CPU for 144hz Overwatch

[Durvelle27]

Drop a i7 in and call it a day. Will give you many years of performance

 

[Mussels]

Drop a i7 in and call it a day. Will give you many years of performance

an i5K is a better choice for gaming over an i7, any day

 

[Durvelle27]

an i5K is a better choice for gaming over an i7, any day

But an i7K will offer better performance in the long run. More games are becoming dependent on threads and if the OP ever decides to stream or similar the 8 threads will shine better than the 4 on the i5. With an i7 he’d be set for the future.

Plus it’s already an old plateform so why not get the best you can out of it.

 

[Mussels]

But an i7K will offer better performance in the long run. More games are becoming dependent on threads and if the OP ever decides to stream or similar the 8 threads will shine better than the 4 on the i5. With an i7 he’d be set for the future.

Plus it’s already an old plateform so why not get the best you can out of it.

and an i9 is better than an i7k... this can go on infinitely

as someone with a lot of 2nd/3rd/4th gen chips in the house from i3's to i7 k chips, i've gotten bored and tested them all out (and kept the most expensive ones in the systems regardless of results because E-penis bragging rights) and all that really matters is core count and clock speed. Sweet F all games use 8 threads, so that 10% at best you get from hyperthreading is easily negated 95% of the time by a 10% higher overclock on the cooler running i5K chip.

Sure if he can get a K chip cheap, by all means go for it - around here people want stupid money for an i7k, but i5k's are dirt cheap (2500k's go for ~$100, 2600k/3770k for $400).

 

[Durvelle27]

I s

and an i9 is better than an i7k... this can go on infinitely

as someone with a lot of 2nd/3rd/4th gen chips in the house from i3's to i7 k chips, i've gotten bored and tested them all out (and kept the most expensive ones in the systems regardless of results because E-penis bragging rights) and all that really matters is core count and clock speed. Sweet F all games use 8 threads, so that 10% at best you get from hyperthreading is easily negated 95% of the time by a 10% higher overclock on the cooler running i5K chip.

Sure if he can get a K chip cheap, by all means go for it - around here people want stupid money for an i7k, but i5k's are dirt cheap (2500k's go for ~$100, 2600k/3770k for $400).

I see 2600K and 3770ks easily going under $175

 

[Papahyooie]

I've already got what I understand to be the best i5 for my socket, minus the overclocking potential. Unless it's truly dirt cheap, I wouldn't go buying an i5 4690k to replace my i5 4690. Especially considering I'd probably have to get a better mobo to go with it, according to what everyone is saying. And from what I can see, stock for stock, the fastest i7 for the socket only has ~10% better single core performance.

So for keeping the platform my options seem to be:
Keep the mobo, get an i7 k - No, because can't overclock, and i7 has only 10% faster single core
Keep the mobo, get an i5 k - no, can't overclock, pointless
Get new mobo, get an i7 k - might as well upgrade platform, unless it's dirt cheap
get new mobo, get an i5 k - same

 

[John Naylor]

"At full quality in overwatch, I can get around 120 fps solid. " ... to quote an old but still funny TV commercial ... "where's the beef ?" What is the purpose for the upgrade ?

a) To take advantage from the improved performance between 120 and 144 hz
b) To be able to tell ya friends, you play at 144 hz.

Been there, tested that. Turn ya GFX settings down as you described so you are at 144 hz or above. Than go into monitor settings and change refressh rate to 120 Hz. We've done that without telling 5 users and none of them noticed. And yes, after a week, we asked if they'd notice if we did this ? 4 said yes, 1 "I dunno" ....

So unless it's b), sit tight. You have plenty of life left in the system.

It's a simple thing to see if your GPU is bottlenecking... Open Task Manager... Look at the performance tab and run the game for 10 minutes, is the graph pegged (100%) ? Hit the resources button, select resource monitor, CPU tab and try again. Is it pegged ?

I didn't see any specifics about your monitor ... is it G-Sync ? Is it capable of ULMB. Almost every G-Sync monitor is capable of switching from G-Sync to ULMB. In addition, non G-Sync monitors like the Asus VG248QE for example can be used with motion bur technology via the toastystrobelight utility. If this is an option for you, would strongly advise you to use ULMB or Toastystrobelight (TS) at these frame rates. My son was playing on a 165 Hz monitor (XB271HU) for over a year before he tried ULMB and when he did, he just sat there playing with his mouth open for 10 minutes.

If ya have G-Sync, use the settings to turn off G-Sync and try ULMB ... if ya one one of the monitors listed under Classic Lightboost Blur reduction" on the link below, try the TS utility

https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/

As for a upgrade from your 980 Ti to 1080, to my eyes it's too small of an upgrade to bother with at 29%. Yes, ya system is a few years old but I can't see upgrading at least until the next CPU / GPU generation drops (or one after that) and ya do a complete new build. This month or next we will see new monitors from Asus and Acer w/ the new 144 Hz 4k HDR Panels from AU Optronics. These will start from $1699 to $1999 but the one effect they will have is the cost of the 165 Hz , IPS ,monitors with the 1440p AU Optonics panels will drop yet again.... even now they can be had for $499.

If ya gonna do an upgrade, might as well include a jump in resolution and monitor type as these mionitors have dropped well into the affordability range.

 

[Papahyooie]

I appreciate your input, but I'm not going to get into a discussion over whether I can tell the difference between 120fps and 144fps. That argument has been hashed out the internet over. I can. I've done my own blind tests. I can, and I don't care what anybody else says about it. Moreover, it's entirely irrelevant to my ask.

The purpose of the upgrade is to get a solid 144 fps. I've said that already. I've also already said that lowering settings doesn't provide any higher performance. I already know how to tell if I have a CPU bottleneck. I am not looking for advice on how to do that. I'm not trying to be mean here... simply expressing the fact that I'm not new to this. I've been working and playing with computers for two decades.

However, thank you for the useful suggestion about ULMB. Unfortunately, my monitor does not support it, nor gsync. I was reading yesterday about some hacks that might make lightboost (essentially ULMB in software) work on it. I will definitely try these things out, on the chance that they might improve my experience.

However, Gsynch, ULMB, or lightboost will not get me to the 144hz point. More importantly, it won't smooth out the drops from 144 fps to 120 fps that I experience. This is of course the worst part, because the close juxtaposition is much more jarring than staying at 120hz. Were I not able to upgrade at all, I would simply drop the refresh rate to 120hz and deal with it. But I won't be discussing the merit of 144hz over 120hz. Go argue that elsewhere.

 

[Luke51087]

does the hyperthreading help out in Overwatch? it seems like people using the 3770k with HT and others are hitting those higher FPS.

 

[therealmeep]

Unless overwatch is fully using your entire cpu, you probably won't see a benefit from HT. Most results would probably come from higher clock. (My 3770 went up to 4.3GHz)

 

[Luke51087]

So in this benchmark here there is clearly HT giving a boost compare the i5-4690k which is a 3.5/3.9ghz vs the i7-3770k which is also 3.5/3.9 ghz HT seems to be helping alot, so if he could get a 4770 or 4770k or even a 4790k i think he could hit his numbers. I know he doesnt have a 1080 but still that CPU looks to be holding him back even vs an i7

 

[Papahyooie]

does the hyperthreading help out in Overwatch? it seems like people using the 3770k with HT and others are hitting those higher FPS.

Actually... that's a super good question... I'm not really sure.

My wife uses an 8-core AMD... might have to check on the core usage on that and see how many theads it's utilizing.

(for reference, she uses a 60hz monitor and so far hasn't been able to discern a difference between hers and mine, so there isn't much point in anything stronger for her.)

 

[Luke51087]

Actually... that's a super good question... I'm not really sure.

My wife uses an 8-core AMD... might have to check on the core usage on that and see how many theads it's utilizing.

(for reference, she uses a 60hz monitor and so far hasn't been able to discern a difference between hers and mine, so there isn't much point in anything stronger for her.)

For all of my overwatch game play i only ever used a 4770k, a 8700k, and 1700x, and in my laptop it was a 7700HQ, so ive always had HT/SMT so I cant really give you the results but that benchmark seems pretty obvious that HT is helping out, since they are at the same clock speeds even if its a 1080gtx

I adjusted the picture to the relevant CPUs in question. since they are all 3.5/3.9 base/turbo CPUs

Looks like it really helps out with the Min frame rate which is in question. So it seems dropping in a 4770k or 4790k would be the only option you really have without upgrading everything. so unless you can get a cheap second hand one im not sure if its really worth it

 

[Papahyooie]

For all of my overwatch game play i only ever used a 4770k, a 8700k, and 1700x, and in my laptop it was a 7700HQ, so ive always had HT/SMT so I cant really give you the results but that benchmark seems pretty obvious that HT is helping out, since they are at the same clock speeds even if its a 1080gtx

I adjusted the picture to the relevant CPUs in question. since they are all 3.5/3.9 base/turbo CPUs

Looks like it really helps out with the Min frame rate which is in question. So it seems dropping in a 4770k or 4790k would be the only option you really have without upgrading everything. so unless you can get a cheap second hand one im not sure if its really worth it

That actually almost perfectly replicates my situation. ~120 fps minimum. I say my max is 144, but that's only because I artificially limit it to 144. It probably maxes out around 180 as that graph says, but I couldn't care less about max framerate. I only care about holding 144hz.

So according to that, if I can find a cheap enough 4770/4790 it might be worth it.

