don't care about frame rate. If it looks smooth or even semi smooth, it's more than enough. In most games everything over 15fps, yes 15, will be OK in the eyes of many. 30 fps will look as ultra smooth. Is that 4 core CPU cutting frame rate at half? Who cares. It's smooth. The end.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 30, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> IMO it's not good enough anymore for gaming, especially for the latest AAA titles, and even some from years ago.
> High fps AAA gaming? You can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.


Probably because the majority don’t game higher than 60fps. High fps is a minority.  Heck, many people like me see 60fps as absolutely perfect with all details cranked up.

Now, will a 4 core still support that? Currently, yes, most of the time @1080p.  A couple years from now? Probably not.


----------



## Metroid (Nov 30, 2019)

it's only enough if you use programs that dont use more than 4 threads.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 30, 2019)

R5 3600
RX580
1920x1200 ultra details
...and 3+hours of FarCry5 (2018)

----------------------------------current-------min-------max-------avg




See the *max* and *avg* CPU usage


Clearly the GPU is the bottleneck here as its maxed out on almost every aspect



Avg FPS = 74
1% low = 54
by MSI afterburner

By seeing only the 30% usage out of a 12 threaded CPU (12x0.3 = 3.6 threads) can one assume with confidence that a 4c/4t CPU is all needed to play smooth this game.
But this is not the case...
Look at the whole truth below about* max* and *avg* thread usage this time


8 threads usage on avg and hitting the 12...

I'm not saying that a 4c/4t CPU is useless today... No by all means.
But it will suffer more or less depending the game. And this will become more and more noticable with modern AAA games, if not already.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 30, 2019)

Metroid said:


> it's only enough if you use programs that dont use more than 4 threads.



which is probably most of them.. 

trog


----------



## Metroid (Nov 30, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> I'm not saying that a 4c/4t CPU is useless today... No by all means.



Well, is not useless if a certain program that you want to use is made for 4 cores, now take resident evil 2 remake, minimum 6 cores, 4 cores full load 30 fps, 6 cores 60 fps. As always, aim for midrange, never low end and you should be okay, midrange as it stands is 6 cores 12 threads. Just follow the midrange trend and 90% of people should be okay.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Nov 30, 2019)

P4-630 said:
			
		

> Why are some people still saying a 4-thread i5 is good enough with a beefy GPU...


Because for them, it is good enough. Because most people are not obsessed with bragging rights or with achieving the most FPS possible. 

Instead, many gamers only care about the "escape" - being entertained with the game play.

With that in mind and most significantly IMO, game developers know most people don't have the budgets to spend several $100 on the graphics card alone, plus several $100 more on the CPU, $100s more on RAM, motherboards, PSUs, etc. Many gamers have just $500 (or less!) to spend on their whole computer. In some cases, that budget also includes the monitor, keyboard and mouse too. So developers code their games to provide good "game play" on lessor systems thus increasing the entertainment value to the masses, instead of just the hardware enthusiasts with deeper pockets. 

Therefore, a 4-thread i5 (and the AMD equivalent) is good enough for most people who use their computers to game too.


----------



## er557 (Nov 30, 2019)

you're missing the point 'beefy gpu', as the discussion is about bottleneck holding back the fps with a relatively weak cpu


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 30, 2019)

I never have problems with my other machines Core I5 3570K. Works like a charm in most games.


----------



## Jetster (Nov 30, 2019)

er557 said:


> you're missing the point 'beefy gpu', as the discussion is about bottleneck holding back the fps with a relatively weak cpu



Four cores is nether week nor a bottleneck by any definition of the word
Shit I remember just a few years ago my OC G3258 was benchmarking the same as my i7


----------



## ppn (Nov 30, 2019)

4/4 definitely is. in worse case scenario 2070 shows 40% load 40FPS at 1080p ultra max settings. best case is 75% cpu 100% gpu. 10 core is strongly recommended.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Nov 30, 2019)

er557 said:


> you're missing the point 'beefy gpu', as the discussion is about bottleneck holding back the fps with a relatively weak cpu


No I didn't. You missed my point. The question was, "_is a 4-thread i5 good enough?"_ My answer was clear - for many, if not most people, the answer is "yes". It is "good enough".

Just because a GPU outclasses the CPU, that does NOT suggest the gaming experience comes to a complete halt! In fact, in terms of the perception, it does not even automatically suggest the player will notice anything at all!

Contrary to what some here seem to think (or worse, what they want everyone else to think ) , bottlenecks don't always impact perceived performance. It is simply wrong to suggest a less capable component will always slow over all performance all the time in every scenario in every game.

If a 3-lane road feeds into a 2-lane tunnel, that does NOT automatically mean ALL traffic will slow down all the time. If the 3-lane traffic is not jammed up bumper to bumper and is moving smoothly, it can just easily merge into 2-lanes and keep moving at full speed.

If a 2-lane road feeds into a 3-lane tunnel, that does NOT mean the tunnel is trying to suck up the vehicles faster than the road can deliver them. It just patiently waits.

Are there scenarios where a bottleneck will impact performance? Of course! No one is denying that. But even in very demanding games, that is not happening at every point in the game. Again, the developers want to include as many potential buyers as possible - they don't want to exclude any buyers.

FTR, I would MUCH RATHER have a lessor CPU feeding a "beefy" graphics card, than a beefy CPU trying to feed an entry level graphics card. Or worse, a beefy CPU and a beefy graphics card and only a tiny amount of RAM.


----------



## freeagent (Nov 30, 2019)

I don’t have any problems with my i7 and hyper threading off. Actually feels a bit quicker tbh. My pc, both of them, still kick the shit out of my ps4 and switch in every possible way. And they are quieter then the ps4 as well.. though the switch is pretty quiet..


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Nov 30, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> No I didn't. You missed my point. The question was, "_is a 4-thread i5 good enough?"_ My answer was clear - for many, if not most people, the answer is "yes". It is "good enough".
> 
> Just because a GPU outclasses the CPU, that does NOT suggest the gaming experience comes to a complete halt! In fact, in terms of the perception, it does not even automatically suggest the player will notice anything at all!
> 
> ...


I argued this when I was using my fx8350, for four years so obviously I heartily agree.

The buyer of extreme GPUs who underspends(to some) on the cpu is just spending a bit too much dime, but I would say that I expect four cores to start becoming less useable within a few years personally, not now though.


----------



## Toothless (Nov 30, 2019)

ppn said:


> 4/4 definitely is. in worse case scenario 2070 shows 40% load 40FPS at 1080p ultra max settings. best case is 75% cpu 100% gpu. 10 core is strongly recommended.


Not everyone is gonna go out and get a 10 core or threaded chip. If they can afford only a quad then that's what they get. They can lower settings for frames of they want and that's that. I know plenty of people who go budget for their games since it's all they need.


----------



## tussinman (Nov 30, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Because the majority of people still game with GPU that are slower than a GTX 1070 and game on a 1080p/60 monitor and don't care if they are getting 40-50fps


 To add to this 
1. Most games are using modified engines that are 3-4 years old  
and 
2. Quad core i5 is still like 3-4x faster than the consoles CPU......... 

CPU has been the most overrated component this gen. This is another case of an enthuasist making a thread asking why non-enthuasist use it for non-enthuasist purposes...... (lol)


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 30, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I argued this when I was using my fx8350, for four years so obviously I heartily agree.
> 
> The buyer of extreme GPUs who underspends(to some) on the cpu is just spending a bit too much dime, but I would say that I expect four cores to start becoming less useable within a few years personally, not now though.



Already are


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 30, 2019)

ppn said:


> 4/4 definitely is. in worse case scenario 2070 shows 40% load 40FPS at 1080p ultra max settings. best case is 75% cpu 100% gpu. 10 core is strongly recommended.


10 core? Anyone who recommended you a ten core CPU has no clue to what they are talking about



tussinman said:


> To add to this
> 1. Most games are using modified engines that are 3-4 years old
> and
> 2. Quad core i5 is still like 3-4x faster than the consoles CPU.........
> ...


It will be next gen too as it is every generation.  Console CPUs pull 18w compared to desktop CPUs that pull 100-150w while gaming.  Even if you have a SoC chip consoles only have 175w to play around with and the graphics need the majority of that power as they should.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 30, 2019)

Nothing wong with a quad i5 as long as the game doesnt scale past the 4 cores.

I mean we are talking about good enough, not OMG overkill here.

So.... Whos got the game list that has games that scales past 4 cores? This would be a good enough thread to post it in!!


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Nov 30, 2019)

Most games are far from the most core demanding applications, so older CPUs are fine.  Until the next generation consoles launch with updated game engines anyway.  Even then engines like UE4 aren't too demanding.  Outside of massively multicore aware game engines like EA's Frostbite & Stardock's Nitrous engines it's not that advanced yet CPU side.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 1, 2019)

BrainMuncher said:


> 9400F and 8400 are both 6 cores, that's 50% more cores





dirtyferret said:


> I think his point was more the i5 quads being compared to the i5 hexa


Yes, exactly. The benchmarks displayed show the i5-7600(very similar to the 6600) doing well. Well enough that anyone who has a recent quad shouldn't need to worry much.


----------



## robot zombie (Dec 1, 2019)

Seems like quads are still okay. Like, if you were scrounging together a "just get it working" machine or maybe you're sitting on a quad core machine that you don't want to upgrade, you still have time.

