For me personally I play at 4k or in VR, but quite a few of the games I actually play a lot are actually more CPU limited still, especially when talking trying to hit the 90Hz for VR - MSFS2020, Assetto Corsa Competizione for example.
-
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.
AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
For me personally I play at 4k or in VR, but quite a few of the games I actually play a lot are actually more CPU limited still, especially when talking trying to hit the 90Hz for VR - MSFS2020, Assetto Corsa Competizione for example.
are you still looking for processor performance improvements in 4k?
And to answer your question, 1440p with settings tuned down to hit stable 200fps. So even more demanding on cpu than 1080p
What's the point in judging gaming performance at a resolution folk don't play at? If you can't differentiate CPUs at realistic resolutions, the answer is that gamers don't need more powerful CPUs and should spend the extra on GPU.
So that means I shouldn't bother with these new overpriced AMD chips, right?
Not if you're only gaming at high resolution, simply don't need a monster CPU for that.
Told someone to do this, they wanted a £500 Intel i9 to play games at 4k, but only had the budget for an RTX 2060S. Took £350 of the CPU budget, added it to the GPU and they now have an RTX 3080 (order) and a Ryzen 5 3600 for a fraction more, but that was due to them wanting to buy a silly motherboard they'll never make use of.
Wouldn’t you need both.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Which is why I asked the question as although there is always use case examples and 'but I use it for x so it requires it', the crux of the point is if your gaming at higher resolutions your better of worrying about your GPU selection rather than your CPU selection. Checking on some signatures makes me wonder thats all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
I think your reading into it more than necessary, so firstly your NOT gaming at 1080p as you just said, but if you go back a page people posting graphs at 1080p and the bickering, well I wouldn't be investing in a £300+ CPU to be playing games at 1080p especially with some of the monitors you have at your disposal. Your argument of needing a better spec CPU for your settings turned down 1440p is on the path of diminishing returns.
You probably already seen this but worth watching if you haven't.
You can offset a graphics top heavy system with resolution to some extent, the problem is playable frame rates at 4K are very demanding.
Let’s say my CPU can do 50 FPS at 1920x1080 you would see small drops in frames as the resolutions increased until the graphics card tapped out. So let’s say at 4K the CPU can hit 40 FPS, but in theory the card can hit 140 FPS but I’ll never see it. I would be better off buying a slower graphics and faster CPU.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Points valid, I get it. It obviously depends on your resolution and target fps. The general guidance is instead of pumping all your money on a high-end CPU, when it comes to a higher resolution you can get away with a good CPU but get the best GPU you can afford. As @Journey posted is the best example for the average gamer.
My post wasnt specifically at @alec or people that want very high refresh rates / fps i.e. competitive e-sport player.
You can also render above your display resolution (Radeon has VSR) to balance the load better, things to bear in mind, if you have a nice monitor you dont really want to drop the quality.
Yes, I understand your point which is why I pre-empted it if you read what I said earlier:
My post wasnt specifically at @alec or people that want very high refresh rates / fps i.e. competitive e-sport player.
You can also render above your display resolution (Radeon has VSR) to balance the load better, things to bear in mind, if you have a nice monitor you dont really want to drop the quality.
Yes, I understand your point which is why I pre-empted it if you read what I said earlier:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,276
- Location
- Portslade area
oof 144w 
The master race seem to want 240 FPS on monitors with questionable quality control. Some even 360 FPS.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,276
- Location
- Portslade area
and then i ahvent even tried 120hz yet lol
Yes. Whatever gets maxed out first, is what FPS you end up with.
In the real world what CPU and GPU would give those numbers?
Which CPU upgrade would take you from 40 FPS to 140 FPS?
Are we going from a Pentium 4 to a Zen3 or something daft like that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
In the real world what CPU and GPU would give those numbers?
Which CPU upgrade would take you from 40 FPS to 140 FPS?
Are we going from a Pentium 4 to a Zen3 or something daft like that?
Running a Pentium D here with decent GFX and not that bad.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,276
- Location
- Portslade area
ha ha that sig is great
you almost got me
you almost got me
- Status