# CPU for 144hz Overwatch



## Papahyooie (Jun 20, 2018)

I want to get some opinions...

I play Overwatch pretty religiously. I've got a i5 4690 (non-k) and a gtx980Ti. My monitor is 144hz. At full quality in overwatch, I can get around 120 fps solid. Bump the settings down a bit, and I get a decently solid 144 fps, but get occasional dips down to 120. Bumping down settings any further provides no more benefit, and my CPU is normally pegged out during a match. So I'm thinking I'm bottlenecked a bit by the CPU at such high frames. It seems if I could overclock, I could make up the difference and get that last few %, but alas, it's a non-k. I've already tried bumping up the base clock, and it just isn't going to happen.

Now I've read all the benchmarks and all that, but I want some totally subjective, anecdotal evidence from people who actually play the game at 144hz. Everything I read is that there isn't really any reason to upgrade to a newer CPU because of the small amount of improvement, and that earlier generation intel processors are still "fine" for gaming. Obviously, I'm not looking for "fine." But at the same time, I don't want to spend money to upgrade my platform just to be in the same boat as before, which seems to be the consensus around the web.

What do you guys think? Should I max out my platform with the best i7 that will work? Or would that be a waste of money? Would an upgrade to mid-range modern intel get me to a solid 144hz? What about Ryzen? In your experience, does ram speed matter? (if it does, obviously I'd want to upgrade to a DDR4 platform.)

This is why I want anecdotes instead of benchmarks... tell me your rig, and if it satisfies your need for a solid 144hz.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2018)

If you have a Z board, get a K chip and roll with it.

Ryzen is great, but for 144hz single threaded performance is king and thats where an OC'd intel shines the most.

You dont mention your monitor resolution, but a 980 probably cant cut 1440p 144hz without turning settings down


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 20, 2018)

Mussels said:


> If you have a Z board, get a K chip and roll with it.
> 
> Ryzen is great, but for 144hz single threaded performance is king and thats where and OC'd intel shines the most.
> 
> You dont mention your monitor resolution, but a 980 probably cant cut 1440p 144hz without turning settings down



Not a Z board, unfortunately. No point in buying a new board without upgrading generation anyway, so that's a bust. Why does it need to be a Z board? My board has the options to overclock the multiplier IF my chip supported it. Can I not get a K chip and use my current board? (ASRock h81m-vg4 r2.0) I've been out of the overclocking game since the C2D days... simply haven't cared enough. 

Monitor is 1080p, and I don't have any reason to upgrade at the moment. I'll have upgraded my graphics card by the time I'm worried about upgrading my monitor.

(also, if the detail matters, I have an overclocked 980Ti, not a vanilla 980.) That also being said, in this case, image quality is far less important to me than the frame rate. I'll turn settings down as far as I have to. The problem at the moment is that turning down settings doesn't help.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2018)

most H/B series boards with multi control only offer very limited overclocking even on K series, some will let you 'choose' a multi but only as high as the stock one, or the turbo one.

a quick google shows that overclocking on that board (the threads are specific to the unlocked pentium chip) are conflicting and show that certain BIOS versions prevent and block overclocking in certain OS's - so in theory it should work, but theres no guarantees of it overclocking high. If it works as planned then 4GHz or so should be rather easy to achieve.


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2018)

You're not going to like this: to _*properly*_ improve your framerate, you need to upgrade your CPU and especially your graphics card to at least a GTX 1080 and run it no higher than 1080p. Overclocking the CPU will help noticeably, too.

I see that you're like me and want the fastest, smoothest framerates possible at a vsync-locked 144Hz with no dropped frames and this is the only way to do it. If not, you have to resort to dropping the resolution and/or detail. If the CPU is the bottleneck at a particular point, then even this may not be enough to avoid the framerate drop.

Say you just did the graphics card, then a lot of the time, the system will run at above 144fps which you can vsync lock to 144Hz, but you'll still get those lower dips when the CPU is the bottleneck.

Get the 8700K if you must have it now and forget about AMD - you'll get lower framerates with even the fastest AMD CPU, but probably not by all that much. The next gen AMD CPUs might correct this and will be released soon, so I'd wait. Intel is clearly running scared of them now, so that means something.

In the end, it's often not possible to completely avoid framerate dips in modern games, but they can be greatly minimised to the point where they don't matter so much.


----------



## Gungar (Jun 20, 2018)

That motherboard would blow up in half a sec with OC xD

Change graphic card ? wtf he has a 980ti lol.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2018)

Gungar said:


> That motherboard would blow up in half a sec with OC xD
> 
> Change graphic card ? wtf he has a 980ti lol.