But somehow I really doubt that will hold so true a couple of years from now. To put a quad core in a new gaming machine that you wanna get some years out of just seems questionable to me. It's definitely fine for now. I understand if you're not an enthusiast or whatever and you're looking to spend the minimum you can on a budget gaming setup. But even so, it's going to cost you some good money. The savings difference, to me, isn't enough to offset the fact that you are buying into something that's kind of on its way out. You're jumping on a part that's already starting to lag behind the rest and will only be less suitable as time goes by, and as things are already, it's not going to offer consistent performance from game to game. I don't buy the "It's about the games you play." I just think if you're going to build a gaming rig, you want it to be able to run ALL games well. And besides, how are you gonna know what games you might want to play next year? What if a CPU-heavy AAA title comes out that you really want to play, but the experience suffers as it brings your "good enough" quad-core to its knees? Doesn't matter that you don't usually play those kinds of games. You never know. It's a sad day when you're excited to play this new game, you buy it, fire it up, and are greeted with terrible stutter no matter what you do with your settings.

That's the other thing I find generally true with CPU requirements for games. You can't always do so much to offset it by changing graphical settings, as most of that stuff is now handled by the GPU. It's not always the case that you can ride-out settings tweaks like is often done to keep an old GPU going with new games. The CPU demands are more static. Unless you have a setting that lowers polygon counts, AI actors, or whatever... your CPU is up to what it is up to. CPU bottlenecks are nasty business. If the game needs the threads, it has to have them.

Enthusiast or not, a gaming rig is an extravagant purchase. Hell, I'd argue that if you're spending money on a gaming PC instead of a console, you're already an enthusiast. You buy the PC instead of the console because you want to take things to the next level. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be considering it. You don't need any of it. So my mindset is that if you're gonna spend the money, get as much performance as you can for the money. Just spend the cash. Save up if you gotta. Better to have a machine that's sometimes a little overkill, but always capable than one that in a couple of years is no longer cutting it. Now, if you want to upgrade, you're probably out more money than if you had just paid up for a little more than the bear-minimum standard. I don't see how that could be worth it.

I guess that's what it comes down to for me. Future-proofing is one thing... you can't win that game. But you can make some reasonable assumptions about the future value and viability of a part. My instinct with PC building is to never buy the bear minimum, because it doesn't take an expert to tell you that the bear minimum today is becoming obsolete tomorrow. If it's juuuust good enough today that's great, but where does it go from there? There's going overboard with insane parts, and then there's building a machine from tie-overs. If you like playing games and that's something you're gonna be doing for the foreseeable future, you don't want the tie-over.

I can't see myself ever recommending a cheap quad to someone looking to buy a high-end GPU. I guess if you wanna go cheap all around, that's fine. I still wouldn't recommend it but you could pair a CPU like that with an entry-level or midrange card and that just makes sense. But if you're going to toss almost $1000 at a GPU and then ~$100 a CPU, I really don't understand you at all. I understand money is what it is and maybe that's all you can swing. But if you can save that kind of cash for a GPU and everything else on the rig, why wouldn't you save another hundred bucks and get a 6 or even an 8 core? It's not like you have to go way out there to have a 6-core CPU these days. People are talking about it like the quads are such a better deal, but a hexacore isn't exactly high-end. Good, modern ones can be had for under $200. It'd be one thing if they were really expensive, but they're mid-range, you know? $200 actually buys you a solid 8-core! If you can buy the top-tier GPU, why skimp on the CPU?

I think if you have a quad and it's working out for you, no reason to feel like you need to upgrade. Clearly you don't. But if we're talking about a new machine, 6c/12t is a nice place to be for a good, consistent gaming and desktop experience that is much more likely to hold up long term. It's not like before where all we could say about high core counts was "they're going to be used more one day!" That day is already here, from what I can see.


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 1, 2019)

Metroid said:


> it's only enough if you use programs that dont use more than 4 threads.



Programs aren't written to use X amount of cores, they are usually written to scale dynamically according to the number of threads available.

Let's put an end to this myth that "programs/games don't use more than 4 cores" or whatever , OK ? It's a meaningless statement or inaccurate at best. There are only two groups, the programs that use multiple threads and the ones don't, of the latter there aren't many left out there if any that aren't multithreaded.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 1, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Programs aren't written to use X amount of cores, they are usually written to scale dynamically according to the number of threads available.
> 
> Let's put an end to this myth that "programs/games don't use more than 4 cores" or whatever , OK ? It's a meaningless statement or inaccurate at best. There are only two groups, the programs that use multiple threads and the ones don't, of the latter there aren't many left out there if any that aren't multithreaded.



Correct me if Im wrong, isnt Havoc Physics dedicated a cpu core seperate from the game engine?


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 1, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Correct me if Im wrong, isnt Havoc Physics dedicated a cpu core seperate from the game engine?



I have no idea how Havoc is written but it would be pretty stupid if it was just single threaded which I really doubt, the sort of computation needed for physics can be parallelized. It also can't really be separated from the game engine, I don't know how that would work, the physics have to be tied with the game logic.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 1, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I have no idea how Havoc is written but it would be pretty stupid if it was just single threaded which I really doubt, the sort of computation needed for physics can be parallelized. It also can't really be separated from the game engine, I don't know how that would work, the physics have to be tied with the game logic.



WellnI dont know but figured to ask the question while a lot of Havoc titles can utilize more than a single core which is all a game engine really needs. 
The Source engine like half life 2 used software physics as well but would only utilize a single core for main processing.

NVidia Physx uses the main gpu or use a secondary for physx. This processing is seperate from a cpu core.

Does seem like you could run parts of the program dedicated to a seperate thread/core while being controlled by the game engine.
Disaimer
This is my take on it. By no means do I write games lol


----------



## remixedcat (Dec 1, 2019)

animal007uk said:


> I'm perfectly happy with my 4690K overclocked to 4.4ghz and happy playing all my games at 2k 72fps.
> 
> Don't care for most of the new so called AAA games because most i have played and they ain't that great to be honest.


Hubby is using my old system OCed to 4.2 ghz i3570k and it's doing ok.


----------



## Readlight (Dec 1, 2019)

i5 2400 is good 20-60% usage. Low temperatures and power.


----------



## Kissamies (Dec 1, 2019)

I had an i5-7600K @ 4.7GHz last year and it felt slow. i7-7700K @ 5GHz fixed that problem.

e: And I had a GTX 980 @ 1500/2000, not even a blazing fast card.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 1, 2019)

I think it's,to a large extent,because people who run those 4c/4t cpus have much experience with neither fast gpus nor many modern games.
there's a lot of games where a 6600 can push a 1080ti fine,but modern triple a games - I don't think it'll manage 60 in most.

what I really don't understand is people saying you're fine with a slow cpu paired with a fast gpu as long as you're playing 4k.probably the dumbest thing I hear around here.
if it struggles to hit 50 fps ay 1080p it'll struggle at 4K.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Dec 1, 2019)

I'm going to add my $0.02 in here. I had a i5 6500 paired with a GTX 1080ti for about 9 months and it was a bigger bottle neck than I realized at 4k even, look at the scores I posted in the FFXV bench thread. It also was holding me back big time in some games like rimworld.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 1, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Nothing wong with a quad i5 as long as the game doesnt scale past the 4 cores.
> 
> I mean we are talking about good enough, not OMG overkill here.
> 
> So.... Whos got the game list that has games that scales past 4 cores? This would be a good enough thread to post it in!!



*Most *games today actually do scale past 4 cores. Any UE4 game already does, as will any Source 2 game. Unity supports it. CryEngine has been doing it since Crysis 3. CDPR's engines do it. CA's Total War engines do it. I mean... this is common knowledge by now and anyone who uses RTSS in-game can see it confirmed right in front of their eyes...

Now, do those extra threads and cores scale _linearly?_ No, of course not. There is a sweet spot for CPU performance and the quad was long in it. Today, and since 2017-ish, the sweet spot has moved towards 6c/6t and in some cases to 4c/8t... now, this might be a shocking revelation, but there is a good chance you may need 6c12t sooner rather than later, or 8c8t.

What matters is whether 4 cores can sustain stable frametimes, and while in _many_ games and engines they can, there are still moments where they struggle. Those are picked up as stutter. The misconception about quads today is looking at FPS numbers without a graph or frametime variance. Thát is where they fall short.



And just to clarify why I'm so anal about this difference... here and elsewhere. People come to TPU for good (in-depth?) advice on what they want to purchase. If people needed blanket statements they only ever needed to open Youtube and type the 'GPU bench' for whatever they seek to buy. We don't help anyone by repeating those blanket statements. We dó help people by showing them where the potential problems are going to be, you know, to _get the most out of a purchase. _And buying into badly balanced setups, in that sense, is _bad advice._


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 1, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> *Most *games today actually do scale past 4 cores. Any UE4 game already does, as will any Source 2 game. Unity supports it. CryEngine has been doing it since Crysis 3. CDPR's engines do it. CA's Total War engines do it. I mean... this is common knowledge by now and anyone who uses RTSS in-game can see it confirmed right in front of their eyes...
> 
> Now, do those extra threads and cores scale _linearly?_ No, of course not. There is a sweet spot for CPU performance and the quad was long in it. Today, and since 2017-ish, the sweet spot has moved towards 6c/6t and in some cases to 4c/8t... now, this might be a shocking revelation, but there is a good chance you may need 6c12t sooner rather than later, or 8c8t.
> 
> What matters is whether 4 cores can sustain stable frametimes, and while in _many_ games and engines they can, there are still moments where they struggle. Those are picked up as stutter. The misconception about quads today is looking at FPS numbers without a graph or frametime variance. Thát is where they fall short.




