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

[vadim]

Originally posted by FeilDOW:

There is only 1200, 1300x, 1400, and 1500x below the 4690K the 1600 trades blows with it and jumps ahead in new games.

What do you mean? If something like this:

Dishonored Death of the Outsider
GEFORCE GTX 1080 Ti 11 GB

Intel Core i7 6700 3.4 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i5 6600 3.3 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7 4770K 3.5 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7-5960X 3.0 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7 3970X 3.5 ГГц 112 119
Intel Core i5 4670K 3.4 ГГц 112 119
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 ГГц 111 120
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 ГГц 108 119
Intel Core i7 2600K 3.4 ГГц 101 117
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 ГГц 98 113

that is clearly GPU bottleneck.

[FeilDOW]

Originally posted by vadim:

Originally posted by FeilDOW:

There is only 1200, 1300x, 1400, and 1500x below the 4690K the 1600 trades blows with it and jumps ahead in new games.

What do you mean? If something like this:

Dishonored Death of the Outsider
GEFORCE GTX 1080 Ti 11 GB

Intel Core i7 6700 3.4 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i5 6600 3.3 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7 4770K 3.5 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7-5960X 3.0 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7 3970X 3.5 ГГц 112 119
Intel Core i5 4670K 3.4 ГГц 112 119
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 ГГц 111 120
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 ГГц 108 119
Intel Core i7 2600K 3.4 ГГц 101 117
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 ГГц 98 113

that is clearly GPU bottleneck.

Death to the outsider might not have been the best example.. point still stands.

[Big Boom Boom]

Originally posted by vadim:

Originally posted by FeilDOW:

There is only 1200, 1300x, 1400, and 1500x below the 4690K the 1600 trades blows with it and jumps ahead in new games.

What do you mean? If something like this:

Dishonored Death of the Outsider
GEFORCE GTX 1080 Ti 11 GB

Intel Core i7 6700 3.4 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i5 6600 3.3 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7 4770K 3.5 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7-5960X 3.0 ГГц 116 120
Intel Core i7 3970X 3.5 ГГц 112 119
Intel Core i5 4670K 3.4 ГГц 112 119
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.6 ГГц 111 120
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 ГГц 108 119
Intel Core i7 2600K 3.4 ГГц 101 117
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 ГГц 98 113

that is clearly GPU bottleneck.

https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1569/bench/Lite_Avg.png

Ryzen 5 1400 is faster than i3-8100 on average. And significantly higher min FPS.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/3227-ffxv-hyperthreading-smt-on-vs-off-benchmarks-cpu

Ryzen 7 is better than i7-7700k at 5.0Ghz

[John Doe]

Originally posted by Revelene:

I know a great deal more, but it was a start to a discussion on how games use processing power.

If you would have had a constructive discussion, and not been so aggressive, I would have loved to have a discussion with you about this...

...but I refuse to have a discussion with someone who will make insults when contested. This is a discussion board, where we should discuss, not throw insults.

No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have said that a puny 4690K could beat a 1950X.

Originally posted by ⇋๖ۣۜBᴏxᴇʀ ♥♥:

Its useless that you try to change argument. First, OP could of have said gaming, than it would be true because Intel CPU's are better at gaming. The fact is that you're saying that TR is better in gaming, wich is not true and i proved that to you.
Second, if by "Intel Fanboying" you mean proving that you're wrong and that Ryzens and Threadrippers are not for gaming, then yes, im a proud "Intel Fanboy".
Next time try to get some informations on the product you're defending before making ridicule posts, tough at least you gave me a laugh so ty for that.

I'm not trying to change the argument, you are. Did you read the thread at all? No, you didn't prove anything. You posted a different CPU and the Threadripper was in non-gaming mode. It is said on hardware review sites that the TR DOES do better on that mode. Threadripper might not be for gaming, but the OP said his CPU was better than ANY AMD, which is wrong. Again, Ryzens ARE marketed for gaming. You don't know what you're on about.

Originally posted by vadim:

Sorry, but words "relocates the cores" also make no sense. How cores could be "relocated"? Think about it. Answer is simple: its impossible. In game mode threadripper just switch off all cores on second die (but not uncore parts). Do you understand it is NOT true 16-core CPU? Its more like Core 2 Quad.
And turns second IMC to NOT access RAM which game going to use. Which effectively makes memory controller to emulate dual-channel mode (because Threadripper has no quadchannel IMC also).
Thus, it become to something like Ryzen 1800X. 8 cores on one die, 16 threads, dual-channel near RAM.
And if i3-8100 wins over Ryzen 1800X in PUBG there are no reasons to expect that Threadripper in game mode (which is very similar to Ryzen 1800X emulation) will perform better.

