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?

 

[Soul-Frog]

in my case I got an i7 4790k for only about 30 us more than the i5 4690k (i7 for 280 and i5 for around 250) and if you can find a good deal the hyper threading on the i7 could serve you in the future if you aren't looking to upgrade any time soon

 

[WINTERLORD]

ok, well what about an i5 vs an i7 when running dual GPU such as 2x 1080's in sli will the i5 vs i7 show much there

 

[WINTERLORD]

heck just curios as to what an i3 would be for gamming as i know cpu's are fast these days im still using a i7 950, but i dont do alot play games every now and then would an i3 cut it? with a big graphics card i am going to get either a 1080 or 1070's graphics for sure

also if it was sufficient would i be bottlenecked if i ever went sli on an i3?

just wondered what everyones thoughts would be on that

 

[Eggz]

heck just curios as to what an i3 would be for gamming as i know cpu's are fast these days im still using a i7 950, but i dont do alot play games every now and then would an i3 cut it? with a big graphics card i am going to get either a 1080 or 1070's graphics for sure

also if it was sufficient would i be bottlenecked if i ever went sli on an i3?

just wondered what everyones thoughts would be on that

If you were to get an i3-6320, it would be almost as fast (i.e. a little slower) as the i7-950 you have now when all cores can be used. But each core on the 6320 is about 1.5 x as fast as each of the 950's cores. In single-threaded applications, that will help.

In terms of pairing an i3 with a 1080 or keeping your current CPU, I would recommend keeping what you have until you can save for the modern version of the chip you have now - currently the i7-6700k. Most games coming out run best on new quad core chips, and the degree of bottlenecking you'll get on your 950 compared to a new i3 will be very similar. Why spend money to get roughly equivalent performance?

 

[WINTERLORD]

heck just curios as to what an i3 would be for gamming as i know cpu's are fast these days im still using a i7 950, but i dont do alot play games every now and then would an i3 cut it? with a big graphics card i am going to get either a 1080 or 1070's graphics for sure

also if it was sufficient would i be bottlenecked if i ever went sli on an i3?

just wondered what everyones thoughts would be on that

If you were to get an i3-6320, it would be almost as fast (i.e. a little slower) as the i7-950 you have now when all cores can be used. But each core on the 6320 is about 1.5 x as fast as each of the 950's cores. In single-threaded applications, that will help.

In terms of pairing an i3 with a 1080 or keeping your current CPU, I would recommend keeping what you have until you can save for the modern version of the chip you have now - currently the i7-6700k. Most games coming out run best on new quad core chips, and the degree of bottlenecking you'll get on your 950 compared to a new i3 will be very similar. Why spend money to get roughly equivalent performance?

well ty for that that gives me a good bit of insight. thing is i broke the smackover2 board so im going to rebuild whole pc cause is cheaper almost or as expinsive since new board be 200 anyways therefor im looking at the lga 1151 platform.

now my only concern is in the following months finaces be better so i will definatly be getting either two 1070's or a 1080 atleast. so just a random thought as i dont do much else but game and was wondering if i went i3 if it would bottleneck either of those setups. however prolly get an i5 unless i can squek by with a OC i3 runnin at 4.4

 

[Eggz]

well ty for that that gives me a good bit of insight. thing is i broke the smackover2 board so im going to rebuild whole pc cause is cheaper almost or as expinsive since new board be 200 anyways therefor im looking at the lga 1151 platform.

now my only concern is in the following months finaces be better so i will definatly be getting either two 1070's or a 1080 atleast. so just a random thought as i dont do much else but game and was wondering if i went i3 if it would bottleneck either of those setups. however prolly get an i5 unless i can squek by with a OC i3 runnin at 4.4

Here's a video that shows pretty much exactly what you're trying to do. He noted that pairing the fastest GPU with an i3 is "unrealistic," but he did it to show a point. Basically, the i3 with the fastest GPU available (Titan X at the time of the video) is a significant bottleneck. The overall performance of a 1080 with an i3 would be roughly equivalent to a GTX 780 with an i7. You can see that by noting that the Titan X on an i3 to performs the same as a 770 on an i7 in games, and then inferring a little because the 1080 is a bit faster than the Titan X.

Basically, you'd waste money on a 1080 paired with an i3. Getting an i7/i5 with the 1070 would be faster and probably cheaper.

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-7bfPG2dE"][/video]