I think the problem is from 2010-2017 a 4 core 4 thread was more than enough for gaming beating 6 core 12 thread cpu's now even the Ryzen 1600 is a substantially better choice in modern games. People unfortunately have a hard time letting go.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 1, 2019)

remixedcat said:


> Hubby is using my old system OCed to 4.2 ghz i3570k and it's doing ok.



I had the exact same setup stuttering like nobodies business  FPS was good! Frametimes were all over the place


----------



## Kissamies (Dec 1, 2019)

Exactly, my current Ryzen 5 2600 & R9 290 beats the crap out of that i5-7600K & GTX 980 setup which I had 1½ years ago.

e: Vayra managed to ninjapost  my reply was for @oxrufiioxo


----------



## er557 (Dec 1, 2019)

Her'e a video with RTSS showing usage with a  18 core cpu with jedi fallen order, it was posted on another forum I was discussing core count and current AAA titles, So some things scale and scale well too.


----------



## Khonjel (Dec 1, 2019)

I had 4c4t until this year. Core i5 2400 with first GTX 560 Ti and then RX 470 since last December. Until September when I built my Ryzen system, I couldn't dare play any modern games. Stutter because of 100% cpu usage, random texture pop ins and bottlenecking a mid range GPU was tge biggest issues I had.

I originally planned to choose between i5 9600k + z390 and R5 3600/3600x + B450 systems. Ultimately the compare videos on YT helped me push towards Ryzen. Even while OC'd 9600K was pushing more frames per average than 3600/X, the newer games were already pushing the Intel to 80-90% utilisation. Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Battlefield V and the newer Assassin's Creed games to name a few.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2019)

P4-630 said:


> IMO it's not good enough anymore for gaming, especially for the latest AAA titles, and even some from years ago.
> High fps AAA gaming? You can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.


I didnt read past this post for now....

A quad core cpu will hold back several modern titles compared to a higher core count cpu. Are fps still playable, more than likely depending on the title and gpu. But the OP has specifically mentioned AAA and High Hz gaming (which so many of you missed). If you want to remove the glass ceiling and stuttering on some titles (more every month) you need more than 4c/4t... it really is that simple.

Edit: Read the thread...wow. I dont give a hoot what you do to a damn Corolla, its still a friggin Corolla. Same here peeps.. 4c/4t is 4c/4t.. clocks wont help much. If a game needs more c/t and your system doesnt have it, fps and gameplay can suffer. How much really depends on the title.



dirtyferret said:


> That's your opinion but looking at benchmarks for virtually all non-cowboy AAA 2019 games I see quad cores are still capable of producing playable results at 1080p 60fps.


You (and those who thanked you...and others making a similar point previously in this thread...) are aware the post you quoted specifically (and the words in the first post) said high hz gaming in AAA titles, right? Not 1080p 60? So that wasn't in question in the first place.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 1, 2019)

robot zombie said:


> Seems like quads are still okay. Like, if you were scrounging together a "just get it working" machine or maybe you're sitting on a quad core machine that you don't want to upgrade, you still have time.
> 
> But somehow I really doubt that will hold so true a couple of years from now. To put a quad core in a new gaming machine that you wanna get some years out of just seems questionable to me. It's definitely fine for now. I understand if you're not an enthusiast or whatever and you're looking to spend the minimum you can on a budget gaming setup. But even so, it's going to cost you some good money. The savings difference, to me, isn't enough to offset the fact that you are buying into something that's kind of on its way out. You're jumping on a part that's already starting to lag behind the rest and will only be less suitable as time goes by, and as things are already, it's not going to offer consistent performance from game to game. I don't buy the "It's about the games you play." I just think if you're going to build a gaming rig, you want it to be able to run ALL games well. And besides, how are you gonna know what games you might want to play next year? What if a CPU-heavy AAA title comes out that you really want to play, but the experience suffers as it brings your "good enough" quad-core to its knees? Doesn't matter that you don't usually play those kinds of games. You never know. It's a sad day when you're excited to play this new game, you buy it, fire it up, and are greeted with terrible stutter no matter what you do with your settings.
> 
> ...



This really is the perfect nuance on all fronts. I know most of y'all got scared of wall of text, but do read.


----------



## remixedcat (Dec 1, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I had the exact same setup stuttering like nobodies business  FPS was good! Frametimes were all over the place


He plays a mix of games


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 1, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I didnt read past this post for now....
> 
> A quad core cpu will hold back several modern titles compared to a higher core count cpu. Are fps still playable, more than likely depending on the title and gpu. But the OP has specifically mentioned AAA and High Hz gaming (which so many of you missed). If you want to remove the glass ceiling and stuttering on some titles (more every month) you need more than 4c/4t... it really is that simple.
> 
> ...


Reread the original post, it's two separate questions.  I disagree with the former but agree with the latter.  The OP does not combine the two questions ala "why do people recommend quad cores for high FPS 2019 AAA gaming?"

Question #1(continues from the thread title)



P4-630 said:


> IMO it's not good enough anymore for gaming, especially for the latest AAA titles, and even some from years ago.



Question #2 (moves the goal post from question #1)



P4-630 said:


> High fps AAA gaming? You can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Reread the original post, it's two separate questions.  I disagree with the former but agree with the latter.  The OP does not combine the two questions ala "why do people recommend quad cores for high FPS 2019 AAA gaming?"
> 
> Question #1(continues from the thread title)
> 
> ...


lol, classic.


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 1, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> lol, classic.



It's because 'good enough' is now a goal instead of the minimum.  This has permeated all through live.  Exceptionalism is now frowned upon.


----------



## ppn (Dec 1, 2019)

Well I did 1000 hours with quad and beefy gpu so it must be good enough. Ignoring the abysmal 40-60% gpu load at times.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 1, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> It's because 'good enough' is now a goal instead of the minimum.  This has permeated all through live.  Exceptionalism is now frowned upon.



...its a hobby not the search for the cure to cancer.


----------



## Vario (Dec 1, 2019)

This other guy I was gaming with a month back was playing on an i3 dual core 2015 Alienware Alpha.  I told him he could upgrade to a quad core.  Found an affordable 4690s off eBay and he put it in, as this unit is thankfully a LGA 1150.  Finally this guy is on a quad core in 2019.  Suddenly he can run a game AND talk on discord at the same time.  I get the impression it still barely runs anything modern but the reality for him was a very tight budget for hobbies, not some aspiration to mediocrity over "exceptionalism".  The joy he got from finally running on a quad core in 2019 was pretty remarkable though.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 1, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> lol, classic.



He actually started and ended the thread right in the first post actually.



> IMO it's not good enough anymore for gaming, especially for the latest AAA titles, and even some from years ago.
> High fps AAA gaming? Y*ou can just forget about that with a 4-core i5.*



Yep. Pretty much. There really isn't need for further discussion. lol.


----------



## er557 (Dec 1, 2019)

get a life people, quad core is so 2012


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 1, 2019)

er557 said:


> get a life people, quad core is so 2012



Hey wait a darn minute.....

My kids HTPC with a 1400 x4 runs games A-OK. (2017) 

Quad is still a thing, just best with HT or SMT.


----------



## The Egg (Dec 1, 2019)

_Thread Title:  Why do strawmen say strawman stuff??_

Who is saying what exactly? 

Yes, given a CPU-limited situation, many will suggest turning up the graphics settings, as there is often some slack GPU performance being wasted.  It lessens the _perceived_ CPU limitation, but the limitation still exists.  There are also some specific situations (like someone on a very tight budget running a 60hz display paired with a low'ish end GPU) where upgrading the CPU _alone_ might not be a worthwhile investment given their money situation.  Are you sure you're not deliberately misinterpreting the context of what people are saying?  I highly doubt anyone is suggesting to buy a $1200 GPU with an old 4/4 and saying it's A-okay.

For the record, today's AAA titles seem to prefer you have both of the following (or better):
6 cores
8 threads

Yes, I know 6/8 chips don't exist.  What I mean is:

4/8 - Too few cores
6/6 - Too few threads
6/12 - Good
8/8  - Good
8/16 - Great

Thus far, only one game (RDR2) has done measurably better with more than 8 total threads, but this is an obvious bug in Rockstar's game engine, and only occurs under a weirdly specific set of circumstances (when CPU with less than 12 threads is fast enough to hit a max framerate cap (another bug) and bounce off of it; basically, only the 9700k).


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 1, 2019)

er557 said:


> get a life people, quad core is so 2012





moproblems99 said:


> It's because 'good enough' is now a goal instead of the minimum. This has permeated all through live. Exceptionalism is now frowned upon.


While there is some truth to this, it is really simplistic and potentially biased thinking.

For many, yes, "good enough" is the goal but that is because budgets, rent/mortgage payments, insurance premiums, family, work and other commitments have higher priorities - as they should!

