i7 4790k not faster than i5 4690k at gaming?

[rezo]

I currently have a i5 4690k and its a beast for it's age, it still outperformes any Ryzen at gaming in most games (aside from civ and ashs etc) and I was thinking that an affordable upgrade is if I get an i7 4790k but after watching a few videos and google benchmark results, it performes the same if not even less in some games. Why is this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpYOHuSfaM

[FeilDOW]

rezo eredeti hozzászólása:

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

You said it outperforms ANY Ryzen... which is wrong. I never said anything about pricing, I was just talking about raw power. So do the thinking.

If anything, your 280X needs to go. Especially with that triple monitor setup, and you know it.

It was generalising. Sorry I wasnt using specific words or numbers like 8/12 I didnt think it matter smh. What I mean was that it beat 8 of the 12 Ryzen CPUs and its old af.

Yet the 7600k is only 10-15% faster, thats over 4 years. Also there is only 4 Ryzens below the 4690k.

[Big Boom Boom]

Depends on game.

For example Final Fantasy XV the i3-8350k pretty much trade blow with 1400/1500X and that is faster than i5-4690k.

[vadim]

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

Your i5 doesn't really beat the 1800X or the Threadrippers.

Gaming-wise? It does. Haswell has better single-threded performance, faster cache and less intercore delays. So, according to test which I\ve seen, in most games it beats any Ryzen. Including threadripper and 1800X. Of course, we can expect sitiation to change in several years.

[John Doe]

vadim eredeti hozzászólása:

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

Your i5 doesn't really beat the 1800X or the Threadrippers.

Gaming-wise? It does. Haswell has better single-threded performance, faster cache and less intercore delays. So, according to test which I\ve seen, in most games it beats any Ryzen. Including threadripper and 1800X. Of course, we can expect sitiation to change in several years.

No, it doesn't unless you're looking at horse BS benchmarks. When both a Threadripped and Haswell is OC'ed to the max, the Threadripper would win. They have rather low stock clocks.

[vadim]

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

No, it doesn't unless you're looking at horse BS benchmarks.

I don't care about [synthetic] benchmarks at all. Only real tests in real games.

[John Doe]

Ok then, how about you go find benchmarks of REAL games with a max OC'ed X1950 vs 4690K? We both know the Threadripper would trump it real bad.

[vadim]

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

Ok then, how about you go find benchmarks of REAL games with a max OC'ed X1950 vs 4690K? We both know the Threadripper would trump it real bad.

What is the basis of this assumption? Can you explain? We both know that Ryzen has very limited overclocking potential.
i5-4690k could be overclocked to 4.8GHz: https://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/6
Threadripper 1950X only to 3.9GHz which is LOWER than its turbo boost rate: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-cpu,review-33976-13.html
It is well known than if Intel wins at stock rates, it wins even more after OC.
And try to understand one more simple thing. Overclocking is for suckers. The normal processor should ideally work at the nominal frequencies.

[John Doe]

You understand nothing if you think overclocking A K-BASED SKU is for suckers. It's MADE for overclocking, that's why it has its multipliers UNLOCKED. If you have an overclockable CPU and don't OC, that's your foolishness. You're simply missing your CPU's full potential.

Your claims are made-up. That's a 4 core CPU against a 16 core CPU... even if it OC's less, the gains will be higher once OC'ed, due to having far more cores.

You're also yet to show me a single benchmark of a 1950X outperforming a 4690. I have a sane mind and I can make up my own decision about that. In modern CPU intensive games like PUBG, the Threadripper would WAY, WAY easily win. There wouldn't even be a competition. Now of course you could pull some BS benches but you didn't even do that. You have absolutely NO benchmarks showing Threadripper losing to a $125 CPU.

[Benitus]

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

You understand nothing if you think overclocking A K-BASED SKU is for suckers. It's MADE for overclocking, that's why it has its multipliers UNLOCKED. If you have an overclockable CPU and don't OC, that's your foolishness. You're simply missing your CPU's full potential.

