It works just the same. Same DDR4 memory but just buy the AMD motherboard to go with the CPU and you're off. Once your set up you'd never know what was inside the pc they work just the same.
-
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.
Is anything more than i3 really needed for your average gamer?
- Thread starter frogzila
- Start date
An i3 moving forward will start bottlenecking a high end GPU pretty quickly. The 6 core i5 would be a good match as would a Ryzen 2600.
If you are wanting to go 4k I would expect you to be looking at a 2080 or perhaps even the 2080ti, so you would want to give as much budget to the gpu as possible.
If you are wanting to go 4k I would expect you to be looking at a 2080 or perhaps even the 2080ti, so you would want to give as much budget to the gpu as possible.
On the GPU forum right now there's a hilarious thread where people are saying a 4c/4t Intel (any gen) will bottleneck a 1060 and you must now have 8t minimum to game on @1080p.
The advice on this place is all over the shop.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,190
- Location
- Rollergirl
I've noticed this, too. There are statements like X CPU will bottleneck Y GPU. No mention of resolution, and more importantly no mention of target FPS.
See the post above yours as an example.
@frogzila have a look at this:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/31491316
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
As others have mentioned you should look into Ryzen as well as Intel, I wanted a change after having had the same cpu for 2 and a bit years so I replaced my 4790k with a 6 core 1st gen Ryzen and then when it released I moved to the 2700x because it offered the best overall performance within my budget. Since then the 8 core 8 thread Intel i7 has released & I'm not sure which I'd choose today, It'd depend on the price difference including the cost of the motherboard as from what I've read you need to be careful which motherboard you buy for the Intel option as cheaper boards don't get the best out of the cpu.
Before replying to the thread I just skimmed over Intel prices, and wow. The i5 8400 is at a silly price right now. In fact the 8400/8500/8600 are at prices where you may as well get an 8600K.
Definitely go Ryzen unless you really need an 8700K or better. Then it is at least possible to justify the price premium.
edit:
or even 9600K lo, although that looks identical to the 8600K, so may as well save the money.
Definitely go Ryzen unless you really need an 8700K or better. Then it is at least possible to justify the price premium.
edit:
or even 9600K lo, although that looks identical to the 8600K, so may as well save the money.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 58
I've noticed this, too. There are statements like X CPU will bottleneck Y GPU. No mention of resolution, and more importantly no mention of target FPS.
See the post above yours as an example.
@frogzila have a look at this:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/31491316
I was assuming 1080p at 60 fps medium to high details (or we may was well recommend buying consoles).....
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,190
- Location
- Rollergirl
Then why did you think it would bottleneck at that FPS? And why mention a 1070 - a 970 could push 60fps @ 1080p.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 58
I was specially referring to mutilplayer games - only the latest i3s with 4 proper cores are suitable (and even then you will not get the maximum from a 1070 that it is capable of- ergo bottleneck - and I'm not talking average frame rates - these are the minimums that case stuttering that spoil gameplay). A 64 player server 1080p medium to high settings will not stay above 60 fps with a 970 and a 2 core 4 thread i3. Yet a 4 core 8 thread i7 (of haswell and above vintage) will (my previous machine).
"bottleneck" doesn't... really mean anything.
yes, if you just want more and more 1080p frames, there's a limit on the amount of graphics card it's worth having (as not even a highly click gen 8 Intel be able to keep a bigger card supplied with workload in most titles). The point there though is that an ever increasing amount of (largely) pointless 1080p frames don't really mean much. If you buy a big card, you go up a res or it's likely wasted.
yes, if you just want more and more 1080p frames, there's a limit on the amount of graphics card it's worth having (as not even a highly click gen 8 Intel be able to keep a bigger card supplied with workload in most titles). The point there though is that an ever increasing amount of (largely) pointless 1080p frames don't really mean much. If you buy a big card, you go up a res or it's likely wasted.
If anyone is looking for Turing means wants RT also. And here it seems even an i5 is going to be the bottleneck.
