Best CPU for streaming

[gunp0int]

Hi,

I have done some streaming before and I would like to find the best CPU for that task.

I have a great internet connection so I doubt it will be an issue.

What I see is often the Intel 4790k vs the newer i7-5920K and i7-5930K. What kind of performance can I expect?

With my i5 I can easily do 720p at 30fps and 60fps (some games have issues)

 

[davidarad02]

what MoBo do you have?
what is your budget?

 

[Grant Fortune]

For streaming rule of thumb is more threads and cores better multitasking.

 

[davidarad02]

For streaming rule of thumb is more threads and cores better multitasking.

AKA AMD CPU or intel i7.

 

[gunp0int]

what MoBo do you have?
what is your budget?

Assume I am building a new pc. I'm more wondering about the cpus mentioned or better options.

 

[Vogner16]

best streaming cpu for money is AMD FX 8350 can get for $170 and will not loose more than 5 fps tops in gaming while streaming.

a comparatively priced intel i5 can loose anywhere up to 15 fps doing the same task even being more expensive and newer than the amd cpu.

if money is not an option get i7 4790k best of both worlds but MUCH more expensive at $330

 

[barto]

Xeon. The performance of an i7 with a lower cost.

 

[Vogner16]

Xeon. The performance of an i7 with a lower cost.

I could not recommend against this any more than possible. Xeon are server cpu's. they are not optimized for single core tasks and lack some instruction sets that desktop computers use on a regular basis. while they will work as well as an i7 for the money spent in streaming, they will be slower in almost every other application you are running. they multithread well but other than that they are not so great. stick with the mainstream i3 i5 i7 cpu's. you will be much happier in the end

also lack of overclocking support and lower base clock speeds make this a no-brainer

 

[barto]

I could not recommend against this any more than possible. Xeon are server cpu's. they are not optimized for single core tasks and lack some instruction sets that desktop computers use on a regular basis. while they will work as well as an i7 for the money spent in streaming, they will be slower in almost every other application you are running. they multithread well but other than that they are not so great. stick with the mainstream i3 i5 i7 cpu's. you will be much happier in the end

also lack of overclocking support and lower base clock speeds make this a no-brainer

Well let me tell you why it's a good idea.

Yes the Xeon are server CPUs however, they are made from the same die. As far as I can tell, they have the exact same level of single threaded performance (or any performance test) as their iGPU carrying i7 brothers.:
=2246&cmp[]=2275&cmp[]=2226]https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2246&cmp[]=2275&cmp[]=2226
(Not even including Turbo core on the Xeon or the non-k)

I highly doubt the three different instruction sets between the two types will have any affect in performance.

I'll also bank on the multiple threads from this community that have backed the Xeon for home and gaming situations.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/359980-28-xeon-gaming
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2323343/intel-xeon.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2156909/xeon-good-gaming.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1923801/xeon-gaming.html

It will not be slower. A Xeon is an i7 without a iGPU. Overclocking has little impact today on Intel CPUs. It's the reason why people are OK with recommending non k CPUs. The small increase in frequency doesn't return big gains.

Intel Compare:
http://ark.intel.com/compare/75122,80910

Edit: Also, overclocking on an Intel 6 or 8 core CPU is pointless. The extra cores result in extra heat and stability issue. The 5920 and 5930 are very difficult to overclock and don't overclock very much at all.

 

[Vogner16]

I could not recommend against this any more than possible. Xeon are server cpu's. they are not optimized for single core tasks and lack some instruction sets that desktop computers use on a regular basis. while they will work as well as an i7 for the money spent in streaming, they will be slower in almost every other application you are running. they multithread well but other than that they are not so great. stick with the mainstream i3 i5 i7 cpu's. you will be much happier in the end

also lack of overclocking support and lower base clock speeds make this a no-brainer

Well let me tell you why it's a good idea.

Yes the Xeon are server CPUs however, they are made from the same die. As far as I can tell, they have the exact same level of single threaded performance (or any performance test) as their iGPU carrying i7 brothers.:
=2246&cmp[]=2275&cmp[]=2226]https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2246&cmp[]=2275&cmp[]=2226
(Not even including Turbo core on the Xeon or the non-k)

I highly doubt the three different instruction sets between the two types will have any affect in performance.

