How much longer could a i5 4590 last until an upgrade?

[Bec]

I would like to upgrade my pc but that involves getting a new motherboard and ram too as the newer ones are different im pretty sure, would the price to performance upgrade be worth it to upgrade to something newer? and could someone make suggestions for a new cpu

[Omega]

If you can find a used i7 for a nice price your PC will hold up for a few more years just fine.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Man i7 4790K is still expensive so I'm not sure it's that attractive.

As for how long the i5 4590 last that's up to you. When is it too slow for you?

[Bec]

Originally posted by Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism:

Man i7 4790K is still expensive so I'm not sure it's that attractive.

As for how long the i5 4590 last that's up to you. When is it too slow for you?

i got a 144hz monitor and in games like cs its at like 140 fps but in the newer titles its getting around 60 to 100 but 100 is rare and this is on like high to medium settings

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Well it's already a poor i5, it's already sorely outdated for demanding games; especially for 120Hz+ Screens.

[Bec]

Originally posted by Bad_Motha:

Well it's already a poor i5, it's already sorely outdated for demanding games; especially for 120Hz+ Screens.

what would be a better processor to buy?

[[LTT] LinusFTW]

Originally posted by CLICKCLICKCLICKCLICK:

Originally posted by Bad_Motha:

Well it's already a poor i5, it's already sorely outdated for demanding games; especially for 120Hz+ Screens.

what would be a better processor to buy?

You could find a used i7 4790 on Ebay.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Originally posted by CLICKCLICKCLICKCLICK:

Originally posted by Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism:

Man i7 4790K is still expensive so I'm not sure it's that attractive.

As for how long the i5 4590 last that's up to you. When is it too slow for you?

i got a 144hz monitor and in games like cs its at like 140 fps but in the newer titles its getting around 60 to 100 but 100 is rare and this is on like high to medium settings

For non-FPS titles 60 fps isn't much of a problem, for competitive such titles it can of course be, as far as stuttering or tearing goes at-least 144 Hz help fight it too even if one don't have FreeSync/G-Sync.

As for the graphical settings they most often don't affect the CPU much, so if low can give you 100+ fps then I assume it's a graphics card issue rather than processor issue. But of course your processor is no longer the perfect one for 144+ fps in all titles. As for how much you find that a necessity ..

Personally I have an i7 8700K now but still a pretty poor HD 6950 (GTX 560Ti-570 equivalent) and a 60 Hz IPS-screen so I'm basically happy I don't get 0.3+ seconds frame-times any longer but I don't hit a constant 60+ fps in Quake Champions on low 1280x720 65% resolution scaling so I guess the CPU doesn't cut it there either. Or I have no idea. Anyway for me above 60 fps have limited gains. I even turned on v-sync in Overwatch introducing additional latency because it seemed nice to get rid of the tearing I had.

What graphics card do you have?

The i5 4590 is still something one can play games with. It's "fine." However it's not "the best" so if one want to have the best performance then something like the i7 8700K is what to go with by now.
However coming April I would assume the Ryzen 2700 to be the best choice at-least for me. Superior for streaming and virtualization and multi-threaded loads and likely still good enough for games.

If we say play with the idea that Intel could give 135 fps whereas Ryzen would do 120 but the Ryzen could keep 110 when streaming and the Intel would do 80 then I'd be ok sacrificing those 15 for the extra multi-tasking capacity. Those numbers aren't a real example and it may not look like that but just to get the idea what I want to try to tell. I think the i7 8700 is better value and it will become even better value on the cheaper motherboards (relative i7 8700K and expensive Z370 board), however that one clock 4.6 GHz at most and if we assume at-least 10% gain for Ryzen 2 that would be a likely 4.4 GHz OC which is very close to 4.6. Games run better on Intel in general beyond that likely simply because of being optimized for that and Intel have an AVX performance lead / core but on the other hand the Ryzen 7 2700 would have 2 additional cores and Ryzen in general seem to gain more with SMT/in multi-threaded scenarios. 200 MHz of 4.4 GHz is less than 5% but you gain an additional 33% cores. I think the Ryzen 7 2700 will be the stronger contender for me who definitely want a good gaming chip but I don't think everything else is completely irrelevant. Also Meltdown and Spectre will likely impact Intel a bit more and all patches may not be done yet. If we consider the higher tier boards and overclockable processors then I kinda feel the entusiast platforms is more worth it. The Ryzen ThreadRipper 1900 cost tens of dollars more than the i7 8700K and the motherboard cost at-least $100-150 more but then one get the top tier Zen chips, still the 8 cores but also quad-channel memory support and lots of PCI-express lanes for easy and quick support of plenty of M.2 drives, SATA, USB 3.1 gen 1 and 2, graphics cards. Also I find the Intel socket 115x scary as ♥♥♥♥ to place a processor in because to me everything is so tiny and I'm middle age and wear glasses and I guess my eyes need more light now too whereas with ThreadRipper there's this casette you slide into the socket and then just fold down making it seem more safe to deal with. ASUS motherboards do come with a CPU installer plastic guide thingy though. I didn't use it because I had seen videos online for how to do it and just did what they did / what I got the impression should be done from those but I wish I had used the guide since it exist and would make it both more fail-safe and easier to lift the processor up too.

Originally posted by LTT LinusFTW:

Originally posted by CLICKCLICKCLICKCLICK:

what would be a better processor to buy?

You could find a used i7 4790 on Ebay.

The problem is the 4790K is still very expensive (4790 and Xeon 1231 for the performance too) and even then they aren't the best. He could of course sell the 4590 and get some money there, a bit more if a K model but still.

I don't think it's all that attractive since it's still not a great end result. But sure it's cheaper and ok to do assuming he already have a Z-chipset motherboard if not then there's that too ..

A Ryzen 5 1600 doesn't cost more than an i7 4790K I guess, or thereabout, likely pretty close for motherboads too. But then you have 50% more cores and it's new stuff.

[Wakobi Junior]

I upgraded from my i5 2550k to an i7 4790k huge improvements. Getting great stable fps. Depending on what games you play, an i7 can serve you well, even now.