Example. The requirements for DXR on BF5 are (1700/1700X/1800X/2700 are implied) 2700X or 8700K with 16gb ram. Because DICE offloaded a lot of the RT to the CPU cores, as the Turning cards aren't powerful enough for its needs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 2,574
Unless they are buying for maximum gains in 4k/VR/stream encoding where turing does well and the 2080 ti outperforms the competition. In which case RT might not come into the purchasing decision at all.
But yeah for RT and BF in particular the need for more cores is listed in the recommended system requirements. The ryzen 2700 and i7 8700 are recommended for this particular situation.
Outside of rt an i7 4790 or i5 6600k are recommended so clearly BF in particular is wanting threads and clockspeed.
Given the move to more cores with both AMD and Intel i would expect to see many more games recomended system requirements listing higher core count cpus, even if the minimum requirements remain lower to cater to as wide an audience as possible for maximum profit.
Imo it's definitely a very smart decision to buy a beefy CPU now because it has a lot of longevity. For example, I got my i7 6800k about 2 years ago and I don't expect to need an upgrade for at least another 4 years, and even then it will be more of a want than a need. That being said, there is a very clear divide between Intel & AMD right now in terms of price/performance, and as you go up in resolution that means the CPU differences are minimized. Therefore the smartest decision (given budget constraints, i.e. not spending infinite money) is to buy an AMD CPU. And for how long the life of such a CPU is chances are you'd even move into 8K in that time-frame, which means that the CPU will have further life still (because the GPU requirements will always be greater). So with that in mind here's the sort of system I would recommend:
I have removed prices besides total so as to not break forum rules. I haven't added a separate CPU cooler because absent some hardcore OCing, the Wraith Prism will do the job well outside of diminishing returns OCing. I have also not went overkill on RAM because the performance improvements of something like Flare X CL14 isn't great for the extra £70. If you don't mind a 4.2Ghz OC then you could potentially save another £50-60 by going with a B450 mobo, and if potentially going to 4.1 Ghz isn't too bothersome either, then you could go for a 2700 and save a further £40 but in the case it would be better to get a separate cooler so the savings would be lower but you'd get a better cooler. That's something to think about depending on your OC goals & noise sensitivity. For 4K 60fps with minimal settings tweaks you will need a 2080, and that's what I put in there. The 2080 ti would be too expensive for the performance increase imo (£500 more for 30-40% diff.) You could get away with a 2070 (£200ish cheaper but 2080 is ~25% faster) too but that would mean more settings tweaking & not guaranteed 60 fps, though with a G-sync display you could get away with it. For storage/case/PSU, it's up to you and the deals on any given day, but those are all solid & good value. All in all, you could have a very good 4K PC for about £1610 or £1200ish (with some adjustments, mainly from a 2070). Depending on what components you already have and can keep, then obviously even less.
Also worth mentioning, it's not going to be too long now before we get new AMD CPUs (on 7nm) early next year, so whether you'd want to wait is something to think about.
Simple answer is go for an i5 if you want to stick to intel. The average gamer definitely wont need more than that. My haswell i5 overclocked bundle from overclockers is still going strong from 2013. Got 1070 for it and absolutely no need to upgrade anything else. Runs an ultra-wide monitor at over 60fps and my VR headset no problem.
if you already have a 3570k, what's stopping you chucking in a 3770k?
then spend the rest of the budget on the best gpu you can afford.
even at 1440p, 3770k is very respectable and there's no incentive to upgrade to either ryzen or 8/9th gen intel if it's just for purely gaming workloads.
(i'm running a 3770k @ 4.5ghz with a 1080ti no issues)
then spend the rest of the budget on the best gpu you can afford.
even at 1440p, 3770k is very respectable and there's no incentive to upgrade to either ryzen or 8/9th gen intel if it's just for purely gaming workloads.
(i'm running a 3770k @ 4.5ghz with a 1080ti no issues)
I wouldn't be buying any Intel chips right now, pricing is just nuts. Personally I think buying a 2nd hand upgrade CPU and spending more on a GPU is sound advice, but it doesn't fully scratch that upgrade itch...especially if you have funds available.