Is it alright to assume that any quad core CPU is decent to play games on PC?

[Pasta]

Say examples like an Intel I5 3570K or an I7 4790K

[Illusion of Progress]

It really depends on what you're doing, what quad core it is, and how much performance (and performance consistency) you're looking for. The Sandy Bridge or above quad cores, especially with Hyper-threading, are hanging on alright for many titles, but I'd say they are likely soon on their way out. Other quad cores (anything pre-Ryzen for AMD, Core 2 quads, etc.) I wouldn't bother with.

It also depends on budget, and if you're looking to buy and asking if they are alright or already have one and asking if it's okay to stay on. If it's the latter, use your own judgment.

If someone is in the position to buy today though, I wouldn't be looking at quad cores in 2020 or beyond unless it's something like a strict budget situation and you know you won't need more. Otherwise, just save up a bit more for at least a good 6 core CPU (like even a Ryzen 5 3600 non-X). More than that is, right now, diminishing returns (though I personally went with an 8 core CPU when I upgraded). If you already have one and it works for you, then stay with it. My prior Core i5 kept proving me wrong until I upgraded it recently (and it was more for RAM limitations primarily), but my selection of titles probably didn't need more.

[Thunder Lips]

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

No.

Quad core quad thread (i5) are more or less dead for modern gaming (2020 titles).

You can still get by on a quad core eight thread chip like an i7 though...

Based on what Hardware that you own or can compare with, I can and it depend

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

No.

Quad core quad thread (i5) are more or less dead for modern gaming (2020 titles).

You can still get by on a quad core eight thread chip like an i7 though...

You are guessing, I have the Hardware that proves different. Do you sell PC's?

[hawkeye]

Leo님이 먼저 게시:

I currently have a PC running an I7 7700 and one more running an i5 3570, just concerned whether i can just keep upgrading gpus in the future instead of going through the hassle of changing the cpu and the motherboard.

My target FPS is actually 60, i dont ask for a lot of frames because I play with controller.

An i7-7700 is fine for most games. Even if it is the non-k, extra performance can be squeezed out of it by raising the bclk value. That allows the turbo speed to be increased.

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?93894-z270-BCLK-Overclocking

The i5-3570 could be upgraded to an i7 if there was a justification, but I wouldn't bother. There might not be any gain.

[xSOSxHawkens]

lmao at the two suggesting an i5 quad is still a *good* thing...

In modern CPU demanding games the i5 quads fall behind even an FX8 AMD chip...

Perfect example being The Division 2 where the i5 manages falls flat on its face while an FX8 chip is consistently more playable...

Or F1 2018 where despite the i5 taking 30% lead in FPS has frame times all over the place making the FX effectively feel better to play on due to much tighter frame times.

Fact is, even an FX8350 is comparable at worst or better now than the i5's of yesterday.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/bna3dn/2019_rematch_core_i5_3570k_vs_fx_8350_f2f_tech/


I like my FX chips, and I like the Intel chips too, but neither the FX chips nor the i5 chips should be considered good for todays games, and of the two, the FX is leading more and more... For the same reason I suggest the i7... it has threads the i5 flat out cant compete with.

Dont get me wrong. For many games an i5 will cut the mustard. Most will even get averages near or at 60. But most modern ones *will* have stutter and frame time issues...

[vadim]

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

lmao at the two suggesting an i5 quad is still a *good* thing...

This sounds stupid. I named you two first modern games that I came across. You named one.
How well Tom Clancy's Division 2 works on 4c/4t CPUs in reality?
It works. Let's look: https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/the_division_2_pc_performance_review/6
So, again, these CPUs ain't "dead". They have their problems, but you can use them.

[Mad Scientist]

vadim님이 먼저 게시:

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

lmao at the two suggesting an i5 quad is still a *good* thing...

This sounds stupid. I named you two first modern games that I came across. You named one.
How well Tom Clancy's Division 2 works on 4c/4t CPUs in reality?
It works. Let's look: https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/the_division_2_pc_performance_review/6
So, again, these CPUs ain't "dead". They have their problems, but you can use them.

Lower i5s run at 90-100% with TD2 - I'd know since I ran it with one of those, while the performance was capable of reaching 60 FPS and barely going above that on 1080p ultra; it would also drop and skip often especially when things were going on.

Let's be honest, for modern gaming a Quad Core may do well depending on the CPU and game, but that would be for that and only that as a task, maybe discord as well and an idle browser - but it's not going to do more than the game typically without suffering.

Going around demanding proof as well when it's one of the easiest things to lookup is rather silly, and the OP is at least taking it as it is - factual. If you have a quad core and love it, that's great, but it's not very future proof and won't play a good amount of upcoming games. Upgrade whenever you like but don't expect Quads to hold a strong ground in performance.

It's not a great example for a quad core doing decently, but like someone said:

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

It really depends on what you're doing, what quad core it is, and how much performance (and performance consistency) you're looking for. The Sandy Bridge or above quad cores, especially with Hyper-threading, are hanging on alright for many titles, but I'd say they are likely soon on their way out. Other quad cores (anything pre-Ryzen for AMD, Core 2 quads, etc.) I wouldn't bother with.

[AbedsBrother]

Leo님이 먼저 게시:

Is it alright to assume that any quad core CPU is decent to play games on PC? Say examples like an Intel I5 3570K or an I7 4790K

Play ANY game? No. Play select games? Yes. Depends entirely on the game. The Witcher 3 will run fine on 4 cores / 4 threads. Assassin's Creed Odyssey will have issues on 4 cores / 4 threads.

The i7-4790k, being hyper-threaded, will last a bit longer than the i5-3570k.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

I honestly would suggest an overhaul if you are on anything below a 3770K or 4790K

4790K on a decent board can push upwards of 5ghz on just air cooling.

Anything 4c/4t is trash and just can't hold up when it comes to the more demanding of games. Even older games, such as the TOTAL WAR games that started to release after 2014 or so.

So how far your old i3 or i5 will go and hold you over depends on what all you do and play and what you expect to realistically get out of it.

Plus something like 4790K (especially when OC'ed) wouldn't have issues properly handling a GPU such as 1080 Ti / 2070 Super / 5700 XT.

However I would ensure that whatever motherboard you have, that it have the bios updated to the latest, especially if it's older then Intel 6th/7th gen stuff.

[[☥] - CJ -]

4/4 is not worth it anymore unless its part of a budget or for something other than gaming.
The fact that i3's are 4/4 these days should tell you something

[hawkeye]

☥ - CJ -님이 먼저 게시:

4/4 is not worth it anymore unless its part of a budget or for something other than gaming.
The fact that i3's are 4/4 these days should tell you something

Tells me you don't know.

[[☥] - CJ -]

Tells me i know plenty thanks
considering the fact i'm still using an i5 2500k
So dont make assumptions just because you dont agree with something someone says.

[hawkeye]

☥ - CJ -님이 먼저 게시:

Tells me i know plenty thanks
considering the fact i'm still using an i5 2500k
So dont make assumptions just because you dont agree with something someone says.

I don't agree with you because i3's are 4/8.

[Mad Scientist]

hawkeye님이 먼저 게시:

☥ - CJ -님이 먼저 게시:

Tells me i know plenty thanks
considering the fact i'm still using an i5 2500k
So dont make assumptions just because you dont agree with something someone says.

I don't agree with you because i3's are 4/8.

i3's also have dual cores... among another
There's also i3's that fit the following: 2c/4t, 4c/4t, 4c/8t, 5c/5t
I find [☥] - CJ - to have good knowledge, you seeing a single 4c/4t doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about when even a simple search disproves your nonsense.
So, CJ is correct, they're basically for budget builds these days and as many have pointed out; depending on the task they will not hold up well, if you're playing lower/medium games you'll be fine but FPS games will likely be 90-100% with even newer but not that new games.

The OP still accepts the fact, you're starting to appear moreover as trolling hawkeye, and I rarely use that term.

[[☥] - CJ -]

hawkeye님이 먼저 게시:

☥ - CJ -님이 먼저 게시:

Tells me i know plenty thanks
considering the fact i'm still using an i5 2500k
So dont make assumptions just because you dont agree with something someone says.

I don't agree with you because i3's are 4/8.

CURRENT Gens are 4/8, Previously they were 2/4 or 4/4 and its the 4/4 that i was referring to when comparing to my i5.

My original assessment as mentioned above is still correct.

[hawkeye]

☥ - CJ -님이 먼저 게시:

hawkeye님이 먼저 게시:

I don't agree with you because i3's are 4/8.

CURRENT Gens are 4/8, Previously they were 2/4 or 4/4 and its the 4/4 that i was referring to when comparing to my i5.

My original assessment as mentioned above is still correct.

rofl.