i7/i5/FX Gaming req for new and future titles

[opethdisciple]

This question has been done to death, but it is still nagging me.

Why game req specs for latest titles all say i7 but in the same breath 8 core FX chip.

The i7 is not equal to the FX. An i5 is same if not better than the FX.

Are these req because they are saying you will have a better experience using 8 threads??

Nags me because my 3570k is now clocked at 4.5Ghz but don’t know if it is fully getting the best out of my 970.

For example, I was getting hitching in Watch Dogs and Unity and have a nag that it's the CPU?

For the moment i5 is plenty for gaming, but the future?

---

I could grab a 4790k and mobo as cheap (ish) upgrade. £600 to step up to a 5820k in total.

 

[DragonQ]

Back in the day, things were pretty equal and all you really needed to state was the clock speed of your CPU. Things now are very complicated (made worse by confusing naming schemes) so what most game developers do is simply list a "minimum" modern-ish CPU from both the AMD camp and Intel camp. Again though, this is barely useful: if the minimum is set as a Core i5-750, for example, that doesn't tell you whether a newer (but lower-end) i3-3210 would be sufficient.

I wouldn't trust any minimum requirement that includes a Core i7. I wouldn't be surprised if they were paid to put that by Intel to push i7 sales, to be honest. If the game seriously needed 5+ cores for sufficient performance then it'd make sense but since when did any games like that exist?

 

[setter]

Also, the two games you listed are known to be buggy no matter what cpu you run them on. For the vast majority of gamers an i5 is more than ample. An i7 only comes into it's own with sli/xfire in a few select games.

 

[ALXAndy]

This question has been done to death, but it is still nagging me.

Why game req specs for latest titles all say i7 but in the same breath 8 core FX chip.

The i7 is not equal to the FX. An i5 is same if not better than the FX.

Are these req because they are saying you will have a better experience using 8 threads??

Nags me because my 3570k is now clocked at 4.5Ghz but don’t know if it is fully getting the best out of my 970.

For example, I was getting hitching in Watch Dogs and Unity and have a nag that it's the CPU?

For the moment i5 is plenty for gaming, but the future?

---

I could grab a 4790k and mobo as cheap (ish) upgrade. £600 to step up to a 5820k in total.

First up, the reason specs state AMD 8 core CPUs is because the consoles the games are primarily written for have an 8 core AMD chip.

So in theory that's about all you need to run the latest console ports.

Second up - Watchdogs.

I run a 3970x @ 4.7ghz and Titan Black SLI and it stutters like a person with a speech impediment.

So I certainly wouldn't go blaming your hardware for that.

 

[pastymuncher]

I have to admit that i never look at the requirements for a game. A decent setup should be enough for any game worth playing these days.

 

[Martini1991]

It's easy to just ignore the specs.
GTA 5 has the i5 3470 as the recommended, going up against the FX83.
Then such and such game has an i5 2500K going up against a Phenom II x4 as minimum spec. And the only way you'd put the Phenom II x4 in the same league as the 2500k is if you've just been violated and you're disorientated.

 

[opethdisciple]

I know I know. Best bet is to wait for the game to drop then then see reviews and first hand experiences.

But on a side note, they are estimating the GPU req fairly accurate so why are they being so wildly inconstant with cpu? :/

 

[Concrete]

From here on out you will need 8 cores (threads) if you want the best play experience.

Games are primarily written for console architecture because that's where the money is (and also because they have less headroom so its easier to write for them, then move over to PC). Both consoles use 8 cores so the code will be written in a multi-threaded fashion to maximize efficiency with them.

Sure you can have fewer cores at a greater clock speed, but the code will have been 'bodged' to facilitate that, resulting in bottle necking/stuttering in certain scenarios.

AMD getting both consoles on their architecture this generation was a masterstroke. Intel were thrashing them at the CPU speed game, so AMD effectively changed the rules to favor multi-threaded performance. Over the next year you will really see that starting to become clearer, and Intel will react.

GTA 5 is an exception to the trend because it was originally written for last gen consoles with fewer cores.

 

[murah]

recently moved from a 3570k to an i7 2700k. Single card the 3570k is equal really trading blows with the 2700k depending on what game you are comparing them on, but SLI the 3570k bottlenecks the gpus so that was my reason for going i7.

 

[~>Dg<~]

your cpu clocked is as fast as you need single card.

your 970 will be fine with it.

 

[Neil King]

From here on out you will need 8 cores (threads) if you want the best play experience.

Games are primarily written for console architecture because that's where the money is (and also because they have less headroom so its easier to write for them, then move over to PC). Both consoles use 8 cores so the code will be written in a multi-threaded fashion to maximize efficiency with them.

Sure you can have fewer cores at a greater clock speed, but the code will have been 'bodged' to facilitate that, resulting in bottle necking/stuttering in certain scenarios.

AMD getting both consoles on their architecture this generation was a masterstroke. Intel were thrashing them at the CPU speed game, so AMD effectively changed the rules to favor multi-threaded performance. Over the next year you will really see that starting to become clearer, and Intel will react.

GTA 5 is an exception to the trend because it was originally written for last gen consoles with fewer cores.

