Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Este tema ha sido cerrado 
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
I have to ask the OP about their graphics, there is no mention of it.
My i5 8600K is running all the games i play in 4K, here's some of them, Windows 10 and 7.
Skyrim SE
The Witcher 3 : Wild Hunt
Metro Last Light
Metro 2033
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Far Cry 3
Far Cry 5
Need for Speed : Hot Pursuit
Alan Wake
All with very high to ultra settings.
I never have any issues with the i5, why would i want an i7, the only one i had was years ago, a i7 3770K, lots of cooling needed for that one.
Fact: Its not a downgrade from a i7 4770K to a i5 9600K.
Fact: the 9600K will outperform and consume less power than the 4th generation i7 4770K, you're just going to have to get over that.
You're just digging yourself a bigger hole and you need to wake up that there are more people on here that know more than you or i on matters like this.
stop lying here you dont even know own game requirements for games you posted. you seem to be a troll , that lost all value information, you dont seem to under stand minimum and recommended game requirement, so stop tell all here you can go max performance.
noone buy you words anymore and you dig yourself even deeper, and thats why i todl you look it up yourself, and most of the game you ref to is old as hell.
but someday you will give in and figureout .. hmmm okay other tell me you only have minimum game requirement's. and thats why example you lag in a game and missing the correct I requirements even then you have better graphic cards . it dont matter. Graphic card cant help you then problem is missing game requirements.
and you think this is your post, its not its OP. and i tell him tight here and now i7 to i5 is a downgraded pc. just wait then he buy a game and it dont do as he think and lag like crap and he have minimum settings or even worse a full game requirement at I7.
i3, i5 and i7 came out at the same time, they are the same computer generation.
I3 is dual core with hyperthreading
i5 is quad core
i7 is quad core with hyperthreading.
hyperthreading is a technique which allows a lower core number to do virtual parallel processing, which means it can do almost as much as one with twice as many cores.
OP has upgraded in terms of speed and efficiency, but is effectively working with a half the processing cores. That's why he's getting less fps. He's got a much newer generation of the i-processors but it's not as much an upgrade as he hoped.
You're just showing the rest of the forum what a complete tool you are, that's right, spelt TOOL !
I have my doubts to your age, methinks probably around 12, i could forgive your bad english being from Denmark, but then again i always thought Dane's pretty clever people, guess there is always one apple that falls from the tree cracks itself open and goes rotten.
By the way, my system requirements far outstrip what is needed for Metro Last Light, so really you don't know what you're talking about.......now go outside and beat the dog up or whatever lame thing you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core
but go ahead keep posting tramper. no one cares. whatever you say.
diffrent I3 to I9 and how strong they are matter and still need to be compare to whatever game you have and i dont talk about minimum settings, this is recommended max quality settings, and I5 is simple not good enough. to newer games then games that is of past season's date.
many games has i7 as Recommended , but you sit there with a I5 and tell you can almost run at max Settings, thats is a lie, but almost is not and can run at Max setting,
ps.
and just to thow in at debat Recommend is not always Highest Max performance seen plenty of game go higher then that.
but i think OP already know this, or now he do. byebye all. he has all info whats wrong.
Glad you sorted it out, now get back gaming ! :)
Your information is outdated. AMD's success with their Zen and Zen+ architecture forced Intel's hand into abandoning their long running i3= two cores w/hyperthreading , i5 = four cores and i7 = four cores w/hyperthreading policy they've had for the past decade or so. Starting with Coffee Lake (8th gen) i3's have four cores, i5's have six cores and i7's either have six cores w/hyperthreading or eight cores (Coffee Lake Refresh).
Hyperthreading is nowhere near as effective as having an actual physical core. Typically a virtual core (hyperthreaded) will have about 10-30% improvement (per virtual core) vs. nothing. So it helps, but not that much, and for most games you're not going to see a huge improvement. That's why when it comes to gaming, i5's and i7's (of the same generation ) typically benched very similarly. With the i7's generally coming out ahead on virtue of their higher clock speeds more than anything else.
