# Do "gaming" PCs require i5 procs?



## Easy Rhino (Jan 24, 2014)

Modern i3 procs are very powerful. Coupled with something like a 770GTX, will today's PC games play just fine?


----------



## Nordic (Jan 24, 2014)

Definitely not. I have an ivy bridge 2.7ghz celeron here and all but certain cpu heavy games were just fine, paired with a 7870 tahiti. Bigger gpu is more beneficial to fps than cpu most games.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 24, 2014)

No they do not NEED anything above an i3.
Only if you are one of those desperate to have the highest amount of FPS possible even though there isn't a shred bit of evidence that it will make any difference to your game play experience.
Heck I'm sure some people here are still happy with the quad core2 chips.


----------



## erocker (Jan 24, 2014)

If i3's are still limited to 2 cores, no. With games using more cores, more often an i3 just won't cut it sometimes. It's not just lower FPS overall (that isn't a big deal IMO) but getting things like bad stuttering and slowdown when there's more action on screen.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 24, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> will today's PC games play just fine?


Please, define fine. I consider fine 20 FPS and above, 15-20 FPS is playable, <10 FPS is a patience test.


----------



## Kaynar (Jan 24, 2014)

Got a friend with then the latest 4th gen i3 (the fastest i3 available). He had a GTX560. With that system he averaged 30FPS in Path of exile, and had a lot of spikes. He very recently bought a used GTX670. Now he averages 40fps and has fewer spikes.

I myself had an i7 930 and an HD7970 few months ago, the game was running 60fps flawlessly. That GTX670 has no reason not to run the game at higher fps, the cpu is holding back the performance.

So yea the i3 just couldn't cope with an F2P game.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2014)

i7 2600k minimum requirement for everything IMHO.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 24, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> i7 2600k minimum requirement for everything IMHO.


duh.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2014)

Thanks to Hyperthreading, I'd say an i3 would be capable of playing most games with a single graphics card.  I probably wouldn't pair an i3 with a GTX780 or R9 290, but I think an i3 would be fine with a GTX760 or an R9 280.

I kind of wish the i3's were still overclockable, then I would say for sure an i3 would be fine for gaming.  I was hopeful when I saw BCLK straps implemented in 1150 that lower end processors would be overclockable again using them, but then Intel limited BCLK straps to only work with K-Series processors, which makes the feature basically totally useless.  A 4.5GHz i3-4340 would be awesome.


----------



## Chetkigaming (Jan 24, 2014)

idk, but, the better your pc, the bigger your balls is.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2014)

If you're trying to cheap out on the CPU in a gaming system, I'd recommend an AMD processor before going with an i3.  You can get a tri-module, six-thread FX processor for the same or less than all the dual-core, four-thread i3s.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 24, 2014)

My son uses an i-5 650 (dual core with HT @ stock) with 2 GTX 560 Ti's.  The only place we see an issue is when we run benchmarking programs.  The Batman games run just fine.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> What?! The standards are very high ($) these days, $650 CPU is not for everyone...


2600K is needed as a bare minimum if you want 60 FPS on all AAA games combined with a decent GPU. Anything below is trash for gaming.


----------



## Frick (Jan 24, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 2600K is needed as a bare minimum if you want 60 FPS on all AAA games combined with a decent GPU. Anything below is trash for gaming.



Eh, for a given value of "trash", and "gaming". 1280x800 is a lovely resolution.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 24, 2014)

TheMailMan78, post #13.

That quote doesn't exist, please remove it. LOL!


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 24, 2014)

....However, I do wonder if we are at the (tipping) point where more cores will become more important/necessary.
These questions are always interesting because the answer depends on what the respondent considers "good enough", as MailMan just proved.


newtekie1 said:


> ...I kind of wish the i3's were still overclockable, then I would say for sure an i3 would be fine for gaming.  I was hopeful when I saw BCLK straps implemented in 1150 that lower end processors would be overclockable again using them, but then Intel limited BCLK straps to only work with K-Series processors, which makes the feature basically totally useless.  A 4.5GHz i3-4340 would be awesome.


I don't think Intel liked it when people took their $100 i3-5xx and OC'd them to 5GHz.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jan 24, 2014)

Its not so much that i3's can't run everything , it's how they run and as erocker stated I found with an i3 that some games just couldn't handle the CPU intensive games without a fair bit of stalling and stuttering.

Great chips for a budget system with a single card but at that point I'd probably look at AMD.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 24, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 2600K is needed as a bare minimum if you want 60 FPS on all AAA games combined with a decent GPU.


And not even consoles can keep that frame rate anymore... I hope they fixed this with PS4 and XBOXONE, otherwise what a shame.


----------



## Chetkigaming (Jan 24, 2014)

If i play my favorite games, i can do it only with 120 fps and with 1-2 ms gtg response. I consider this is very much better than a few extra settings on ultra, if i`d had a lower gpu i`d go lower settings to get 120fps anyway, i made my decision about that. But in all cases i can`t lower a texture quality/resolution settings  its very important of course.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 24, 2014)

Chetkigaming said:


> i can do it only with 120 fps.


That's overkill in my opinion. I can be more than happy at 60.


----------



## v12dock (Jan 24, 2014)

4770K overclocked to 4.6 minimum now days


----------



## Kaynar (Jan 24, 2014)

v12dock said:


> 4770K overclocked to 4.6 minimum now days



 Don't forget the new 4K display too, bare minimum! And to hell with the 30Hz!


