Won't an i5 be enough anymore?

  • 79 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Horgen (110078 posts) -

I meant 6 physical cores @04dcarraher. Should have stated such.

Though that would pretty much require 6 cores to move down to upper mainstream segment.

#52 Posted by 04dcarraher (19328 posts) -

@horgen said:

I meant 6 physical cores @04dcarraher. Should have stated such.

Though that would pretty much require 6 cores to move down to upper mainstream segment.

I think that true 8 core cpu's will become the new standard in the next three years or so, the six cored or even triple cored cpu's are more or less fill in the segments in between quads and eight core.

Intel is finally releasing a true 8 core cpu on the consumer market with LGA 2011-3 ie X99 chipset along with DDR4. While AMD's FX 8's might be considered an eight core cpu because of the two integer processors per module but its performance is still slower then Phenom 2's clock per clock per vs two modules vs 4 cores. This is why the jaguar based cpu's in the consoles wont really determine the need for more then a modern quad core cpu for games designed around their specifications with the need of using all six threads to get by on a 1.6/1.7 ghz cpu thats slower then AMD's first bulldozer line.

#53 Edited by evildead6789 (7548 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@evildead6789 said:

@04dcarraher said:

@evildead6789 said:

@04dcarraher said:

@evildead6789 said:

@adamosmaki said:

@Old_Gooseberry said:

@kunal_anand50 said:

Few months back, i built a gaming rig with R9 280x and an i5 4670. While building the rig, i read everywhere that i5 would be enough and i7 isn't really essential for gaming.

Now, every new big game is coming out with i7 in the recommended settings.

Would i5 have a problem maxing games provided you have a good enough graphic card in such cases?

Those same people that said i5 would always be enough for gaming also used to say 4gigs was enough for gaming also. They never looked to the future, now 8 gigs is much better for a gaming pc, and i7 makes alot more sense. By the end of the ps4 generation of consoles probably every game will be using 8 threads in games...

i5 did make sense for the last gen of consoles, most games used 2-3 threads at most.

Can you find me any benchmarks that justify purchasing an i7 over an i5 when your primary use is gaming? In fact can you find me any benchmarks that i7 is anything more than 5% faster than an i5?. Also in pc gaming buying expensive hardware with the thought that will last you alot of years before the need to upgrade is counterproductive. You are much better off buying something mid/mid-high end rather high end and upgrading just a bit sooner. A $300 i5/mobo combo will easily last you 3 years considering how weak new console cpu's

As for new games recommending i7's that is only watchdogs and wolfenstein ( and in case of wolfenstein that is a 5 year old i7 930 )

Also reasonable people recommend you the best bang for your buck that will last you a while and i5 is better price/performance wise compared to i7.

Oh and new consoles can only use 6 threads for gaming and i'm more than certain 4 i5 cores are way faster than a low end cpu with low IPC and low base frequency

Well if they don't optimize for four threads, who knows what the performance will be on an i5. Since they recommend it and the new consoles use more than four threads , you probably will be better off with an i7.

There aren't any games that are only next gen yet (so only on next gen consoles) so we can't tell you this upfront.

In two weeks we will know a lot more

They will optimize for four threads for a long time because modern cpu's clean those console cpu's clocks. =P, but the fact is that developers wont exclude the vast majority of their user base.

What they recommend should be taken with a pinch of salt since they also recommend FX 8's which are no where near i7's performance and they still lose against i5's with multithreaded apps and games that do make use of 8 threads. They are only recommending i7's and FX 8's is because the game is ether a poorly coded and recommend the best of each brand of cpu to get a standard of quality or can use 8 threads if available.

BF4 is a prime example of an game that shows how weak those six cores are in those consoles. Even exclusive games like ISS show the affect of how slow the cpu's are.

Another example of why requirements should be questioned and not blindly accepted. Is Thief also recommends a i7 or FX 8 ,but yet an i5 is only 2fps slower then i7 with a 290x.

When mantle came out for thief, the 8350 gained enough fps to be on par with i5 while i5's and i7 with mantle gained basically nothing.

Fact is that the games that are designed on consoles wont need more then a modern quad core from now until the end of the generation.

shut up carraher you've already proven you don't know what the hell you're talking about

you just mad your wrong its ok

I'm not mad, it's ridiculous you keep on giving advice

while you clearly don't know what you're talking about

lol thats hilarious you haven't given one shred of real solid proof and explained the what and why. Your talking about yourself not knowing anything...... You going from an i5 2500 to an 3820 then selling that and started looking at the xeons etc then claim that your 3820 magically gave you performance that beats an i7 3770k with a stronger gpu and yet claim its because of the onboard pci-e controller that support 40 lanes on a 7870xt where it wouldnt do crap. Then you claim just because your running dual channel memory allows 3820 so much better when in fact single to quad channel does hardly nothing for the cpu's performance. so yeah your the one that shouldn't be giving advice.

You have no idea who your talking to and how many people ive helped over the years on the original pc hardware forum.

maybe be so

but that pci 2.0 comment on the i7-3820 is a massive fail.

And it's not sure i5's will run so well with next gen games. You better pray you're right or a lot of people ain't gonna like you after they bought an i5 recently., following your advice.

I would suggest them an amd 8 core over an intel i5 at this time, they're even cheaper

#54 Edited by 04dcarraher (19328 posts) -

Fact is that all sandy bridge based cpu's even on LGA 2011 do not natively support the pci-e 3.0 specifications. Intel specs on their site and forums people asking intel proves it. Hence the reason behind the registry hacks needed when pci-e 3.0 cards and boards came out, nvidia having it forced on 2.0 until they had a work around in their divers. And even motherboard makers saying you need a cpu that is pci-e revision 3.0 and 22nm (which are ivy's) to have full pci-e 3.0 compatibility/features. The only reason why sandy -e's see an improvement in boards with pci-e 3.0 is because of their extremely wide pci-e controller able to handle 40 lanes which allows the pci-e 3.0 bandwidth. "Ivy Bridge-E is really about the updated core, a memory controller rated for 1866 MT/s (instead of 1600), *official PCI Express 3.0 compliance* (remember, Sandy Bridge-E only claimed 8 GT/s signaling support)"

Again your ignoring the facts about how slow those console cpu's are if the game can run on consoles any intel quad core or AMD quad core above 3ghz will provide much better performance then what console's cpu can provide. Also its been sorta confirmed that Watchdogs is 900p and locked at 30 fps on PS4 and 720/30 on Xbox 1. Highly doubt a i5 will have trouble.

Now suggesting an FX 8 over an i5 is not proper advice since the prices are similar and that FX 8's even with mantle do not outright outperform a Haswell i5's and in many cases still fall behind . And Mantle based games make use of all eight threads and even lower cpu overhead on the gpu's API. That shows alot in how weak AMD's processors are compared to intel's.

#55 Posted by evildead6789 (7548 posts) -

Fact is that all sandy bridge based cpu's even on LGA 2011 do not natively support the pci-e 3.0 specifications. Intel specs on their site and forums people asking intel proves it. Hence the reason behind the registry hacks needed when pci-e 3.0 cards and boards came out, nvidia having it forced on 2.0 until they had a work around in their divers. And even motherboard makers saying you need a cpu that is pci-e revision 3.0 and 22nm (which are ivy's) to have full pci-e 3.0 compatibility/features. The only reason why sandy -e's see an improvement in boards with pci-e 3.0 is because of their extremely wide pci-e controller able to handle 40 lanes which allows the pci-e 3.0 bandwidth. "Ivy Bridge-E is really about the updated core, a memory controller rated for 1866 MT/s (instead of 1600), *official PCI Express 3.0 compliance* (remember, Sandy Bridge-E only claimed 8 GT/s signaling support)"

Again your ignoring the facts about how slow those console cpu's are if the game can run on consoles any intel quad core or AMD quad core above 3ghz will provide much better performance then what console's cpu can provide. Also its been sorta confirmed that Watchdogs is 900p and locked at 30 fps on PS4 and 720/30 on Xbox 1. Highly doubt a i5 will have trouble.

Now suggesting an FX 8 over an i5 is not proper advice since the prices are similar and that FX 8's even with mantle do not outright outperform a Haswell i5's and in many cases still fall behind . And Mantle based games make use of all eight threads and even lower cpu overhead on the gpu's API. That shows alot in how weak AMD's processors are compared to intel's.