In the OP's case his old CPU was a Haswell i7 (quad core with hyperthreading), his new CPU is a Coffee Lake refresh with six physical cores. It not only has more physical cores but it runs at a higher clock speed and has a superior architecture. His i5 is going to be noticeably better than his old i7. As it has more physical cores running at a higher clock speed. As mentioned before, Hyperthreading isn't all that helpful in gaming, so he's way ahead with the newer i5 than he is with the older i7.
Here we go again.
You do realize that for most games you're going to be GPU limited before your CPU is the thing that holds you up. 90% of the time an i5 will perform just as well as an i7 of the same generation operating at the same or very similar clock speed. If you have an overclocked i5 you can certainly match and in most cases exceed the performance of an i7 (again of the same generation) at stock clocks. The higher the resolution, the less of a factor the CPU becomes as the CPU does the same amount of work no matter what the resolution. The GPU becomes the determining factor.
You can certainly run a game at max detail settings with an i5. Graphic quality and the frame rate you get is almost entirely GPU-bound. In most cases going from an i5 to an i7 ( same generation), won't yield much improvement in performance. This is common knowledge and is why the i5's of a given generation are considered the sweet spot for gaming. You're not gaining much by spending the extra for the i7 (as far as gaming is concerned). If you do rendering or video production, then the i7 becomes more sensible. However at that point you're going to be looking into HEDT stuff.
Quite frankly, there's a wide gap between what you seem to think you know, and what you actually know about the subject matter at hand.
and i already point out we dont even talk about GPU.
Product Collection 4th Generation Intel® Core™ i7 Processors
Code Name Products formerly Haswell
Vertical Segment Desktop
Processor Number i7-4770K
Status Discontinued
Launch Date Q2'13
Lithography 22 nm
Recommended Customer Price$339.00 - $350.00
Performance
# of Cores 4
# of Threads 8
Processor Base Frequency 3.50 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 3.90 GHz
Cache 8 MB Intel® Smart Cache
compare with hes new i5 crap
Product Collection 9th Generation Intel® Core™ i5 Processors
Code Name Products formerly Coffee Lake
Vertical Segment Desktop
Processor Number i5-9600K
Status Launched
Launch Date Q4'18
Lithography 14 nm
Included Items Please note: The boxed product does not include a fan or heat sink
Use Conditions PC/Client/Tablet
Recommended Customer Price$262.00 - $263.00
Performance
# of Cores 6
# of Threads 6
Processor Base Frequency 3.70 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 4.60 GHz
Cache 9 MB Intel® Smart Cache
----------------------------------------------
my point is
Essentials
Product Collection 9th Generation Intel® Core™ i7 Processors
Code Name Products formerly Coffee Lake
Vertical Segment Desktop
Processor Number i7-9700K
Status Launched
Launch Date Q4'18
Lithography 14 nm
Included Items Please note: The boxed product does not include a fan or heat sink
Use Conditions PC/Client/Tablet
Recommended Customer Price$374.00 - $385.00
Performance
# of Cores 8
# of Threads 8
Processor Base Frequency 3.60 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 4.90 GHz
Cache 12 MB Intel® Smart Cache
and even better i9 (almost double cache )
Essentials
Product Collection 9th Generation Intel® Core™ i9 Processors
Code Name Products formerly Coffee Lake
Vertical Segment Desktop
Processor Number i9-9900K
Status Launched
Launch Date Q4'18
Lithography 14 nm
Included Items Please note: The boxed product does not include a fan or heat sink
Use Conditions PC/Client/Tablet
Recommended Customer Price$488.00 - $499.00
Performance
# of Cores 8
# of Threads 16
Processor Base Frequency 3.60 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 5.00 GHz
Cache 16 MB Intel® Smart Cache
each generation is diffrent and all this is threads and cache.
but maybe thats is a buget issue , but i will not have bought a I5 with almost same cache as hes old pc. in I7
When it comes to cache, in terms of gaming the point of diminishing returns is reached very quickly. You do need some, but once you get to a certain point (generally around 4-6MB as it pertains to L3 cache) you don't get any real performance gains by adding more. For other non-gaming applications you can see some improvement, but for gaming it's not critical.