----------



## johnspack (Jan 24, 2014)

I'm running games that make my i7 at 4ghz cry....  I see all 8 threads going....   yes if you want a proper gaming rig you need an i7,  not an i5.  BF4 uses 6 threads by itself,  the os certainly can use the last 2.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 24, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 2600K is needed as a bare minimum if you want 60 FPS on all AAA games combined with a decent GPU. Anything below is trash for gaming.



Psh, no its not. GPU will matter far more then CPU.


----------



## KainXS (Jan 24, 2014)

i5 minimum, definitely not for games, heck up until last year I was running a core2quad 4ghz and that ran most games with no problem at all but I upgraded to a 3770k because I needed one to do my work, most of the time it was gpu limited even then.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 24, 2014)

Hey my Core2 E8600 @ 3.7Ghz paired with a 5870 does pretty well, though I do have to lower quality at 1920x1200


----------



## EpicShweetness (Jan 24, 2014)

Well it all depends on what you play. CPU intensive games will benefit from more cores not threads. To that extent AMD.
That is to say a 6300 FX may do better as yes it has 6 cores, but majority of programming will ignore 1/3/5(6) core. It's using 1 core per module as a whole core. I've noticed this with my machines.
SO! A the 6300 will have 3 (used) cores vs 2 hyper threaded cores.
This all boils down to what you are doing, but something like a AAA title (Crysis 3) the more cores the better. In that case a 8350 or an i5 definitely.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 24, 2014)

johnspack said:


> yes if you want a proper gaming rig you need an i7


No, we need more optimized codes for PC games... I bet many of them are just poorly coded.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 24, 2014)

Its all relative. It depends on the game, the resolution and your definition of "playing"

Example WOW on at 900 i3 fine. BF4 on 1080 No. Well yes but I wouldn't. Too frustrating


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 24, 2014)

with i3 it would fine but some people take i5 coz it has more cores and handling multitasking better than i3


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 25, 2014)

Since we're on the topic of CPU's I would like to ask if my i7 940 @ 3.4ghz would bottleneck a GTX 770, R9 280X or anything higher?


----------



## Rowsol (Jan 25, 2014)




----------



## scoutingwraith (Jan 25, 2014)

To be honest i recently built a system for my dad an i3-3240 with 8Gb and a Gigabyte board and i put an old 8800GTS 512Mb i had and it is running most games on decent settings at 1080p. (not maxed out but still quite playable)


----------



## jormungand (Jan 25, 2014)

So if i were going to upgrade my beloved 2500k i should take an 4770 instead of an 4670k, i will love the 100bucks of difference to put them on a new GPU?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 25, 2014)

jormungand said:


> So if i were going to upgrade my beloved 2500k i should take an 4770 instead of an 4670k, i will love the 100bucks of difference to put them on a new GPU?



Id definitely put that 100 bucks towards a GPU and just get a 4670k


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 25, 2014)

well minimum yes ... needed mostly no...

i bet my future AII X4 760K will give me enough frame to be smooth in every games i play ... heck even my 460 HAWK was able to give 45ish FPS in crysis 3
ok ... with a Xeon E3-1275v2 but now i am on a budget and a cheapish B85 + a I5-4670 would not even fit in the budget window ... a AII X4 760K + a ASRock A88M Ex4+ cost me 50chf under the price of a i5-4670 alone (219chf)

edit i mixed up 4570 and 4670 prices...


----------



## v12dock (Jan 25, 2014)

Kaynar said:


> Don't forget the new 4K display too, bare minimum! And to hell with the 30Hz!


Three 4K@144Hz is bare minimum for a mediocre gaming experience


----------



## Batou1986 (Jan 25, 2014)

It depends on the game really 
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html


----------



## LeonVolcove (Jan 25, 2014)

my Kaveri(A10-7850k) Runs perfectly fine in 1920 x 1080, although i have to settle down with low setting.
Please define this "Gaming"

Do you want to play Ultra/Very High settings or you just want to GAME even the latest game with low setting(like me)?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 25, 2014)

IMO even a good C2Q will net you decent performance. I had no problems driving bc2, bf3 with 5850s and 6970s with decent fps at 1080p with a C2Q, I probably would have still been running that system too but a friend wanted a new pc for cheap and i got a massive tax refund at the same time so i sold it to him and went with a 2500k build.  C2Qs might not be the best but they don't do too bad either pitty that the last good C2Q are not included in most cpu scaling reviews


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 25, 2014)

Rowsol said:


>


it is what it is... its all about the balance of your system - you as a system builder decide.  high rez skews videocard over cpu - it just depends.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 25, 2014)

probably need dual xeons nowadays.


----------



## jormungand (Jan 25, 2014)

Batou1986 said:


> It depends on the game really
> http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html


Watching those comparisons take me to think twice to change or upgrade my 2500K at least i can OC mine to 4.0ghz and get a little more performance 
and save the money for a gtx 770 o better a gtx 780. Or am I wrong? whats your opinions guys could my 2500k stand for 1 year or more giving good frames for 1080p?


----------



## Nordic (Jan 25, 2014)

Solaris17 said:


> probably need dual xeons nowadays.


Psh, quad xeons or bust.


----------



## johnspack (Jan 25, 2014)

Lion,  your 940 will do just fine for the foreseeable future....


----------



## Melvis (Jan 25, 2014)

This might help


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 25, 2014)

I had a 2.6GHz Sandy Bridge Celeron (G550) before this i5-2500K @ 4.4GHz what I have now, and all the fps drops and other crap are gone. And also everything other use on the PC is much faster. Good old GTX470 still goes on


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 25, 2014)

You do know this is only showing single player performance not MP.

Here's MP












Batou1986 said:


> It depends on the game really
> http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jan 25, 2014)

Depends what games you play and what you expect. There's some games where anything less than a quad won't give you the best performance, but an i3 will still play them. We're talking the difference between a budget gaming build, and an enthusiast gaming build.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 25, 2014)

well i would never go under a Quad, but i do think a i5 can be replaced by a less performant quad ... for instance my Phenom X4 9600B @ 2.4 do just fine atm with my R9 270 until i get my X4 760K

i can play my usual games without too much compromise: FFXIVARR all to the max (easy) TR2013 high no AA (a bit less easy) BF4 med/high (drop under 40fps sometime but rarely) Crysis 3 high (some scene make a lag spike but not too often) 

PX4 9600B : 50chf 2nd hand with a Asus M3N78-CM and 4 gb DDR2 800 
ASRock FM2A88M Ex4+ and a Athlon II X4 760K new : 160chf 

a i5-4670 alone 219.90 a K version 234chf a good µATX  Z87 between  119.90 and 199.90 

it is all a matter of budget but when you are an enthusiast bound by a budget... its pretty painful...


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jan 25, 2014)

I think everyone is missing the fact that it is entirely game dependant. Some game that use the cpu for alot of unit calculations like an rts will benefit more from a faster processor. Where others are much more gpu dependant.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 25, 2014)

ShiBDiB said:


> I think everyone is missing the fact that it is entirely game dependant. Some game that use the cpu for alot of unit calculations like an rts will benefit more from a faster processor. Where others are much more gpu dependant.


well im not missing it... with the variety of game i play i have both kind and both run fine, it's a matter of compromise on the settings and try to keep smooth while having a good visual experience. so nope a expensive i5 like the 4670/K is not mandatory, but it make the compromise easier (or no comrpomise)


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 25, 2014)

ShiBDiB said:


> I think everyone is missing the fact that it is entirely game dependant. Some game that use the cpu for alot of unit calculations like an rts will benefit more from a faster processor. Where others are much more gpu dependant.



exactly


----------



## newconroer (Jan 25, 2014)

Agreed that you do not need i5/i7 for most games however when you start making videos for those gaming sessions, then the bigger brother CPUs become handy.
Just something extra to think on.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 25, 2014)

My 2500K has NEVER let me down,I got it @ Microcenter for $170 when they where released. IMHO Why pay 3/4 the $, for 1/2 the performance? I can clock Mine @ 5Ghz and kill all titles. Go for the i5 and spend a little extra.i7 is icing on the cake, with threading, but Certainly NOT required for Gaming. I PERSONALLY wouldn't go less than a i5 simply because of the HP it provides, and the stability, ESPECIALLY if you get a good chip. I'm CERTAIN you could get by on an i3, but why? thats Like buying a 6 cylinder when you can get an 8 for a little more.Not to mention I wouldn't want to play a game like arma 2 with an i3.


----------



## Bugler (Jan 26, 2014)

I had an i3-2105 before I upgraded to an i5-3570 and my fps more than doubled. That's with the same video card (HD6670).


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 26, 2014)

jboydgolfer said:


> My 2500K has NEVER let me down,I got it @ Microcenter for $170 when they where released. IMHO Why pay 3/4 the $, for 1/2 the performance? I can clock Mine @ 5Ghz and kill all titles. Go for the i5 and spend a little extra.i7 is icing on the cake, with threading, but Certainly NOT required for Gaming. I PERSONALLY wouldn't go less than a i5 simply because of the HP it provides, and the stability, ESPECIALLY if you get a good chip. I'm CERTAIN you could get by on an i3, but why? thats Like buying a 6 cylinder when you can get an 8 for a little more.Not to mention I wouldn't want to play a game like arma 2 with an i3.


while i totaly approve what you say, in my case its not 3/4 for 1/2  but more 1/4 of the price for 5% less (pondered) discret graphic perf  (for the cpu alone ofc... with the mobo as i said im still 50chf less than the intel cpu alone.)

good news i noticed that the 760K is a Richland and not a trinity 
laugh : im going from a Xeon E3-1275v2 (i7-3770K without oc basically) to a AII X4 760K instead of a 4670/K still i highly doubt that it would affect my gaming so badly, all is a matter of budget and needs ... not a matter of "why pay less to get less and not pay  more to get just a little more"  ergo i3 to i5 it is valide i5 to i7 it isn't (paying 50% more for 20% more isn't profitable unless ofc you do a lot of work that require HT )

it is highly debatable ofc ...  money and need are the rules it's sad in some way ... but every ones choices are good if they fit their needs and budget.

we should say 2cores vs 4cores for gaming more than is a i5 required for gaming


----------



## johnspack (Jan 26, 2014)

I guess if you have 680s or 780s for video cards,  an i5 might do it.  I still remind you that  games use so many threads,  but the os can use the left over threads.  BF4 can use 6 threads,  and on an i7 2 threads can be left just for the os.  It will improve overall performance.  We had this argument over 2 core vs 4 core years ago,  and even 1 core vs 2 before that.  You know eventually all games will be able to take advantage of multiple threads,  so why not just future proof yourself now?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 26, 2014)

i never seen more than 4 core used and none of the 4 thread from hyperthreading used while playing BF4 on my E3 

ofc ... future proofing would be 8 real core and not 4 and 4 virtual or 2x4cmt or 4x2cmt hum intel hexacore are the only future proof piece of hardware accessible to non profesionnal ... but at which cost ... 

atm im playing crysis 3 on med/high (oh wait custom i mean) and i have Chrome opened with 7 tab + a movie on the 2nd screen, no sound ... since i have VLC with my favorit playlist running im a bit tight with only 4gb DDR2 and a Phenom X4 9600B i reckon but i still get between 54 and 60fps (Vsync on obviously) as i write that i am realizing that on this 280chf rigs the most expensive part is the 170chf MSI R9 270 arf


----------



## johnspack (Jan 26, 2014)

Wow...  I really wish there was a demo of bf4...  I could take a screenshot showing all 8 threads going....   arg....


