1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Low end cpu vs high end cpu for gaming

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Easy Rhino, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. Ikaruga

    Ikaruga

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    871 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    183
    First of all, Metro2033 is probably the worst example here, because it only cares about the GPU, just saying:toast:

    ...

    I just had a massive Planetside 2 battle earlier today involving an insane amount of people (dunno, perhaps hundreds with infantry,armor and air force combined), and well, let's just say that there are times when even 6 core wouldn't be enough;)
     
  2. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,673 (6.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,332
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    The i5 offers better scaling per thread since hyper-threading is only using extra resources. Not to say that HT doesn't help, I'm sure the i3 is faster with HT on, but there is something to be said for having the resources of a quad-core and a lot of modern games can take advantage of it now.
     
  3. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    13,446 (4.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,728
    Games Utilize Multi Core- HT is detected as Multi Core without the physical resources to handle it

    http://www.intel.com/content/www/us.../compare-intel-processors.html?select=desktop
     
  4. james888

    james888

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,654 (3.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,845
    Depends on the game. For most games an i3 would be fine. A lot of the games I play right now are cpu limited where even my 2500k at 4.5ghz is my bottle neck. Planetside 2 and natural selection 2.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  5. Ikaruga

    Ikaruga

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    871 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    183
    HT is a huge plus in games, especially the new HT in ivy bridge. Good compilers are prepared to take advantage of the virtual cores, and that combined with clever coding (minimizing problems like threading overheads), makes a great difference if done well. Of course (as I said earlier), the few games which are able to utilize more cores will run better on an i5.
     
  6. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,673 (6.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,332
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    The games that can utilize the i3's HT will run better on the i5 hands down. Real cores are always faster than HT. The i3 does just as well as the i5 on things that use 1 or 2 cores. Once you start hitting HT, it doesn't scale nearly as well. That is where the i5 does better and newer games typically can utilize that. I'm not saying the i3 doesn't benefit from it. I'm just saying the i5 benefits from it more by having 4 real cores versus 2c/4t.
     
  7. Ikaruga

    Ikaruga

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    871 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    183
    Of course. I was talking (in context) about the difference between dual-cores without HT (like some did in the thread) and the i3. Obviously a real quad core is always better:toast:
     
  8. AlienIsGOD

    AlienIsGOD

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,485 (1.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,546
    The only reason to choose an i3 is monetary issues, other than that an i5 should ALWAYS be a gamers choice. And no it doesnt have to be a K cpu either. My i5 2400 is more than enough for todays games @1080P with my 6870.

    To be fair, my friend has an i3 2120/HD 7770 combo and it handles BF3 @720P with decent settings (i will see how 1080P works around Xmas as my friend is in the market for an IPS screen)
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. Caspase

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    121 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Portugal
    I don't think an i3 can keep up even with current games in some situations if you're targeting 60 fps. In very specific situations, sure (take BF3 multi with 64 players Borderlands 2 Physx high with a AMD GPU), but I really think an i5 is better value for your money than is a i3, I would jump from a pentium, for a really low budget to an i5.
     
  10. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,164 (1.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    922
    The i3 makes little sense for a budget gaming rig considering the Piledriver X6 gets similar FPS in games and costs the same. You'll be immediately better off on upcoming games as its more equipped for the software that caters for multi threading. Gaming aside, the X6 destroys the i3 in a landslide in everything else and actually has an upgrade path on AM3+.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  11. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,673 (6.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,332
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    I decided to cut my i7 down to show how HT scales and how just regular cores scale. Granted 7-zip isn't a game, but it shows the kind of power you're going to get with two chips at the same clock. Behold, pseudo SB-E i3. :p I disabled HT on one run and shut off 2 cores on the other run and gathered some data.

    [​IMG]

    Edit: Also keep in mind that these numbers are relative. It's the amount of space between the lines that is important. It's pretty neat to see how HT disabled using 4-threads is faster than with HT. I bet it has to do with thread/process scheduling.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
    PatoRodrigues, Caspase and Dent1 say thanks.
  12. Caspase

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    121 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Portugal
    But that doesn't make much sense actually, never seen a benchmark where the 3770k lagged behind the 3570k and there are lots of programs out there that use only 4 threads... Could be advances in ivy architecture but i doubt it.
    Now you got me curious! Could you elaborate your explanation?
     
  13. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,673 (6.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,332
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    This is just one processor, and that's my Sandy Bridge-E i7 3820. Not an IVB chip. I was trying to show how HT scales vs how cores scale. You can see 4c/4t scales pretty well against 2c/4t and even 4c/8t The spot where 4 cores without HT is faster than with HT is most likely due to losses in scheduling since Windows likes to move threads around within the CPU.
     
  14. Caspase

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    121 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Portugal
    I understood that, I used the 3770k to 3570k comparison because they are basically the same chip, just one has HT turned on, and it isn't slower on 4c/4t than the 3570k, which according to that it should be.
     
  15. rtwjunkie

    rtwjunkie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,567 (0.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    604
    Location:
    Louisiana

    IDK about that Metro2033 statement. It seems to be pretty cpu-hungry as well...it uses all four cores at least 50% for me, with two usually close to maximum use.
     
  16. Tonim89

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    50 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Location:
    Juiz de Fora - MG / Brazil
    They are not exactly the same chip.

    2600K has larger L3 Cache than 2500K. The same apply to Ivy bridge chips... That's why you see some differences between i5 and i7.
     
    cadaveca says thanks.
  17. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,673 (6.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,332
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    The i7 is also clocked 100mhz higher with a turbo 100mhz over the 2500k's turbo, so at stock speeds the i7 runs faster in general. The cache won't show as much of a difference if you put them at the same clocks and disable HT on the i7 though. It might give it a little bit of a lead depending on memory usage patterns within an application but the bigger the cache the better chance of hitting it (low latency, woo!). I do certainly like the 10Mb on my 3820 though which I like pointing out because the 3820 is the only SB/SB-E/IVB chip that has as much L3 cahe per core as the 3960x and 3970x. (2.5Mb per core, vs 2Mb per core like the 2600, 3770, and 3930k). Between that and the quad-channel memory controller it puts it in this nice little place with performance between the 2600k and 3770k while still offering all the bells and whistles that X79 has to offer.

    I mean, who doesn't like 40 lanes of PCI-E? You can do cool things like running two cards with 16 lanes without a PLX chip.

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Jack1n

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,032 (1.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    Location:
    Central Israel
    If you have the latest gen cards,then it makes no diffrance since 8x pci 3.0 = 16x pci 2.0
     
  19. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,673 (6.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,332
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Not yet. I bet you that there will come a point in the not so distant future where that won't be the case.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page