So would you recommend me to get a new Gaming PC with a FX Eight Core 8350 instead of an i7 4790k?

 

[Dave2150]

So would you recommend me to get a new Gaming PC with a FX Eight Core 8350 instead of an i7 4790k?

Hell no, the 4790k is by far the better choice, if you have the budget for it.

Lookup any benchmarks in any application/program, the 4790k wins every single time.

It also runs cooler and consumes less electricity, which is nice for the Summer months.

 

[ALXAndy]

So would you recommend me to get a new Gaming PC with a FX Eight Core 8350 instead of an i7 4790k?

It depends on the GPU set up you are looking at.

I've said it a million times before but the 8350 is nothing but a smoke screen. AMD rely on people looking at it to think its better or different to the 8320. Hint - it isn't. The 8320 will easily do a respectable clock.

Now for gaming? the 8320 is more than good enough and will continue to be now that AMD have their 8 core CPU in both of the new consoles. The 4790k is obviously a much faster chip but will cost you nearly three times as much as a 8320. So they're in completely different price brackets and different leagues.

However, as a gaming chip the 8320 is more than good enough, if you can get over the fact you didn't buy the faster much more expensive chip.

Sense? always, always screams the 8320. However if money is easily obtainable to you then by all means go with the I7.

 

[setter]

4790k might consume less power, but it is certainly not a cool running chip.

 

[ALXAndy]

4790k might consume less power, but it is certainly not a cool running chip.

Doesn't matter how many times you say it man, the Intel Witnesses ain't listening.

I must have said a thousand times how my 8320 can not possibly get any hotter than 73c because that's its thermal wall, yet Haswell and DC can easily reach 90c without a lot of pushing.

Sandy was cooler, that's about the only time the Intel lot had an argument because X58 CPUs were designed to run well into the 90s too.

 

[Neil King]

Ok thanks for the replies, i'm actually open to any platform AMD, Intel both Z97 and X99.

Doings lots of research atm, trying to keep costs down but could stretch to around the £1500 mark without a monitor, x99 of course is my number one preference but i'm afraid of the costs rocketing especially with DDR4 memory costs.

Looking to build a PC used primarily for gaming that will last upto 5 years so want the one with the most upgradability and won't get outdated if/when games have to have more than just a quad core processor, 5920K is enticing.

Yes one thing that worries me about 8320/8350 is the heat in the summer.

 

[setter]

A 4790k will hit mid 90's on the right programs at stock, I know cause I've owned two of them. Prior to those a 4770k. DC was touted as being cooler running than first gen haswell. That turned out to be a laugh, it runs hotter than the first ones.

 

[Concrete]

So would you recommend me to get a new Gaming PC with a FX Eight Core 8350 instead of an i7 4790k?

I'm running an 8 core AMD chip as my primary gaming CPU because I know that it will be more than enough for any game developed for the current generation of consoles (which won't be superseded for another 5 years).

Is it the fastest? Not by a long shot. But I don't have to worry about architecture differences causing trouble further down the line. As developers start learning new tricks/optimisation for the hardware (as they always do) any deviation from the console setup will require an ever increasing additional power margin to brute force a solution.

Up to you really what path you go down. In your situation I would (and have) gone with an 8 core AMD solution now, knowing that it can run anything anyway, and bank the money for when Intel's mainstream 8 core chips are released.

 

[pandem0nium]

It depends on the GPU set up you are looking at.

I've said it a million times before but the 8350 is nothing but a smoke screen. AMD rely on people looking at it to think its better or different to the 8320. Hint - it isn't. The 8320 will easily do a respectable clock.

Now for gaming? the 8320 is more than good enough and will continue to be now that AMD have their 8 core CPU in both of the new consoles. The 4790k is obviously a much faster chip but will cost you nearly three times as much as a 8320. So they're in completely different price brackets and different leagues.

However, as a gaming chip the 8320 is more than good enough, if you can get over the fact you didn't buy the faster much more expensive chip.

Sense? always, always screams the 8320. However if money is easily obtainable to you then by all means go with the I7.

When I bought the 8350, there were rumours of a binning process and higher achievable clocks. So I paid extra for the chance of a better ticket in the silicone lottery.

The 8320e is the one to get now though. A newer revision based on the newer server chips. Or the 8370 if going for exotic cooling better custom water.

 

[Neil King]

I'm running an 8 core AMD chip as my primary gaming CPU because I know that it will be more than enough for any game developed for the current generation of consoles (which won't be superseded for another 5 years).

Is it the fastest? Not by a long shot. But I don't have to worry about architecture differences causing trouble further down the line. As developers start learning new tricks/optimisation for the hardware (as they always do) any deviation from the console setup will require an ever increasing additional power margin to brute force a solution.

Up to you really what path you go down. In your situation I would (and have) gone with an 8 core AMD solution now, knowing that it can run anything anyway, and bank the money for when Intel's mainstream 8 core chips are released.

Ok thanks, definitely going for the AMD FX 8 core or 5820k 6 core, eliminating Z97 platform because as you say in years to come games will need more than four cores.

Only thing that worries me is I see you mentioned elsewhere that your AMD FX rig is very noisy, would a H100i liquid cooler be enough to quieten it down?

Also do you notice much heat from it when its warm outside?