Do "gaming" PCs require i5 procs?

[Sasqui]

Hey my Core2 E8600 @ 3.7Ghz paired with a 5870 does pretty well, though I do have to lower quality at 1920x1200

 

[EpicShweetness]

Well it all depends on what you play. CPU intensive games will benefit from more cores not threads. To that extent AMD.
That is to say a 6300 FX may do better as yes it has 6 cores, but majority of programming will ignore 1/3/5(6) core. It's using 1 core per module as a whole core. I've noticed this with my machines.
SO! A the 6300 will have 3 (used) cores vs 2 hyper threaded cores.
This all boils down to what you are doing, but something like a AAA title (Crysis 3) the more cores the better. In that case a 8350 or an i5 definitely.

 

[Blue-Knight]

yes if you want a proper gaming rig you need an i7

No, we need more optimized codes for PC games... I bet many of them are just poorly coded.

 

[Jetster]

Its all relative. It depends on the game, the resolution and your definition of "playing"

Example WOW on at 900 i3 fine. BF4 on 1080 No. Well yes but I wouldn't. Too frustrating

 

[micropage7]

with i3 it would fine but some people take i5 coz it has more cores and handling multitasking better than i3

 

[Lionheart]

Since we're on the topic of CPU's I would like to ask if my i7 940 @ 3.4ghz would bottleneck a GTX 770, R9 280X or anything higher?

 

[Rowsol]

 

[scoutingwraith]

To be honest i recently built a system for my dad an i3-3240 with 8Gb and a Gigabyte board and i put an old 8800GTS 512Mb i had and it is running most games on decent settings at 1080p. (not maxed out but still quite playable)

 

[jormungand]

So if i were going to upgrade my beloved 2500k i should take an 4770 instead of an 4670k, i will love the 100bucks of difference to put them on a new GPU?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

So if i were going to upgrade my beloved 2500k i should take an 4770 instead of an 4670k, i will love the 100bucks of difference to put them on a new GPU?

Id definitely put that 100 bucks towards a GPU and just get a 4670k

 

[GreiverBlade]

well minimum yes ... needed mostly no...

i bet my future AII X4 760K will give me enough frame to be smooth in every games i play ... heck even my 460 HAWK was able to give 45ish FPS in crysis 3
ok ... with a Xeon E3-1275v2 but now i am on a budget and a cheapish B85 + a I5-4670 would not even fit in the budget window ... a AII X4 760K + a ASRock A88M Ex4+ cost me 50chf under the price of a i5-4670 alone (219chf)

edit i mixed up 4570 and 4670 prices...

 

[v12dock]

Don't forget the new 4K display too, bare minimum! And to hell with the 30Hz!

Three 4K@144Hz is bare minimum for a mediocre gaming experience

 

[Batou1986]

It depends on the game really
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

 

[LeonVolcove]

my Kaveri(A10-7850k) Runs perfectly fine in 1920 x 1080, although i have to settle down with low setting.
Please define this "Gaming"

Do you want to play Ultra/Very High settings or you just want to GAME even the latest game with low setting(like me)?

 

[FreedomEclipse]

IMO even a good C2Q will net you decent performance. I had no problems driving bc2, bf3 with 5850s and 6970s with decent fps at 1080p with a C2Q, I probably would have still been running that system too but a friend wanted a new pc for cheap and i got a massive tax refund at the same time so i sold it to him and went with a 2500k build. C2Qs might not be the best but they don't do too bad either pitty that the last good C2Q are not included in most cpu scaling reviews

 

[phanbuey]

it is what it is... its all about the balance of your system - you as a system builder decide. high rez skews videocard over cpu - it just depends.

 

[Solaris17]

probably need dual xeons nowadays.

 

[jormungand]

It depends on the game really
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Watching those comparisons take me to think twice to change or upgrade my 2500K at least i can OC mine to 4.0ghz and get a little more performance
and save the money for a gtx 770 o better a gtx 780. Or am I wrong? whats your opinions guys could my 2500k stand for 1 year or more giving good frames for 1080p?

 

[Nordic]

probably need dual xeons nowadays.

Psh, quad xeons or bust.

 

[johnspack]

Lion, your 940 will do just fine for the foreseeable future....

 

[Melvis]

This might help

 

[Ruru]

I had a 2.6GHz Sandy Bridge Celeron (G550) before this i5-2500K @ 4.4GHz what I have now, and all the fps drops and other crap are gone. And also everything other use on the PC is much faster. Good old GTX470 still goes on

 

[Durvelle27]

You do know this is only showing single player performance not MP.

Here's MP

It depends on the game really
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Depends what games you play and what you expect. There's some games where anything less than a quad won't give you the best performance, but an i3 will still play them. We're talking the difference between a budget gaming build, and an enthusiast gaming build.

 

[GreiverBlade]

well i would never go under a Quad, but i do think a i5 can be replaced by a less performant quad ... for instance my Phenom X4 9600B @ 2.4 do just fine atm with my R9 270 until i get my X4 760K

i can play my usual games without too much compromise: FFXIVARR all to the max (easy) TR2013 high no AA (a bit less easy) BF4 med/high (drop under 40fps sometime but rarely) Crysis 3 high (some scene make a lag spike but not too often)

PX4 9600B : 50chf 2nd hand with a Asus M3N78-CM and 4 gb DDR2 800
ASRock FM2A88M Ex4+ and a Athlon II X4 760K new : 160chf

a i5-4670 alone 219.90 a K version 234chf a good µATX Z87 between 119.90 and 199.90

it is all a matter of budget but when you are an enthusiast bound by a budget... its pretty painful...