CPU for 144hz Overwatch

[Papahyooie]

Can't run all cores at max on my board. Most is will do is x37 multi. So 3.67ghz.

 

[las]

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

Value/perf, yes, but 8700K beats 8600K in most demanding games clock for clock, especially in minimum fps / 0.1% lows and when paired with a high end GPU.
In the long run, 8700K will age much better.

Look at 4C i5's today. Compared to 4C/8T i7's. The i7's still holds up.
4C i5's have much lower minimum fps in some games. HT saves the day.

Don't expect i5 to deliver top performance in games for long. Only in less demanding eSport titles.

Tested this myself recently. When I disabled HT, fps dropped alot in newer games. AC Origins, around 40% less performance to minimum fps. Avg were only 10% behind. But game felt alot less smooth with no HT enabled, even at 5 GHz. This game likes cores/threads alot tho...

 

[Mussels]

las: you missed my point. an i5k is better than a standard i7, of course an i7k is the best choice.

people have budgets.

 

[las]

las: you missed my point. an i5k is better than a standard i7, of course an i7k is the best choice.

people have budgets.

You didn't mention anything about price. You said i5 is better than i7 for gaming, and it's not.

Yeah people have budgets, but we're talking mainstream here.

 

[Mussels]

You didn't mention anything about price. You said i5 is better than i7 for gaming, and it's not.

Yeah people have budgets, but we're talking mainstream here.

aaand yet again, missed the point despite my clarification. an i5 *K* chip is better than a regular i7 for gaming, because the higher clock speed easily makes up for the missing hyper threading.

 

[las]

aaand yet again, missed the point despite my clarification. an i5 *K* chip is better than a regular i7 for gaming, because the higher clock speed easily makes up for the missing hyper threading.

I didn't miss anything, because you just said i7.

 

[Papahyooie]

None of that matters, as I already have the best i5 for my board, and I'm not paying money to side-grade to a K model that *might* be able to overclock.

 

[damric]

Tune your DDR3 frequency and timings. You can gain significantly on the minimum FPS. Not sure what you are running or what that board is capable of, but there is a huge difference between say...DDR3-1600CL11 and DDR3-2400CL9.

 

[Papahyooie]

Got a message from a gentleman who found this thread on google, so I thought I'd necro it for those that do the same:

I ended up upgrading to a Ryzen 5 2600 and couldn't be happier. The i5 4690 was pegged out at 100% usage, causing keyboard strokes to be missed sometimes. The Ryzen 5 2600 sits at ~30% usage, even at well over 200 fps average.

Notes:
-180fps minimum in Overwatch with the same settings and graphics card (980Ti) as before. So more than enough for 144hz gaming. (even while streaming)
-This is with crappy DDR4-2133, not even matched sticks. No need for fancy ram to get 144hz. (though you can get even higher with better ram)
- Relevant to the thread, I do notice that Overwatch routinely uses six or more threads. So with the i5, it was very likely that it simply did not have the cores/threads throughput to keep up. So in theory an upgrade to an i7 4770k would have sufficed. However, I cannot confirm nor deny this. Seems a high thread count is requisite for high FPS Overwatch. i7's and Ryzens only need apply. (though maybe the later generation i5s with six cores would probably suffice. Perhaps someone can test.)

So in short, this is one of those heretofore rare examples of games that love high thread count. As a result, Ryzen really does shine. If Overwatch is your game, and you need 144hz, a Ryzen setup will not disappoint.

 

[kapone32]

Got a message from a gentleman who found this thread on google, so I thought I'd necro it for those that do the same:

I ended up upgrading to a Ryzen 5 2600 and couldn't be happier. The i5 4690 was pegged out at 100% usage, causing keyboard strokes to be missed sometimes. The Ryzen 5 2600 sits at ~30% usage, even at well over 200 fps average.

Notes:
-180fps minimum in Overwatch with the same settings and graphics card (980Ti) as before. So more than enough for 144hz gaming. (even while streaming)
-This is with crappy DDR4-2133, not even matched sticks. No need for fancy ram to get 144hz. (though you can get even higher with better ram)
- Relevant to the thread, I do notice that Overwatch routinely uses six or more threads. So with the i5, it was very likely that it simply did not have the cores/threads throughput to keep up. So in theory an upgrade to an i7 4770k would have sufficed. However, I cannot confirm nor deny this. Seems a high thread count is requisite for high FPS Overwatch. i7's and Ryzens only need apply. (though maybe the later generation i5s with six cores would probably suffice. Perhaps someone can test.)

So in short, this is one of those heretofore rare examples of games that love high thread count. As a result, Ryzen really does shine. If Overwatch is your game, and you need 144hz, a Ryzen setup will not disappoint.
[/QU

That is right

 

[zechs]

For 4770, I found this

Someone test Overwatch with i3 + i5 + i7, I think this is valid, his i5 result is perfectly same as yours XD

 

[FinneousPJ]

Obviously the 2600 is double the value for money of an i7, making the i7 a tough sell for overwatch players.

 

[Papahyooie]

For 4770, I found this

Someone test Overwatch with i3 + i5 + i7, I think this is valid, his i5 result is perfectly same as yours XD

Good find. His minimums were a bit better than mine were on the i5, but I would blame that on the Xeon's extra 2mb of cache probably.