I have a 980, and it cant handle 1440p 144hz in the games i play without turning things right down. Without specifying in the OP the res he could have been running 4k 144hz for all we knew (he did post 1080p, which means he should be alright on that front)

That mobo wont handle high voltage OC, but he could still achieve 4GHz or so at stock voltage, or barely above it.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 20, 2018)

Mussels said:


> most H/B series boards with multi control only offer very limited overclocking even on K series, some will let you 'choose' a multi but only as high as the stock one, or the turbo one.
> 
> a quick google shows that overclocking on that board (the threads are specific to the unlocked pentium chip) are conflicting and show that certain BIOS versions prevent and block overclocking in certain OS's - so in theory it should work, but theres no guarantees of it overclocking high. If it works as planned then 4GHz or so should be rather easy to achieve.



I see. Well, I'm not going to spend money on an outdated K chip on the off-chance that I might be able to overclock it, when the other possibility is that I've completely wasted money on it lol. And as I said, I'm also not spending money on an outdated motherboard AND K chip, unless I just happen to find both for a stupid good deal. So I guess maxing out my platform here is a no-go. Thanks for the info! 



qubit said:


> You're not going to like this: to _*properly*_ improve your framerate, you need to upgrade your CPU and especially your graphics card to at least a GTX 1080. Overclocking the CPU will help noticeably, too.
> I see that you're like me and want the fastest, smoothest framerates possible at a vsync-locked 144Hz with no dropped frames and this is the only way to do it. If not, you have to resort to dropping the resolution and/or detail. If the CPU is the bottleneck at a particular point, then even this may not be enough to avoid the framerate drop.
> Say you just did the graphics card, then a lot of the time, the system will run at above 144fps which you can vsync lock to 144Hz, but you'll still get those lower dips.
> Get the 8700K if you must have it now and forget about AMD - you'll get lower framerates with even the fastest AMD CPU, but probably not by all that much. The next gen AMD CPUs might correct this and will be released soon, so I'd wait. Intel is clearly running scared of them now, so that means something.
> In the end, it's often not possible to completely avoid framerate dips in modern games, but they can be greatly minimised to the point where they don't matter so much.



I'm 100% sure that my graphics card is up to the task... it sits at like 50-60% usage constantly. As I said, I've already dropped detail to the point it no longer helps.


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> I'm 100% sure that my graphics card is up to the task... it sits at like 50-60% usage constantly. As I said, I've already dropped detail to the point it no longer helps.


Then your CPU is bottlenecking for sure. If you don't mind playing at low detail, then perhaps you can get away with just upgrading the CPU. What resolution do you run at, by the way?

Note that you might have to be prepared to replace your mobo and RAM. Your PSU is 800W? That would be enough, but it's not very clear. Also, what brand is it? Should be a quality one.


----------



## therealmeep (Jun 20, 2018)

With a 4690 I'd say that you might be able to upgrade to probably a 4790k or non k if you can find one for a good price. I have a friend who was an idiot and bought an h97 board with a 4790k and it works fine.
Sidenote: locked processors do have some extra multipliers in them from my experience (2400 & 3770) and you can "unlock" this sometimes either in your mobo or using a tool like Intel's XTU utility. Personally done this with both the 2400/3770 on a p8p67 board, as well with the 3770 on a z77 board. Also, you can base clock overclock like this (again my p8p67 lets me do this) for some small gains.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 20, 2018)

His 980Ti is capable of 1080p Ultra @144 fps locked (if overclocked)







but his cpu is holding him back as you need at least a 6700K if you want locked 144 fps






He can get a 4790K and he'd hit that 144 fps, but I would strongly advise against that CPU on his crap mobo.

He should get himself a b360 + i5 8400 + ddr4 2666. Getting a faster GPU will get him nowhere as he's cpu limited










He can try with a 4770/4790 but for God's sake have a 120mm blowing on those vrms 24/7


----------



## FireFox (Jun 20, 2018)

therealmeep said:


> 2400/3770 on a p8p67



The 2600 too, i had the p8p67 + 2600 at 4.5GHz


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 20, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> His 980Ti is capable of 1080p Ultra @144 fps locked (if overclocked)
> 
> but his cpu is holding him back as you need at least a 6700K if you want locked 144 fps
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info. That shows a 4770k would suffice, even at stock... do you really think that a stock running 4770k would be a problem on my motherboard? I mean yea it's pretty low end, but why would it have a problem running it stock?



Knoxx29 said:


> The 2600 too, i had the p8p67 + 2600 at 4.5GHz



Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to the 4690. They got rid of that before then.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 20, 2018)

Realistically upgrading your current setup for Overwatch will not provide a meaningful boost. GPU wise, certainly not, this game runs on a toaster. But when it gets really crowded yes you can get a slight drop to 100. I even see it here on my rig and I also play it frequently.