I'll also bank on the multiple threads from this community that have backed the Xeon for home and gaming situations.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/359980-28-xeon-gaming
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2323343/intel-xeon.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2156909/xeon-good-gaming.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1923801/xeon-gaming.html

It will not be slower. A Xeon is an i7 without a iGPU. Overclocking has little impact today on Intel CPUs. It's the reason why people are OK with recommending non k CPUs. The small increase in frequency doesn't return big gains.

Intel Compare:
http://ark.intel.com/compare/75122,80910

Edit: Also, overclocking on an Intel 6 or 8 core CPU is pointless. The extra cores result in extra heat and stability issue. The 5920 and 5930 are very difficult to overclock and don't overclock very much at all.

while I agree that having the same i7 capable cpu power as the actual i7 without the gpu will give what most users of the i7 with discrete graphics what they are looking for at a slightly cheaper price, the slower core clock will certantly be a hit in performance and when you add in that the xeon cpu's cannot overclock that widens the core clock gap even wider. many of todays games are single core games, and the server cpu is not designed to run single core tasks well

I consider xeon cpu's like the FX series from amd. they are great for multitasking and cheaper than their i7 brothers but they suffer from single core issues much like the FX series did. I personally have an 8350 and I regularly see a poorly coded single core game like world of tanks push my fps to 45 while a 4770 or even a 3770 will not take this performance hit. at the same time I max out BF4 and PIN 60 fps at all times because of its great multithreaded coding.

this brings us back to the original question of a streaming cpu. it will need some extra threads to handle the background tasks and the FX and xeon cpu's will be able to do this. the only one that stands above them is the i7 with its single core performance and overclocking the pushes the others behind and limits them to stick with multithreaded games. the i7 has amd FX and xeon performance multithread speed and leaves them in the dust with single thread.

something to note however is that any of these cpu's will be able to stream at 45 or so fps on ultra setting with a good gpu. as most streamers do 30 fps because internet connection needs to be super fast for 60, they don't need anything more than a FX 8350 for this task as it is the cheapest cpu to do the task and keep a steady frame rate above what is being streamed.

 

[gunp0int]

Appreciate all the details guys!

 

[barto]

while I agree that having the same i7 capable cpu power as the actual i7 without the gpu will give what most users of the i7 with discrete graphics what they are looking for at a slightly cheaper price, the slower core clock will certantly be a hit in performance and when you add in that the xeon cpu's cannot overclock that widens the core clock gap even wider. many of todays games are single core games, and the server cpu is not designed to run single core tasks well

I consider xeon cpu's like the FX series from amd. they are great for multitasking and cheaper than their i7 brothers but they suffer from single core issues much like the FX series did. I personally have an 8350 and I regularly see a poorly coded single core game like world of tanks push my fps to 45 while a 4770 or even a 3770 will not take this performance hit. at the same time I max out BF4 and PIN 60 fps at all times because of its great multithreaded coding.

this brings us back to the original question of a streaming cpu. it will need some extra threads to handle the background tasks and the FX and xeon cpu's will be able to do this. the only one that stands above them is the i7 with its single core performance and overclocking the pushes the others behind and limits them to stick with multithreaded games. the i7 has amd FX and xeon performance multithread speed and leaves them in the dust with single thread.

something to note however is that any of these cpu's will be able to stream at 45 or so fps on ultra setting with a good gpu. as most streamers do 30 fps because internet connection needs to be super fast for 60, they don't need anything more than a FX 8350 for this task as it is the cheapest cpu to do the task and keep a steady frame rate above what is being streamed.

I don't me to be pushy, but you're wrong. It has little to do with frequency and more to do with architecture.
Overclocked performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4790k-i5-4690k_5.html#sect0

If you spend a little time looking at benchmarks you'll see overclocking has such a small benefit, one can ask the point of spending the extra cash for it. And even if the frequency (which it doesn't) lowered performance, you're still not looking at what counts. Under higher loads, all processors kick in Turbo Core which boosts the frequency. The Xeon 1231V3 has a trubo of 3.8 which is .2Mhz slower than the 4790k. If you really think that . 2 Mhz makes that much of a difference, you need to do some homework.