----------



## ViperXTR (Jan 26, 2014)

personal experience,former owner of a core i3 2100 3.1Ghz and current core i5 3570K @4ghz.
GPU is GTX 660 OC

Like others say, it depends on the game. Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 fpr example loves both CPU and GPU power, when im still on my i3, gpu usage is barely going in the 90;s and framerate will dip on heavy firefights, it was not an issue with the 3570K. More GPU sensitive games hardly gave any performance benefit as the GPU is already working at max.

Regarding HT, i tested some games with and without it and HT really does help, even in console emulators (Dolphin and PCSX2). GTA4 loves lot of threads and disabling HT only caused hiccups and slowdowns specially on more populated areas.


----------



## entropy13 (Jan 26, 2014)

i7 are requirements. That's why I have an i7 paired with my GT 630!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lolololololol


----------



## johnspack (Jan 26, 2014)

Found somewhere on the net...  game at idle....


----------



## Vario (Jan 26, 2014)

4.0ghz Phenom II to an i5 at 4.0ghz made a big difference for me, about 15fps on cpu bound games.  Other games didn't really improve much.  Browsing feels a lot snappier but the phenom was no slouch.

My current i7 (4.5 daily speed)  is purely vanity, I love the processing power at my finger tips LOL.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 26, 2014)

Phenom II X4 955 to i7-920 to i5-2400 to E3-1275V2 (with some PHII X4 810, X2 255, C2D 7250  inbetween... even a C60 and a Athlon Neo X2 L326) and now on a Phenom X4 9600B yes as long as my fps doesn't drop under 30 i consider it smooth (not snappy ofc) i had mostly quadcore and only 2 with HT

i played BF4 on my 920 and the Xeon with the widget for core usage i noticed 8 thread  working but it was because i was running Boinc with a 4thread limitation, with boinc off never seen more than 4 (fully used i mean ... not 8time 15-35%) well technically it use 8 thread on that pics ... ok.



Vario said:


> My current i7 (4.5 daily speed)  is purely vanity, I love the processing power at my finger tips LOL.


well ... it does feel good ... but not on a empty wallet  and selling the Xeon + DQ77MK to take the A88X+760K made me a good marging ... over the price i paid for it initialy i mean ... thanks god intel setup can be brought at a right price in 2nd hand and sold as if new, aka : overpriced ... no worries i did sell it but with a start price of 1chf ... it was the bidders who did all the job by going ballistics over the brand.

i was happy with my 770, the Z77 and Q77 mobo i had, my Xeon E3 and my Desert Fox (the PSU not the animal  ) but i will not be less happy with a R9 270 a A88X mobo. X4 760K and a Smart ES (the psu not the  inteligent Engineering Sample... wait ... what? ) buying pricier doesn't make you look like you have big balls (wait where did i read that nonsense?) if you can have a rig that perform well and paying less why not ... but it does feel good to have something who is totally over the top (even if it's not really usefull ... ) i mean 9-18fps drop or gain ... for me it doesn't count in the equation, it is my personal opinion but what i hate the most  is when people try to convince other that going for a budget rig (and specialy AMD) is for retarded people .... (im not targeting anyone ... forgot to specify  )

so final answer from me : no a i5 isn't required for a gaming pc. (but it help, if you can afford it.)

let say im fed of the "buying Nvidia and intel is l33t buying AMD and AMD is l4m3"


----------



## johnspack (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm just praying for the day someone offers me an sb-e system for a good price.   I so need to upgrade.....


----------



## agent00skid (Jan 26, 2014)

I find all graphic settings over lowest(Perhaps except resolution) to be optional extras, and can play perfectly well at 20 FPS.

So whatever you feel you need.


----------



## Nordic (Jan 26, 2014)

johnspack said:


> I'm just praying for the day someone offers me an sb-e system for a good price.   I so need to upgrade.....


They are starting to come down. I have seen just the 6 core cpu's going for $450 lately.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 26, 2014)

Is an i3 acceptable; yes and no.  The question is at best nebulous, but more accurately poorly framed.

Do you want to run a 1920x1080, 1280x720, or a 3840x2160 monitor?  The Raspberry PI can technically produce consistent frame rates at 1080p, albeit for movies.  As 1080p monitors become almost ubiquitous, at what point does that become the default assumed resolution? 

Additionally, who would spend 4 times as much on the GPU as the CPU?  It's like taking a human, scooping out half their brain, and replacing the extra space with a set of gills.  Assuming you live near the water, you'd be good at surviving there.  Once you leave that specific area a bigger brain would benefit you greatly.  Gaming is one specific use, in its current form.  As that form changes (increased use of more cores, changes in system usage, etc...) the very specific evolution of a GPU centric system may not be viable for long.