Tip: use Fast Sync and set a cap at 160 fps, drop IQ settings one notch below Epic

This bench confirms that's the way to go 

Beyond 100 FPS you cannot just say 'muh, CPU bottleneck, need more Ghz'. There are other factors in play like netcode (you have FPS higher than the server tickrate or close to it) and the game engine.

Even with this knowledge, does my rig satisfy the high refresh rate, zero tear experience? Absolutely. No complaints. Its smooth & responsive as can be. Tiny difference is my panel is 120hz.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 20, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Realistically upgrading your current setup for Overwatch will not provide a meaningful boost. GPU wise, certainly not, this game runs on a toaster. But when it gets really crowded yes you can get a slight drop to 100. I even see it here on my rig and I also play it frequently.
> 
> Tip: use Fast Sync and set a cap at 160 fps, drop IQ settings one notch below Epic
> 
> ...



Thanks for the input. 

The only problem I see with that benchmark is that it doesn't cite what CPU is there. I can tell you for 100% certain that if I set my graphics to low, that I will not get anywhere near those numbers. 

I would assume that whatever CPU was being used for those bench runs was significantly newer or faster than mine. Hence... why I say I have a bottleneck.


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> Thanks for the input.
> 
> The only problem I see with that benchmark is that it doesn't cite what CPU is there. I can tell you for 100% certain that if I set my graphics to low, that I will not get anywhere near those numbers.
> 
> I would assume that whatever CPU was being used for those bench runs was significantly newer or faster than mine. Hence... why I say I have a bottleneck.


Those benchies above are handy for giving an idea of how the game will run, but it doesn't change a thing when you want to avoid frame drops as much as possible. Remember, it doesn't matter if the game gets 1000fps most of the time, it's only the times it does less than your refresh rate that matters. That's not me saying it, the boss of NVIDIA said a version of this at one of his new card presentations a couple of years ago, so it carries weight. If you're happy to game at 120Hz or 100Hz vsync locked, then that will help significantly to avoid frame drops.

In the end, get the fastest CPU and GPU you can afford, end of story. If you can't afford to spend that much now and you're ok with low settings, then a faster CPU looks like the way to go and perhaps drop that refresh rate down a bit too.

@Vayra86 you mentioned the tickrate. Tell me, how does it look onscreen if the PC is rendering at the full 100Hz/144Hz etc vsync locked, but the tickrate is a lot lower, say 30fps? As someone who plays mostly single player, I honestly don't know. Do the characters move smoothly, do they judder, rubber band? I'd imagine shooting accuracy wouldn't be too good, at least.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 20, 2018)

qubit said:


> Those benchies above are handy for giving an idea of how the game will run, but it doesn't change a thing when you want to avoid frame drops as much as possible. Remember, it doesn't matter if the game gets 1000fps most of the time, it's only the times it does less than your refresh rate that matters. That's not me saying it, the boss of NVIDIA said a version of this at one of his new card presentations a couple of years ago, so it carries weight. If you're happy to game at 120Hz or 100Hz vsync locked, then that will help significantly to avoid frame drops.
> 
> In the end, get the fastest CPU and GPU you can afford, end of story. If you can't afford to spend that much now and you're ok with low settings, then a faster CPU looks like the way to go and perhaps drop that refresh rate down a bit too.
> 
> @Vayra86 you mentioned the tickrate. Tell me, how does it look onscreen if the PC is rendering at the full 100Hz/144Hz etc vsync locked, but the tickrate is a lot lower, say 30fps? As someone who plays mostly single player, I honestly don't know. Do the characters move smoothly, do they judder, rubber band? I'd imagine shooting accuracy wouldn't be too good, at least.



I appreciate the input... I really do. I'm sorry if it didn't come across well, but you're bringing up things that are way beneath the scope of this discussion. This is far from my first rodeo. I'm fully aware of the difference between average and minimum framerates, and the implications of both. I will never *ever* use vysnc in a first person shooter because of the input lag it introduces. Dropping the refresh rate would be completely counter to what I am trying to achieve here (the highest stable framerate possible, up to my monitor's maximum refresh rate of 144hz.)

I also understand that getting the fastest machine I can afford is the end of the story... that's really not the point though. The point is not to *waste* money. I could build a whole new machine today if I really wanted to. But when performance gains from CPU upgrades are so small these days, I want to make sure that I'm making a decision that makes sense. I don't want to spend a grand on a machine that's only 10% faster than mine, or even worse, doesn't produce a perfectly stable 144hz. By the same token, I don't want to spend a grand on a machine that will do 300fps when I only want 144hz and a $100 processor upgrade will get me that.