Many here are talking about  "gaming" machines as though they should be everyone's top priority.    I agree, "get a life!" Understand that for the masses, a nice gaming "toy" is not their top priority. Food, shelter, education for their kids, quality time with their loved ones, even work and other forms of entertainment may take precedence.

I'm a computer nerd too, and have been long before many of you were even born. But if money was tight, I sure would spend it on a pair of Gator Hardshells first. Those are not the minimum. They are not just "good enough". Those are the "best" for me.

I don't agree either that exceptionalism is frowned upon - at least not as a general rule. For sure, there are many who hate and are jealous of those who are exceptional and successful. But IMO, those haters don't count or deserve my attention. Then there are some who are exceptional who like to brag that they are. Mohamed Ali  comes to mind. But IMO, he earned those bragging rights. Then there are those who simply think they are exceptional. They are often frowned upon, and deservedly so IMO.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 1, 2019)

The Egg said:


> _Thread Title:  Why do strawmen say strawman stuff??_
> 
> Who is saying what exactly?
> 
> ...


Why does my good Intel CPU beat every great AMD in gaming...


----------



## budget_Optiplex (Dec 1, 2019)

Have lurked at TPU for years, one of my favorite tech sites, especially the BIOS repository which has been gold since I love to BIOS mod low end cards. Finally decided to join.

This has been an interesting discussion. I am on an extreme budget due to health issues, and many of my friends/acquaintances are in the same boat where money for high end hardware is not happening. I'd rather spend my money on supporting the game developers (I watch for lots of sales) then buy expensive hardware and have no money left for games. To me we are in the golden age of cheap computing and good gaming experiences if you have reasonable expectations. I've built many $150-$300 systems that have brought joy and entertainment to their owners.

My current system which I have around $150 total invested is an old Dell Optiplex 790. It came with an i3 2120 which I sold for $20 and replaced with a Xeon E3-1220 for $15. This is a Sandy Bridge quad-core, 3.1GHz with 8MB L3 cache. I added 2x4GB to the 2x2GB already in the machine to get it to 12GB.

Video card is an OEM R7 450 4GB GDDR5 I paid $24 for. Basically the same Cape Verde 512/32/16 GCN 1.0 GPU as you'd find on an old HD7750. I spent time BIOS modding card using the great VBE7 tool and undervolted GPU from stock 1.2v down to 1.050v with a slight overclock to 950MHz. Memory runs at stock 1125MHz. On newer games the 4GB of memory is actually quite useful even on such a low end card.

My eyes suck, so I use a Samsung 24" TV/Monitor with 1366x768 resolution. I love it, I do have to scroll more yet with the low resolution text is big and easy to read, and with the low resolution I can game on my potato card no problem. For me as long as I get 30FPS or above I'm happy. In fact I set the Frame Rate Target control to 30FPS in the driver for all games. GPU temps never go above 65C even in the most demanding games.

I have recently completed Far Cry New Dawn (medium settings - uses 2.5GB VRAM), Wolfenstein New Colossus (medium settings - uses 3-3.5GB VRAM), Doom 2016 (medium settings - uses 2-2.5GB VRAM), Metro Exodus (medium settings - uses 2.5-3GB VRAM) and am working through Far Cry 5 (low/medium settings, HD textures on - uses 3.5-4GB VRAM). All of these games play great on my potato of a system using a low end 2011 quad and a low end 2012 GPU.

So while I and many others would love to have a high end 8+ thread CPU, I think for most average people a quad with decent IPC is still quite viable. I have yet to be limited by a quad for my gaming and usage patterns, and other people I've thrown budget systems together for say the same thing.


----------



## The Egg (Dec 1, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Why does my good Intel CPU beat every great AMD in gaming...


Because it meets both requirements and has a tinge higher IPC.  Nitpicking good/great wasn't the point.


Edit:  Actually, make things equal.  Compare the same architecture, your 9700k vs a 9900K


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 1, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Why does my good Intel CPU beat every great AMD in gaming...



Quite a few reasons.
Better memory performance.
as mentioned, better IPC.
Game or Benchmark built on/optimized for Intel.
Legacy benchmarks boasted Intel compatibility as far back as 3DMark99 Max

Sadly AMD getting beaten at 7nm vs 14nm +++++++++++++++++

Of course we compare AMD to Intel. That's what competition is all about.

___________________

Back to topic......

Core i5 with 1660ti. OK example config.
Plays AAA title not at max detail and resolution.
Does it still play the game though??? Yes??

So that's- ... Umm... good enough. 



> i5 is good enough



Good enough, you played an AAA title not at max detail and resolution. It was playable. 

Max settings. No.

This is not that hard of a concept here.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 1, 2019)

Viable and ... "I spend a huge portion of my life on the computer and want smooth and awesome FPS" are two different things.

for low end gaming or for someone who is playing games like league of legends then yeah for sure... a quad is fine...  but if you want to fire up a modern game with beautiful settings and be immersed in all its stutter free glory at high fps, then a quad is not good.

The stutter/mins on a quad is quite bad these days in many titles and  6/12T really is the sweet spot.  I think the Ryzen 3600 is the ideal upper mid range gamer's cpu.  I would even be willing to say that a 3600 is great for high end gaming rigs as it allows you to splurge on a nice gfx card and still has enough power to feed it.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 1, 2019)

budget_Optiplex said:


> Have lurked at TPU for years, one of my favorite tech sites, especially the BIOS repository which has been gold since I love to BIOS mod low end cards. Finally decided to join.
> 
> This has been an interesting discussion. I am on an extreme budget due to health issues, and many of my friends/acquaintances are in the same boat where money for high end hardware is not happening. I'd rather spend my money on supporting the game developers (I watch for lots of sales) then buy expensive hardware and have no money left for games. To me we are in the golden age of cheap computing and good gaming experiences if you have reasonable expectations. I've built many $150-$300 systems that have brought joy and entertainment to their owners.
> 
> ...


Welcome to TPU, and thanks for a normal person’s perspective!


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 1, 2019)

The Egg said:


> _Thread Title:  Why do strawmen say strawman stuff??_
> 
> Who is saying what exactly?
> 
> ...



This pretty much sums it up.  Add far cry 5 to this as it behaves very similarly.  Also 8/8 stutters on it.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 1, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Welcome to TPU, and thanks for a normal person’s perspective!



This is an awesome reason why someone would still game on a quad core paring it with a GPU that makes sense and doing the most with whatever budget you have.

This post is more about why people think a 6600k/7600k is still good enough for a $400+ GPU that especially at 1080p is going to be a stutter fest in a lot of  new games assuming you're trying to get the maximum performance out of the gpu.

At the same time if they want to pair the same 6600k with a 1660 super they're not overspending on GPU performance they're never gonna see there isn't anything wrong with that.

Also if starting a new system a ryzen 2600 should be a minimum consideration if you're planning on using a 5700XT or higher GPU with preferably a 3600 being the real sweet spot right now for a high end gaming PC.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Dec 1, 2019)

OK in what sense?

OK as in to sit on for another 6 months while playing at 60Hz? Maybe... (Not that the CPU market is unattractive at the moment)

OK as in buying a 4c4t CPU? Nah forget it, buy a second hand zen/zen+ 6 core, add a cheap 400 series board, and you will get way more for what you put in (Still <<<$130 if you look at the right places)... Not to mention the second hand market for intel stuff is still really bloated price wise.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 1, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> This pretty much sums it up.  Add far cry 5 to this as it behaves very similarly.  Also 8/8 stutters on it.


Lol since when?  This is the entire problem when you have fan boys who have no clue to what they are talking about making hyperbole comments to  simply justify their part selection in order to mask their own personal ego or inferiority.  This is the perfect example of someone who clearly has no clue

Intel 8 core matching AMD 8/16 @ .1% and running circles around it every where else


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 1, 2019)

Didn't look at your own graph?  Why don't you put up the frame time plot?  Why would the 8C/8T be being beaten by a slower, cheaper 6C/12T in the 1% lows???  Could it be... i don't know... stutters!?!?

Or you can edit your post to be misleading, in a game where AMD does poorly, to state that "It matches the AMD 8C/16T in the .1% lows"


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 1, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Lol since when?  This is the entire problem when you have fan boys who have no clue to what they are talking about making hyperbole comments to  simply justify their part selection in order to mask their own personal ego or inferiority.  This is the perfect example of someone who clearly has no clue
> 
> Intel 8 core matching AMD 8/16 @ .1% and running circles around it every where else


 The real takeaway from that graph is the 9700k needs to be oc to even have decent 1% lows loses to over a year older CPU by 15% and gets destroyed by a 9900k by 23% in that particular game stock vs stock you also get slightly better frame times from a 2600 a 130$ ish CPU in farcry...... in most games the 9700k is fine though but it was mostly a pointless CPU over the 8700k and doesn't really make sense over a 3600 even that typically cost about 46% less give or take sales. 

I'm mean anyone who really loves a 9700k more power to them but Intel cheaped out with it just like they've been doing with the i5s for ages. Next year Intel will probably be back to a 6 core 12 thread i5 and an 8 core 16 thread i7 so I'm glad they seem to have learned their lesson.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Dec 1, 2019)

If it has to be intel I'd rather the 8700k...


