New
#50
Exactly. If you want to be able to play today's games, as well as tomorrows, in all their glory and eye candy, you'd better have both CPU and GPU to boot, otherwise you get a low grade gaming experience.
Ain't that the truth. And there aren't many of us here that'll be satisfied with minimum. And don't tell me about throwing money away. We all do it in some form or fashion. Some of us just prefer to waste it on a hobby we actually like :)
I don't have disdainment for high end PC's. Super flashy PC's are just not my thing, (case windows, lights, etc). But either way, the flashy part is just a personal preference, not a right or wrong and I don't intend to speak critically for anybody into that. If I have come off that way and offended anybody, I do truly apologize.
The point in my question, was the same point that Maximum PC was asking. Has the IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) increased enough in the past 5-6 years to mean that even lower end CPU's are far more capable than they are given credit for, especially in the gaming arena. The call they made, was that while previous rule of thumbs said a Core i5 was minimum and a Core i7 was better suited, today that really doesn't impact frame rates. The overall improvements in the lower end CPU's effectively allows them to product the same frame rates in today's games.
It's not a problem. But what if they are under the impression that they have to have a powerful chip to do those things? I'm guilty of it myself. I've always maintained to anybody who has asked that a Core i5 should be a starting point for a gaming rig. But perhaps today that advice is misleading.
It's most likely the power of the video card that truly has an impact on the games of today
I completely appreciate your 2 cents.
I'm for powerful PC's. That's part of the reason I am thinking of doing a Ryzen build depending upon how it really performs. Being a systems engineer for a living, I often run labs with multiple VM's. I'll often run a domain controller, (or 2), a SQL box, an Exchange box, 1-2 workstations, and some Linux boxes here and there. My limits are usually memory and IOPS (although SSD's have more or less made IOP's a thing of the past). I've also done video rendering from an old camcorder to video files. The more CPU I throw at that, the faster it goes. My son does some video editing for YouTube and more and more processing power is advantageous here as well.
My son's PC doesn't have a lot of flash, and it's only a Core i5, but it's using decent speed ram, it's fully modular power supply, it's a PCI Express based NVMe drive directly on the motherboard. It's not exactly a low end box. It really does run great. And with his games, a GTX 1060 is great enough.
Yes, you've made that clear.... a high number of times. That's the point. We get got it, you're not a fan. The problem is you're constantly making those comments and tend to come out sounding patronizing whenever someone talks about wanting a "Super flashy PC"... whatever that means, or PC parts. It's your consistency in this area that rubs.
At any rate, were getting off topic here. But I did want to address your comment on why a gamer might want to buy a high end processor vs. cheap $80 dollar one. Yet another why all the bling comment. And that does have to do with this thread.
And yes, we all have personal preferences. What's wrong with ours?
Peace
Has anyone looked at Ryzen from the motherboard's perspective? What of them? How do they stack against Intel based boards?
Just curious.
Nothing wrong with it.
Look at this thread, it became focused on how high system requirements are to play any of these games after my comments. I wonder if thats really true? Can a core i3 play BF1 with 8gb of RAM. Would changing over to a core i7 make it better for sure, as far as frame rates and lag goes? I think everyone will say yes, but is it really the case.
I made that single post to make the point that processors do matter where gaming performance is concerned. Speaking of which, did you check out this video? Notice how these faired in gaming. Point being processors do matter... whether AMD or Intel.
Also, notice his statement about the Ryzen processors (around the 8:45 mark) not allowing Titan X GPU to the same highs as the newer Intel i7 chips... that's a processor bottleneck.
So yes, processor/processor performance does matter. The fact that Maximum PC demonstrated a low-end CPU could run games means nothing as my Intel i7-4790K's integrated GPU could game. How good is the performance is a different matter as demonstrated in the video showcasing the Ryzen chips. That said, I’ve not read the article to argue the finer points, but rest assured, I’ll look for it and read it.
Yes, I did watch this video earlier tonight. I've been keeping a close eye on this CPU for a potential future build. And yes, I did take note of the gaming comments made during the video.
It wasn't that Maximum PC was trying to say that a low-end rig "could" game. It said
They tested a Pentium G4600, a Core i3-7300, a Core i5-7600k and a Core i7-7700K. They used a Deus Ex Mankind divided Benchmark, a Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmark, a Far Cry Primal Benchmark and an Atilla: Total War benchmark.As game dev still haven't managed to take advantage of the multiple cores we already have, does the old adage still ring true. Do you still benefit form having a quad-core, high-clocked i5, over a dual-core i3? Or have those IPC improvements lead us into an age when you can get away with a cheaper Pentium for all of your 1080p gaming needs. With Kaby Lake finally introducing Hyper-Threading on it's Pentium range, allowing for dual-core and four-thread budget offerings, we decided to put it to the test in this quad-optioned mid-range build
Their conclusion stated
Perhaps it's the following causing the data to skew;Take a glance at the Internet, and you'll see dozens of commentators purporting that the Core i5 is the way to go, and that even going to the Core i7 isn't worth the cash, because you only gain 10 percent performance in games. The reality, on the other hand, is very different. Across the board, from one of Intel's lowest $80 chips all the way up to it's mainstream rending powerhouse at $350, there absolutely no difference in game. It seems those IPC improvements have been making a difference to the ecosystem after all-Just not in the way we might think?
- They said, 1080p gaming. For those pushing 4k gaming to the edge, it's likely a different ballgame.
- Perhaps they used crappy benchmarks or games specifically that cannot make use of a processor correctly. Maybe the vast majority of all other games out there are way more CPU intensive.
It seemed a little shocking to me. Like I said above, I've always maintained to friends that if you are going to game, the sweet spot has been the Core i5. For those who asked if they need an i7, I've always asked what else they do with the computer and whether running everything maxed out is more of a requirement to them than running it smoothly.
I've not had the ability to test all of this myself, as my previous desktop build is a Core 2 Quad, Q9550 with a GTX 570. My Mac is a Core i5-4258u, but I cannot really game on my Mac running OSX. My sons Core i5-6500 is our really only modern gaming PC. And since I planned to game on it, I went with an Core i5 as I would have recommended to anybody.
Yeah, I’m not sure any or those games are PC busters, but ok. That said, I do get their point and don’t fully disagree with them. However, there are other factors to consider – including game, game settings, resolution, GPU/CPU, etc…
That said, I won’t argue that an i3 or i5 with a mid-grade GPU wouldn't do very well with certain games. We see this all the time. However, take a high rez textured game like the new Skyrim and try running that on an i3 with a mid-grade GPU at a rez of 1900 x 1200 or higher with the game’s settings all maxed out and you suddenly run into performance issues where you wished you had more power. This is what I mean when I ask can the PC run a game in all its glory at a high resolution. That’s the test. And 1080 is old, higher resolutions are the norm now. My 24 inch NEC monitor runs a native resolution of 1900 x 1200, and that’s getting stale now.
Anyway, their point isn’t off base and does hold truth, but it also doesn’t negate the fact that higher clocked CPU’s can also net better performance. Yes, GPU’s affect gaming more than CPU’s, but an underperforming CPU can bottleneck a GPU, and that’s where your performance can get hurt.
Nonetheless, you are right, you don't need a high end CPU to enjoy gaming - we've seen this with the integrated GPU's on Intel chips, so yeah, and i3 or i5 would do well. But when you want your gaming experience with all its bells and whistles, better look at higher ground. That's my point.
Still very short list and even shorter supply. Only top (and expensive) X370 platform seems to be close to what's needed for this series (R7) of processors.
Something like this: Access Denied would be a total waste of R7 processors, it' more suitable to go with R3.