As for the tick rates, you won't see anything visually. If you're blessed with fast enough eyes, you might notice that your shots don't land exactly where you shot them. For overwatch, the 60 tick rate is perfectly fine, in my opinion.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 20, 2018)

I played quite a bit with 120hz ulmb v-sync enabled and it didn't feel laggy as 60hz would.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 20, 2018)

Just lower 

FOG
Dyn Refl
Shadows

Your FPS will maintain a steadier FPS easier. I had a RX 480 with a 750mhz profile running it at 100fps steady on High 1080p. Ultra didn't add much and who the hell looks at shadows unless you like looking at them when Hanzo or Genji climb up walls while Widow head-shots you.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 20, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> Just lower
> 
> FOG
> Dyn Refl
> ...



I have everything low or off except texture quality, model detail, effects detail, and AA. Which are all turned up until they start causing frames to drop (don't have the settings in front of me atm.) Lowering settings any lower will not provide higher frame rates. I have verified this 100%.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 20, 2018)

My settings in Overwatch

Graphic Quality: EPIC
Advanced
Render Scale: 100%
Texture Quality: High
Texture Filtering Quality: High - 4X
Local Fog Detail: Medium
Dynamic Reflections: Medium
Shadow Detail: Medium
Model Detail: High
Effects Detail: High
Lighting Quality: High
Antialias Quality: High - SMAA Medium
Refraction Quality: High
Screenshot Quality: 1x Resolution
Local Reflections: On
Ambient Occlusion: On

980 TI should definitely be faster if your running it at stock or OC it should do 120-144fps easy since I'm using the RX 480 with a half-speed profile @ 750mhz and still managing 100fps with those settings on a 3770K stock clock system. No dips during game play no matter the Map


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2018)

Xzibit said:


> My settings in Overwatch
> 
> Graphic Quality: EPIC
> Advanced
> ...



That's a fair point, but that's how bottlenecks work. You're managing 100fps on a 3770k with an RX 480. Im getting 120+ fps on a 4690 with a 980Ti. The 4690 isn't that much faster than a 3770k. So no matter much faster the 980Ti is, if the 4690 (and by proxy the 3770k) is not able to feed it past 120 fps, then it won't get higher. I could have a 1080Ti and not get any faster frame rate.


----------



## therealmeep (Jun 21, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> That's a fair point, but that's how bottlenecks work. You're managing 100fps on a 3770k with an RX 480. Im getting 120+ fps on a 4690 with a 980Ti. The 4690 isn't that much faster than a 3770k. So no matter much faster the 980Ti is, if the 4690 (and by proxy the 3770k) is not able to feed it past 120 fps, then it won't get higher. I could have a 1080Ti and not get any faster frame rate.


If i recall the short time i played overwatch with my 6800k and 980 my frames hovered somewhere in the 150 fps mark at 1080p. Not sure and dont take what i said as fact, however that's about where i think my system sat.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 21, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> That's a fair point, but that's how bottlenecks work. You're managing 100fps on a 3770k with an RX 480. Im getting 120+ fps on a 4690 with a 980Ti. The 4690 isn't that much faster than a 3770k. So no matter much faster the 980Ti is, if the 4690 (and by proxy the 3770k) is not able to feed it past 120 fps, then it won't get higher. I could have a 1080Ti and not get any faster frame rate.



With a 1080 Ti you would have a faster frame rate just not as fast as others cpus. Aside from spending money on the system. Have you looked at background apps running to minimize any potential resource hogging apps.


----------



## m&m's (Jun 21, 2018)

Is your CPU clock fluctuating while your gaming? 
With 4 cores active, it should turbo to 3.7GHz.
But on most Haswell boards you can lock the chip to the max turbo boost which is 3.9GHz. So you could get your 4 cores to stay @3.9GHz.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 21, 2018)

Drop a i7 in and call it a day. Will give you many years of performance


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2018)

Durvelle27 said:


> Drop a i7 in and call it a day. Will give you many years of performance



an i5K is a better choice for gaming over an i7, any day


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 21, 2018)

Mussels said:


> an i5K is a better choice for gaming over an i7, any day


 But an i7K will offer better performance in the long run. More games are becoming dependent on threads and if the OP ever decides to stream or similar the 8 threads will shine better than the 4 on the i5. With an i7 he’d be set for the future. 

Plus it’s already an old plateform so why not get the best you can out of it.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2018)

Durvelle27 said:


> But an i7K will offer better performance in the long run. More games are becoming dependent on threads and if the OP ever decides to stream or similar the 8 threads will shine better than the 4 on the i5. With an i7 he’d be set for the future.
> 
> Plus it’s already an old plateform so why not get the best you can out of it.




and an i9 is better than an i7k... this can go on infinitely

as someone with a lot of 2nd/3rd/4th gen chips in the house from i3's to i7 k chips, i've gotten bored and tested them all out (and kept the most expensive ones in the systems regardless of results because E-penis bragging rights) and all that really matters is core count and clock speed. Sweet F all games use 8 threads, so that 10% at best you get from hyperthreading is easily negated 95% of the time by a 10% higher overclock on the cooler running i5K chip.