Current i9's are pretty niche, most gamers don't go for them, yet people who do rendering and/or video projection tend to skip them and head right to the HEDT chips as the consumer level stuff (LGA 115x) tends to skimp on things like the number of PCI-E lanes, max amount of RAM a board supports/ quad channel RAM, etc.) Also not every generation gets an I9 SKU. And up until recently they were all on HEDT sockets (LGA 2066). Only with Coffee Lake Refresh have we seen I9-branded SKU's on mainstream chipsets. This is mainly because AMD upped the core count on their Ryzen CPU's vs. what Intel had historically offered, and Intel was forced to follow suit.
Few people shell out the extra money for the current i9, as it doesn't hold much of an edge performance-wise over the i7's or even i5's in most cases. Certainly not from a cost/benefit perspective. Hyperthreading is not very beneficial in gaming. This is due to the fact most games will end up being ported consoles and no current console has hyperthreading or SMT. So developers write games to use physical cores primarily. This may change when the PS5 and new X Box debut. Both will be powered by AMD Zen 2 based CPUs that have SMT (AMD's name for hyperthreading). So going forward we'll probably see greater support for hyperthreading/SMT. But even with hyperthreading support, the performance gain is still nowhere near that of a physical core. So it's not going to be huge deal or anything.
but someday as i said some games devs will do a most have 8 cpu or game wont work.
but i doubt they will do this in longtime , that will reduce alot of customer, so its better to have lowest common so they can sell more at lowest graphic and setting.
but again then we dont talk about max game performance.
still think he should have bought I7 that will increase hes cache with a third more then hes old pc then just 1 from that I5, but i guess its here we all see diffrent on what matter's
and not sure why you mix me up with AMD, but its okay let other know AMD sometimes do make things better, but again always is easyer to reinvent things and try make better then current you compare yourself with , but it do happend that AMD get a Brand new idea.
dont forget OP even mention no game improvements and maybe the problem is game itself ( who said this game is good enough to even push in performance, and we are back at newer game is require. how can you compare max performance on both pc he has if game cant go higher then it was build for. ( sure he can DL texture but that still dont fix game engine. until you push own game engine. everything has a brakepoint. think hes better off to a new game where Graphic is even higher.
Of course system requirements go up over time, more advanced games require more advanced hardware. This has been going on for decades. It's a never ending cycle. You need faster hardware to play more advanced games. Then new games are developed with that advanced hardware, which in turn dictates that faster hardware be developed to run the new software. Keep in mind that the stated system requirements for a given game isn't an exact science are more like general suggestions than hard rules. For example it a game recommends an i5-4570 and you have an i5-2500k @ 4Ghz, you're going to be fine since the IPC difference between Haswell and Sandy Bridge isn't much in real world performance. Or if a game calls for a GTX 760 video card and you have a GTX 680. You're also fine because the GTX 760 is actually quite a bit slower than the GTX 680 even though it's newer.
8 core CPU's being a minimum requirement won't be happening for while. It took a long time for quad cores to become the default baseline CPU, and that's the standard we're going to stay with for probably another 4 or 5 years. Quad core CPU's are very common now and it's a good practice to develop a game to run on the most common hardware. Years ago ( early to late 90's) There was a developer/publisher called "Origin" They were notorious for putting out games that basically required the user to have very high end hardware (at the time). The games (Wing Commander series, Strike Commander, Pacific Strike, etc.) looked amazing for their times and offered things that were unheard of for the time ( 3D game engines complete with shading, interactive cut scenes, actual voice acting, and in their later games FMV cut scenes with motion picture level production values). These games were generally well received, and lauded for their technological achievement. But, they often didn't sell incredibly well because the hardware needed to run them properly wasn't what most people had. Consequently Origin went out of business in the early 2000's. It's rare for a publisher to put out a full on "system killer" game these days. Crysis was probably the most recent example of that. But Origin made a business model out of the practice.