Your claims are made-up. That's a 4 core CPU against a 16 core CPU... even if it OC's less, the gains will be higher once OC'ed, due to having far more cores.

You're also yet to show me a single benchmark of a 1950X outperforming a 4690. I have a sane mind and I can make up my own decision about that. In modern CPU intensive games like PUBG, the Threadripper would WAY, WAY easily win. There wouldn't even be a competition. Now of course you could pull some BS benches but you didn't even do that. You have absolutely NO benchmarks showing Threadripper losing to a $125 CPU.

Defending AMD because you purchased it and regret it but want to defend the purchase doesn't mean that other people don't have a brain. Ryzen and Threadripper are WORK CPU's, not meant for a GAMING based setup, thats why these CPU's have LOW Per-Core-Power and HIGH core count. Ryzen and Threadripper both get stomped in gaming(apart from like, 2 games?) by any modern Intel CPU thanks to the fact that Intel CPU's have much higher Per-Core-Power compared to AMD, its not hard to understand, stop being a fanboy and be real.

[John Doe]

⇋๖ۣۜBᴏxᴇʀ ♥♥ eredeti hozzászólása:

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

You understand nothing if you think overclocking A K-BASED SKU is for suckers. It's MADE for overclocking, that's why it has its multipliers UNLOCKED. If you have an overclockable CPU and don't OC, that's your foolishness. You're simply missing your CPU's full potential.

Your claims are made-up. That's a 4 core CPU against a 16 core CPU... even if it OC's less, the gains will be higher once OC'ed, due to having far more cores.

You're also yet to show me a single benchmark of a 1950X outperforming a 4690. I have a sane mind and I can make up my own decision about that. In modern CPU intensive games like PUBG, the Threadripper would WAY, WAY easily win. There wouldn't even be a competition. Now of course you could pull some BS benches but you didn't even do that. You have absolutely NO benchmarks showing Threadripper losing to a $125 CPU.

Defending AMD because you purchased it and regret it but want to defend the purchase doesn't mean that other people don't have a brain. Ryzen and Threadripper are WORK CPU's, not meant for a GAMING based setup, thats why these CPU's have LOW Per-Core-Power and HIGH core count. Ryzen and Threadripper both get stomped in gaming(apart from like, 2 games?) by any modern Intel CPU thanks to the fact that Intel CPU's have much higher Per-Core-Power compared to AMD, its not hard to understand, stop being a fanboy and be real.

Reality is, CPU intensive games like PUBG would EAT that 4690 at its stock clocks if you have a good GPU next to it. However the same wouldn't happen with an OC'ed 1950X.

I don't have an AMD CPU, hell I didn't buy one in ages, nor one of their GPUs either. Stop assuming things and learn.

[vadim]

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

Your claims are made-up. That's a 4 core CPU against a 16 core CPU... even if it OC's less, the gains will be higher once OC'ed, due to having far more cores.

Do you realise that this statement makes no sense? I hope you not going to multiply megahertz to number of cores and try to claim that is better to overclock, say, 16 cores for 100Mhz than 4 for 300? Because 16*100=1600 "additional" megahertz while 4*300 gives only 1200?

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

In modern CPU intensive games like PUBG, the Threadripper would WAY, WAY easily win. There wouldn't even be a competition.

Several days ago I posted this link in another thread: https://www.techspot.com/article/1532-pubg-cpu-benchmarks/
Can you comment it, please?

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

Reality is, CPU intensive games like PUBG would EAT that 4690 at its stock clocks if you have a good GPU next to it. However the same wouldn't happen with an OC'ed 1950X.

Why did Ryzen 1800X lose to i3-8100 in such case?

https://steamcommunity.com/app/578080/discussions/1/1489992713709418469/

[Revelene]

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

CPUs with lots of cores come with slower clocks, that's why they shine when you OC them.

Not all cores are the same, especially between AMD and INTEL architectures.

More cores does not mean better. Do you not remember Bulldozer? While Ryzen most certainly isn't anything like Bulldozer, it isn't as strong per core in comparison to Intel's architecture.

[Benitus]

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

⇋๖ۣۜBᴏxᴇʀ ♥♥ eredeti hozzászólása:

Defending AMD because you purchased it and regret it but want to defend the purchase doesn't mean that other people don't have a brain. Ryzen and Threadripper are WORK CPU's, not meant for a GAMING based setup, thats why these CPU's have LOW Per-Core-Power and HIGH core count. Ryzen and Threadripper both get stomped in gaming(apart from like, 2 games?) by any modern Intel CPU thanks to the fact that Intel CPU's have much higher Per-Core-Power compared to AMD, its not hard to understand, stop being a fanboy and be real.

Reality is, CPU intensive games like PUBG would EAT that 4690 at its stock clocks if you have a good GPU next to it. However the same wouldn't happen with an OC'ed 1950X.

I don't have an AMD CPU, hell I didn't buy one in ages, nor one of their GPUs either. Stop assuming things and learn.

Obviously with less cores the CPU usage is higher but the higher IPC CPU always wins on FPS. Also i have assumed that you're an AMD owner because of the comment you made before, if you aren't then its even worse because you should know very well that Ryzen and TR aren't for gaming.

[John Doe]

You're... I don't know what to say. Yes, you used to get about 40 FPS in the beginning of the game in lobby, and what was because of everybody going all on out on guns, throwing molotovs and what not. They fixed that some time ago by making the lobby waiting area the middle of the map without any guns around.

You not only clearly don't play PUBG, neither you do understand jack about the topic. I mean, seriously, WTF? You posted a thread that only says "I get 40 FPS in PUBG on a WQHD monitor with a Threadripper and a 1080 Ti". Now if you understood how PUBG works, you would know that frame dips happen in that game.

If he had a 4690K it probably would have dipped down to 20 or something. Your argument holds no value, it holds its ground as nothing more than a poor joke.

Revelene eredeti hozzászólása:

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

CPUs with lots of cores come with slower clocks, that's why they shine when you OC them.

Not all cores are the same, especially between AMD and INTEL architectures.

More cores does not mean better. Do you not remember Bulldozer? While Ryzen most certainly isn't anything like Bulldozer, it isn't as strong per core in comparison to Intel's architecture.

It doesn't, but 1950X WILL perform better than 4690K. Are you all mind washed with Intel or what?

⇋๖ۣۜBᴏxᴇʀ ♥♥ eredeti hozzászólása:

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

Reality is, CPU intensive games like PUBG would EAT that 4690 at its stock clocks if you have a good GPU next to it. However the same wouldn't happen with an OC'ed 1950X.

I don't have an AMD CPU, hell I didn't buy one in ages, nor one of their GPUs either. Stop assuming things and learn.

Obviously with less cores the CPU usage is higher but the higher IPC CPU always wins on FPS. Also i have assumed that you're an AMD owner because of the comment you made before, if you aren't then its even worse because you should know very well that Ryzen and TR aren't for gaming.

Higher IPC CPU doesn't "always" win. Find me a dual core high IPC CPU that beats a low IPC quad, you'll have to look hard.

Am I really debating that a 4690K is capable of beating a Threadripper here? Yes, it's not made for gaming but Ryzens ARE. Yes, lower end Ryzens fail to Intel but the Threadripper WILL NOT. Either post 1950X vs 4690K or GTFO if you can't back up your claims.

[vadim]

John Doe eredeti hozzászólása:

Find me a dual core high IPC CPU that beats a low IPC quad, you'll have to look hard.

Like smoke. Pentium G4560 and more senior models faster in games than AMD Bulldozer quads. Or Jaguar/Puma/Bobcat quads. And there are also 7-th generation i3 dual also, which even faster than Pentium...