Is an i3-9100 good enough for physics intensive VR games?

[xytec]

I'm going to build a new rig as there is some issue with my current motherboard.
A very old system with an i5-2400.

I have a RTX2060, and is looking for a CPU that will be able to run games like Boneworks without being bottle-necked by CPU.

Boneworks seems to be a physics intensive game, but even so, the minimum requirement is simply "quad core with at least 3.0GHz", which the i3-9100 is more than good enough.

So I'm wondering if there is anyone here who plays VR with an i3-9100?
How is the performance?

Disclaimer: I'm still waiting for my VR headset to arrive,

[Autumn_]

Look at getting a 2600 / 1600-AF, or 3600.
And a B450 board (Tomahawk max if going 3600.)

I3s are ♥♥♥♥, quadcores are ♥♥♥♥.
Get something that will be somewhat decent, quadcores will just end up causing issues, because of lack of threads.
Get something with at least 8 threads, or don't buy anything.

(I've got an i5-6600k, which is on par with the i3-9100, and it struggles to run quite a few games. I highly advice against buying a quadcore.)

[xytec]

I actually have no experience with AMD. Will start looking into your recommendations now!

May I know what games did you struggle with the i5-6600k?
And were you running on highest settings?

I'm only going to play VR games.
So I do not need it to be able to run flat games on 4K and all, although I'm not sure if it matters from a CPU standpoint.

[Autumn_]

ginmin.e eredeti hozzászólása:

I actually have no experience with AMD. Will start looking into your recommendations now!

May I know what games did you struggle with the i5-6600k?
And were you running on highest settings?

I'm only going to play VR games.
So I do not need it to be able to run flat games on 4K and all, although I'm not sure if it matters from a CPU standpoint.

CPU doesn't care about the resolution, only FPS and some settings.
If you have a game running in 1080p, and 2160p (4k), the CPU load will be the same, so long as both games are capped at the same FPS.

I don't really play that many games, but I've had issues with GTA5, latest CoD games (from BO3 and up), DayZ, Battlefield 1 and 5, and a couple of other games.
All of which don't like quadcores.

Settings; depends on the game, some I play high, others I play low.
For example, I had to play GTA5 on medium to get ~65 FPS.
CoD I could play on high and get 60 FPS (but it feels like ♥♥♥♥♥), so I play on low and get 120+.
Battlefield I had to play at lowest, force some settings off in configs, and do loads of stuff in Nvidia CP to get it to play at 60-75 FPS. Otherwise it would run at sub-40 FPS.


AMD don't make bad CPUs anymore, quite similar performance to Intel at a much cheaper price.
There's no point buying an Intel CPU unless you're going to get the i7-9700k or i9-9900k (or other SKUs)
If you're looking for a cheap CPU that will perform great, I recommend the 1600-AF if you can get your hands on one. $80 dollars, and it's equal performance to the 2600, and you'll only be a few FPS below what Intel has to offer. You won't have any problems with thread count either.

[xytec]

Sadly I'm unable to find a 1600-af where I'm from.
I'm now deciding on whether it is worth to go for the 3600 (vs 2600) purely for VR gaming.
3600 cost 60% more than 2600 over here.

[L37]

Issue with 2600 IMO is pretty low single thread performance. Not great for games. In case of games which do not use a lot of threads (and judging by your description of what you are going to play it might be the case) it can be outperformed by simple cheap i3-9100F significantly. But then... there are a bunch of games where i3-9100F will be simply not enough because of low core count...

If you do not want to spend money on r5-3600 IMO you should spend some time and figure out what specific games you are going to play can/will use.

[AbedsBrother]

L37 eredeti hozzászólása:

Issue with 2600 IMO is pretty low single thread performance. Not great for games. In case of games which do not use a lot of threads (and judging by your description of what you are going to play it might be the case) it can be outperformed by simple cheap i3-9100F significantly. But then... there are a bunch of games where i3-9100F will be simply not enough because of low core count...

If you do not want to spend money on r5-3600 IMO you should spend some time and figure out what specific games you are going to play can/will use.

The Ryzen 5 2600 is very close to the i3-9100 in single threaded-tasks (like 5-8% behind). Unless someone is looking to play games at ultra-high fps, the difference is negligible, and the 2600's additional cores & threads gives it some advantage in VR titles (which is what this thread is about). And if the cpu under consideration is the Ryzen 5 3600, it beats the i3-9100 in single core IPC as well.

[xytec]

I went with the 2600, and it works great so far!
Thanks everyone.