Quantcast
Why you really don't need to buy in i7 CPU for gaming (or even an i5).

Forums - PC Discussion - Why you really don't need to buy in i7 CPU for gaming (or even an i5).

pezus said:
disolitude said:

I am going to take this challenge on and test Skyrim on a Phenom X4 and i5 with a GTX 670. 

Cool. Make sure to come back and report your findings!


I just noticed something in that Toms Hardware review of Skyrim for CPU requirements... 

"This game clearly relies on CPU power, and you need a Sandy Bridge-based Core i3 at 3 GHz or a Phenom II at 3.5 GHz to provide a minimum 30 FPS. Bear in mind that we're using the ultra detail setting here, and processing requirements drop significantly as you start stepping back. So, you can make due with a less potent chip when you dial in detail options appropriately."

Well yeah, lowering settings to high from ultra should make this run 60fps+ on most CPU platforms. Also I'm sure using Ultra detail on 3 monitors will again hit my GPU bottleneck before the CPU.

So I think my point stands. :)



Around the Network
disolitude said:
pezus said:
disolitude said:

I am going to take this challenge on and test Skyrim on a Phenom X4 and i5 with a GTX 670. 

Cool. Make sure to come back and report your findings!


I just noticed something in that Toms Hardware review of Skyrim for CPU requirements... 

"This game clearly relies on CPU power, and you need a Sandy Bridge-based Core i3 at 3 GHz or a Phenom II at 3.5 GHz to provide a minimum 30 FPS. Bear in mind that we're using the ultra detail setting here, and processing requirements drop significantly as you start stepping back. So, you can make due with a less potent chip when you dial in detail options appropriately."

Well yeah, lowering settings to high from ultra should make this run 60fps+ on most CPU platforms. Also I'm sure using Ultra detail on 3 monitors will again hit my GPU bottleneck before the CPU.

So I think my point stands. :)

Ultra or nothing!!



pezus said:
disolitude said:
pezus said:
disolitude said:

I am going to take this challenge on and test Skyrim on a Phenom X4 and i5 with a GTX 670. 

Cool. Make sure to come back and report your findings!


I just noticed something in that Toms Hardware review of Skyrim for CPU requirements... 

"This game clearly relies on CPU power, and you need a Sandy Bridge-based Core i3 at 3 GHz or a Phenom II at 3.5 GHz to provide a minimum 30 FPS. Bear in mind that we're using the ultra detail setting here, and processing requirements drop significantly as you start stepping back. So, you can make due with a less potent chip when you dial in detail options appropriately."

Well yeah, lowering settings to high from ultra should make this run 60fps+ on most CPU platforms. Also I'm sure using Ultra detail on 3 monitors will again hit my GPU bottleneck before the CPU.

So I think my point stands. :)

Ultra or nothing!!

haha...sure, but try and do a Pepsi challenge with graphical settings. Take Crysis 2 for example and have someone change it from ultra to high and see if you can tell the difference. You may be surprised at what you find.



vlad321 said:
This is of GREAT interest for everyone then. This is just the last page witht heir fancy graphs, there'2 7 before this one, in case you were wondering.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/08/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-todays-cpus/8/


That's actually a repost of the article I linked. I read it on Ars, too, but decided to link to the original source.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

One thing to keep in mind, it's a lot easier to upgrade a GPU than a CPU especially across generations, as that will often mean a new Mobo and RAM. So it can be worth investing a bit more in the CPU and then upgrading the GPU in 2-3 years.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
pezus said:
disolitude said:
pezus said:
disolitude said:

I am going to take this challenge on and test Skyrim on a Phenom X4 and i5 with a GTX 670. 

Cool. Make sure to come back and report your findings!


I just noticed something in that Toms Hardware review of Skyrim for CPU requirements... 

"This game clearly relies on CPU power, and you need a Sandy Bridge-based Core i3 at 3 GHz or a Phenom II at 3.5 GHz to provide a minimum 30 FPS. Bear in mind that we're using the ultra detail setting here, and processing requirements drop significantly as you start stepping back. So, you can make due with a less potent chip when you dial in detail options appropriately."

Well yeah, lowering settings to high from ultra should make this run 60fps+ on most CPU platforms. Also I'm sure using Ultra detail on 3 monitors will again hit my GPU bottleneck before the CPU.

So I think my point stands. :)

Ultra or nothing!!

I lol'ed really hard at this comment.

Great comment. Would read again.



pezus said:
disolitude said:

I am going to take this challenge on and test Skyrim on a Phenom X4 and i5 with a GTX 670. 

Cool. Make sure to come back and report your findings!

So I tried Skyrim on my Phenom 940 and there is a definite CPU bottleneck.

It's still playable (40-50 fps at max settings) but when I keep in mind that my CPU is overclocked like crazy, I can see why some AMD owners would be dissapointed. 

I may look in to upgrading my rig shortly to be honest. lol...



disolitude said:
pezus said:
disolitude said:

I am going to take this challenge on and test Skyrim on a Phenom X4 and i5 with a GTX 670. 

Cool. Make sure to come back and report your findings!

So I tried Skyrim on my Phenom 940 and there is a definite CPU bottleneck.

It's still playable (40-50 fps at max settings) but when I keep in mind that my CPU is overclocked like crazy, I can see why some AMD owners would be dissapointed. 

I may look in to upgrading my rig shortly to be honest. lol...

That's what I thought. I noticed this as well with my previous rig.



but to be fair the phenoms are only $50-80 (depends on which one you choose)
you wont get that performance from any intel cpu for that price range.

for an i5 you have to pay like ~$170, but you will notice the difference.
most amd users know that. but there are some delusional amd users who think it can compete against a cpu 3x expensive than their own ...

but for most things a phenom would be enough (not counting the newer amd ones since they arent that good), but it still has its limitation.



Lusche said:
but to be fair the phenoms are only $50-80 (depends on which one you choose)
you wont get that performance from any intel cpu for that price range.

for an i5 you have to pay like ~$170, but you will notice the difference.
most amd users know that. but there are some delusional amd users who think it can compete against a cpu 3x expensive than their own ...

but for most things a phenom would be enough (not counting the newer amd ones since they arent that good), but it still has its limitation.


New AMD chips are good for some things, but not gaming right out of the box... Very few games utilize more than 4 cores and most are still using 2, so an 8 core processor is like an FX 8120 clocked at 3.1 GHZ is going to be at a disadvantage.

The good news for FX owners is that they overclock extremely well. Me and a friend of mine took his FX 8120 all the way to 4.5 ghz on a 40 dollar air cooler and its stable as a rock. At that clock speed it was slightly faster than my 3.7 Ghz overclocked Phenom for gaming, and much much faster for any multi-threaded application.

I may make a thread one of these days about how to maximize the AMD FX series CPUs as there are some tricks to it.