So, why is an i3 viable?  Crappy software.  I've seen more modern games use less than two threads, than I've seen CPU utilizing beasts.  As a thought experiment, lets play Fallout 3 with a stock i5 2500k versus an i3 2120.  Both share the same frequencies, but the i3 is only a dual core.  There is zero difference in the game (in my experience at least), as trying to run Fallout 3 on more than one thread results in concentrated failure.  Yes, Fallout 3 is old.  My point still stands because Gamebryo still stands.  Companies are working with tech that has only recently began to recognize multiple cores.  Almost none of it is truly well threaded, and that which is can still generally run on hyper threaded cores.  There is no reason that 90% of games shouldn't run as well on an i3 as an i5, assuming all other factors are equal.


The real answer I'd like to give here is that Intel is not targeting the i3 to gamers.  They've locked the multiplier, so the more expensive i5 is the choice for gaming.  This is a reason to choose AMD over Intel for budget rigs.  An i3-3225 and A10-6800k have the same price right now.  The A10 is a bit of a pig, but it will overclock and it provides more physical cores.  As AMD travels toward the same production tech as Intel, I see no reason why the i3 should be chosen over what AMD has to offer.  If you want a gaming rig, a little bit of power waste is an acceptable premium for significantly more cores at a much higher clock speed.  If you just can't purchase an AMD product, then the i3 can function in a gaming rig with some huge caveats attached.




james888 said:


> They are starting to come down. I have seen just the 6 core cpu's going for $450 lately.



Where?  Please enlighten us!


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 26, 2014)

I'd say that any modern CPU capable of running 4 threads is a good foundation for a gaming rig @ 1080p. Will it run every game on high? probably not but I'd say there's only a handful of games that actually require more than 4 threads to get a playable experience.


----------



## Bugler (Jan 26, 2014)

I saw the difference with my i3 and my i5. With my i3 playing games it freezes because my system is doing some housekeeping and I had to wait for it to finish so I can play on. This is the reason I got an i5, no more interruptions.


----------



## Nordic (Jan 26, 2014)

> Where? Please enlighten us!


I saw two here for this price a few weeks ago. Checked ebay and some of the ending bids are that low. I am watching waiting and bidding my time to get one myself.


----------



## xenocide (Jan 26, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The real answer I'd like to give here is that Intel is not targeting the i3 to gamers.  They've locked the multiplier, so the more expensive i5 is the choice for gaming.  This is a reason to choose AMD over Intel for budget rigs.  An i3-3225 and A10-6800k have the same price right now.  The A10 is a bit of a pig, but it will overclock and it provides more physical cores.  As AMD travels toward the same production tech as Intel, I see no reason why the i3 should be chosen over what AMD has to offer.  If you want a gaming rig, a little bit of power waste is an acceptable premium for significantly more cores at a much higher clock speed.  If you just can't purchase an AMD product, then the i3 can function in a gaming rig with some huge caveats attached.


 
People use the i3 over that A10 because if you're building a gaming rig the i3 is better--assuming a dedicated GPU at all.  The i3 in low thread counts rolls with the best of them, and even with ~4 threads it generally outperforms AMD parts with 4 physical cores because the per core performance is so much higher.  Let's look at the Bit-Tech review for the i3-4340.  Compared to the A10-6800K we're seeing the i3 gaining anywhere from 1-2 fps at 1920x1080 to as much as 28 fps--which matching GPU's.  That a sizeable difference.  Yes, the i3 is not ideal, but it's hardly the _worst_ solution...

Also, I don't think AMD--or rather Global Foundries--will ever catch up to Intel when it comes to production tech.


----------



## leeb2013 (Jan 26, 2014)

Batou1986 said:


> It depends on the game really
> http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html


LOL, so much for BF4 being optimized for AMD 8-cores. A 3.3GHz dual core I3 offers virtually the same performance as a 4GHz 8-core 8350!!


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 26, 2014)

leeb2013 said:


> LOL, so much for BF4 being optimized for AMD 8-cores. A 3.3GHz dual core I3 offers virtually the same performance as a 4GHz 8-core 8350!!



Battlefield 4 is limited to 100fps. You could put an 8 core 5Ghz Hasswell-E in that graph and it would get the same fps. The benchmark used a 290X @ 1080p, setting a higher resolution (2440p for example) or using a 7870/270X would have shown more difference between each processor.

As you can see, with enough graphic power, even a lowly Athlon II X4 640 manages to get >60fps @ 1080p. 4 threads are enough for gaming at the moment, that will surely change but not for a few years.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 26, 2014)

leeb2013 said:


> LOL, so much for BF4 being optimized for AMD 8-cores. A 3.3GHz dual core I3 offers virtually the same performance as a 4GHz 8-core 8350!!



unfortunately for AMD, Intels Ivy Bridge architecture is pretty efficient. I dont think we even need to guess how well a Haswell 4130 performs compared to the rest but it is what it is.


----------



## DEFEATEST (Jan 26, 2014)

In the end its all about $$ so just make sure you do your homework and spend about a hundred-ish bucks on a cpu with a decent gpu and thats a decent gaming rig for sure. Especially if its around or below 1080p.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 26, 2014)

DEFEATEST said:


> In the end its all about $$ so just make sure you do your homework and spend about a hundred-ish bucks on a cpu with a decent gpu and thats a decent gaming rig for sure. Especially if its around or below 1080p.



that doesnt exactly answer the question though.


----------



## xenocide (Jan 27, 2014)

leeb2013 said:


> LOL, so much for BF4 being optimized for AMD 8-cores. A 3.3GHz dual core I3 offers virtually the same performance as a 4GHz 8-core 8350!!


 
That's at max settings at 1920x1200 in the Single Player.  A majority of the workload is on the GPU at that point.  BF has been optimized for up to 8 threads since BF3, and I believe someone pointed out the FPS is capped at 100, so the difference isn't very noticable.