Well at least you done some real research now. Forums and benchies do show that sandy bridge e make use of the bandwith pci 3.0. So wether it's official or not , it does seem to work but it's no longer my problem since I sold that system

I can understand you highly doubt an i5 will have trouble but we haven't really encountered this problem before , no one really knows how an i5 will behave for games that are only optimized for 6 threads. If they make it like that, but since they recommened it, it sounds like the writing on the wall. Wolfenstein recommendation of an i7 930 would make a lot of sense in this way.

That's why i would suggest on fx 8 over an i5 at this time, but I would suggest them to wait in the first place till the benchies are out.

#56 Posted by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

It is just recommendation, don't get so bent out of shape over it. Back in the day when the box said recommends a 486 100mhz with 8 mb of ram you better damn well have it to avoid a slideshow, not so anymore.

#57 Edited by evildead6789 (7548 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

It is just recommendation, don't get so bent out of shape over it. Back in the day when the box said recommends a 486 100mhz with 8 mb of ram you better damn well have it to avoid a slideshow, not so anymore.

normally you need higher than recommended to play on ultra

This is what this guy was asking

#58 Edited by 04dcarraher (19328 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:

Well at least you done some real research now. Forums and benchies do show that sandy bridge e make use of the bandwith pci 3.0. So wether it's official or not , it does seem to work but it's no longer my problem since I sold that system

I can understand you highly doubt an i5 will have trouble but we haven't really encountered this problem before , no one really knows how an i5 will behave for games that are only optimized for 6 threads. If they make it like that, but since they recommened it, it sounds like the writing on the wall. Wolfenstein recommendation of an i7 930 would make a lot of sense in this way.

That's why i would suggest on fx 8 over an i5 at this time, but I would suggest them to wait in the first place till the benchies are out.

That whole paragraph is the summary of the info Ive been posting you were just ignoring/trolling......

By the time 6 or 8 cores/threads become required all i7 quads will be in the same boat as i5's since their total processing power is nearly the same. And by the time in needing a true 6/8 core cpu older quad core based HT cpus will be lacking. There are already games that make use of 6+ threads and i5's keep up with i7's only trailing slightly. Core performance with HT does equal alot more performance Phenom 2 X4's out perform i3's which are just dual cores with HT with games that use four threads. AMD's Bulldozers/Piledriver per module is slower then Phenom 2's core and much slower then intel's core.

It takes a 3.8 ghz FX 4300 to match a Phenom 2 X4 955 at 3.2 ghz. That is another reason why you cant take i7/FX 8 requirements seriously and expect massive differences over an i5. and think just because the consoles have the Jaguar based cpu with 4 modules with two integer processors per module calling it an 8 core. They only have access to three of the modules aka 6 cores with a cpu at 1.7 ghz or less. There is not very much processing power there and an i3 or even an low clocked Athlon 2 x4 would perform better.

Again suggesting a FX 8 over an i5 is just wrong. The only time I would suggest an FX 8 is someone that already has an AM3+ board and only a FX 6300 if they were on a tight budget. If you have ~$200 budget on a cpu its better to grab an i5 for the games that only use 1-4 cores and even the games that make use of eight threads i5's total processing power is greater then FX8.

#59 Posted by evildead6789 (7548 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:

Well at least you done some real research now. Forums and benchies do show that sandy bridge e make use of the bandwith pci 3.0. So wether it's official or not , it does seem to work but it's no longer my problem since I sold that system

I can understand you highly doubt an i5 will have trouble but we haven't really encountered this problem before , no one really knows how an i5 will behave for games that are only optimized for 6 threads. If they make it like that, but since they recommened it, it sounds like the writing on the wall. Wolfenstein recommendation of an i7 930 would make a lot of sense in this way.

That's why i would suggest on fx 8 over an i5 at this time, but I would suggest them to wait in the first place till the benchies are out.

That whole paragraph is the summary of the info Ive been posting you were just ignoring/trolling......

By the time 6 or 8 cores/threads become required all i7 quads will be in the same boat as i5's since their total processing power is nearly the same. And needing a true 6/8 core cpu will be needed. There are already games that make use of 6+ threads and i5's keep up with i7's only trailing slightly. Core performance with HT does equal alot more performance Phenom 2 X4's out perform i3's which are just dual cores with HT with games that use four threads. AMD's Bulldozers/Piledriver per module is slower then Phenom 2's core and much slower then intel's core.