There's a point where it simply isn't practical to spend a ton of extra money for comparatively small gains in performance. Let's say you have a CPU that runs a game a 1080p on high settings at 120 FPS ( I'm greatly simplifying this as there are multiple factors when it comes to gaming performance.) That CPU costs $250 USD. Now let's that the next higher CPU can get you 140 FPS, but it costs $500 USD. You're getting about a 15% increase in performance for a 100% increase in price. And not only that but going from 120 FPS to 140 FPS is something that's barely noticeable to begin with. So it's not money well spent.
From a cost/benefit perspective the i5-9600k is a killer deal when it comes to gaming and a decent upgrade over his old i7-4770k. He has more physical cores, higher clock speed, and better architecture. Going for the i7-9700k would've gotten him two extra cores, which wouldn't hurt anything, but probably wouldn't gain much either as CPU scaling beyond four physical cores isn't widely optimized at this point. Some games might off load some stuff to otherwise idle cores, but it's rare at this point. Cache doesn't matter here, the i5 has more than you need, the extra cache that the i7 brings to the table doesn't actually improve gaming performance noticeably. The i7 also gets modest bump in clock speed, but both of these are "k" parts and can be overclocked anyway. The price delta between the i5-9600k and i7-9700k is around is around $180 USD. Meaning you're paying about 70% more for those two extra cores. That's quite a premium for not much real world improvement.
I bring it up because, unless you've been living under a rock for the past two years, AMD has suddenly become *very* relevant again in the PC gaming space. Their Zen architecture is a winner and they have beat Intel in getting newer products to market. Intel was unprepared for AMD's comeback and now they are behind in most areas. What's funny about is that AMD didn't come up with a "Brand new idea". They more or less copied what Intel had been doing for the past decade or so. They went from relying on a large number of weak cores in their CPU's. To fewer, but stronger cores and also implemented hyperthreading as well (they call it SMT, but it's basically the same thing.) AMD brought their Ryzen CPU's to market at very competitive prices that somewhat undercut Intel. Intel's response was to match AMD's core count per tier of CPU. This kind of competition is good for the industry.
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. But the OP's problem was not related to his CPU. His i5-9600k is way more than enough CPU to run Skyrim SE. His old i7 was also more than enough for the game. But everything else being equal he should've seen some improvement with his new i5 over the old i7. I wouldn't imagine the difference would've been huge though as Skyrim is running on a game engine from 2011. It's not a particular daunting game to run with circa 2019-2020 hardware.
but it dont change anything, sure cost matter and hes budget, but it wont change fact he got no current improvement and imo waste alot of cash for new pc most game devs dont use high cpu requirements yet. ( as i said its all about game requirements and what game can show. )
example old fallout 3 new vegas , should run on max with both i hope we can agree on that.
maybe that the same issue he has now with skyrim ( game is not good enough to test better performance with both of hes pc's ) i try to keep reply simple )
and as i said its also here we disaree on cache bound to what in performance you get. and corethreads, and yes you already reply with it and who said he actual had cost issue, i only mention maybe a budget issue and that's why he bought current I5.
price ofc. matter, but we all have seen sometimes cost is so close to each other that why not spend more to get example better Ghz/cpu or something like that.
and OP even discover other issue with GPU, and solve why things go bad.
but that still dont change so few improvement from old pc to new pc and only got 1 mb cache upgrade and ghz this game dont care about and point is most game devs dont make a 4ghz or 5ghz requirements ( and maybe now you understand what im trying to say basic upgrade seem to be more valid then top nuge Ghz, that games devs dont dare to have that as requirements and again why should they then multi cpu is there.