Going back to Single threaded and Multithreaded. You cannot compare the two company's architecture. Intel is Intel and AMD is AMD. Intel processors across the board are better at Single threaded applications. Xeons do not suffer in single threaded applications.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7852/intel-xeon-e52697-v2-and-xeon-e52687w-v2-review-12-and-8-cores/6

 

[Vogner16]

[/quotemsg]
I don't me to be pushy, but you're wrong. It has little to do with frequency and more to do with architecture.
Overclocked performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4790k-i5-4690k_5.html#sect0

If you spend a little time looking at benchmarks you'll see overclocking has such a small benefit, one can ask the point of spending the extra cash for it. And even if the frequency (which it doesn't) lowered performance, you're still not looking at what counts. Under higher loads, all processors kick in Turbo Core which boosts the frequency. The Xeon 1231V3 has a trubo of 3.8 which is .2Mhz slower than the 4790k. If you really think that . 2 Mhz makes that much of a difference, you need to do some homework.

Going back to Single threaded and Multithreaded. You cannot compare the two company's architecture. Intel is Intel and AMD is AMD. Intel processors across the board are better at Single threaded applications. Xeons do not suffer in single threaded applications.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7852/intel-xeon-e52697-v2-and-xeon-e52687w-v2-review-12-and-8-cores/6[/quotemsg]

I still have to say xeon is not as good. look at the third link you post. the i7 4770k performs faster than both xeon's and they are at much higher power usage. even the wimpy A10 performs just as great as the xeon's and is much cheaper.

not saying that they are completely imposible to run games on and cant make a good computer with one, but saying that there are better solutions than xeon out there.

Ignore turbo core for a second because any good overclocker will turn it off anyway. lets say I get my 4770k to 4.0 ghz and the turbo of the xeon is only 3.8. turbo core shuts off other cores to feed power to single core. since xeon and i7 have same IPC and i7 is running faster clock it is perfectly logical that single core will be faster in the i7 thanks to its OC. now take into thought that i7 still has all its cores on. now the xeon is blown out of the water.

anand tech's benchmark shows that the i7 is faster at stock speeds now if we add a miserly 10% to it we are 15 to 20% ahead! the overclock makes all the difference and is why you don't see a single pc manufactor using xeon cpu's in desktop computers today. (except apple and we will forget about those tards for a bit).

and as a final statement the xeon in those benchmarks was over $2000 and was getting beat in almost every benchmark for gaming by a $330 i7. they also used 150W and the i7 only used 84W. xeon is fast at what It was made for but it is not made for gaming or streaming. quite simply do like everyone else who has built a streaming PC get an i7 4770k or go cheap and get an amd FX 8350.

I personally have an 8350 and love the streaming ability that it holds for me.

thanks for the solution gunpoint

 

[barto]

I still have to say xeon is not as good. look at the third link you post. the i7 4770k performs faster than both xeon's and they are at much higher power usage. even the wimpy A10 performs just as great as the xeon's and is much cheaper.

not saying that they are completely imposible to run games on and cant make a good computer with one, but saying that there are better solutions than xeon out there.

Ignore turbo core for a second because any good overclocker will turn it off anyway. lets say I get my 4770k to 4.0 ghz and the turbo of the xeon is only 3.8. turbo core shuts off other cores to feed power to single core. since xeon and i7 have same IPC and i7 is running faster clock it is perfectly logical that single core will be faster in the i7 thanks to its OC. now take into thought that i7 still has all its cores on. now the xeon is blown out of the water.

anand tech's benchmark shows that the i7 is faster at stock speeds now if we add a miserly 10% to it we are 15 to 20% ahead! the overclock makes all the difference and is why you don't see a single pc manufactor using xeon cpu's in desktop computers today. (except apple and we will forget about those tards for a bit).

and as a final statement the xeon in those benchmarks was over $2000 and was getting beat in almost every benchmark for gaming by a $330 i7. they also used 150W and the i7 only used 84W. xeon is fast at what It was made for but it is not made for gaming or streaming. quite simply do like everyone else who has built a streaming PC get an i7 4770k or go cheap and get an amd FX 8350.

I personally have an 8350 and love the streaming ability that it holds for me.

thanks for the solution gunpoint

I posted those links on purpose to prove a point, you're not reading.