Sure if he can get a K chip cheap, by all means go for it - around here people want stupid money for an i7k, but i5k's are dirt cheap (2500k's go for ~$100, 2600k/3770k for $400).


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 21, 2018)

I s


Mussels said:


> and an i9 is better than an i7k... this can go on infinitely
> 
> as someone with a lot of 2nd/3rd/4th gen chips in the house from i3's to i7 k chips, i've gotten bored and tested them all out (and kept the most expensive ones in the systems regardless of results because E-penis bragging rights) and all that really matters is core count and clock speed. Sweet F all games use 8 threads, so that 10% at best you get from hyperthreading is easily negated 95% of the time by a 10% higher overclock on the cooler running i5K chip.
> 
> Sure if he can get a K chip cheap, by all means go for it - around here people want stupid money for an i7k, but i5k's are dirt cheap (2500k's go for ~$100, 2600k/3770k for $400).


 I see 2600K and 3770ks easily going under $175


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2018)

I've already got what I understand to be the best i5 for my socket, minus the overclocking potential. Unless it's truly dirt cheap, I wouldn't go buying an i5 4690k to replace my i5 4690. Especially considering I'd probably have to get a better mobo to go with it, according to what everyone is saying. And from what I can see, stock for stock, the fastest i7 for the socket only has ~10% better single core performance. 

So for keeping the platform my options seem to be:
Keep the mobo, get an i7 k - No, because can't overclock, and i7 has only 10% faster single core
Keep the mobo, get an i5 k - no, can't overclock, pointless
Get new mobo, get an i7 k - might as well upgrade platform, unless it's dirt cheap
get new mobo, get an i5 k  - same


----------



## John Naylor (Jun 21, 2018)

"At full quality in overwatch, I can get around 120 fps solid. " ... to quote an old but still funny TV commercial ... "where's the beef ?"    What is the purpose for the upgrade ?

a)  To take advantage from the improved performance between 120 and 144 hz
b)  To be able to tell ya friends, you play at 144 hz.

Been there, tested that.  Turn ya GFX settings down as you described so you are at 144 hz or above.  Than go into monitor settings and change refressh rate to 120 Hz.  We've done that without telling 5 users and none of them noticed.  And yes, after a week, we asked if they'd notice if we did this ?   4 said yes, 1 "I dunno" ....

So unless it's b), sit tight.   You have plenty of life left in the system.

It's a simple thing to see if your GPU is bottlenecking... Open Task Manager... Look at the performance tab and run the game for 10 minutes, is the graph pegged (100%) ?   Hit the resources button, select resource monitor, CPU tab and try again.  Is it pegged ?

I didn't see any specifics about your monitor ... is it G-Sync ?  Is it capable of ULMB.  Almost every G-Sync monitor is capable of switching from G-Sync to ULMB.  In addition, non G-Sync monitors like the Asus VG248QE for example can be used with motion bur technology via the toastystrobelight utility.  If this is an option for you, would strongly advise you to use ULMB or Toastystrobelight (TS) at these frame rates.   My son was playing on a 165 Hz monitor (XB271HU) for over a year before he tried ULMB and when he did, he just sat there playing with his mouth open for 10 minutes.

If ya have G-Sync, use the settings to turn off G-Sync and try ULMB ... if ya one one of the monitors listed under  Classic Lightboost Blur reduction" on the link below, try the TS utility

https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/

As for a upgrade from your 980 Ti to 1080, to my eyes it's too small of an upgrade to bother with at 29%.  Yes, ya system is a few years old but I can't see upgrading at least until the next CPU / GPU generation drops (or one after that) and ya do a complete new build.   This month or next we will see new monitors from Asus and Acer w/ the new 144 Hz 4k HDR Panels from AU Optronics.    These will start from $1699 to $1999 but the one effect they will have is the cost of the 165 Hz , IPS ,monitors with the 1440p AU Optonics panels will drop yet again.... even now they can be had for $499.

If ya gonna do an upgrade, might as well include a jump in resolution and monitor type as these mionitors have dropped well into the affordability range.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2018)

I appreciate your input, but I'm not going to get into a discussion over whether I can tell the difference between 120fps and 144fps. That argument has been hashed out the internet over. I can. I've done my own blind tests. I can, and I don't care what anybody else says about it. Moreover, it's entirely irrelevant to my ask. 