It takes a 3.8 ghz FX 4300 to match a Phenom 2 X4 955 at 3.2 ghz. That is another reason why you cant take i7/FX 8 requirements seriously and expect massive differences over an i5. and think just because the consoles have the Jaguar based cpu with 4 modules with two integer processors per module calling it an 8 core. They only have access to three of the modules aka 6 cores with a cpu at 1.7 ghz or less. There is not very much processing power there and an i3 or even an low clocked Athlon 2 x4 would perform better.

Again suggesting a FX 8 over an i5 is just wrong. The only time I would suggest an FX 8 is someone that already has an AM3+ board and only a FX 6300 if they were on a tight budget. If you have ~$200 budget on a cpu its better to grab an i5 for the games that only use 1-4 cores and even the games that make use of eight threads i5's total processing power is greater then FX8.

No it isn't , this time you actually interpretated some date, it's still wrong of course. Wide pci-e controller? lanes have nothing to do with it. pci 3.0 is an encoding sheme.. I'm just in a good mood

Total processing power is not enough when you have loop for instance, As strong as the i5's are, if they don't optimize it for it, it simply will impact performance. Do put it bluntly, if you put a ps3 disc in your system , it won't work. How good it will work is all up to devs. It's a fact that the consoles are just pc's , so these will be straight ports . They will make it work on quad cores, probably even on dual cores , how good ? that remains to be seen

An amd fx 8 cores has the best chance to run well (or an i7), they recommend it and they support enough threads. The facts are clear as day.

#60 Edited by Gaming-Planet (13998 posts) -

i5 haswell has more than half the IPC of an FX 8350.

When all 8 cores are used the multithreaded performance are on par. Do the math, more cores does not always mean better multi threaded performance if they're weak. If a game can seriously utilize hyperthreading and more cores, an i7 4930k would stretch its legs more.

#61 Posted by 04dcarraher (19328 posts) -

No it isn't , this time you actually interpretated some date, it's still wrong of course. Wide pci-e controller? lanes have nothing to do with it. pci 3.0 is an encoding sheme.. I'm just in a good mood

Total processing power is not enough when you have loop for instance, As strong as the i5's are, if they don't optimize it for it, it simply will impact performance. Do put it bluntly, if you put a ps3 disc in your system , it won't work. How good it will work is all up to devs. It's a fact that the consoles are just pc's , so these will be straight ports . They will make it work on quad cores, probably even on dual cores , how good ? that remains to be seen

An amd fx 8 cores has the best chance to run well (or an i7), they recommend it and they support enough threads. The facts are clear as day.

Your so full of it

#62 Posted by evildead6789 (7548 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:

No it isn't , this time you actually interpretated some date, it's still wrong of course. Wide pci-e controller? lanes have nothing to do with it. pci 3.0 is an encoding sheme.. I'm just in a good mood

Total processing power is not enough when you have loop for instance, As strong as the i5's are, if they don't optimize it for it, it simply will impact performance. Do put it bluntly, if you put a ps3 disc in your system , it won't work. How good it will work is all up to devs. It's a fact that the consoles are just pc's , so these will be straight ports . They will make it work on quad cores, probably even on dual cores , how good ? that remains to be seen

An amd fx 8 cores has the best chance to run well (or an i7), they recommend it and they support enough threads. The facts are clear as day.

Your so full of it

lol lighten up man, it's all good

#64 Edited by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:

@vfibsux said:

It is just recommendation, don't get so bent out of shape over it. Back in the day when the box said recommends a 486 100mhz with 8 mb of ram you better damn well have it to avoid a slideshow, not so anymore.

normally you need higher than recommended to play on ultra

This is what this guy was asking

There is no "normally" when it comes to requirements and maxing out. You don't need i7's and Titans to play games on ultra unless you are going for super high resolution. If he wants this he needs to run SLI/Xfire.....the cpu is not his biggest issue.

#65 Posted by mjorh (708 posts) -

I had no problem with my Core i3 2100 so far , i don't understand all the fuss about CPUs , graphics card matter the most when it comes to gaming so you just need to invest on graphics card ....

