• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

CPUs with next gen consoles

Smoogels

Smoogels

Smoogels

Associate
Joined
27 Oct 2007
Posts
2,146
My friend is building a new computer which is mostly for gaming. More specifically games like Battlefield 3 and anything else that comes out in the future.

I said that a i5 3570K would be good for him but he says a i7 3770K would be more future proof in the sense that the "next gen" consoles will support more threads. Would this be correct? I was still under the assumption that the 3570K would be pretty decent in a few years time.

I have been doing a little bit of research on the future proofing of the 3770K, but I get very mixed responses. Will a i7, with 4 cores and 4 threads, give "considerably" better performance than a i5 with 4 cores when more demanding games are released?

Thank you for your thought:)
 
If your friend wants to buy an I7 then let him.

It's pointless trying to future proof a PC. Buy what you need and if you need to swap out a few bits later then so be it. The oldest item in my computer is the case, closely followed by the PSU. The rest gets an upgrade when needed.

Typically with a modern quad core processor, games are GPU limited before they are CPU limited. The biggest gains are from overclocking, fast memory speeds and a good GPU.

HT has it's uses but few games really respond unless they are being run a low graphics to measure and exaggerate CPU impact.

By the time new games can really beneft from more cores, we'll have 32 core desktops and my toaster will be using I5's to heat bread

AD
 
The only games I can think off that support HT is a few of the Total War Games. It has never been to my knowledge used since.
 
what a lot dont realize is the new consoles will be very fast a lot faster than most expect. atleast it will push games for pc a bit more then :(
 
Next gens a let down. Quad cores will still be more than enoughfor gaming for a few more years. The next gen may have 8 cores but they will be slower clocked and probably wont be fully used till the end of the consoles life span anyway.
 
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/130221a_e.pdf

The PS4 is using a 1152 GCN shader part based on the HD7970M,which uses the same GPU as the HD7870(1280 shaders) and has 8GB of DDR5,which gives a bandwidth of 176GB/s. This compares well to the desktop HD7800 series cards. So the GPU should be between an HD7850 and HD7870 in performance. The CPU is a 8 core custom part based on AMD Jaguar.
 
Smoogels said:
My friend is building a new computer which is mostly for gaming. More specifically games like Battlefield 3 and anything else that comes out in the future.

I said that a i5 3570K would be good for him but he says a i7 3770K would be more future proof in the sense that the "next gen" consoles will support more threads. Would this be correct? I was still under the assumption that the 3570K would be pretty decent in a few years time.

I have been doing a little bit of research on the future proofing of the 3770K, but I get very mixed responses. Will a i7, with 4 cores and 4 threads, give "considerably" better performance than a i5 with 4 cores when more demanding games are released?

Thank you for your thought:)
Click to expand...

BF3 runs better on an i7 3770k, more so when using xfire or sli.
 
Doomedspeed said:
That from personal experience or is there benchmarks that prove that...

Im not doubting you, it'd just be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

Well, with multi GPU set ups, you need to keep the GPUs fed with a fast CPU, otherwise they will be bottle necked.

So the faster the CPU, the faster the overall performance depending on the game. BF3 seems to like fast CPUs and lots of cores, so makes good use of them, and with multi GPUs too, an overclocked high end i7 can make quite a big difference compared to a low end stock i7.
 
Doomedspeed said:
That from personal experience or is there benchmarks that prove that...

Im not doubting you, it'd just be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

This comes up a fair bit in the graphics section but from personal experience I use an i7 3960x and a pair of gtx 690s in quad sli. When I run BF3 I get good gpu usage on all 4 cores upto 97%-98% which is better than people with a 2500 or 3570 get using 2 GPUs.

When people upgrade to a 3770k they get the same sort of usage I do.

If you are using a single GPU you don't need the i7 with its extra threads.

As to benchmarks I think Rusty and Gregster can give you some in the graphics section.
 
Is this the next Xbox xchip?

surferibm05s021512.jpg
 
Kaapstad said:
This comes up a fair bit in the graphics section but from personal experience I use an i7 3960x and a pair of gtx 690s in quad sli. When I run BF3 I get good gpu usage on all 4 cores upto 97%-98% which is better than people with a 2500 or 3570 get using 2 GPUs.

When people upgrade to a 3770k they get the same sort of usage I do.

If you are using a single GPU you don't need the i7 with its extra threads.

As to benchmarks I think Rusty and Gregster can give you some in the graphics section.
Click to expand...
Ah...but the thing is that you are talking about your experience of the 3960x. While HT is benefitual to things like encoding, it doesn't benefit gaming performance all that much like extra physical cores do.

For example, there are games benchmark showing the i5 2500K being quite a lot faster than a i3 in games that use up to 4 threads, the i3 itself is nothing but 1-2fps faster than the Pentium.

If people really want to "future-proof" their CPU for gaming, I'm afraid HT is not the answer, but to look for 6 physcial cores CPU instead.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
For example, there are games benchmark showing the i5 2500K being quite a lot faster than a i3 in games that use up to 4 threads, the i3 itself is nothing but 1-2fps faster than the Pentium.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what your point is...

2500K will always be faster than an equivalent I3 (4 Physical vs 2 Physical+2Logical)
I3 will always be faster than Pentium Dual Core(2 Physical+2 Logical vs 2 Physical) - as you said 1-2fps.... may only be 1-2fps but still faster

Physical cores will always be faster than logical, but more will always win over few - assuming multi-threaded code, there are very few situations (Or benchmarks) where logical cores have any negative impact (unlike in the P4 era - where turning HT off could speed up some benchmarks).

Marine-RX179 said:
If people really want to "future-proof" their CPU for gaming, I'm afraid HT is not the answer, but to look for 6 physcial cores CPU instead.
Click to expand...

Yes but it is not happening for the mainstream market yet.... and to be honest a 6 core with HT (i.e. 12 Threads) will still be faster than your "future-proof" 6 core
 
xbox will be slightly slower than ps4 thats its market as previous

both new consoles will be fast as a mid high gaming pc though.
 
Will we finally see an end to crappy console ports now the PS4 is x86 cpu and ati 7970m custom?

The only thing different from say a mid range amd rig now is the lack if windows and the funny way the shared ram works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom