Question I5 to i7 or 8gb to 16gb RAM

[JamesCorvin]

Hey guys! I want to upgrade my pc for gaming. I now have an i5 3570 and 8gb ddr3 1600mhz and i want to know if its worth going to i7 3770 and wait a bit for more ram or upgrade ram first. Im using a gtx 970. Im playing games like Ac Odyssey ,re2 remastered and i want to get rage 2. Thanks!

 

[Aeacus]

I'd go with more RAM since Core i7 won't give you any better performance in games. What Core i7 does give, is hyperthreading.
i5-3570 vs i7-3770 comparison: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3570-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3770/m793vs1979

Hyperthreading is only useful to the programs that use more than 4 cores (e.g video rendering). Most games use up to 4 cores only, while there are some games that use single core.

One user also made a test with i7-3770 to see what exactly hyperthreading does in gaming,
link: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...70-hyperthreading-test-20-games-tested.216466

He also revisited this question with i7-6700K to see if there are any differences,
link: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...rks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/

Conclusion from those tests is that hyperthreading either doesn't help or depending on a game, actually hurts the gaming performance (FPS).

 

[boju]

No, go with the i7 you'll be glad you did. Hyperthreading is what's making even 2600k's still viable today vs 4c CPUs which are quickly becoming the minimum.

See, the above comparison between 4 vs 8 threads is they both get the same fps, that's fine. They're also games from 2015. What matters most is how much cpu usage is while those frame rates were graphed vs now in games today. You'll be sured the i5 would be nearing 100% in recent games causing 1% lows and stutters. i5's have had their day, i wouldn't even bank on modern i5s with the increased popularity in high refresh rates and games today causing ever more cpu demand on frame pre-rendering. People aren't happy with current i5s.

However, thanks to Hyperthreading, older i7s still live on including me.

 

[Zephyl]

What reaches 100% usage first, your CPU or RAM? Whichever one does (I suspect the CPU) would logically get an upgrade first.

 

[hftvhftv]

If you just play games get more RAM, 16GB makes it a lot easier to not have to shutdown all of your open web browsing tabs or close other programs just to be able to play games. The hyperthreading isn't going to do anything for you in games.

 

[boju]

Do both, cpu and memory. To help high cpu and pagefile usage. Vram flows to and from system ram, for a 4GB+ card, 16GB system ram will help a lot. Windows already taxes between 1.5~3GB, whats left wouldn't be much with 8GB ram.

 

[boju]

Hyperthreading does plenty for modern games. Ignore the guys that say it doesn't.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Hyperthreading does plenty for modern games. Ignore the guys that say it doesn't.

With a GTX 1080 there is almost no difference in performance at 1080p between an i5-4690k and an i7-3770k https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2365?vs=2465 A lot of modern games cannot use more than 4 cores.

 

[InvalidError]

The fastest CPU in the world does you little to no good if it ends up waiting after the HDD/SDD on a regular basis due to low RAM.

I'd rather have an i5+16GB that delivers consistent 45+FPS than having an i7+8GB that may average 80+FPS but has frequent dips to 10-20FPS due to having to reload stuff from storage.

 

[boju]

With a GTX 1080 there is almost no difference in performance at 1080p between an i5-4690k and an i7-3770k https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2365?vs=2465 A lot of modern games cannot use more than 4 cores.

Probably not, depends on game and refresh rate.

Watch this.

 

[hftvhftv]

Probably not, depends on game and refresh rate.

Watch this.

I won't say it does absolutely nothing for games released in 2019 and beyond, but the minimal increase in FPS does not compare to the massive drop a user will experience when they run out of RAM during a game. Also, if they upgrade their RAM right now, leaving the CPU upgrade for later, then the price of that CPU upgrade will go down even further. A 3770 is around $100 used while another stick of DDR3 is going to be less than that. I own an FX 8350 which has 4 cores and 8 threads and I rarely see the benefit of having those extra threads.

 

[boju]

A lot of modern games cannot use more than 4 cores.