Link 1: How little frequency matters.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5


Link 2: The two Xeons are 8 and 12 core processors with turbo frequencies of 3.8 and 3.5. Most of those games will only use 4 cores. Who cares about thermal design, that wasn't the point. The point I've been driving at that you simply won't admit is frequency! It doesn't matter with Intel CPUs. 3 FPS difference on with a single GPU. 6 FPS difference with 2 GPUs.

There's nothing theoretical about it. You can formulate all you want about what increased clock will do. I've clearly shown you by professionals that it has little to no impact. Beat by an i7 for benchmarks that show a 3 FPS difference on a single GPU and 6 FPS with dual GPUS? That's not being beat.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7852/intel-xeon-e52697-v2-and-xeon-e52687w-v2-review-12-and-8-cores/6

Now, how buying a $260 Xeon bad compared a $330 CPU for less than 10 FPS difference? Heck, drop to a 1220v3 for $210 and still have similar performance to an i7.

I can tell this is going no where. I'm simply pointing this out for others in this thread trying to provide accurate information, not opinions.

Good luck fellas.

 

[Vogner16]

then you can agree from the graphs that an i5 would do the job just as good as any xeon as they all get the same fps.

even the cheepo i3 is pushing great fps. why spend more than $150 on a cpu?

gaming is not where to look at performance on cpu's. a $50 Pentium will work over 90 fps in these games.

you need to look at the other graphs in those links showing compute performance for those chips. zip file performance etc... xeon shows single thread performance drops and overclocking actually matters in those situations. remember not everyone only games on their computer. and while a xeon may be great as a i7 for gaming so is an i3. where the difference is with other strict benchmark situations and where the only variable in the situation is the clock speed and cores running. the i7 is faster.

my point with thermal design is more based on the chipset and pricepoint. that xeon was a 6 core 12 thread and costs over $2000. uses almost twice the power and is still slower for gaming. it only becomes worth its money when you put it in a cpu intensive 12 thread program where it can really flex.

overclocking rarely increases game fps and cpu's in general rarely increase fps. look at a first gen i7 vs a current gen i7 at the same clock speed. they are within 1 fps in all games when paired with the same gpu. games are graphics intensive and even the cheapest cpu rarely holds back games from a playable fps, unless you are talking about a super old Athlon 64 or something that cant even run malewarebytes.

take a look at that unlocked Pentium gaming. you will see my point. xeon is never the good choice in anything but a server and that's why they are sold as server parts. accurate information you do give. proper understanding of it you do not. its more than the few benchmarks that you care about that make up why parts are priced and marketed as what they are. xeon is for servers because it was built for servers. it can game, it can run windows 7-10, but it is better for servers. end of story. its an opinion to think xeon is good for desktop world. its accurate information to say xeon was built for and should be used in servers

 

[GFY_Daniel]

I can vouch for the inadequacy of Xeons for streaming. I have a Xeon X 5470 @ 3.33 ghz x 2 on an Asus server mobo and despite having a combined total of 6.66 ghz its really really bad. These processors are literally not designed to do this stuff. I struggle to stream any kind of game at all because as soon as I boot the game the CPU struggles with that.

I am literally dying to get rid of these Xeons and I have a brand new i5 6600k with a completely new build waiting to be put together. Xeon is really poor for this.

 

[Lolatyou]

I can vouch for the inadequacy of Xeons for streaming. I have a Xeon X 5470 @ 3.33 ghz x 2 on an Asus server mobo and despite having a combined total of 6.66 ghz its really really bad. These processors are literally not designed to do this stuff. I struggle to stream any kind of game at all because as soon as I boot the game the CPU struggles with that.

I am literally dying to get rid of these Xeons and I have a brand new i5 6600k with a completely new build waiting to be put together. Xeon is really poor for this.

First off you cant combine two processor frequency speeds and call it 6.66ghz, its 3.33ghz per core x8 so if your theory was correct that means 26.64ghz LOL

Secondly, you're running Xeon X5470's that had a launch date Quarter 3 of 2008, you're running nearly 8 year old Xeon architecture within a tech world were computers are outdated within 6 months. So your processors were outdated 16 times.