It's not like C2Q, it is NOT a 4-core CPU. Where do you see that an i3-8100 wins over a Zen 1800X in PUBG? At worst, they would trade blow, and the 1950X would still be far ahead of the 4690K because PUBG DOES love core amount and high CPU usage.

Originally posted by vadim:

Do you understand that Tomb Raider and PUBG are 2 different games? No? Try to reread post which you are responding:

Except. Tomb. Raider. So, your link proves nothing - we already know that Ryzen is good in this one specific game.[/quote]

Yes, I do. You're the one that doesn't understand it. You posted a link of a guy saying that he gets 40 FPS on PUBG. What does that prove? It proves that he doesn't know what he's doing, neither you do. Try to go look for Tom's gaming mode 1950X results, it gets close to some of the best Intel chips in more than just Tomb Raider.

Originally posted by vadim:

BTW, are you really ready to reboot your PC and change setup between Game and Creator modes every time when you want to play? Or you do not need creator mode at all? In latter case whats the reason to buy 16 core CPU and immediately switch off half of cores?

Yes, I could do that, and anybody who buys that CPU would be playing modern games, not old games where Intels do better at. So JUST FOR 4690 VS Threadripper, Threadripper it is, getcha?

[Benitus]

Originally posted by ⇋๖ۣۜBᴏxᴇʀ ♥♥:

Its useless that you try to change argument. First, OP could of have said gaming, than it would be true because Intel CPU's are better at gaming. The fact is that you're saying that TR is better in gaming, wich is not true and i proved that to you.
Second, if by "Intel Fanboying" you mean proving that you're wrong and that Ryzens and Threadrippers are not for gaming, then yes, im a proud "Intel Fanboy".
Next time try to get some informations on the product you're defending before making ridicule posts, tough at least you gave me a laugh so ty for that.

Originally posted by John Doe:

I'm not trying to change the argument, you are. Did you read the thread at all? No, you didn't prove anything. You posted a different CPU and the Threadripper was in non-gaming mode. It is said on hardware review sites that the TR DOES do better on that mode. Threadripper might not be for gaming, but the OP said his CPU was better than ANY AMD, which is wrong. Again, Ryzens ARE marketed for gaming. You don't know what you're on about.

You look like one of the special snowflakes that can't accept the truth. You are basically saying that the TR is more expensive so it MUST have better performance in everything, it's like saying that iphones are good smartphones because they're expensive. In the eyes of someone who knows what you're talking about, you look like an idiot. Keep believing in what you want, if that makes you happy.

[John Doe]

Originally posted by ⇋๖ۣۜBᴏxᴇʀ ♥♥:

You look like one of the special snowflakes that can't accept the truth. You are basically saying that the TR is more expensive so it MUST have better performance in everything, it's like saying that iphones are good smartphones because they're expensive. In the eyes of someone who knows what you're talking about, you look like an idiot. Keep believing in what you want, if that makes you happy.

It does have better performance in modern games that make use of multi cores, and Iphones demolish Androids in AnTuTu, they're really powerful and their OS isn't as demanding as Android. You're clueless.

[vadim]

Originally posted by John Doe:

It's not like C2Q, it is NOT a 4-core CPU. Where do you see that an i3-8100 wins over a Zen 1800X in PUBG? At worst, they would trade blow, and the 1950X would still be far ahead of the 4690K because PUBG DOES love core amount and high CPU usage.

1. Core 2 Quad also was NOT true quadcore CPU. There was 2 separate dualcore dies. With all the ensuing consequences. Think about it.
2. I have posted link to reputable site 2 times already. Perhaps you should not only write to the thread, but also read it? Ryzen 1800X has 6% lower average FPS and 10% lower min FPS than cheapest Coffee Lake (i3-8100).
3. I again ask you to give the references confirming your statement about 1950X. There are no links? What a pity...

[John Doe]

Originally posted by vadim:

Originally posted by John Doe:

It's not like C2Q, it is NOT a 4-core CPU. Where do you see that an i3-8100 wins over a Zen 1800X in PUBG? At worst, they would trade blow, and the 1950X would still be far ahead of the 4690K because PUBG DOES love core amount and high CPU usage.

1. Core 2 Quad also was NOT true quadcore CPU. There was 2 separate dualcore dies. With all the ensuing consequences. Think about it.
2. I have posted link to reputable site 2 times already. Perhaps you should not only write to the thread, but also read it? Ryzen 1800X has 6% lower average FPS and 10% lower min FPS than cheapest Coffee Lake (i3-8100).
3. I again ask you to give the references confirming your statement about 1950X. There are no links? What a pity...