----------



## The Egg (Dec 1, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> .....comments to  simply justify their part selection in order to mask their own personal ego or inferiority.  This is the perfect example of someone who clearly has no clue


Do we have a little bit of projection going on here?  You had nothing to say about my entire post aside from the part where I called one "good" and the other "great", even though 8/16 actually had nothing to do with the rest of my post and I almost didn't include it.  You had to immediately respond about yours not being marked "great".


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 1, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> View attachment 138235
> 
> Didn't look at your own graph?  Why don't you put up the frame time plot?  Why would the 8C/8T be being beaten by a slower, cheaper 6C/12T in the 1% lows???  Could it be... i don't know... stutters!?!?
> 
> Or you can edit your post to be misleading, in a game where AMD does poorly, to state that "It matches the AMD 8C/16T in the .1% lows"



lol you choose the game not me!  My post simply proves you wrong with the 9700k beating the Ryzen 2700 a CPU with twice the threads.  if you have an inferiority complex about your 8700k that is a you problem, not a problem with the 9700k results in beating it at most games...


----------



## Apocalypsee (Dec 1, 2019)

I wanted to post my own experience. I just downgraded from Ryzen 5 1600 to older i5 4670k a couple of days ago (due to financial reason), all I could say is depending on games. If a game loaded all the cores and when it reaches 100% it will hitch and stutter, at that moment even variable refresh rate monitor can't help. 

I only tested Borderlands 3 as its the only game I play currently. But the hitching/stuttering is momentary when in heavy gunfights. Does it affect gameplay? Slightly. Is it playable? Of course, it isn't as bad as low framerate of low end GPU.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 1, 2019)

The Egg said:


> Do we have a little bit of projection going on here?  You had nothing to say about my entire post aside from the part where I called one "good" and the other "great", even though 8/16 actually had nothing to do with the rest of my post and I almost didn't include it.  You had to immediately respond about yours not being marked "great".



you were generalizing and that never works, frankly I don't care what you mark I just showed the obvious flaws in your post and my response to your post was redundant (I knew the answer already)


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 2, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> lol you choose the game not me!  My post simply proves you wrong with the 9700k beating the Ryzen 2700 a CPU with twice the threads.  if you have an inferiority complex about your 8700k that is a you problem, not a problem with the 9700k results in beating it at most games...



I never said anything about a 2700 - I just know disabling hyperthreading in that game on an 8C CPU makes it stutter noticeably for me.  You're the one beating the "my 9700k is the bestest" drum here and then posting graphs showing it being beaten in 1% by a 12 thread cpu that's a generation older.









						Intel's Core i9-9900K CPU reviewed
					

Intel’s Core i9-9900K is here. With eight cores and 16 threads clocked at up to 5 GHz (on as many as two active cores, to boot), plus a 4.7-GHz all-core...




					techreport.com
				




^ you can go to the frametime plots there and see what I mean in action.  Add Hitman to the list.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 2, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> I never said anything about a 2700 - I just know disabling hyperthreading in that game on an 8C CPU makes it stutter noticeably for me.  You're the one beating the "my 9700k is the bestest" drum here and then posting graphs showing it being beaten in 1% by a 12 thread cpu that's a generation older.



you choose the game and you made the statement.  frankly I find them al great CPUs including the 2700 but to make stuff up just to justify your own individual CPU is the definition of pathetic


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 2, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> you choose the game and you made the statement.  frankly I find them al great CPUs including the 2700 but to make stuff up just to justify your own individual CPU is the definition of pathetic



Quote me - where did I make stuff up and where did I post anything about my own CPU? (btw I have 2 main CPUs but I'm assuming you're referring to the 8700k)...

but go ahead - install farcry 5 on your system and be treated to:


----------



## The Egg (Dec 2, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> you were generalizing and that never works, frankly I don't care what you mark I just showed the obvious flaws in your post and my response to your post was redundant (I knew the answer already)


So.....why argue 8/8 versus 8/16 even though it was just an anecdotal mention having nothing to do with the rest of the post?  Also interesting that you immediately went apples-to-oranges (different brands/architectures) in a discussion about core counts alone.  Why not do the direct comparison to the 9900k?  Can you show me a case where a 9900k performs worse?

I'm to assume that if you were offered a direct trade -- your 8/8 9700k for a 9900k you wouldn't take it?


----------



## Ben_Doverson (Dec 2, 2019)

here is my quad core setup

Gigabyte z270 gaming k3 / i5-7600k delid and lapped @ 5.2ghz on EK Waterblock
Nvidia gtx980 Fe EKblock OC AF >|< Fractal Design 650W +80
Corsair vengeance 2666 @ 3000mhz >|< 2x SanDisk 256gb m.2 Raid0 
 Seagate 3Tb
EK loop with supremacy cpu block , fulcover ek gpublock
powered by
 laing d5 pump x3res combo pushing a  Maximum flow: 1500L/h
 + extra res - ek multioption x2 res 400 advanced
Technical data:
- Installation height: 400 mm
- Diamter: 60mm
- Capacity: 475 ml
 and keeping my pore quad cores cold are a 360mm rad infront of cpu and a 120mm between cpu and gpu
letting me game at a maximum of 45-50c on gpu and 55to60c on cpu at 5.1 / 5.2ghz

the i7 7700k cost as much as a i7 9700k here in sweden so that my next buy but i am gona OC the snought out of this thing first!


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 2, 2019)

@dirtyferret






From your same review.....  oh look 8c/8t stuttering...


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 2, 2019)

intel owners calling intel owners fanboys now I've seen everything.... guess I'm an 8 core 16 thread shill


----------



## The Egg (Dec 2, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> intel owners calling intel owners fanboys now I've seen everything.... guess I'm an 8 core 16 thread shill


Actually....the best part is that I'm also running a 9700k


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 2, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> intel owners calling intel owners fanboys now I've seen everything.... guess I'm an 8 core 16 thread shill





The Egg said:


> Actually....the best part is that I'm also running a 9700k



You both are so insecure...

...it's pathetic!

rqft:



The Egg said:


> 4/8 - Too few cores
> 6/6 - Too few threads
> 6/12 - Good
> 8/8 - Good
> 8/16 - Great


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 2, 2019)

Anyways this is all sorta off topic and anyone with a 9700k can buy whatever GPU they want this isn't what the thread is about maybe in 2-3 years we can have this discussion lol.

I'm sure we will see is the 9700k good enough for the RTX 4070/Radeon whatever and people Can fight about that then lol.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Dec 2, 2019)

Ben_Doverson said:


> the i7 7700k cost as much as a i7 9700k here in sweden so that my next buy but i am gona OC the snought out of this thing first!


Used 7700k should be at worst 2500SEK nowadays(not that it's actually worth that much)...

I found a cheap Maximus 8 Formula (€110) and decided to snag it earlier this year (jan iirc?), I managed to find a 7700k for €240 to go along with it. When I saw the motherboard I thought it would be a pretty cool piece of kit, and I was curious what the apex of quad cores would be like (I previously used a 4790k).It was quite a nice chip to work with for daily usage and 144hz gaming, very stable FPS wise, easy to OC on both the CPU and memory, only real downside was not having enough grunt to stream CPU heavy games. Unfortunately as the security patches for the side channel attacks started rolling in I started getting pretty noticeable stutters in games when I had my browser and discord open at the same time, both in R6 Siege and CSGO. I ended up selling the CPU and board for €400 together (I valued the CPU at €240 at the time of selling).

Definitely a fun chip, and if I had the money I would have kept it for benching, unfortunately it doesn't make the cut for me as far as gaming goes.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 2, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> Used 7700k should be at worst 2500SEK nowadays(not that it's actually worth that much)...
> 
> I found a cheap Maximus 8 Formula (€110) and decided to snag it early this year, I managed to find a 7700k for €240 to go along with it. When I saw the motherboard I thought it would be a pretty cool piece of kit, and I was curious what the apex of quad cores would be like (I previously used a 4790k). Unfortunately as the security patches for the side channel attacks started rolling in I started getting pretty noticeable stutters in games when I had my browser and discord open at the same time, both in R6 Siege and CSGO. I ended up selling the CPU and board for €400 together (I valued the CPU at €240 at the time of selling).
> 
> Definitely a fun chip, and if I had the money I would have kept it for benching, unfortunately it doesn't make the cut for me as far as gaming goes.




My brother has the same issues with a 6700K I gave him with a 1080 ti random stutters in a lot of games.. He doesn't have the budget to move on from it though so he will probably have to wait till I move on from my 9900k.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Dec 2, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> My brother has the same issues with a 6700K I gave him with a 1080 ti random stutters in a lot of games.. He doesn't have the budget to move on from it though so he will probably have to wait till I move on from my 9900k.


I'd look into selling the 6700k, there's a good chance you can get enough off the CPU+mobo to afford a 3600...

The great thing about the second hand market is it's easy to ditch a platform if you don't like it, especially considering intel stuff is price bloated right now and zen/zen+ stuff is extremely cheap.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 2, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> I'd look into selling the 6700k, there's a good chance you can get enough off the CPU+mobo to afford a 3600...




I've told him this same thing multiple times he's doesn't listen lol


----------



## Metroid (Dec 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Programs aren't written to use X amount of cores, they are usually written to scale dynamically according to the number of threads available.
> 
> Let's put an end to this myth that "programs/games don't use more than 4 cores" or whatever , OK ? It's a meaningless statement or inaccurate at best. There are only two groups, the programs that use multiple threads and the ones don't, of the latter there aren't many left out there if any that aren't multithreaded.