 

[Durvelle27]

So in this benchmark here there is clearly HT giving a boost compare the i5-4690k which is a 3.5/3.9ghz vs the i7-3770k which is also 3.5/3.9 ghz HT seems to be helping alot, so if he could get a 4770 or 4770k or even a 4790k i think he could hit his numbers. I know he doesnt have a 1080 but still that CPU looks to be holding him back even vs an i7
View attachment 102767

Like I mentioned on that plateform the i7 would be the best advisable Choice. It would be pointless in upgrading to an entire new plateform as intels IPC has been pretty stagnet so you won’t see much boost over a 3770K/4770K

 

[Papahyooie]

Like I mentioned on that plateform the i7 would be the best advisable Choice. It would be pointless in upgrading to an entire new plateform as intels IPC has been pretty stagnet so you won’t see much boost over a 3770K/4770K

Right. My only worry would be that I'd have to overclock them to be able to get what I want. Which I can't do on my current board, and it would be silly to get a new board on this same platform.

If a 37/4770 / k can get what i want at stock, and if it's cheap enough, that might be worth it.

So who's got one for sale? lol

 

[Durvelle27]

Right. My only worry would be that I'd have to overclock them to be able to get what I want. Which I can't do on my current board, and it would be silly to get a new board on this same platform.

If a 37/4770 / k can get what i want at stock, and if it's cheap enough, that might be worth it.

So who's got one for sale? lol

Stock should be more than enough. Look at those reviews. They are all also stock.

Plus just a FYI you can OC without increasing volts. I got my i7-4770 non-k to run 4.2GHz by raising multi and BLCK

 

[Papahyooie]

Stock should be more than enough. Look at those reviews. They are all also stock.

Plus just a FYI you can OC without increasing volts. I got my i7-4770 non-k to run 4.2GHz by raising multi and BLCK

How did you raise the multi on a non k CPU? Or do you just mean you ran it at max turbo?

I've tried blck, it aint happening on my board/chip.

 

[Durvelle27]

How did you raise the multi on a non k CPU? Or do you just mean you ran it at max turbo?

I've tried blck, it aint happening on my board/chip.

I meant set it to the max multi to run at those frequencies all the time instead of just turbo on all cores

 

[Mussels]

Most of the H boards with the non K overclocking let you set the multi to the turbo for all cores, but if you test with benches will often run single core at that freq, and all cores 200Mhz lower

It can still be a 200-300Mhz boost over stock, but dont assume that setting it to max actually does what it implies, it doesnt always do it (i've seen this first hand on 2nd-4th gen, with K and non K overclocks on H/P/Z boards)

 

[Durvelle27]

Most of the H boards with the non K overclocking let you set the multi to the turbo for all cores, but if you test with benches will often run single core at that freq, and all cores 200Mhz lower

It can still be a 200-300Mhz boost over stock, but dont assume that setting it to max actually does what it implies, it doesnt always do it (i've seen this first hand on 2nd-4th gen, with K and non K overclocks on H/P/Z boards)

That could be possible but I couldn’t say

I ran mine on a Z87 Board and it stayed locked at 4.2GHz on all cores

 

[therealmeep]

Most of the H boards with the non K overclocking let you set the multi to the turbo for all cores, but if you test with benches will often run single core at that freq, and all cores 200Mhz lower

It can still be a 200-300Mhz boost over stock, but dont assume that setting it to max actually does what it implies, it doesnt always do it (i've seen this first hand on 2nd-4th gen, with K and non K overclocks on H/P/Z boards)

This is a pretty decent performance bump, I've done this with the few locked chips I've owned and been able to get an extra 400 MHz on my 3770 and 500 or so MHz on my 2400. I'd suggest at least looking to see if you can do this in your board. It might be called something like "Non-K overclock" or it might just be a setting called multiplier with a numerical value. Setting this number to something rediculous should make your board find the max the cpu can run at multiplier wise (non k intel chips are base clock unlocked, but the multiplier has a maximum usually below what the silicon would otherwise be able to do) and set it to that which should be higher than your stock clocks.

 

[Papahyooie]

Yea I've heard all that about running all cores at max and all that, but I didn't think it would provide much if any performance gain, since the boost is kicking in anyway under load. So what's the point of running it at max at all times when it's just going to be the same freq that it boosts to on its own?

Either way, I'll see what I can do on that.

 

[Durvelle27]

Yea I've heard all that about running all cores at max and all that, but I didn't think it would provide much if any performance gain, since the boost is kicking in anyway under load. So what's the point of running it at max at all times when it's just going to be the same freq that it boosts to on its own?

Either way, I'll see what I can do on that.

Turbo only runs max turbo on 1-2 cores and fluctuates the rest depending

Running max guaranties consistent clocks on all cores

 

[Mussels]

Yea I've heard all that about running all cores at max and all that, but I didn't think it would provide much if any performance gain, since the boost is kicking in anyway under load. So what's the point of running it at max at all times when it's just going to be the same freq that it boosts to on its own?

Either way, I'll see what I can do on that.

because games now use 2-4 threads, so it can make a 400MHz+ difference at times