The purpose of the upgrade is to get a solid 144 fps. I've said that already. I've also already said that lowering settings doesn't provide any higher performance. I already know how to tell if I have a CPU bottleneck. I am not looking for advice on how to do that. I'm not trying to be mean here... simply expressing the fact that I'm not new to this. I've been working and playing with computers for two decades. 

However, thank you for the useful suggestion about ULMB. Unfortunately, my monitor does not support it, nor gsync. I was reading yesterday about some hacks that might make lightboost (essentially ULMB in software) work on it. I will definitely try these things out, on the chance that they might improve my experience. 

However, Gsynch, ULMB, or lightboost will not get me to the 144hz point. More importantly, it won't smooth out the drops from 144 fps to 120 fps that I experience. This is of course the worst part, because the close juxtaposition is much more jarring than staying at 120hz. Were I not able to upgrade at all, I would simply drop the refresh rate to 120hz and deal with it. But I won't be discussing the merit of 144hz over 120hz. Go argue that elsewhere.


----------



## Luke51087 (Jun 21, 2018)

does the hyperthreading help out in Overwatch?  it seems like people using the 3770k with HT and others are hitting those higher FPS.


----------



## therealmeep (Jun 21, 2018)

Unless overwatch is fully using your entire cpu, you probably won't see a benefit from HT. Most results would probably come from higher clock. (My 3770 went up to 4.3GHz)


----------



## Luke51087 (Jun 21, 2018)

So in this benchmark here there is clearly HT giving a boost compare the i5-4690k which is a 3.5/3.9ghz vs the i7-3770k which is also 3.5/3.9 ghz   HT seems to be helping alot, so if he could get a 4770 or 4770k or even a 4790k i think he could hit his numbers. I know he doesnt have a 1080 but still that CPU looks to be holding him back even vs an i7


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2018)

Luke51087 said:


> does the hyperthreading help out in Overwatch?  it seems like people using the 3770k with HT and others are hitting those higher FPS.



Actually... that's a super good question... I'm not really sure. 

My wife uses an 8-core AMD... might have to check on the core usage on that and see how many theads it's utilizing. 

(for reference, she uses a 60hz monitor and so far hasn't been able to discern a difference between hers and mine, so there isn't much point in anything stronger for her.)


----------



## Luke51087 (Jun 21, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> Actually... that's a super good question... I'm not really sure.
> 
> My wife uses an 8-core AMD... might have to check on the core usage on that and see how many theads it's utilizing.
> 
> (for reference, she uses a 60hz monitor and so far hasn't been able to discern a difference between hers and mine, so there isn't much point in anything stronger for her.)


For all of my overwatch game play i only ever used a 4770k, a 8700k, and 1700x, and in my laptop it was a 7700HQ, so ive always had HT/SMT so I cant really give you the results but that benchmark seems pretty obvious that HT is helping out, since they are at the same clock speeds even if its a 1080gtx

I adjusted the picture to the relevant CPUs in question.  since they are all 3.5/3.9 base/turbo  CPUs 

Looks like it really helps out with the Min frame rate which is in question.  So it seems dropping in a 4770k or 4790k would be the only option you really have without upgrading everything.  so unless you can get a cheap second hand one im not sure if its really worth it


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2018)

Luke51087 said:


> For all of my overwatch game play i only ever used a 4770k, a 8700k, and 1700x, and in my laptop it was a 7700HQ, so ive always had HT/SMT so I cant really give you the results but that benchmark seems pretty obvious that HT is helping out, since they are at the same clock speeds even if its a 1080gtx
> 
> I adjusted the picture to the relevant CPUs in question.  since they are all 3.5/3.9 base/turbo  CPUs
> 
> Looks like it really helps out with the Min frame rate which is in question.  So it seems dropping in a 4770k or 4790k would be the only option you really have without upgrading everything.  so unless you can get a cheap second hand one im not sure if its really worth it



That actually almost perfectly replicates my situation. ~120 fps minimum. I say my max is 144, but that's only because I artificially limit it to 144. It probably maxes out around 180 as that graph says, but I couldn't care less about max framerate. I only care about holding 144hz. 

So according to that, if I can find a cheap enough 4770/4790 it might be worth it.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 21, 2018)

Luke51087 said:


> So in this benchmark here there is clearly HT giving a boost compare the i5-4690k which is a 3.5/3.9ghz vs the i7-3770k which is also 3.5/3.9 ghz   HT seems to be helping alot, so if he could get a 4770 or 4770k or even a 4790k i think he could hit his numbers. I know he doesnt have a 1080 but still that CPU looks to be holding him back even vs an i7
> View attachment 102767


Like I mentioned on that plateform the i7 would be the best advisable Choice. It would be pointless in upgrading to an entire new plateform as intels IPC has been pretty stagnet so you won’t see much boost over a 3770K/4770K


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2018)

Durvelle27 said:


> Like I mentioned on that plateform the i7 would be the best advisable Choice. It would be pointless in upgrading to an entire new plateform as intels IPC has been pretty stagnet so you won’t see much boost over a 3770K/4770K



Right. My only worry would be that I'd have to overclock them to be able to get what I want. Which I can't do on my current board, and it would be silly to get a new board on this same platform. 