I agree if you say the programs written nowadays, some years ago was not that way and that coincides to when 1 - 2 cores was the normal for most programs and could not scale more than that.


----------



## Ben_Doverson (Dec 2, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> Used 7700k should be at worst 2500SEK nowadays(not that it's actually worth that much)...
> 
> I found a cheap Maximus 8 Formula (€110) and decided to snag it earlier this year (jan iirc?), I managed to find a 7700k for €240 to go along with it. When I saw the motherboard I thought it would be a pretty cool piece of kit, and I was curious what the apex of quad cores would be like (I previously used a 4790k).It was quite a nice chip to work with for daily usage and 144hz gaming, very stable FPS wise, easy to OC on both the CPU and memory, only real downside was not having enough grunt to stream CPU heavy games. Unfortunately as the security patches for the side channel attacks started rolling in I started getting pretty noticeable stutters in games when I had my browser and discord open at the same time, both in R6 Siege and CSGO. I ended up selling the CPU and board for €400 together (I valued the CPU at €240 at the time of selling).
> 
> Definitely a fun chip, and if I had the money I would have kept it for benching, unfortunately it doesn't make the cut for me as far as gaming goes.


thats some great deals right there . i stayed in the 4th gen 4790k and 5775c and then i just when for it , got this whole kit of gigabyte z270 .7600k . 2x8 corsair pro rgb dor 2550sek (250€ ish)
anf thats just 4 months ago and i am hunting for anyting abow 8700k or 2011.3 like maybe a i I7 5820k on a x99 or someting else with 4 channels and some cores

i used to do EOC on my msi mpower z97 i7 4790k and i7 5775c with Ln2 and some homade 'timmyjoe ( jays2cents ,gamers nexus kind of home invetion stuff butthe rig ia am using now woulf just crack or shoort if i brought out the LN2 pot =
:'D


----------



## freeagent (Dec 2, 2019)

I play a little FC5, GTAV, RE2 at 1080p 60hz with vsync on and I don't get the stutters you all speak of. A smooth 60 most of the time. Maybe you all need to check your overclocks  

RE2 seems like its the most demanding for sure. Beats on my 980 pretty hard.. Makes me wish I had a 980 Ti


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2019)

freeagent said:


> I play a little FC5, GTAV, RE2 at 1080p 60hz with vsync on and I don't get the stutters you all speak of. A smooth 60 most of the time. Maybe you all need to check your overclocks
> 
> RE2 seems like its the most demanding for sure. Beats on my 980 pretty hard.. Makes me wish I had a 980 Ti


YOu have 8 threads. This is typically acceptable and shows few losses.


----------



## Ben_Doverson (Dec 2, 2019)

*this is whats forked in sweden ,used marker vs new

Intel Core i5 9400F 2.9 GHz 9MB - 1 789 kr aprox 180€ or $
Intel Core i5 9600KF 3.7 GHz 9MB - 2 490 kr ~250$ or €  swedish prices are 1 /10th of a euro or dollar
Intel Core i5 9600K 3.7 GHz 9MB - kr( 2 889) reduced to 2 590  *
the one i wanted but cant afford - 
*Intel Core i7 9700K 3.6 GHz 12MB (used to be 4 479 kr ) now 4 290 kr ~430€*



VS

*Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0 GHz 8MB  - 1 730 kr  and still going becouse its a bidding sight and its 2 days left . some go for 200€ and 7700k sometime hit 220 or worse*


* point of all of this. 6th and 7th gen 's are over prices and only for the reason that its ez for n33bs to oc snf feel god about emselfs .LMAO*





just found this on same site .. anyone who can donate me 1900€

this beast doesnt even have a production date only Launch Date Q3'17 









						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com
				





Brand new never used. Intel Xeon Gold 6140 18-core / 36 wires 2.3 GHz Max. turbo speed 3.7 GHz Sockets Supported FCLGA3647 See more info here: https://www.komplett.se/product/965199/computer equipment/computer components/processor/intel-xeon-gold-6140-processor# https://ark.intel.com /content/www/us/en/ark/products/120485/intel-xeon-gold-6140-processor-24-75m-cache-2-30-ghz.html Receipt available Can be picked up in Stockholm or sent by mail.

i wonder if it can play crysis?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 2, 2019)

Ben_Doverson said:


> *this is whats forked in sweden ,used marker vs new
> 
> Intel Core i5 9400F 2.9 GHz 9MB - 1 789 kr aprox 180€ or $
> Intel Core i5 9600KF 3.7 GHz 9MB - 2 490 kr ~250$ or €  swedish prices are 1 /10th of a euro or dollar
> ...



That's very offensive! I do feel like good when overclocking. 
There's nothing good like the feeling of performance gains.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 2, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> That's very offensive! I do feel like good when overclocking.
> There's nothing good like the feeling of performance gains.



Yup just helped another make a xfx 5700 DD ultra into a 5700xt thic 2 ultra.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 2, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Yup just helped another make a xfx 5700 DD ultra into a 5700xt thic 2 ultra.



That's awesome. You're the man.
ONLY@TECHPOWERUP!!!


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 2, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> ...its a hobby not the search for the cure to cancer.



That's right, but pissing money down the drain doesn't make sense in a hobby either.  There are always going to be cases where a quad core is going to be the only option.  But if there is any other option, the quad is not the correct choice.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> That's right, but pissing money down the drain doesn't make sense in a hobby either.  There are always going to be cases where a quad core is going to be the only option.  But if there is any other option, the quad is not the correct choice.



Duals and quads have their place, lp/nas applications.


----------



## sepheronx (Dec 2, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> Quote me - where did I make stuff up and where did I post anything about my own CPU? (btw I have 2 main CPUs but I'm assuming you're referring to the 8700k)...
> 
> but go ahead - install farcry 5 on your system and be treated to:


I have played it on my 4 core 4 thread system just fine. Some stuttering but nothing bad.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 2, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Duals and quads have their place, lp/nas applications.


Hell even the new Ryzen3 quads are actually good for gaming. Not preferred, but if you can't afford more or have a limited budget and want to put more into the GPU(wiser choice), then it's a good performing choice that can be OC'd very well.


----------



## potato580+ (Dec 2, 2019)

framerate is beyond my concern, ghosting the most i avoid, resultion aslong is still on hd is nice and fullhd is great for me, i can bear even with 30fps stable, my eyes is special iguess
asfor triple A it depend our taste, i found that many over rated games basicly just eye candy, or should i say it trashcan for me personally, so its not worth pay for curent hightect if the games aint so worth for, unless you get the cash & willing to spend, pardon no offense chill


----------



## budget_Optiplex (Dec 2, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> This is an awesome reason why someone would still game on a quad core paring it with a GPU that makes sense and doing the most with whatever budget you have.
> 
> This post is more about why people think a 6600k/7600k is still good enough for a $400+ GPU that especially at 1080p is going to be a stutter fest in a lot of  new games assuming you're trying to get the maximum performance out of the gpu.



Point taken about this thread.

I do agree that even based on my own experiences doing system work for others that with something like a 7600k, that a high end or high mid-range GPU is probably not going to get fully utilized especially for typical 1080p gaming. I have found that something like an 8GB RX580 or 6GB GTX1060, or maybeeeee the new 1650 Super is most likely an ideal match for a high IPC 4-core/4-thread CPU. In fact just put a 6GB GTX1060 in friends system that has an i5 7400 and it seems to work quite well for him, though he mostly plays stuff like GTA V, and various Assasins Creed games. Was a huge bump from his previous GTX960 2GB, im sure that the 2GB VRAM limitation kills most video cards at 1080p in any modernish game as my 4GB VRAM is well utilized even at the low 1366x768 my personal monitor uses.

I think any 2GB VRAM card is pretty much done at this point for modernish games without a lot of tweaking of game settings and game configuration files.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 2, 2019)

sepheronx said:


> I have played it on my 4 core 4 thread system just fine. Some stuttering but nothing bad.



yeah but 'some stuttering' is totally fine on a 4 core 4 thread system...  when you're talking about 'some stuttering' on a system that costs more than things that have 'no stuttering' - then it's a bit different.


----------



## Hyderz (Dec 2, 2019)

entry level into gaming should be minimum 4c/4t anything less than it now is not ideal. Cpu like i5 6600k and 7600k are still performing quite well. 
If you invest into a gaming pc should look into a 6c/6t or 6c/12t should hold you well for next 3 years.


----------



## Ben_Doverson (Dec 2, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> That's very offensive! I do feel like good when overclocking.
> There's nothing good like the feeling of performance gains.


dont get me wrong brother i OC everyting literaly!
and i love it . i have test bench and i buy random chipsets and od cpus just yo see what perfomance i can get out of them ! 
at thhis moment a i7 970 / on a x58 mobo is being shipped to me just so i can sewhat it can do . and i am scouting the net for a i7 980x cou for that mobo to se if i can break some old record with it usin dry ice or LN2.. , so if u feel offended by me sating that i find it more interesting to get ANY of the i9 couus instead of the top and last cpu of the 7gen line just to oc and then be done with it u migh need to to get over yourself and sto being so easyoffended by what other ppl do or thing or maybe try to se my pow on what i actually was saying   love to u and best of wishes on the amd oc ,and may the oc gods be with you!

in my pow 4 cores is minimum and that is pure cores without HT. pure muschle cores overklocked to the brink that squese the living hell out the the gpu for fps  . to bad i am at my laptop atm or o woulf have ben able to post some of my benchmarks where i oc my 4790k to 5.7ghz on 4/4cores 1.47v in cpu-z and cinabench. even hade the 1600 rams running at 2433 or it might have been 2400 blank with so close timings and voltage .i toch me weeks setting that one succesful run ,but boi was i a happy camper after that!