----------



## Raw (Jan 27, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> i7 2600k minimum requirement for everything IMHO.


 LOL........ wrong again

OOPS...OK....... I didn't see the IMO, sorry pal.
I miss messing with ya so I couldn't resist trying (fail)


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jan 27, 2014)

ShiBDiB said:


> I think *everyone is missing the fact* that it is entirely game dependant.


Maybe you should actually read the posts before saying something like that.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 27, 2014)

Raw said:


> LOL........ wrong again
> 
> OOPS...OK....... I didn't see the IMO, sorry pal.
> I miss messing with ya so I couldn't resist trying (fail)


Its ok. Most people who attempt to mess with me fail. Very few things I cannot troll myself out of.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jan 27, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Modern i3 procs are very powerful. Coupled with something like a 770GTX, will today's PC games play just fine?



Yes. A 4340 with a mid-range GPU will run most games at 1920x1080 even with some eyecandy. Now since this is an enthusiast site most will say it requires much more power then this. http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7310620 a score of 8k is equal to a i7 2600k and a GTX580...so something like a 770GTX and a brand new i3 4340 will run almost any modern game at 1920x1080 and even allow for AA/AF and medium detail in the 45-60fps area.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 27, 2014)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Yes. A 4340 with a mid-range GPU will run most games at 1920x1080 even with some eyecandy. Now since this is an enthusiast site most will say it requires much more power then this. http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7310620 a score of 8k is equal to a i7 2600k and a GTX580...so something like a 770GTX and a brand new i3 4340 will run almost any modern game at 1920x1080 and even allow for AA/AF and medium detail in the 45-60fps area.


Garbage. Play maxed out with ma ballz out or I go home. If I wanted medium settings I would buy a console and play drunk through a magnifying glass.

2600K is minimum requirement for everything known to man. See my specs? THATS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS BABY!


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jan 27, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Garbage. Play maxed out with ma ballz out or I go home.



And this is why no one invites you over anymore. Always running around with your ballz out.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 27, 2014)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> And this is why no one invites you over anymore. Always running around with your ballz out.


 Damn......my friends said NOTHING.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jan 27, 2014)

lmao


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 27, 2014)

xenocide said:


> People use the i3 over that A10 because if you're building a gaming rig the i3 is better--assuming a dedicated GPU at all.  The i3 in low thread counts rolls with the best of them, and even with ~4 threads it generally outperforms AMD parts with 4 physical cores because the per core performance is so much higher.  Let's look at the Bit-Tech review for the i3-4340.  Compared to the A10-6800K we're seeing the i3 gaining anywhere from 1-2 fps at 1920x1080 to as much as 28 fps--which matching GPU's.  That a sizeable difference.  Yes, the i3 is not ideal, but it's hardly the _worst_ solution...
> 
> Also, I don't think AMD--or rather Global Foundries--will ever catch up to Intel when it comes to production tech.



You did note that I was comparing the 3xxx series to the A10 6800k, right?  I have little experience with the 4xxx series, and comparing them to AMDs significantly older offerings seems a might bit unfair.  If you're comparing the 4xxx series i3 with the 6800k then the comparison should heavily favor the Haswell based processor.


My other comments still stand though.  The integration of the voltage controls, standardized frequencies, and other factors are a dead give-away that Intel is not focusing on the gamer segment with the i3.  Intel is running initial trials with combining low end computing and portable device power draws.  AMD doesn't even begin to compromise power for a lower TDP.  Gaming is all about increasing the CPU potential, which is clearly where AMD is focusing.  They aren't as advanced as the Intel offerings, but the APUs are nothing to scoff at assuming you've got a tight budget.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 27, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You did note that I was comparing the 3xxx series to the A10 6800k, right?  I have little experience with the 4xxx series, and comparing them to AMDs significantly older offerings seems a might bit unfair.  If you're comparing the 4xxx series i3 with the 6800k then the comparison should heavily favor the Haswell based processor.
> 
> 
> My other comments still stand though.  The integration of the voltage controls, standardized frequencies, and other factors are a dead give-away that Intel is not focusing on the gamer segment with the i3.  Intel is running initial trials with combining low end computing and portable device power draws.  AMD doesn't even begin to compromise power for a lower TDP.  Gaming is all about increasing the CPU potential, which is clearly where AMD is focusing.  They aren't as advanced as the Intel offerings, but the APUs are nothing to scoff at assuming you've got a tight budget.


If you are all about medium settings and low resolution.


----------



## xenocide (Jan 28, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You did note that I was comparing the 3xxx series to the A10 6800k, right?  I have little experience with the 4xxx series, and comparing them to AMDs significantly older offerings seems a might bit unfair.  If you're comparing the 4xxx series i3 with the 6800k then the comparison should heavily favor the Haswell based processor.
> 
> 
> My other comments still stand though.  The integration of the voltage controls, standardized frequencies, and other factors are a dead give-away that Intel is not focusing on the gamer segment with the i3.  Intel is running initial trials with combining low end computing and portable device power draws.  AMD doesn't even begin to compromise power for a lower TDP.  Gaming is all about increasing the CPU potential, which is clearly where AMD is focusing.  They aren't as advanced as the Intel offerings, but the APUs are nothing to scoff at assuming you've got a tight budget.