#66 Edited by BattleSpectre (5966 posts) -

Why couldn't you assholes tell me this in my thread and comfort me? lol. Half of you recommended upgrading from my i5-2500, and now you're saying i5's will be fine? Gee thanks a lot.

#67 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16344 posts) -

@mjorh said:

I had no problem with my Core i3 2100 so far , i don't understand all the fuss about CPUs , graphics card matter the most when it comes to gaming so you just need to invest on graphics card ....

Yeah, and that is perhaps a reason why Intel would have devs recommend an i7, because they see that gamers aren't buying newer CPUs like they used to.

#68 Posted by evildead6789 (7548 posts) -

Why couldn't you assholes tell me this in my thread and comfort me? lol. Half of you recommended upgrading from my i5-2500, and now you're saying i5's will be fine? Gee thanks a lot.

wait till the benchies come out if you want to be sure

#69 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

@jake44 said:

@wis3boi said:

When a game recommends an i7 it's either a load of shit or horrible optimization and not the CPUs fault

#70 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3718 posts) -

The only difference between a i5 and a i7 is Hyper Threading... I HIGHLY doubt games like Watch Dog are optimised for Hyper Threading. If fact I doubt that its optimised at all.

#71 Posted by Gooeykat (3357 posts) -

Part of those requirements are probably CYA by the publisher, basically saying "hey, if the game runs like crap, don't blame us your under the recommended specs!"

#72 Edited by sSubZerOo (43098 posts) -

Yeah not so sure.. Watchdog recommends a AMD 8350 stock.. Yet the I5 2500k easily surpasses that chip with a simple overclock in game performance.. IN fact many games out there that heavily favor per core performance have the I5 2500k surpass things like the 8350.. And when they don't and the I5 is behind, it is negligent from what I have seen BEFORE overclock.. In which you can easily crank the 2500k from its stock speeds to upwards of 4.3 to 4.4ghz.. So yeah I think your fine, especially when it depends what games your really interested with.. Seeing as pc gaming has become so diverse in constantly releasing lower requirement games all the time.

#73 Edited by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

Why does the text fade out when there are so many quotes? I CANT EVEN READ THE ******* CONVERSATION!!!!!

#74 Posted by donalbane (16213 posts) -

Interesting thread... I just watched this video this morning about how turning off cores effected games. It's a year old, but it was pretty interesting.

I got a i5 2550 because I read at the time of the build (2.5 years ago) that hyperthreading wasn't a big factor in the vast majority of games. If this changes, I'll upgrade I guess, but so far I really can't complain.

#75 Posted by kungfool69 (2574 posts) -

The only game I saw recommending an i7 was Wolfenstein NO. The i7 turned out to be a 930, which is a 4-year-old CPU. So yes, your 4670 should be good for quite a while.

Hell, my Steambox PC has an AMD 6300, and that should be good for a while because most of the new games coming out are optimized for the weak CPUs in the PS4/XBone.

my i7 930 is still running fantastic :D original build was a 930, 6gb tri-channel, 4850. Now for editing its running 12gb tri channel, 5770 and i still rock all the console ports!

Go i7 if ur doing editing or ur flush with cash (its your money after all). So if u want one less piece to worry about, grab an i7, but an i5 will be fine in most cases.

#76 Posted by kunal_anand50 (79 posts) -

Wolfenstein is one of the upcoming games that recommend an i7. We would get a clear picture with its and watchdogs' release.

#77 Posted by Quiet_Demon (7 posts) -
#78 Edited by evildead6789 (7548 posts) -
#79 Edited by superclocked (5823 posts) -

Your i5 will last you for a long time, especially with DX12 and Mantle reducing CPU usage so much in the next year or so. Hell, the XB1 and PS4 use little mobile processors, and they're going to set the standard for CPU usage over the next few years...

#80 Edited by glez13 (8711 posts) -

Well the first game that recommends i7 is apparently being debunked.

#81 Posted by donalbane (16213 posts) -

@glez13 said:

Well the first game that recommends i7 is apparently being debunked.

That makes me happy. I will keep my i5 2550 for a while, I guess.

#82 Posted by kunal_anand50 (79 posts) -

While Wolfenstein's i7 recommendation has been debunked, Watchdogs' creative director has specifically come out and said that you need to have a cpu with 9000+ score in order to run the game on ultra. That is a case of poor optimization in my opinion.