Which CPU for high-end gaming?

Orangey · 31 Aug 2013 at 13:06

I want to upgrade my 2500K but I'm dithering as I can't find enough benchmarks to compare a 2600K vs 3930K vs etc. I just know I need hyperthreading at least.

This is for gaming ONLY, target 60fps min, OC'd and watercooled.

Boomstick777 · 31 Aug 2013 at 13:31

Best gaming CPU is 4770K, cheap mobo's and some good deals on the 4770K's around.

Drangueos · 31 Aug 2013 at 14:29

what is your GPU?
are you running more than 1 gpu?

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 31 Aug 2013 at 14:40

High end gaming would be multi monitor, multi gpu so Ivy-E 4930K when its released.

edit: there will be a X variant but I would guess the 4930K will overclock enough that the extra money isn't worth it.

Boomstick777 · 31 Aug 2013 at 14:47

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
High end gaming would be multi monitor, multi gpu so Ivy-E 4930K when its released.

edit: there will be a X variant but I would guess the 4930K will overclock enough that the extra money isn't worth it.

High end gaming would be multi monitor? Um, wut..

4670K / 4770K are the best gaming CPU's, faster for gaming, uses less power. Cheaper..

No reason to go X79 for gaming at all atm.

Comparison of 4960X VS 4770K,

Orangey · 31 Aug 2013 at 14:58

This is for a rig I'm building, the GPU will be AMD 9950 xfire or 9970 depending on what happens (if they even release a 9950 / it warrants the cost). I have a 144hz monitor, not a fan of multi-monitor.

RavenXXX2 · 31 Aug 2013 at 15:53

4770K

Boomstick777 · 31 Aug 2013 at 16:55

Orangey said:
This is for a rig I'm building, the GPU will be AMD 9950 xfire or 9970 depending on what happens (if they even release a 9950 / it warrants the cost). I have a 144hz monitor, not a fan of multi-monitor.

If you go with the 4770K you would say a fair chunk over a X79 setup, with the money saved could grab a '9970' (Whatever they name it) and a decent SSD etc.. Only a few weeks away from new GPU's now..

4770K + 9970 + decent SSD would be an awesome setup.

Orangey · 31 Aug 2013 at 17:05

I already have a Samsung 840 stripe for gaming.

I'm just not convinced 4770 is worth it over a 2600, Haswell is hot, requires delidding, etc... it'll probably work out slightly worse unless I get one of the 10% that can actually clock.

OLDPHART · 31 Aug 2013 at 17:05

Boomstick777 said:
If you go with the 4770K you would say a fair chunk over a X79 setup, with the money saved could grab a '9970' (Whatever they name it) and a decent SSD etc.. Only a few weeks away from new GPU's now..

4770K + 9970 + decent SSD would be an awesome setup.

Have priced both, 477OK far cheaper and very good performance even against a 4960K.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 31 Aug 2013 at 18:54

Boomstick777 said:
High end gaming would be multi monitor? Um, wut..

Its an oc's forum so yeah single monitor gaming to me is bog standard not high end.

I think the op wants a 1080 setup. OC'ed sany/ivy/haswell all do the job. Spend money saved on gpu 120hz monitor etc.

Orangey · 31 Aug 2013 at 18:57

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Its an oc's forum so yeah single monitor gaming to me is bog standard not high end.

I think the op wants a 1080 setup. OC'ed sany/ivy/haswell all do the job. Spend money saved on gpu 120hz monitor etc.

I already have a 144hz monitor and the money set aside for GPU.

joeyjojo · 31 Aug 2013 at 19:20

Read this, it's a fab article: Choosing a Gaming CPU: Single + Multi-GPU at 1440p, April 2013.

Not sure how much has changed since April, but the reviewer concludes by suggesting the 2500K for single and dual GPU gaming. Only for triple- and quad-GPU do you need the 3770K, he says.

You may not need to upgrade.

Orangey · 31 Aug 2013 at 21:25

Well I've won a 2600K for £160 so the choice has been made, it was a pre-OC'd one from a well-known e-tailer guaranteed for 4.7GHz too so it should do nicely until Haswell-E next year.

Thanks to all for the advice and links.

MOOGLEYS · 1 Sep 2013 at 00:23

I have yet to see any ingame difference between anything from the 2500k up running with a decent overclock (4.5Ghz) and even running a pair of Titans.

Tbh I would have kept the 2500k if it clocks well and spend the cash on other things.

Boomstick777 · 1 Sep 2013 at 00:28

Orangey said:
I already have a Samsung 840 stripe for gaming.

I'm just not convinced 4770 is worth it over a 2600, Haswell is hot, requires delidding, etc... it'll probably work out slightly worse unless I get one of the 10% that can actually clock.

It's really not that bad, for a little while after launch people were stumped by Haswell's overclocking. It's a different animal to Sandy / Ivy. Now most people are getting between 4.4ghz - 4.6ghz with ease. No need to delid either. I can run @ 4.6Ghz with an Antec 920 which is nothing special, if you have a decent water cooled setup you will be laughing. That's with a £55 motherboard as well lol. Overclocking Haswell is easy once you realise it's not the same as previous CPU's.

4670K / 4770K are prob the best bang for buck chips Intel have produced in donkeys years. So good is the performance that it makes even the latest Ivy -E chips look meh. No reason not to go for Haswell now if you're upgrading. Unless you're saving for Haswell -E

uksoldierboy · 1 Sep 2013 at 00:42

Orangey said:
I already have a Samsung 840 stripe for gaming.

I'm just not convinced 4770 is worth it over a 2600, Haswell is hot, requires delidding, etc... it'll probably work out slightly worse unless I get one of the 10% that can actually clock.

It doesn't require delidding at all :confused:

I ran mine on the stock cooler first (max temps of around 80c) then an Arctic Freezer 13 (max temp of 77c @4.5) and now a H100 (temps on bf3 after an hour didn't break 60c @4.6)
From what i remember reading, isn't it around 70% that'll do 4.5? not too shabby considering the performance increase.

Suarez7 · 1 Sep 2013 at 00:55

MOOGLEYS said:
I have yet to see any ingame difference between anything from the 2500k up running with a decent overclock (4.5Ghz) and even running a pair of Titans.

Tbh I would have kept the 2500k if it clocks well and spend the cash on other things.

I noticed a difference between my 2500k and 3770k. Battlefield 3 minimums rose, and CPU dependant games like Total War 2 and ARMA improved as well.

MOOGLEYS · 1 Sep 2013 at 00:57

Suarez7 said:
I noticed a difference between my 2500k and 3770k. Battlefield 3 minimums rose, and CPU dependant games like Total War 2 and ARMA improved as well.

I can see differences using FPS tools or benchmarks. But just playing the games I cannot tell the difference.

Rofflay · 1 Sep 2013 at 01:19

453x330x4corevs644ghzHToff-453x330.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ioq1DJrcyR.jpg

The 3930K with HT disabled is a monster. The chip really shines with HT disabled to the tune of 102 minimum FPS. If the HT-disabled quad core is indicative of 2500k or 3570k performance at 3.8GHz, then making the jump to the 3930K is considerable.
The HT disabled quad core in this example does suffer from one brief frame rate drop into the 50s, which may not be a reliable reading. If this reading is thrown out then the minimum frame rate gap between the two chips may be closer to a 50% increase, rather than nearly double.

It is not as clear cut as Boomstick said as those games are not as good as battlefield mp for the cpu i do not think.Maybe this is due to SLI 680's but with HT off make of it what you will.

Personally i think more benchmarks are needed in more games with both single and multi 4c v 6c.