JRPGfan said:
First bench I saw of cpu scaleing with this game had a 2500k around 90 fps, and a FX-6300 around 80 fps. Useing a 980 medium graphics, will all the extras on. I think a i5-2400 might be a tiny bit faster than a FX-6300 in this game. Probably not more than 5 fps differnce between the two. |
Depends on the game.
The AMD FX-6300 is able to "close the performance gap" when all 6 threads are in use... And yet still be slightly slower... Examples being Civilization 5, the main difference with that game isn't really the framerate though, it's how long it would take to calculate every turn.
The Sandy Bridge i5 2400 is far superior in games which are lightly threaded, pretty much every Blizzard game falls into this category, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3, World of WarCraft, doesn't matter. The i5 2400 will win by a significant margin and that's due to Intel's advantage in per-core performance.
Most MMO's, MOBA's are also lightly threaded.
Then you get Frostbite powered games which despite being able to use every CPU core you can throw at it... It's still not extremely CPU dependent so the difference would be neglible, even on older Nahelem or high-clocked Core 2 Quad Chips. - Your biggest gains would come from the GPU. - Examples being Battlefield 3, 4, Hardline, Battlefield 1, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Mirrors Edge etc'.
Fact of the matter is, his Core i5 2400 is still capable of running every game on the market just fine and will likely do so for the next few years.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
