Why are some people still saying a 4-thread i5 is good enough with a beefy GPU...

[Deleted member 185158]

I was recently given an i3 platform (mobo+cpu) which I didn't thing could handle any modern game titles.
To my surprise I started with D3 and it ran flawlessly, from there I moved one to more recent/resource intensive games and it showed no slow downs, to the point where I have been playing KI and Dragon Ball FighterZ with no noticeable lag or frame drops (60+ fps on afterbuner) ... so why the need for an i5 ??? much less an i7

Doom 3?? or Diablo 3?


Here are the Diablo III System Requirements (Minimum)

• CPU: Intel Pentium D 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
• RAM: 1 GB RAM (1.5 GB required for Windows Vista/Windows 7 users)
• OS: Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7/Windows 8 (Latest Service Packs)
• VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT or ATI Radeon X1950 Pro or better.

Wow, what a trip back in time.

DB Fighter Z. Recommends i5???

System Requirements

• Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system.
• OS: Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
• Processor: AMD FX-4350, 4.2 GHz / Intel Core i5-3470, 3.20 GHz.
• Memory: 4 GB RAM.
• Graphics: Radeon HD 6870, 1 GB / GeForce GTX 650 Ti, 1 GB.

 

[EarthDog]

I was recently given an i3 platform (mobo+cpu) which I didn't thing could handle any modern game titles.
To my surprise I started with D3 and it ran flawlessly, from there I moved one to more recent/resource intensive games and it showed no slow downs, to the point where I have been playing KI and Dragon Ball FighterZ with no noticeable lag or frame drops (60+ fps on afterbuner) ... so why the need for an i5 ??? much less an i7

Makes sense, your experience. The games you list run on a potato. Diablo 3(?) was released almost 8 years ago... makes sense it isn't using more than a core or 2. Dragon ball Z uses 2 threads, doesnt scale above that, and doesnt appear to be any more resource intensive than diablo 3. No clue what "KI" is.

There are plenty games that can show improvements when using 4c/8t+ over 4/4. All you need to do is look for reviews which test that way (techspot/guru 3d). Are things playable, yes... is there a bottleneck holding things back in some titles, absolutely. It simply depends on the game.

So... the need for an i5/7/9 8/12/etc threads is to improve performance and the gaming experience on the several titles (more every month) where having such CPUs make a difference.... regardless of the GPU in use.

 

[MrGRiMv25]

How did we get from why recommend quads to recommending a 10+ year old hex?

You know how the net is, only takes a few pages of replies to derail haha. It was in response to the guy saying he was looking for a 980X for his X58 board.

Since I won't completely derail and cause a fatal train wreck. I'll add this little extra; a quad can still give acceptable results in a lot of games, even in 2019 but minimum FPS will suffer the most. I'd say that by next year they'll be almost completely irrelevant for the vast majority of AAA games but not unusable. Like others have said, it all depends on what your expectations are. A quad with no HT just won't be enough to supply a high-end GPU and you'll see it at 60% usage while the CPU will be pinned at 90+.

 

[moproblems99]

I think the spirit of the question is the question the OP asked. No where did the OP ask for buying advice. Nor did he ask if whether you will have problems or not. He just very clearly stated his own opinion. I note too, he has not been back since post #3 on page 1.

In case you didn't know, this thread was spawned from a help thread...

 

[EarthDog]

In case you didn't know, this thread was spawned from a help thread...

....and is essentially a rinse and repeat thanks mostly to the same people (including me) saying the same things. Lol.

A quad with no HT just won't be enough to supply a high-end GPU and you'll see it at 60% usage while the CPU will be pinned at 90+

Please, separate church and state... if a game doesnt use all the threads, a higher clocked and high IPC CPU (think intel back a few gens and ryzen or newer amd) wont hold a GPU back.

In other words, again, it is the GAME that determines how many cores are needed not the performance of the GPU. But the OP's wording is confusing and many other issues in this thread.

 

[Fluffmeister]

The beauty of a glass ceiling is you can see the sky.

 

[moproblems99]

....and is essentially a rinse and repeat thanks mostly to the same people (including me) saying the same things. Lol.

Please, separate church and state... if a game doesnt use all the threads, a higher clocked and high IPC CPU (think intel back a few gens and ryzen or newer amd) wont hold a GPU back.

In other words, again, it is the GAME that determines how many cores are needed not the performance of the GPU. But the OP's wording is confusing and many other issues in this thread.

And the same people sticking there heads in the sand, and the same people not reading, and the same people moving goal posts, and the same as in every other thread...

 

[Deleted member 185158]

*throws stone in glass house*

 

[EarthDog]

The beauty of a glass ceiling is you can see the sky.

Lol, yep... a teaser. Lol...

 

[Zach_01]

Yep, exactly my point. For you, it dose not matter, for me it might, or the other way around There is no absolute right/wrong answer to why you would game on a 4c/4t CPU. I say again, the minimum i recommend is a Ryzen 1600 or 1800 seeing they sell for cheap on the second hand market.

I don’t think that was your point... I said that it does not matter to me that your point is fringe/rare...
While it’s not mainstream I personally still count a rare case scenario like this...

Give me a quote where i said that. Also i'm waiting for that benchmark. Thanks.
Meanwhile look at how the fps tanks at the end of this benchmark, and that is an 9900K. Do you think a 16 or 32 core CPU would fare better by bumping the fps from 40-45 to/or at 60 fps ?

Let’s see...

And there are games that can not run on well on any CPU in their most intensive moments.
Take for example TW Warhammer 2(one of my favorite games of all time) in a siege battle with 40 vs 40 units, the framerate drops to 25 fps on my system, you could have an i9 at 7 GHz and it will not get 60 fps in that situation. Same for ArmA 3.

So the i9 also drops to 25fps? Or a R7/9?

 

[Deleted member 185158]

So the i9 also drops to 25fps? Or a R7/9?

Nah probably not.

Supreme Commander Forged Alliance was pretty cpu heavy, but didn't scale the cores well.
Just poor optimizations by the game writers.
Online game experiences may vary.
Since 7 ghz was mentioned....

 

[moproblems99]

Since 7 ghz was mentioned....

View attachment 138317

So did that finally compete with an i3 2100?

I jest, I jest.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

So did that finally compete with an i3 2100?

I jest, I jest.

Truthfully I only gamed in the 6500mhz range on FX chips to be honest. Full pot, fun stuff.....
Beat an i3..... well maybe not. Never had an i3 before. What's it like???!!! lol

Any how, I'd pit this preset against your 3900X any day though.

I also jest while biting my cheek.

 

[Bill_Bright]

In case you didn't know, this thread was spawned from a help thread...

So that makes it okay for you to interpret the question anyway you want? No.

New thread means new topic. And the OP gets to decide what that topic is.