If a 37/4770 / k can get what i want at stock, and if it's cheap enough, that might be worth it. 

So who's got one for sale? lol


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 21, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> Right. My only worry would be that I'd have to overclock them to be able to get what I want. Which I can't do on my current board, and it would be silly to get a new board on this same platform.
> 
> If a 37/4770 / k can get what i want at stock, and if it's cheap enough, that might be worth it.
> 
> So who's got one for sale? lol


Stock should be more than enough. Look at those reviews. They are all also stock. 

Plus just a FYI you can OC without increasing volts. I got my i7-4770 non-k to run 4.2GHz by raising multi and BLCK


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 21, 2018)

Durvelle27 said:


> Stock should be more than enough. Look at those reviews. They are all also stock.
> 
> Plus just a FYI you can OC without increasing volts. I got my i7-4770 non-k to run 4.2GHz by raising multi and BLCK



How did you raise the multi on a non k CPU? Or do you just mean you ran it at max turbo? 

I've tried blck, it aint happening on my board/chip.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 21, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> How did you raise the multi on a non k CPU? Or do you just mean you ran it at max turbo?
> 
> I've tried blck, it aint happening on my board/chip.


I meant set it to the max multi to run at those frequencies all the time instead of just turbo on all cores


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2018)

Most of the H boards with the non K overclocking let you set the multi to the turbo for all cores, but if you test with benches will often run single core at that freq, and all cores 200Mhz lower

It can still be a 200-300Mhz boost over stock, but dont assume that setting it to max actually does what it implies, it doesnt always do it (i've seen this first hand on 2nd-4th gen, with K and non K overclocks on H/P/Z boards)


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 22, 2018)

Mussels said:


> Most of the H boards with the non K overclocking let you set the multi to the turbo for all cores, but if you test with benches will often run single core at that freq, and all cores 200Mhz lower
> 
> It can still be a 200-300Mhz boost over stock, but dont assume that setting it to max actually does what it implies, it doesnt always do it (i've seen this first hand on 2nd-4th gen, with K and non K overclocks on H/P/Z boards)


That could be possible but I couldn’t say

I ran mine on a Z87 Board and it stayed locked at 4.2GHz on all cores


----------



## therealmeep (Jun 22, 2018)

Mussels said:


> Most of the H boards with the non K overclocking let you set the multi to the turbo for all cores, but if you test with benches will often run single core at that freq, and all cores 200Mhz lower
> 
> It can still be a 200-300Mhz boost over stock, but dont assume that setting it to max actually does what it implies, it doesnt always do it (i've seen this first hand on 2nd-4th gen, with K and non K overclocks on H/P/Z boards)


This is a pretty decent performance bump, I've done this with the few locked chips I've owned and been able to get an extra 400 MHz on my 3770 and 500 or so MHz on my 2400. I'd suggest at least looking to see if you can do this in your board. It might be called something like "Non-K overclock" or it might just be a setting called multiplier with a numerical value. Setting this number to something rediculous should make your board find the max the cpu can run at multiplier wise (non k intel chips are base clock unlocked, but the multiplier has a maximum usually below what the silicon would otherwise be able to do) and set it to that which should be higher than your stock clocks.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 22, 2018)

Yea I've heard all that about running all cores at max and all that, but I didn't think it would provide much if any performance gain, since the boost is kicking in anyway under load. So what's the point of running it at max at all times when it's just going to be the same freq that it boosts to on its own? 

Either way, I'll see what I can do on that.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 22, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> Yea I've heard all that about running all cores at max and all that, but I didn't think it would provide much if any performance gain, since the boost is kicking in anyway under load. So what's the point of running it at max at all times when it's just going to be the same freq that it boosts to on its own?
> 
> Either way, I'll see what I can do on that.


 Turbo only runs max turbo on 1-2 cores and fluctuates the rest depending 

Running max guaranties consistent clocks on all cores


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2018)

Papahyooie said:


> Yea I've heard all that about running all cores at max and all that, but I didn't think it would provide much if any performance gain, since the boost is kicking in anyway under load. So what's the point of running it at max at all times when it's just going to be the same freq that it boosts to on its own?
> 
> Either way, I'll see what I can do on that.



because games now use 2-4 threads, so it can make a 400MHz+ difference at times


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 25, 2018)

Can't run all cores at max on my board. Most is will do is x37 multi. So 3.67ghz.