Ben_Doverson said:


> *this is whats forked in sweden ,used marker vs new
> 
> Intel Core i5 9400F 2.9 GHz 9MB - 1 789 kr aprox 180€ or $
> Intel Core i5 9600KF 3.7 GHz 9MB - 2 490 kr ~250$ or €  swedish prices are 1 /10th of a euro or dollar
> ...


@potato580+ =')



budget_Optiplex said:


> Point taken about this thread.
> 
> I do agree that even based on my own experiences doing system work for others that with something like a 7600k, that a high end or high mid-range GPU is probably not going to get fully utilized especially for typical 1080p gaming. I have found that something like an 8GB RX580 or 6GB GTX1060, or maybeeeee the new 1650 Super is most likely an ideal match for a high IPC 4-core/4-thread CPU. In fact just put a 6GB GTX1060 in friends system that has an i5 7400 and it seems to work quite well for him, though he mostly plays stuff like GTA V, and various Assasins Creed games. Was a huge bump from his previous GTX960 2GB, im sure that the 2GB VRAM limitation kills most video cards at 1080p in any modernish game as my 4GB VRAM is well utilized even at the low 1366x768 my personal monitor uses.
> 
> I think any 2GB VRAM card is pretty much done at this point for modernish games without a lot of tweaking of game settings and game configuration files.


aggre with u there . any card over say 1070 ti would start losing perfomance running under a i5 6700k /7600k. ath that point its time to start looking for 8th gen minimum ,like 
*Intel Core i5 8600K 6c/6T
with a modest oc of atleast 4.7ghz
then going beyound 1080ti there cant be any one who argues against min req of i8 8700k and up to the 9900k contra the amds .from 2950x and basicly all of the 3series cpus to balance the gpu power with amds clock speed to core ratio , and when i say 1080ti and above i am not leaving any cards out amd or nvidia . hell i migh even toss a 1660super in that list XD*


----------



## Melvis (Dec 2, 2019)

I say the i5 or Quad core CPU's without HT/SMT are indeed not enough for good smooth game play anymore, yes you can still game on a i5 Quad core and for the most part get a good average FPS with a good GPU but there starting to show there age with lots of dips and stuttering. My mate has a 6th gen i5 paired with I think a 1070 and even in a game like Dota 2 he has been complaining badly about gettting down to 10FPS in a big cluster fight on screen (5v5 battle)  and is now looking at upgrading to a 2700X AM4 system. 

My brother on the other hand is one of those ones that says my i5 2550K runs everything just fine! but he doesnt own any AAA modern titles at all! the only complaints he has is I dont have enough RAM (8GB) and im paging alot in a few games.

I myself had a i7 2600 and I noticed it start to get a bit slow in games that required alot of CPU so I upgraded to a Ryzen 1600X System and have noticed alot smoother game play.


----------



## droopyRO (Dec 2, 2019)

It dose not matter how many cores your CPU has. If you match the games YOU play to that CPU. Some people might play indie or browser games where an i3 CPU, 2c/4t, might be all they need, and others try to get a minimum of 144fps in the latest AAA games with their overclocked 9900KF or Ryzen 3800X.

And there are games that can not run on well on any CPU in their most intensive moments.
Take for example TW Warhammer 2(one of my favorite games of all time) in a siege battle with 40 vs 40 units, the framerate drops to 25 fps on my system, you could have an i9 at 7 GHz and it will not get 60 fps in that situation. Same for ArmA 3.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 2, 2019)

droopyRO said:


> It dose not matter how many cores your CPU has. If you match the games YOU play to that CPU. Some people might play indie or browser games where an i3 CPU, 2c/4t, might be all they need, and others try to get a minimum of 144fps in the latest AAA games with their overclocked 9900KF or Ryzen 3800X.
> 
> *And there are games that can not run on well on any CPU in their most intensive moments.*
> Take for example TW Warhammer 2(one of my favorite games of all time) in a siege battle with 40 vs 40 units, the framerate drops to 25 fps on my system, you could have an i9 at 7 GHz and it will not get 60 fps in that situation. Same for ArmA 3.


And you are judging this by your 6c/6t CPU... OK!
Good to know...


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> And you are judging this by your 6c/6t CPU... OK!
> Good to know...


...and using fringe/rare cases to make a point...


----------



## er557 (Dec 2, 2019)

this has turned into a froid philosophy thread...


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 2, 2019)

er557 said:


> froid


Assuming you mean Sigmond "Freud", stay out of my dreams!


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 2, 2019)

Thought this was kind of good timing:

https://www.techspot.com/amp/article/1953-then-and-now-400-usd-gpu/

specifically this paragraph:



> We might consider building those two systems for a few side-by-side testing, though if you’ve kept tabs on how the 7600K gets along in 2019, you’ll know that comparison will turn out very poorly for the quad-core processor.


----------



## droopyRO (Dec 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> ...and using fringe/rare cases to make a point...


These are PC games only, not multi platform crap like 9/10 of the games out there.
You are also forgetting that most console games are capped at 30 fps. And even then they can not maintain 30 fps 100% of the time.











Zach_01 said:


> And you are judging this by your 6c/6t CPU... OK!
> Good to know...


You are free to show me an i9 or Ryzen that runs a siege battle, 40 units, at 60 fps all the time in TW Warhammer 2. You would give me a HUGE reason to upgrade my CPU  or platform.


----------



## er557 (Dec 2, 2019)

just for kicks i will try this on my dual e5-2686v3 boosted setup

edit:ninjaposted @EarthDog


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2019)

And? You are still using fringe cases to make a point...


----------



## droopyRO (Dec 2, 2019)

Yes, the point is, use the right tool for the right job.

There is no point in wasting money on using a >4 core CPU to play old games, indie or similar titles.
The minimum i would recommend this days, is a Ryzen 1600, but if one can only afford an i5 2500 or a Ryzen APU, then those are fine for 1080p gaming at 30-60 fps. with an RX570.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2019)

droopyRO said:


> There is no point in wasting money on using a >4 core CPU to play old games, indie or similar titles.


Right... but, that isn't what this thread is about though(old games/indie titles)... or where it spawned from... 

If you are only playing potato games like you say, you aren't looking at upgrading your GPU and asking about a CPU bottleneck in most cases.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 2, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> And? You are still using fringe cases to make a point...


Fringe or not, for me personally doesnt matter... What matters is when tries to convince us that that any CPU will have issues with some games when paired to 1070Ti at least.



droopyRO said:


> Yes, the point is, use the right tool for the right job.
> 
> There is no point in wasting money on using a >4 core CPU to play old games, indie or similar titles.
> The minimum i would recommend this days, is a Ryzen 1600, but if one can only afford an i5 2500 or a Ryzen APU, then those are fine for 1080p gaming at 30-60 fps. with an RX570.


Now you are changing your sayings a bit... Almost you said that a 6c/6t is all needed ever... and if this CPU has issues then all of the rest (from 8t up to 32t) has them too.


----------



## 64K (Dec 2, 2019)

Why are people still using 4 core 4 thread CPU for gaming? Momentum I guess. For many years the common consensus was that it was enough and that thinking still lingers on with some people.

Possibly the next gen consoles will make it apparent that it's time to upgrade the PC. I was using an i5 3570k before this build and I was already being held back in some games and that was almost 2 years ago.

Tech moves forward quickly. Probably my next build will need a 6 core 12 thread CPU.


----------



## droopyRO (Dec 2, 2019)

Or they don't need a stronger CPU, a small fps drop might go unnoticed by the average person, while you, me, us, could go nuts if that happens.


Zach_01 said:


> Fringe or not, for me personally doesnt matter... What matters is when tries to convince us that that any CPU will have issues with some games when paired to 1070Ti at least.


Yep, exactly my point. For you, it dose not matter, for me it might, or the other way around  There is no absolute right/wrong answer to why you would game on a 4c/4t CPU. I say again, the minimum i recommend is a Ryzen 1600 or 1800 seeing they sell for cheap on the second hand market.


> Now you are changing your sayings a bit... Almost you said that a 6c/6t is all needed ever... and if this CPU has issues then all of the rest (from 8t up to 32t) has them too.


Give me a quote where i said that. Also i'm waiting for that benchmark. Thanks.
Meanwhile look at how the fps tanks at the end of this benchmark, and that is an 9900K. Do you think a 16 or 32 core CPU would fare better by bumping the fps from 40-45 to/or at 60 fps ?








vs









That is clearly a game/engine limit, that in my humble opinion,  will not change with core count.


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 2, 2019)

I think the spirit of the question was recommending/giving advice on buying quads.  Or at least being honest and saying 'yes, you will have problems' instead of 'no, it's fine'.


----------



## MrGRiMv25 (Dec 2, 2019)

Ben_Doverson said:


> i am scouting the net for a i7 980x cou for that mobo to se if i can break some old record with it usin dry ice or LN2..



