Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:43 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: anything PCU above 3.2ish GHz a waste for gaming?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:02 am 
8086
8086

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:17 am
Posts: 53
Location: South Carolina
I have a question. Its in the Subject lol.

I asked recently if an .3 was good enough for gaming and I heard yes. So, anything above that, i5 or i7, is that overkill for gaming? I would like to run every game Skyrim, shooters, and other open world games at the highest settings posssible. Is an i3, good enough?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: anything PCU above 3.2ish GHz a waste for gaming?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:09 am 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
"Good enough", yes. But if you want optimal then an i5 is the ideal choice, the 3570k is optimal. What you don't need for gaming is HT.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gam ... ,3106.html


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: anything PCU above 3.2ish GHz a waste for gaming?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:36 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5093
It's not so much the speed that's the stopping point so much its performance overall. However, from what I gathered in a more or less "serious" fashion, the Core i3 is the lowest processor you can go before high-end GPUs are bottlenecked. That is, if you have say a GeForce GTX 680 or Radeon HD 7970 GE, it'll run more or less at full potential on an i3. But if you drop to a Pentium G850, the performance of your games drops to something like a step down or two, but it depends on the games.

A Core i5 is about the highest you can go before performance doesn't improve much. A Core i7-3770K barely makes any improvement. A Core i7-3960X has more performance in games, but not enough to justify the 5x price tag.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: anything PCU above 3.2ish GHz a waste for gaming?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:05 pm 
Boy in Black
Boy in Black
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:40 pm
Posts: 24339
Location: South of heaven
Is the game HT capable? If not, then we need not worry about HT CPU's like the i5 or i7's. You answered this already.

A fast i3 3220 should do the trick just fine. What is lacking, as far as gaming goes, is the GPU and the screen you're pumping out to. Look, if a 3.3Ghz Ivybridge core won't cut it, 7 more probably won't either. Look at the fastest i7 hex core: 3.5Ghz. So if cores don't matter, the i3 is just 200Mhz down from that "ultimate CPU" on the single core. You can make that up. Those things cost over $1000. An i3 is about $120 and a GTX660Ti is about $310 ($430).

I still dare anyone to actually claim their SB/IB i3 is their actual bottleneck in games over the video card they chose. This dare has been alive since the Pentium3 and has still stood tall. Games= video cards.

Xbox360 is still running off dated CPU and GPU. They're fine with that.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: anything PCU above 3.2ish GHz a waste for gaming?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:25 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5093
Again, it depends on what the game is doing. I recall back when I had a AMD Athlon X2 3800+ I upgraded the video card from a 7800GTX to a 8800GT. Various games I ran were hit and miss on improvement of performance. Notably Half-Life 2: Episode 2 had virtually no increase in performance. Bioshock took less hits on FPS when things got intense. The only game that had what would be a real improvement was Call of Duty 4.

But that was then, things are different now. And sure, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are running on outdated hardware and "they're fine with that", but keep in mind they're running DirectX 9 level shaders and natively render most games at 720p, with quite a few at 640p. Very rarely is a high-intensity game rendered in 1080p. We're expecting our computers to push DirectX 11 level shaders at 1080p at the minimum these days, as I rarely see any benchmark now that starts at a lower resolution. However, since most PC games exist to cater to the console crowd as well, there's really no reason to buy anything higher than a GTX 660 or Radeon HD 7850/7870.

Also here's a recent article to look at exploring bottlenecking, but this scenario is very unlikely for most of us: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx- ... ,3407.html


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group