Doom 2016, Dying Light, Farcry 4 & DLCs, Farcry 5 & ND, Ghost Recon Wild Lands, Six Siege, GTA5 have shown improvements for me very much so VS forcing my cpu to 4c ~ i have tested, my total cpu usage isn't maxing out with HT.

I won't say it does absolutely nothing for games released in 2019 and beyond, but the minimal increase in FPS does not compare to the massive drop a user will experience when they run out of RAM during a game. Also, if they upgrade their RAM right now, leaving the CPU upgrade for later, then the price of that CPU upgrade will go down even further. A 3770 is around $100 used while another stick of DDR3 is going to be less than that. I own an FX 8350 which has 4 cores and 8 threads and I rarely see the benefit of having those extra threads.

I agree with the ram, i explained why in my previous post. I favor doing both, i7 + 16GB ram. Would be a cool system even if generations older.

 

[boju]

I own an FX 8350 which has 4 cores and 8 threads and I rarely see the benefit of having those extra threads.

Just noticed this in your post. You voted me down on this? FX 8350 doesn't really compare to an intel 3770 let alone 2600k @ 4.5.

 

[tylerd120]

I won't say it does absolutely nothing for games released in 2019 and beyond, but the minimal increase in FPS does not compare to the massive drop a user will experience when they run out of RAM during a game. Also, if they upgrade their RAM right now, leaving the CPU upgrade for later, then the price of that CPU upgrade will go down even further. A 3770 is around $100 used while another stick of DDR3 is going to be less than that. I own an FX 8350 which has 4 cores and 8 threads and I rarely see the benefit of having those extra threads.

Sorry what? FX 8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Still, I would lean towards a ram upgrade. (from a guy with a 6 core 12 thread cpu)

 

[hftvhftv]

Sorry what? FX 8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Still, I would lean towards a ram upgrade. (from a guy with a 6 core 12 thread cpu)

Shh... cores are a touchy subject for the FX series. Anyways disregarding AMD vs Intel debate, an upgrade to a 3770 is going to produce negligible differences in gaming performance especially for a GTX 970 while a RAM upgrade could mean the difference between 5 and 50FPS.

 

[JamesCorvin]

Wow! Thanks a lot guys! I'll get the ram and cpu this month. I hope it will last at least a year before i need to switch to newer generation hardware.

 

[King_V]

Hang on . . given that this is older hardware, let me posit this question:
Can you live with it as it performs now, until you can save up for newer generation hardware?

The Ivy Bridge CPU is the end of the line for the motherboard it goes in.
Any DDR3 RAM that you buy is NOT going to be usable in newer generation hardware. Ryzen and pretty much all Intel CPUs since at least Skylake use DDR4 RAM.
I'd personally suggest saving that money that you'd put into a CPU or more DDR3 RAM to put toward a new CPU/MB/DDR4 RAM.


However, another factor in gaming performance is: what is your screen resolution and refresh rate, and what video card do you have?

 

[dudeman509]

Shadow of the Tomb Raider, as well as Battlefield V, beat the crap out of my 3770k (Shadow is often flatlined at 90-100% usage and the stutter in certain parts of the game is noticeable), and a 3570k running the same games with a lesser GPU struggles even harder. I suspect we'll begin to see this more and more as we go into the future with PC games. Even the 1070 gets a good workout at 1080p in modern games.

I'm upgrading to Ryzen 3000 this summer. Patiently waiting...

 

[cryoburner]

Conclusion from those tests is that hyperthreading either doesn't help or depending on a game, actually hurts the gaming performance (FPS).

Those tests are from more than 3 years ago, and most of the games being benchmarked there are more than 5 years old at this point. Over the last couple years, higher thread-count processors have been starting to become the norm, and an increasing number of games have begun to benefit from having having access to more than 4 threads. Since they are asking about new and upcoming games, those results are not particularly relevant.

With a GTX 1080 there is almost no difference in performance at 1080p between an i5-4690k and an i7-3770k https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2365?vs=2465 A lot of modern games cannot use more than 4 cores.

But that's comparing a faster i5 from a newer generation. An i5-4690K is faster than the processor they have, so that's also not a particularly relevant comparison...