Third, the links provided above clearly SHOW that "too" date xeon CPU's are yielding the same FPS as your current "branded" gaming cpu's.

Lastly, To put things in perspective im in the middle of a building a single computer that's running a dual socket ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS mobo thats a work station specific motherboard that has all the same features of a gaming mobo. Plus, it'll utilize dual Intel e5-2667v2 processors to have a total of 16 cores w/ HT yea you guessed it 32 THREADS, quad channel support 64gb of DDR3 2133mhz ECC ram, and Dual GTX 970's for the same price if not lower then new tech today. My computer will be utilizing Microsoft virtualization technology that'll have a base OS of Windows Server 2012 for all my home server needs streaming videos/music etc... with two Virtualized Windows 7/8/8.1/10 OS's so me and my GF can game when ever we want or even a buddy if he comes over without his gaming gear. ALL FROM ONE COMPUTER!!!! it'll still perform the same if not better then any one of your "gaming" rigs with a 4790k or i5 6600k @ 1080p gaming w/ 120hz monitors

Perspective how this hardware would be allocated. Server setup would be running 4 cores 8 threads with 16gb of ram and some POS 50 dollar gpu to run the desktop, Virtual PC #1 would have 6 cores/ 12 threads and 24gb of ram running one GTX 970 and the second Virtual PC would be running the same allocated setup as Virtual PC #1. Each Virtual PC would have their own 250gb Samsung EVO Pro ssd which is still within examples of standard gaming PC's today that run dual ssd's in raid 0. and my home server would be running 2 Western Digital 3tb Red NAS storage drives in raid 1 for mirrored setup so if one drive fails i got a backup. All these specs are found in todays gaming setups, accept the two xeon servers that i'll have instead but the kicker is my single computer physically will be running 3 desktops total.

 

[Jozef_1]

OK

I am a streamer. Had a 8320 to 4,4 with noctua cooler.Now i have 4790k since it was cheaper to upgrade since the DDR4.
Yeah offstream you can get decent fps with FX 8cores.BUT with streaming you will get bad fps dips stutters etc.I was very frustrated with it.Core usage was insane when i played something like a wither 3.4790k maintains very high fps even on streams so the stream is more fluid/stable.

BUT
Some poeple told me while its more fluid.It loses a tiny portion of picture quality.I guess the amd 8core does better job at encoding.
I also stream my PS4 through avermedia live gamer hd in my PC now.And a lot people say its excelent video quality.
These things tell me that.Using external sources PS4/onother PC for capturing/streaming are the best solutions for that.
So i plan to build a stream pc.Somthing small portable cheap so i can go to my friends house and set up stream everywhere where is a consol.
Or you can just get a good laptop with a lot of usbs.

 

[Jozef_1]

also a lot of my streamer friends have an i5even the high ones. but in streaming enviroment it basically acts like a amd 8 core since it has to hyperthreading.
haswell I5- great for offstream play.good stable fps.not so good in streaming.
FX8core-great at streaming bad for fps since the low IPC.
So they are even in streaming enviroment.
If you want a good CPU for streaming 4790k is the beginning.
Thats the point why everybody is waiting for zen.

 

[TerryLaze]

Are you guys living in 1999 or something?
Streaming is being done by the GPU nowadays with next to no performance penalty,get a nvidia card and use shadowplay or get an intel and use quicksync.
You can stream with a celeron without loosing FPSs.
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA6-65Rbdio"][/video]

 

[gunp0int]

Are you guys living in 1999 or something?
Streaming is being done by the GPU nowadays with next to no performance penalty,get a nvidia card and use shadowplay or get an intel and use quicksync.
You can stream with a celeron without loosing FPSs.
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA6-65Rbdio"][/video]

Extremely late response to an old response 😛.

That is definitely a great tool! However doesn't it lack a lot of the features OBS and Xsplit have? Also doesn't it only work with compatible games?

 

[TerryLaze]

Extremely late response to an old response 😛.

That is definitely a great tool! However doesn't it lack a lot of the features OBS and Xsplit have? Also doesn't it only work with compatible games?

Shadowplay does lack a bit in features but has everything that you'l need,it works with everything that gets displayed so it works with everything.
OBS does support both quick sync and nvenc (nvidia encoder) so if someone prefers OBS he can still use that.