how true is having a i7 4790k vs i5 4690k that the i7 dont have much benifit more then i5 in gaming

[WINTERLORD]

ok I asked a question a good while back about this and was told that a core i7 has little to no bennifit over a core i5 in gaming. and that it was only marginably better in video recoding/encoding.

how true is this, is because (and I wish I bookmarked where I read this) but I seen charts and such that if my memory serves right that clearly the core i7 has a lot better performance then a core i5 even in gamming.

I am aware that the i7 is factory clocked higher but this was with both cpu';s running at the same speed. so has something changed? is the i7 going to be a good bit faster then a core i5 in gaming when both are overclocked too the same speed?

also although the new core i5 4690k has a slower stock speed it easily overclocks to 4.4ghz is that true?

 

[tmboyz]

im wondering now if haswell e would be a better performer for the one that has more lanes 40 pcie lanes would that be a waste of power in gaming

Haswell E? you mean the upcoming intel 8 cores,DDR 4 and stuff like that!. The faster the better but for gaming you wont need any of those. All you need is a solid graphic card and a decent quadcore. If you not on a tight budget, wait for the E.

 

[cachcoco]

For gaming, no; the differences will not be worth the extra cost. I had an i5 and found that my other pc uses, like streaming movies, improved with an i7, though. If you only use your pc strictly for gaming then the i5 will serve you well.

 

[Roger Rogers-1382392]

For gaming, no; the differences will not be worth the extra cost. I had an i5 and found that my other pc uses, like streaming movies, improved with an i7, though. If you only use your pc strictly for gaming then the i5 will serve you well.

Reterospective point....

I have the i7 4770 and GTX 780 (with 16Gb RAM) and WatchDogs runs but still judders with course framerate (although looks BEAUTIFUL in Ultra); so I would say if you can afford it, pay more for the i7, as the i5 will perhaps stutter more, to the extent that it is annoying.

Yeah; its cheaper to go i5 and 2x GTX 770 4Gb models running SLi, but ........ 😉

I hope to get a second 780 soon (as I only run 1080p for now [and when prices drop a little more]); unless a fab new card arrives which is so affordable I can use my 780 as a dedicated PhysX card. 😀

P.S.
The i7 may be worth more on the second-hand market in the years to come; compared to the i5; so you will not lose all that extra money.

Nuff said?

 

[WINTERLORD]

well its not the proccessor im wondering about its the x99 chipset and the 40pcie lanes that i w3onder if it will make it a big difference for triple crossfire setup. 3cards and 40pcie lanes on the 600dollar chip

 

[Douglas Hamilton]

I used to used a 2500k then went to a 2600 then a 3770k and now use a 4960x I have to say when it comes down to it in games I haven't really had a change in frame rate since I left my amd phenom 2 x4 965 for my 2500k. The leap between my 2500k or 2600 to my 4960x would be noticeable and the same for my leap from 2500k to 3770k would only just be noticeable. I only keep upgrading my cpus because I have to do video editing.

 

[lukeybash123]

Yes, there is a performance increase yet it is not noticeable to the human eye. For example an i5 4690k vs a i7 4770k, which are both 3.5 ghz would have a winner, which is the 4770k but wins by 1 frame in battlefield or whatever game you're playing? So unless you would like to pay an extra £50 or so on a couple of frames then go ahead, but in my opinion the i5 will always win when it comes to price : performance.

 

[WINTERLORD]

im actually seeing in some new game titles that an i5 for barebottom specs for say witcher 3 and a core i7 3770 or better listed as recommended specs. with newer game titles i am really having a hard time thinking a i5 would be sufficient

 

[tmboyz]

im actually seeing in some new game titles that an i5 for barebottom specs for say witcher 3 and a core i7 3770 or better listed as recommended specs. with newer game titles i am really having a hard time thinking a i5 would be sufficient

The latest i5 is capable of high level computing and takes whatever game you care to throw at it. Only when it comes to video editing (adobe, autocad, 3d) you will notice a significant difference; the i7 will be way faster. My advice to you, go for the i7 and clear you head of all these pricking doubts, I don't think you really need the i7 for gaming, but having it will certainly make you happier for a longer time, until something new comes up. So, go get. Where you from? is there a big price difference?

 

[tmboyz]

I was using i5-760 for three years, no complaints. Just a little OC and it did its job very well. Some months back I gave it away to a college going kid who needed a powerful pc for his school projects. So I switched to a i7 4790k on a asus board adding to it all the usual high-end stuff (or nearly). On a 24" DELL monitor 1920 x1200, it can do anything, maxed out. That's it. It took me less than two weeks to decide and switch.

 

[alster77]

For anyone considering the 4790k over the 4690k for longevity and future games utilizing hyperthreading, don't forget that the 4790k will probably be available really cheap before then as new models are released. I think I'm going to go for 4690k just now for pricing then pick up a second hand 4790k in 6-10 months on feebay. I have done the poring over different forums and specs with past CPU's, (3770k vs 3570k for example), as if it will be the only one I am going to have for a few years but in reality I see new models come out, and after a year I'm dying for a new one so I tend not to worry too much about future proofing CPU's. Board maybe as I want to be able to just swap out the CPU for a bigger brother when prices fall through the floor. Just for a bit of perspective.