 
In most gaming scenarios the difference between an i3-3xxx and i3-4xxx is pretty minimal.  We can look up benchmarks of the i3-3xxx CPU's and see they always perform at least as well as that A10-6800K when factoring in a dedicated GPU--Tom's has the hookup.  The fact is, i3's are better for gaming, despite not being focused on gaming because their per thread performance is so much better than AMD's APU's.  The only time an APU is a better deal is if you're using the iGPU.  TechReport backs this up.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 28, 2014)

xenocide said:


> In most gaming scenarios the difference between an i3-3xxx and i3-4xxx is pretty minimal.  We can look up benchmarks of the i3-3xxx CPU's and see they always perform at least as well as that A10-6800K when factoring in a dedicated GPU--Tom's has the hookup.  The fact is, i3's are better for gaming, despite not being focused on gaming because their per thread performance is so much better than AMD's APU's.  The only time an APU is a better deal is if you're using the iGPU.  TechReport backs this up.



...and the opposite case can be made.  The AMD offerings are fully unlocked, and can be pushed significantly more.  You cite two sources, but CPU Boss comes to the opposite conclusion here: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-3225-vs-AMD-A10-6800K.  My point is simple, the AMD offerings are superior for gaming because they are unlocked and focus on higher clocks.  Yes, Intel is more power efficient.  Yes, Intel has better IPC.  Yes, Intel has significantly better fabrication processes.  All of these reasons are why Intel can charge a premium for the i5 and i7 processors.  I buy them whenever I get the option, because the high end AMD offerings aren't up to par.  

None of Intel's benefits are currently competing well against AMD in the low end market.  Lesser IPC, boost the frequency.  Poorer lifetime, the socket lasts longer than 36 months.  Stock settings not competing with Intel, then use that unlocked clock.  I've seen plenty of stock comparisons where AMD has its silicon handed to it.  I've also seen overclocks that make up for every shortcoming and then some.  If Intel allowed an unlocked clock, then the i3 would be a contender.  As they aren't unlocked, there isn't any reason that I can see to justify them in a cheap gaming rig.  Gaming rigs are meant to push boundaries, not run at stock settings.  If you're looking for a stock gaming rig, then please run an i3.  

I can't, in good faith, recommend an i3 for a gaming rig, it's that simple.  If I were building my own, I'd get the 6800k.  If I were less pressed for a budget, there'd be a Haswell based CPU in my system.  There's no reason to be a fan of one company over another, and that is the only reason I'd see in favoring a stock i3 (because they aren't unlocked) to an AMD processor that can be overclocked.


----------



## trickson (Jan 28, 2014)

My system still plays games great! And mine is a Q9650. LOL.
I still have yet to get a new computer.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 28, 2014)

Dunno why you guys are arguing. I already settled this. i7 2600k is the minimum for gaming. Period.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jan 28, 2014)

trickson said:


> My system still plays games great! And mine is a Q9650. LOL.
> I still have yet to get a new computer.



Yes, it does seem here if you do not have the latest greatest then your system is garbage. Most games haven't advanced enough yet to meet the hardware, so other than higher frame rates older architecture is still performing just fine just with a little less eye candy. A Q9650 oc'd to 4ghz is still a great chip and will still run games great if it has a decent GPU, which a 5870 is still a pretty good card.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jan 28, 2014)

Hey if we are saying that there is no point updating hardware to play modern games, lets all just play on an APU at 720p, It's simple, if you are a true gamer you buy the best you can afford and be happy with it. I used to play crysis on a 6000 windsor with HD 4850 and I was happy with it. Current system blows it away but was it "required"?


----------



## trickson (Jan 28, 2014)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Yes, it does seem here if you do not have the latest greatest then your system is garbage. Most games haven't advanced enough yet to meet the hardware, so other than higher frame rates older architecture is still performing just fine just with a little less eye candy. A Q9650 oc'd to 4ghz is still a great chip and will still run games great if it has a decent GPU, which a 5870 is still a pretty good card.


Thanks. I have to agree with you. I started to notice this after spending thousands each year for the best only to find games were not even maturing due to the console industry. And then there is the fact that after you buy the latest new thing 2 months later you find that it is worth frack all and you are stuck with a paper weight in a few month! So yeah computers are for the RICH and well to do.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 28, 2014)

...PACMAN... said:


> Hey if we are saying that there is no point updating hardware to play modern games, lets all just play on an APU at 720p, It's simple, if you are a true gamer you buy the best you can afford and be happy with it. I used to play crysis on a 6000 windsor with HD 4850 and I was happy with it. Current system blows it away but was it "required"?


true that ... and for me the best i could afford does 12pts more in a gpu bound bench with exactly the same  gpu i used with my Xeon ... 

 
the Xeon setup was doing 1621... so my X4 760K do ... oh wait nevermind it's not a i7-2700K


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 28, 2014)

Benches are useless.


----------



## trickson (Jan 28, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Benches are useless.


Now days they are for sure. But there was a time when they were so hot we had threads with thousands of screen shoots and huge Epeens all erect! It was a great time.
Now Benchmarks are just BS and mean little really. The next new CPU/GPU/Mother Board/Video Card, Ram is just a day away folks....


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 28, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Benches are useless.



Especially a benchmark that barely tickles the cpu when it runs.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 28, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Especially a benchmark that barely tickles the cpu when it runs.


indeed it is why i said gpu bound bench so 12pts is within the normal run variance parameter, still even if its not a I7-3770K or a 2700K it is enough.


----------



## trickson (Jan 28, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Especially a benchmark that barely tickles the cpu when it runs.


