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

[_I_]

some of the first gen i5 cpus were dual core

the intel quad core k cpus are still good enough for newer games

the next gen of games may need more cores, but im sure will still work well on a quad core cpu
as long as consoles are ~8 slow cores it will be fine yet

just because its a quad core cpu does not mean its good or bad with newer games

if you want to look at the worst quds, look at fx4 or fm 1-2 apus

[[☥] - CJ -]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από hawkeye:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από ☥ - CJ -:

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.

Yep, you not understanding what i said IS pretty darn funny now that i think about it.

[r.linder]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από hawkeye:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από ☥ - CJ -:

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.

This is getting ridiculous, it doesn't matter.
Anyone that actually knows what they're doing wouldn't be buying a brand new i3 anyway because they're just a bad value compared to the 3100 and 3300X, as well as the 1600 AF.

[hawkeye]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Escorve:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από hawkeye:

rofl.

This is getting ridiculous, it doesn't matter.
Anyone that actually knows what they're doing wouldn't be buying a brand new i3 anyway because they're just a bad value compared to the 3100 and 3300X, as well as the 1600 AF.

Well that's meaningless information, isn't it? Value is personal. It differs from person to person. From google "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something".

Personally I would select an i3-10300 or i3-10320 over 3100, 3300x, 1600AF. Although the i3's have been shown to have better fps performance, I value single thread speed over anything else. It's most useful to me as I play games that use a lot of scripts.

[_I_]

if you need quad core performance with the igpu a new i3 is a good choice
ryzen 3100 will get you more threads but lower performance, with no igpu

all depends on the tasks or usage

[vadim]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Escorve:

Anyone that actually knows what they're doing wouldn't be buying a brand new i3 anyway because they're just a bad value compared to the 3100

i3-9100f costs less, but has better performance than Ryzen 3 3100.
Both are 4c/8t.

[_I_]

the 9100f does not have ht
the 10100 does

[vadim]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από _I_:

the 9100f does not have ht
the 10100 does

Sorry, my fault. Thanks for correcting

[xSOSxHawkens]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από hawkeye:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Escorve:

This is getting ridiculous, it doesn't matter.
Anyone that actually knows what they're doing wouldn't be buying a brand new i3 anyway because they're just a bad value compared to the 3100 and 3300X, as well as the 1600 AF.

Well that's meaningless information, isn't it? Value is personal. It differs from person to person. From google "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something".

Personally I would select an i3-10300 or i3-10320 over 3100, 3300x, 1600AF. Although the i3's have been shown to have better fps performance, I value single thread speed over anything else. It's most useful to me as I play games that use a lot of scripts.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από vadim:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Escorve:

Anyone that actually knows what they're doing wouldn't be buying a brand new i3 anyway because they're just a bad value compared to the 3100

i3-9100f costs less, but has better performance than Ryzen 3 3100.
Both are 4c/8t.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από _I_:

the 9100f does not have ht
the 10100 does

Until you OC the 3100/3300x (something none of those i3's can do) and then you have Single Thread and Games performance comparable to an i9....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JE0JPeahK4

But yeh... You go i3...

lol

[xSOSxHawkens]

Even with a more modest OC (say 4.5), you are easily in i7 performance for lower threaded and games only workloads, and still stomping the locked and non overclockable i3.

[vadim]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από xSOSxHawkens:

Even with a more modest OC (say 4.5), you are easily in i7 performance for lower threaded and games only workloads, and still stomping the locked and non overclockable i3.

BS. As usual.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από vadim:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από xSOSxHawkens:

Even with a more modest OC (say 4.5), you are easily in i7 performance for lower threaded and games only workloads, and still stomping the locked and non overclockable i3.

BS. As usual.

I link a video, showing a 4.6Ghz OC trading blows with an i9 in games and single thread loads...

I then make the (quite reasonable) statement that a more modest OC (such as a 100Mhz lower 4.5ghz) would be comparable to an i7, a part that generally holds lower gaming performance than the 9900 series that its already compared to... This is simple logic supported by the results shown in the vid...

But, you the all mightly and trollfull Vadim goes on to ignore the proof and call it BS...

Vadim - A troll unwilling to back up their BS and always out to ignore already posted proof...

As usual.

[Bing Chilling]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από xSOSxHawkens:

Even with a more modest OC (say 4.5), you are easily in i7 performance for lower threaded and games only workloads, and still stomping the locked and non overclockable i3.

i mean it depends on the budget really
if you factor in on AMD you need atleast a b350 mobo to OC
and the cheapest b350 on amazon and newegg is 80 USD (not on sale)
compared to the h310 pro vd board that is about 50 USD (not on sale)


then there's the factor of the i3 being about 30$ cheaper.
that's 60 USD saved and depending on the budget
(not even including ram speed price differences, as we all know ryzen loves its speeds. )
that 60 USD is the difference between say a rx 570 and a 1660

you'd actually be getting a worse experience going with say a 570 and a 3100
then a 1660 and an i3 9100f.

i can agree that if you have the money 3300x all day long. it's the best value cpu
but not everyone has enough, nor are ether the 3100/3300x cpu's easy to get at all. literally always sold out.

[vadim]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από xSOSxHawkens:

I link a video, showing a 4.6Ghz OC trading blows with an i9 in games and single thread loads...

Sorry, not interested in noname youtube trash

[xSOSxHawkens]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από vadim:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από xSOSxHawkens:

I link a video, showing a 4.6Ghz OC trading blows with an i9 in games and single thread loads...

Sorry, not interested in noname youtube trash

Hey, at least you are willing to admit you are happy to indulge in intentional ignorance for the point of self reassurance.

I'll bookmark the post to link back to from time to time when people try to take you seriously.

Or... Ya know... You could try and provide a counter proof. But nah, thats not vadim's way. Vadim's way is to simply call others wrong, demand "proof" that they are not wrong, and then deny that the proof is valid without every providing a counter proofs...

Cuz...wait for it...

Vadim is a troll.