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-3570/2432vsm793

Those results are also a mess to follow. Some of the bars are for 720p low settings, others for 8K ultra, and various other tiers in between, all dumped into one list.

It's also worth noting that the typical user's system is likely to have more processes running in the background than one of these test systems, which offer a controlled environment with a fresh install of Windows.

That being said, I kind of agree with King_V that it might not be worth putting too much money into the system if you plan on replacing it relatively soon. Assuming you're buying used/refurbished parts, which I would recommend for a platform this old, you are probably looking at around $30 or so for the RAM and around $90 for the processor, at least going by current US pricing on ebay. That might make for an okay upgrade if you plan on keeping the hardware at least a couple years. I certainly wouldn't spend $300 or so to buy this hardware new though, as you could get a newer, faster CPU, Mobo and DDR4 for about that much, which would also provide more room for future upgrades.

 

[cryoburner]

One other thing I'll add, since AC: Odyssey was specifically mentioned, it should be pointed out that it is a very demanding game. Even with a new, higher-end CPU, you likely wouldn't be able to always maintain a solid 60fps at 1080p with a GTX 970, even at medium settings. Upgrading your processor might help a bit, but I wouldn't expect miracles from it.

 

[JamesCorvin]

Im not a fps maniac by any means but i noticed a lot of stutter and both my cpu and ram maxing out...that being said im fine with 30 fps (as long as frametime is on point) and high details.in most recent games i play my 970 hovers @ 60 to 80% being bottlenecked by the cpu. I was unsure if the extra threads would give the gpu a little more head room.also im fine with fps going from 45 to 60 as long as the transition is smooth and the 1% low is not horrible. Oh and i play on 1080p. I got A Plague Tale and gave it a try and i looks and runs ok but i tried Rage 2 today as well and the fps is bonkers..i just need some stability in my life lol

 

[Aeacus]

Wow, this topic exploded quite a bit after i left my reply.

Rather than start discussing the benefits/handicaps of hyperthreading in games with the above guys (which i could but that may derail the topic), i only say this:

Depending on how much money you have, your best improvement would be new CPU-MoBo-RAM combo (e.g Intel 8th/9th gen). But if you don't have enough money for that, go with RAM upgrade 1st (since it cheaper than 3rd gen Core i7). After you have 16GB of RAM, go with CPU upgrade if you like. However, if the 3rd gen Core i7 doesn't live up to the hype, go after those guys who praise the hyperthreading so highly.

 

[ElectrO_90]

You know, it could be better just to get an SSD and that makes the computer feel NEW and fast. The HDD is normally the thing that slows your computer down, even more than just 8GB of ram.
What is your boot drive?

 

[boju]

@Aeacus it's not about praising HT, it's not fair to say it has no impact at all in games, that was the argument.

One example of my own experience which i can post screen shots of if you want, is Doom 2016. With only 4 cores my total cpu usage was between 95~100%. Still runs good but get pauses every now and then. With 8 threads, cpu usage dropped and the pauses stopped. Also gained more fps because the cpu had more resources to prepare frames.

I had HT off to play csgo because this game runs better without it.

Modern games are better threaded. The games i mentioned I've played and HT helps a lot.

 

[Aeacus]

@Aeacus it's not about praising HT, it's not fair to say it has no impact at all in games, that was the argument.

One example of my own experience which i can post screen shots of if you want, is Doom 2016. With only 4 cores my total cpu usage was between 95~100%. Still runs good but get pauses every now and then. With 8 threads, cpu usage dropped and the pauses stopped. Also gained more fps because the cpu had more resources to prepare frames.

I had HT off to play csgo because this game runs better without it.

Modern games are better threaded. The games i mentioned I've played and HT helps a lot.

And it isn't fair for you to say this, especially the 2nd sentence:

Hyperthreading does plenty for modern games. Ignore the guys that say it doesn't.

What you have is your word about 6 games where HT helps. What i have are 2 studies where over 25 games were tested.

Overall result is that HT doesn't help in gaming while tendency is HT actually hurting the game performance. Sure, there are few exceptions but rather than arguing with me over HT, go argue with the study if you don't like it's results.