Much like games benchmarks do not mature very fast. so they become useless very fast.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 28, 2014)

trickson said:


> Much like games benchmarks do not mature very fast. so they become useless very fast.


which is not the case with unigine's benchies 

actually not so much games take the cpu in equation (except RTS etc) so in the end technically, is a i5 the minimum for a gamer pc? answer : no (nor is a i7) 

so much different opinion so much different budget/cause that can justify a choice: only a fool think his opinion is supreme and above all.


----------



## trickson (Jan 28, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> which is not the case with unigine's benchies


Never like it.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 28, 2014)

oh in heaven it does also 12pts more than the Xeon setup ... once is a coincidence twice ... is ... alright alright i get it ...


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jan 28, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> true that ... and for me the best i could afford does 12pts more in a gpu bound bench with exactly the same  gpu i used with my Xeon ...
> View attachment 54365
> the Xeon setup was doing 1621... so my X4 760K do ... oh wait nevermind it's not a i7-2700K



You are showing a GPU bound test with a result that falls within error and margin......NULL and void

Try playing WoW in a heavily populated area with the same CPU on max details and I'll show you my results in the same area


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 28, 2014)

FFXIVARR count? i a merchant alley fairly populated settings all to the max 40ish fps the Xeon was doing, indeed, a bit better as far as i recall

Firefall Copacabana nanoprinter : 760K 45fps indeed the Xeon was going stable 60fps
WoW i don't play it anymore 

and i know perfectly it is GPU bound  tho with the SAME gpu in a GPU bound test (indeed i know that) and in both bench the 760K do 12pts, higher min/max/avg fps
strictly im not caring that much, due to bill and budget cut i had to downgrade but i don't feel it: for me it's a winner on every side 

and judging by your syspecs i think i like it  same graphic card, wait ... brand and serie  hum G.Skill 2133 ? what model? and no need for ODD just the H/ass/well is a bit off ... (don't hit me i am joking   )


----------



## Frick (Jan 28, 2014)

trickson said:


> Now days they are for sure. But there was a time when they were so hot we had threads with thousands of screen shoots and huge Epeens all erect! It was a great time.
> Now Benchmarks are just BS and mean little really. The next new CPU/GPU/Mother Board/Video Card, Ram is just a day away folks....



All of that is still very popular, not just to you. And benchmark have always been sort of pointless.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2014)

depends on what resoulution and detail level you want to push, Gamers today get AMD FX 4350,6300/6350/8320/8350/9370/9590/A10 5800/A10 6800 or Sandybridge 2600,2700, or Ivybridge.

It depends on what your budget is, Im putting together an AMD rig (havent built a machine in 10+ Years)


----------



## True Christian (Jan 28, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 2600K is needed as a bare minimum if you want 60 FPS on all AAA games combined with a decent GPU. Anything below is trash for gaming.



Come on! You're telling me my 4-core i5 2500K at 4.5Ghz isn't good enough for gaming? I agree. An i5  at stock is the minimum you want to run fps. I run my i5 at 4.5Ghz and this really helps fps.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2014)

True Christian said:


> Come on! You're telling me my 4-core i5 2500K at 4.5Ghz isn't good enough for gaming? I agree. An i5  at stock is the minimum you want to run fps. I run my i5 at 4.5Ghz and this really helps fps.


not much difference between 2500/2600


----------



## Nordic (Jan 28, 2014)

I applaud you mailman. So many took the bait.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 28, 2014)

james888 said:


> I applaud you mailman. So many took the bait.


I have to once in a while to make sure I still got it ya know?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 28, 2014)

james888 said:


> I applaud you mailman. So many took the bait.


damn ... and they said nothing ... oh wait the answer where still in the optic of the thread so no bait laid in the end  or... nah who care


----------



## webguy09 (Jan 29, 2014)

Depending on what game you're playing, the processor may not matter at all.

However, your PC is only as slow as your slowest component.

I never get anything less than a quad core i7 in my PCs, but that's just me.


----------



## Frick (Jan 29, 2014)

james888 said:


> I applaud you mailman. So many took the bait.



If we would not reply to troll bait the forums would soon be empty.


----------



## trickson (Jan 29, 2014)

webguy09 said:


> Depending on what game you're playing, the processor may not matter at all.
> 
> However, your PC is only as slow as your slowest component.
> 
> I never get anything less than a quad core i7 in my PCs, but that's just me.


So basically nothing but the best. Yep and when you have it is easy to do.


----------



## trickson (Jan 29, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Modern i3 procs are very powerful. Coupled with something like a 770GTX, will today's PC games play just fine?


Yes for years to come.


----------



## leeb2013 (Jan 31, 2014)

I prefer 4 strong cores that 8 weak ones, because anything which isn't optimised for >4 cores is going to run faster. Only apps which will specifically use all 8 weak cores will match 4 strong cores.
Also I don't buy this "operating system will use 2 cores" etc. I've never seen windows 7 use more than a blip of the I5. Does the O/s start needing 2 cores for itself when running games? If the game is using all 4 cores, can the o/s do nothing? I don't think so. The cores can be both running the game and doing background stuff. They don't need to be reserved for the o/s.

Maybe the PS4 needs to reserve cores for the o/s because they are so weak and low clocked, but not a decent Intel CPU.


----------



## ste2425 (Jan 31, 2014)

just by a D-Wave


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 31, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Modern i3 procs are very powerful. Coupled with something like a 770GTX, will today's PC games play just fine?



Agree with this i do. 

APUs might have an unlocked multi which means they can be overclocked but the architecture is still not efficient as intels. If i was on a budget id definitely go for an i3 over an APU depending on the circumstances


----------