1. C2Q WAS a true quad core CPU, you're saying that it wasn't because it was two C2Ds on one die. It was.

2. I told you to post i3-8100 beating 1800X in PUBG significantly.

3. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-game-performance,5207-7.html

[vadim]

Originally posted by John Doe:

1. C2Q WAS a true quad core CPU, you're saying that it wasn't because it was two C2Ds on one die. It was.

2. I told you to post i3-8100 beating 1800X in PUBG significantly.

3. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-game-performance,5207-7.html

1. Try to read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
Or any other. Especially this phrase: "the single- and dual-core models are single-die, whereas the quad-core models comprise two dies, each containing two cores, packaged in a multi-chip module".
2. I gladly cite numbers from my link:
most expensive of all Ryzen CPUs (1800X) - 86/106 FPS
cheapest of all Coffee Lake (i3-8100) - 95/112
Do you see the difference?
3. What is that link for? i9-7900x is NOT gaming CPU. It sucks in games.

[John Doe]

Originally posted by vadim:

1. Try to read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
Or any other. Especially this phrase: "the single- and dual-core models are single-die, whereas the quad-core models comprise two dies, each containing two cores, packaged in a multi-chip module".
2. I gladly cite numbers from my link:
most expensive of all Ryzen CPUs (1800X) - 86/106 FPS
cheapest of all Coffee Lake (i3-8100) - 95/112
Do you see the difference?
3. What is that link for? i9-7900x is NOT gaming CPU. It sucks in games.

1. I'm not going to read that Wiki nonsense some idiot wrote. Core 2 Quad WAS a real quad core CPU. You're cringeworthy.

2. Are those numbers pulled from PUBG? Even so, what does it have to do with MY argument about 4690K vs 1950X?

3. i9-7900X doesn't "suck" in games. You're so ignorant. Monk has one and it beats my 7820K, which is up there with the 8700K on the TPU bench of the 8700K...

[f_dog80]

John doe you need to settle down.

You just can't let it go can you.

At the end of the day were all playing the same games on the same platform.

[John Doe]

I could let it go but he keeps saying nonsense. I mean, Core 2 Quad was sold as a quad core CPU and everybody accepted it as one. He's like the only guy I've seen in 10 years that says it isn't, and his only argument for that is it being two Core 2 Duo's in one CPU. It's still a quad core, and the 1950X is up there with higher end chips than the 4690K in modern games so I really don't get any of this.

[Revelene]

Originally posted by John Doe:

Originally posted by Revelene:

I know a great deal more, but it was a start to a discussion on how games use processing power.

If you would have had a constructive discussion, and not been so aggressive, I would have loved to have a discussion with you about this...

...but I refuse to have a discussion with someone who will make insults when contested. This is a discussion board, where we should discuss, not throw insults.

No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have said that a puny 4690K could beat a 1950X.

You cannot generalize the performance of a cpu. It is more complicated than that.

I started to discuss how most games use processing power at this point, versus what the future may hold.

If you think a 4690K is "puny", then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, as it is more than a capable cpu, especially for video games.

Or does "moving cores" make a cpu better for games? *sigh*

Continue to insult all these other people all you want. I will not indulge myself in your childish games.

I said good day.

[John Doe]

Originally posted by Revelene:

You cannot generalize the performance of a cpu. It is more complicated than that.

I started to discuss how most games use processing power at this point, versus what the future may hold.

If you think a 4690K is "puny", then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, as it is more than a capable cpu, especially for video games.

Or does "moving cores" make a cpu better for games? *sigh*

Continue to insult all these other people all you want. I will not indulge myself in your childish games.

I said good day.

I can if the end performance in the games I play is most of all that matters.

A 4690K is pretty puny COMPARED to a 1950X, I know what it's capable of.

You're free to go away now.

[Revelene]

Originally posted by John Doe:

Originally posted by Revelene:

You cannot generalize the performance of a cpu. It is more complicated than that.

I started to discuss how most games use processing power at this point, versus what the future may hold.

If you think a 4690K is "puny", then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, as it is more than a capable cpu, especially for video games.

Or does "moving cores" make a cpu better for games? *sigh*

Continue to insult all these other people all you want. I will not indulge myself in your childish games.

I said good day.

I can if the end performance in the games I play is most of all that matters.

A 4690K is pretty puny COMPARED to a 1950X, I know what it's capable of.

You're free to go away now.

...but you don't know the end performance, because you don't have either of these cpus, don't have the 4690K vs 1950X proof that you were raving about earlier, nor do you understand that current video games perform better with stronger cores.

You don't know what the 1950X is capable of, other than what you've read about it in some tech articles. And even then, you thought it could "move cores".

You enjoy yourself now.