----------



## las (Jun 25, 2018)

Mussels said:


> an i5K is a better choice for gaming over an i7, any day



Value/perf, yes, but 8700K beats 8600K in most demanding games clock for clock, especially in minimum fps / 0.1% lows and when paired with a high end GPU.
In the long run, 8700K will age much better.

Look at 4C i5's today. Compared to 4C/8T i7's. The i7's still holds up.
4C i5's have much lower minimum fps in some games. HT saves the day.

Don't expect i5 to deliver top performance in games for long. Only in less demanding eSport titles.

Tested this myself recently. When I disabled HT, fps dropped alot in newer games. AC Origins, around 40% less performance to minimum fps. Avg were only 10% behind. But game felt alot less smooth with no HT enabled, even at 5 GHz. This game likes cores/threads alot tho...


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2018)

las: you missed my point. an i5k is better than a standard i7, of course an i7k is the best choice.

people have budgets.


----------



## las (Jun 25, 2018)

Mussels said:


> las: you missed my point. an i5k is better than a standard i7, of course an i7k is the best choice.
> 
> people have budgets.



You didn't mention anything about price. You said i5 is better than i7 for gaming, and it's not.

Yeah people have budgets, but we're talking mainstream here.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2018)

las said:


> You didn't mention anything about price. You said i5 is better than i7 for gaming, and it's not.
> 
> Yeah people have budgets, but we're talking mainstream here.




aaand yet again, missed the point despite my clarification. an i5 *K* chip is better than a regular i7 for gaming, because the higher clock speed easily makes up for the missing hyper threading.


----------



## las (Jun 25, 2018)

Mussels said:


> aaand yet again, missed the point despite my clarification. an i5 *K* chip is better than a regular i7 for gaming, because the higher clock speed easily makes up for the missing hyper threading.



I didn't miss anything, because you just said i7.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jun 25, 2018)

None of that matters, as I already have the best i5 for my board, and I'm not paying money to side-grade to a K model that *might* be able to overclock.


----------



## damric (Jun 26, 2018)

Tune your DDR3 frequency and timings. You can gain significantly on the minimum FPS. Not sure what you are running or what that board is capable of, but there is a huge difference between say...DDR3-1600CL11 and DDR3-2400CL9.


----------



## Papahyooie (Aug 22, 2019)

Got a message from a gentleman who found this thread on google, so I thought I'd necro it for those that do the same:

I ended up upgrading to a Ryzen 5 2600 and couldn't be happier. The i5 4690 was pegged out at 100% usage, causing keyboard strokes to be missed sometimes. The Ryzen 5 2600 sits at ~30% usage, even at well over 200 fps average. 

Notes:
-180fps minimum in Overwatch with the same settings and graphics card (980Ti) as before. So more than enough for 144hz gaming. (even while streaming)
-This is with crappy DDR4-2133, not even matched sticks. No need for fancy ram to get 144hz. (though you can get even higher with better ram)
- Relevant to the thread, I do notice that Overwatch routinely uses six or more threads. So with the i5, it was very likely that it simply did not have the cores/threads throughput to keep up. So *in theory* an upgrade to an i7 4770k would have sufficed. However, I cannot confirm nor deny this. Seems a high thread count is requisite for high FPS Overwatch. i7's and Ryzens only need apply. (though maybe the later generation i5s with six cores would probably suffice. Perhaps someone can test.)

So in short, this is one of those heretofore rare examples of games that love high thread count. As a result, Ryzen really does shine. If Overwatch is your game, and you need 144hz, a Ryzen setup will not disappoint.


----------



## kapone32 (Aug 22, 2019)

Papahyooie said:


> Got a message from a gentleman who found this thread on google, so I thought I'd necro it for those that do the same:
> 
> I ended up upgrading to a Ryzen 5 2600 and couldn't be happier. The i5 4690 was pegged out at 100% usage, causing keyboard strokes to be missed sometimes. The Ryzen 5 2600 sits at ~30% usage, even at well over 200 fps average.
> 
> ...


----------



## zechs (Aug 25, 2019)

For 4770, I found this 







Someone test Overwatch with i3 + i5 + i7, I think this is valid, his i5 result is perfectly same as yours XD


----------



## FinneousPJ (Aug 25, 2019)

Obviously the 2600 is double the value for money of an i7, making the i7 a tough sell for overwatch players.


----------



## Papahyooie (Aug 26, 2019)

zechs said:


> For 4770, I found this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good find. His minimums were a bit better than mine were on the i5, but I would blame that on the Xeon's extra 2mb of cache probably.


----------