 

[alcatrazsniper]

Buy what you can afford.

 

[SubZeroFlsh]

Will the i5 benefit in future game, I just bought the i5 4690K and I am starting to regret it 🙁 I also got a gtx 970 today.

 

[Guest]

There is not a single game on the market that is limited to a large enough degree by an i5 4690k to warrant buying an i7 , as long as you have a good GPU and ply on high, such that most of the processing is done in the gpu. Physx might be a problem if you run it as software, so if you want physx, get a nvidia GPU.

These benchmarks: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_4670K_and_i7_4770K_Comparison/8.html show that even in the highly cpu dependent BF3, this only amounts to about 5 fps. My guess is, the difference is smaller if you run it on a modern gpu.

Update: Found another one: http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1061&page=4 Here you can see the difference is minimal with a good GPU on high.

I found these links a good read. I am at the point now of deciding i5-i7. The links provide the clear cut answer.

I've always gone with the i7 because of the flexibility it gives me with everything I do on my computer - games, multi-tasking, and for running core/hyper-threating specific programs such as a chess playing program I have that will use as many cores as my cpu offers for analyzing chess games.

I think the real question is can you afford flexibility? If not, and gaming is mostly what you do, then the i5 is, in my view, the second best processor, being more affordable and with very good game performance.

One must decide if the one time cost is more important than long term flexibility. For some flexibility may matter at all for what they need their computer to do. It always matters to me because I do not just game on my computer. I'm willing to pay the extra cost now to have that long term flexibility.

 

[alcatrazsniper]

Flexbility is important, I love my 4790k to do yoga with me!

 

[Guest]

Flexbility is important, I love my 4790k to do yoga with me!

lol

Your choice of cpu is the same as my!

 

[alcatrazsniper]

Flexbility is important, I love my 4790k to do yoga with me!

lol

Your choice of cpu is the same as my!

Yeah, I just chose it for gaming. Never looking back to AMD again. Honestly it's not that expensive. The 4960X to me is like the price of an i7 processor to a teenager still using his parents' money.

 

[Guest]

Flexbility is important, I love my 4790k to do yoga with me!

lol

Your choice of cpu is the same as my!

Yeah, I just chose it for gaming. Never looking back to AMD again. Honestly it's not that expensive. The 4960X to me is like the price of an i7 processor to a teenager.

Interesting comparison... lol,... and I agree!!

 

[TweeDoor]

SubZeroFlash+ the i5 if fine, all you did is save $100 towards broadwell. With new tech around the corner i'd wait on buying a proc at this time.

 

[Eggz]

Average FPS won't show a difference, but there will be significantly less stuttering when more fast cores are available.

Windows will shift processes between threads, and computers tend to have hundreds of background processes going on even when you close most programs.

The game supplies threads and has some access to hardware directly, but not as direct as Windows. So there's two layers of thread management - game and then Windows. With all that going on, a more powerful CPU with more cores will prevent what they call "micro-stutter" in games, which is really annoying and DOESN'T drop average frame rates. Here is a video showing what I'm talking about.

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GgDZKGA89I&src_vid=0PhlwNfIUUE&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_4281338657"][/video]

 

[cateatsfish]

The explanation why HT does not make a big difference in a game is simple.
Calculating power simply depends on the number of cores. HT does not increase the number of cores.

When a core is under full load the two threads have to wait for each other doing nothing during that time.

Video rendering for instance is a lot faster as the cores have to wait for chunks of video data being fetched from the super slow harddisk. So one thread can render while the other is waiting for the data to be loaded into the ram.

In a game the situation is completely different. There are no long lasting tasks like frequent slow harddisk access or any other slow system communication. All data is always in RAM. It's pure calculation within the cores.

 

[esaelias]

i5 4690k is cheaper and in gaming i think i7 has little benefit (searching online)

 

[SubZeroFlsh]

i5 4690k is cheaper and in gaming i think i7 has little benefit (searching online)

Barely any games support hyperthreading and if more do eventually people will turn away from AMD CPUS.

 

[LookItsRain]

Could this thread stop being revived?

 

[WINTERLORD]

well undoubtably since there is such a large number of people preferring the the i5 for gaming and length of thead I like it tells me everyone has close to the same argument. for me multitasking I do a lot but maybe not so much as to need a 6 or 8core or 7. but am looking forward to the skylake processors I think it is coming out later this year

 

[gordug]

It is however beneficial if you have multiple programs running at the same time. I am, for example, usually running scientific calculations in one thread at the same time while I game, and have a browser and some background things running. In my case the difference is huge. If you only game on the machine, there is little difference except the clock difference. In CPU bound games, that might make a small difference.

Would this apply to people who steam their games online as well? I never really put much thought into it.