If you can't find a 980X for a good price grab yourself a Xeon W3680/90 as they're the same chip but support faster RAM straight out of the gate, I can't change voltage on the board I'm on but the chip I have does 4Ghz at 1.2v which is pretty decent. They also have an unlocked multiplier just like the 980X so with a good board they will overclock very well.


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 2, 2019)

MrGRiMv25 said:


> If you can't find a 980X for a good price grab yourself a Xeon W3680/90 as they're the same chip but support faster RAM straight out of the gate, I can't change voltage on the board I'm on but the chip I have does 4Ghz at 1.2v which is pretty decent. They also have an unlocked multiplier just like the 980X so with a good board they will overclock very well.



How did we get from why recommend quads to recommending a 10+ year old hex?


----------



## John Naylor (Dec 2, 2019)

For the most part, the core thing, like VRAM is grossly exaggerated.  It's a very simple thing to check ... at least with the games i have played.   All of the doom and gloom is more about the processor itself then the cores / threads the game users.  

So load your game, set CPU affinity to all cores and run a path thru game recording fps.  Now go back to affinity and turn off a thread .... rinse and repeat.  I think you will find the impact is far less than you thought it would be ...I usually don't see significant impacts till I turn off CPU 3 (leaving 0, 1 and 2 working on the games process.


----------



## harm9963 (Dec 2, 2019)




----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I think the spirit of the question was recommending/giving advice on buying quads. Or at least being honest and saying 'yes, you will have problems' instead of 'no, it's fine'.


I think the spirit of the question is the question the OP asked. No where did the OP ask for buying advice. Nor did he ask if whether you will have problems or not. He just very clearly stated his own opinion. I note too, he has not been back since post #3 on page 1.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 2, 2019)

Personally I'm happy for you all to beta test the latest games for me, once I'm through my back catalogue of a gazillion games, I'll pick on the latest AAA games you lot are currently arguing about patched up and for 5 bucks. Thank you.


----------



## hckngrtfakt (Dec 2, 2019)

I was recently given an i3 platform (mobo+cpu) which I didn't thing could handle any modern game titles.
To my surprise I started with D3 and it ran flawlessly, from there I moved one to more recent/resource intensive games and it showed no slow downs, to the point where I have been playing KI and Dragon Ball FighterZ with no noticeable lag or frame drops (60+ fps on afterbuner) ... so why the need for an i5 ??? much less an i7


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 3, 2019)

hckngrtfakt said:


> I was recently given an i3 platform (mobo+cpu) which I didn't thing could handle any modern game titles.
> To my surprise I started with D3 and it ran flawlessly, from there I moved one to more recent/resource intensive games and it showed no slow downs, to the point where I have been playing KI and Dragon Ball FighterZ with no noticeable lag or frame drops (60+ fps on afterbuner) ... so why the need for an i5 ??? much less an i7



Doom 3?? or Diablo 3?


*Here are the Diablo III System Requirements (Minimum)*

CPU: Intel Pentium D 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
RAM: 1 GB RAM (1.5 GB required for Windows Vista/Windows 7 users)
OS: Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7/Windows 8 (Latest Service Packs)
VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT or ATI Radeon X1950 Pro or better.
Wow, what a trip back in time. 

DB Fighter Z. Recommends i5???

*System Requirements*

Requires a 64-bit processor and operating *system*.
OS: Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS *required*)
Processor: AMD FX-4350, 4.2 GHz / Intel Core i5-3470, 3.20 GHz.
Memory: 4 GB RAM.
Graphics: Radeon HD 6870, 1 GB / GeForce GTX 650 Ti, 1 GB.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2019)

hckngrtfakt said:


> I was recently given an i3 platform (mobo+cpu) which I didn't thing could handle any modern game titles.
> To my surprise I started with D3 and it ran flawlessly, from there I moved one to more recent/resource intensive games and it showed no slow downs, to the point where I have been playing KI and Dragon Ball FighterZ with no noticeable lag or frame drops (60+ fps on afterbuner) ... so why the need for an i5 ??? much less an i7


Makes sense, your experience.  The games you list run on a potato. Diablo 3(?) was released almost 8 years ago... makes sense it isn't using more than a core or 2. Dragon ball Z uses 2 threads, doesnt scale above that, and doesnt appear to be any more resource intensive than diablo 3. No clue what "KI" is.

There are plenty games that can show improvements when using 4c/8t+ over 4/4. All you need to do is look for reviews which test that way (techspot/guru 3d). Are things playable, yes... is there a bottleneck holding things back in some titles, absolutely. It simply depends on the game.

So... the need for an i5/7/9 8/12/etc threads is to improve performance and the gaming experience on the several titles (more every month) where having such CPUs make a difference.... regardless of the GPU in use.


----------



## MrGRiMv25 (Dec 3, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> How did we get from why recommend quads to recommending a 10+ year old hex?



You know how the net is, only takes a few pages of replies to derail haha. It was in response to the guy saying he was looking for a 980X for his X58 board.

Since I won't completely derail and cause a fatal train wreck. I'll add this little extra; a quad can still give acceptable results in a lot of games, even in 2019 but minimum FPS will suffer the most. I'd say that by next year they'll be almost completely irrelevant for the vast majority of AAA games but not unusable. Like others have said, it all depends on what your expectations are. A quad with no HT just won't be enough to supply a high-end GPU and you'll see it at 60% usage while the CPU will be pinned at 90+.


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 3, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> I think the spirit of the question is the question the OP asked. No where did the OP ask for buying advice. Nor did he ask if whether you will have problems or not. He just very clearly stated his own opinion. I note too, he has not been back since post #3 on page 1.



In case you didn't know, this thread was spawned from a help thread...


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> In case you didn't know, this thread was spawned from a help thread...


....and is essentially a rinse and repeat thanks mostly to the same people (including me) saying the same things. Lol.



MrGRiMv25 said:


> A quad with no HT just won't be enough to supply a high-end GPU and you'll see it at 60% usage while the CPU will be pinned at 90+


Please, separate church and state... if a game doesnt use all the threads, a higher clocked and high IPC CPU (think intel back a few gens and ryzen or newer amd) wont hold a GPU back.

In other words, again, it is the GAME that determines how many cores are needed not the performance of the GPU. But the OP's wording is confusing and many other issues in this thread.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 3, 2019)

The beauty of a glass ceiling is you can see the sky.


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 3, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> ....and is essentially a rinse and repeat thanks mostly to the same people (including me) saying the same things. Lol.
> 
> Please, separate church and state... if a game doesnt use all the threads, a higher clocked and high IPC CPU (think intel back a few gens and ryzen or newer amd) wont hold a GPU back.
> 
> In other words, again, it is the GAME that determines how many cores are needed not the performance of the GPU. But the OP's wording is confusing and many other issues in this thread.



And the same people sticking there heads in the sand, and the same people not reading, and the same people moving goal posts, and the same as in every other thread...


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 3, 2019)

*throws stone in glass house*


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 3, 2019)

Fluffmeister said:


> The beauty of a glass ceiling is you can see the sky.


Lol, yep... a teaser. Lol...


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 3, 2019)

droopyRO said:


> Yep, exactly my point. For you, it dose not matter, for me it might, or the other way around  There is no absolute right/wrong answer to why you would game on a 4c/4t CPU. I say again, the minimum i recommend is a Ryzen 1600 or 1800 seeing they sell for cheap on the second hand market.


I don’t think that was your point... I said that it does not matter to me that your point is fringe/rare...
While it’s not mainstream I personally still count a rare case scenario like this...


droopyRO said:


> *Give me a quote where i said that*. Also i'm waiting for that benchmark. Thanks.
> Meanwhile look at how the fps tanks at the end of this benchmark, and that is an 9900K. Do you think a 16 or 32 core CPU would fare better by bumping the fps from 40-45 to/or at 60 fps ?


Let’s see...



droopyRO said:


> And there are games that can not run on well on any CPU in their most intensive moments.
> Take for example TW Warhammer 2(one of my favorite games of all time) in a siege battle with 40 vs 40 units, *the framerate drops to 25 fps on my system, you could have an i9 at 7 GHz and it will not get 60 fps in that situation*. Same for ArmA 3.


So the i9 also drops to 25fps? Or a R7/9?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 3, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> So the i9 also drops to 25fps? Or a R7/9?



Nah probably not.

Supreme Commander Forged Alliance was pretty cpu heavy, but didn't scale the cores well. 
Just poor optimizations by the game writers. 
Online game experiences may vary. 
Since 7 ghz was mentioned....


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 3, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Since 7 ghz was mentioned....
> 
> View attachment 138317



So did that finally compete with an i3 2100?   

I jest, I jest.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 3, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> So did that finally compete with an i3 2100?
> 
> I jest, I jest.



Truthfully I only gamed in the 6500mhz range on FX chips to be honest. Full pot, fun stuff.....
Beat an i3..... well maybe not. Never had an i3 before. What's it like???!!! lol

Any how, I'd pit this preset against your 3900X any day though.

I also jest while biting my cheek.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Dec 3, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> In case you didn't know, this thread was spawned from a help thread...


So that makes it okay for you to interpret the question anyway you want? No. 

New thread means new topic. And the OP gets to decide what that topic is.


----------

