Is this a good cpu for High-End games?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Highdefkitten

Highdefkitten

Reputable
Feb 19, 2015
112
0
4,690
Alright, One response I don't want to see is "Go for a good GPU, not CPU.", I know, I am going to get a 980 so GPU is not a problem, So now that is out of the way, is This a good CPU? That's all, thanks! :)
 
Solution
anoori9000


We told you, i5 4460, 4690K, or the Xeon
Sort by date Sort by votes
AMD is for budget, not high end. Although the FX-8350 is a good processor, it isn't close to the quality of an i7-4790k.

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($326.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $326.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-04-22 12:21 EDT-0400

The i5-4690k will run most games nearly as well as the i7-4790k. The Intel i7 has a small lead in some CPU intensive games like Battlefield 4.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Ah yes, I get all that, but am sticking with AMD for now, on a small budget,

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Ah yes, I get all that, but am sticking with AMD for now, on a small budget,

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That is not a smart decision because you're presumably getting the GTX 980.

You would be locked with a rather poor performing CPU compared to a high-end GPU = Bottleneck and no future-proof upgradability.

i5-4690k + GTX 970 would be perform better than the FX-8350 + GTX 980 plus it would also be more future proof.

I suggest you do some research on CPU to GPU performance and rethink your options.

The GTX 970/R9 290X is excellent for 1080p/1440p.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well then your budget would be nice. I mean it is expected that if you are spending money on a $500+ GPU money really isnt too big of a problem unless you state your budget...

Tom's should have a reminder box along with the one that tells you to use good grammar to also tell you to add your budget...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What games are you playing. With power saving features off, and at turbo frequency, you are going to have problems finding a game that a modern 6-8 core cant run at 60 fps if you set it up right. Especially with that gpu.

A stock intel isn't going to get you more than 10% better fps in games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
YOu would also be happier with this CPU:
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/GN9vdC
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/GN9vdC/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($239.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $239.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-04-22 12:27 EDT-0400

It's basically an i7 for the price of an i5 without the iGPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


If hes not overclocking a 4460 or the Xeon is probably better.

4460 and 4690K stock preform about the same in games, and the Xeon is basically in i7, which will give him a slight advantage depending on the game.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Well actually, I'm buying that card brand new at a local place for around 250.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Both the i5-4690k and the Xeon have their benefits.

For example yes the Xeon has 2 extra threads but it is locked with the lower 3.4 Ghz clock spped.

The i5-4690k will perform better in most games as most games don't use more than 4 cores right now. It also can be overclocked up to 4.5 Ghz no problems depending on the motherboard and CPU Cooler which right now has a much bigger benefit than those 2 extra threads.

That's why I only suggest the Xeon when a build is aimed both at gaming but also recording, editing etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Alright, I was hoping for there to be a pretty good AMD solution but that's what I expected. I5 looks good, I'm gonna stay away from Xeon though.


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you're only playing older games there is no reason to buy the GTX 980.

Do you know how powerful the GTX 970 is?

Even the GTX 960 would be enough for those games to be fair.

Unless you play higher than 1080p there should be no reason to get more than a GTX 970 as that GPU is overkill for Full HD resolution.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


This is only correct if you leave the power saving options intact. If you disable power saving options on both, the 8350 beats the i5 in Arma 3, DCS A10C, and many other cpu intensive games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


My system:

fx8350 (put back at 4.2 for the arguement)
16gb 1600 ram cas9
2x r9 290x
Asus Crosshair V Formula

I am on ultra at 6k object/ 6k view distances with 150* FOV getting 60 frames (vsync on) on Altis with 2 factions fighting in view (Myrina) with 1 tank and 3 squads each. My resolution is 5760 x 1080

CPU usage is 80% on ALL 8 cores. GPU usage is 70%

You might have gotten bad fps on your 8350, but don't blame the processor when you don't know how to fiddle with settings.

Would you like a picture?

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I didn't have the FX-8350 my self.

You think you would beat the i7-4790k + 16GB RAM with additional ARMA 3 commands to improve that performance just like you did with the FX-8350?

I'm fully open to this discussion but I need proper benchmarks to verify this.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I am already at 80% on all cores, so without capture hardware, I don't know how we would confirm without possibly hindering the frames.

I think you might get more fps over 60, but neither of us should drop below.

Going on my limited experience with you, if it is my ability to get a Real Virtuality 4 engine game to run optimally against your i7's pure muscle, I'll win.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Why would you avoid it? Its literally an i7.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Aren't they cpu's made for servers?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom