Why do people keep telling me to upgrade my cpu?

[COWZYOV]

I use a core i3-8350k (4 cores, 4 gigahertz).

People often tell me its weak, and I should upgrade.

Thing is, even in cpu bottlenecked situations, this doesn’t seem to be the case; according to userbenchmark, the (current) best cpu on the market won’t ever get more than 20% higher game performance than my current cpu—and that’s in cpu bottlenecked situations! In non cpu bottlenecked situations, they barely seem any different in performance!
Userbenchmark link: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-vs-Intel-Core-i3-8350K/4071vs3935

So why should I upgrade?

(By the way, I don’t stream, or keep any external programs open when gaming for that matter)

Edit: I AM aware that upgrading likely would improve my framerate/reduce stutter, but I’m questioning if the framerate gain is actually significant; I wouldn’t upgrade my cpu merely for a 10% framerate increase, for example. Thing is, in every game benchmark comparison I see between my current cpu and better cpus, mine is barely behind at all...

[Talby]

^ agree I hit the limit with my 2500k back in late '18 when I upgraded to my 2600x, the lag in everspace and arma3 completely went away and now can handle 1080/144 no sweat on my 5700xt

the i3-8350k has plenty of IPC to punch through any limits I saw with my old 2500k, I can see it working very well for older titles... Newer titles, esp ones with any high player count mmo you will probably see it to an extent on the 8350k and a cpu with 4c/8t would absolutely benefit in those, but might not affect op at all if those are not on the radar

[DieegoPeri]

Userbenchmark is trash and you should not use it
As I mentioned in a thread I created a few days ago, I have the impression lots of people want others to overspend, if you CPU is totally fine for you, keep it, if you can benefit from a faster CPU and want to pay for it, go ahead
It's your money, it's your rig, and it's your hobby, don't let anyone tell you what to do

[dOBER]

Diposting pertama kali oleh COWZYOV:

I use a core i3-8350k (4 cores, 4 gigahertz)

If your gpu is able to hold 99% usage there is no need to upgrade. Gpu bottleneck is what most people ideally want.

[AbedsBrother]

Try playing a game like Just Cause 3 or Assassin's Creed Odyssey. You'll have problems because of your cpu.

[Illusion of Progress]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kasper Skywalker:

4cores 4GHz, sounds like something with this old thing of mine, and while it still somehow works quite well for games, technology in the human society develops forward for a reason, people usually go for new generations of hardware with 6-8 cores, and I had seen some new and complicated games actually taking quite much of them, people would think 4 cores is not enough for stuff now

but from my own experience, a 4 cores 4GHz cpu would not really cause much problems when I play games, even those new and complicated ones, it just sometimes holds things back especially when I try to edit videos, always freezing for several minutes just from adding a few captions in a video :ciel:

anyway, it is up to you to decide what to do on your pc after all, if it still works well for you, then you can keep using it

The old Intel quad cores, namely Sandy Bridge through initial Sky Lake/Kaby Lake, are a strange case right now. Ideally, you want more than what they offer, but when they aren't thread limited, they're still (usually) plenty fast given their age. Intel might get flak for stagnating through that time, and rightfully so, but they WERE incredibly dominant and fast at that time, which is why they were able to afford being so lenient on offering increases each generation. It wasn't until AMD started geting competitive again that they had to do more. And, a big portion of the gains they've gotten since then hasn't even been IPC uplifts (only partial); it's been clock speed increases. This is why those older chips somewhat hang on when overclocked especially.

Your 6700K is aged and not ideal by buying standards in 2021, but it's plenty respectable, and if your expectations aren't high, even works well in 2021. I'd say it was only the last year or two where I felt my old Core i5 2500K was actually and truly aging for me, but I don't tend to play all the heaviest games nor aim for 120 FPS. If I were, it might have felt incapable sooner, pretty sure one of the Battlefield titles in the early 2010s was showing gains on the Hyper-threaded Core i7s over the Core i5s, so it 100% depends on the games you play (and frame rates you want). This is why some people say strict quad cores were dead over half a decade ago, and others are using them in 2021 making threads like you are OP.

Gaming has really spread itself in the last decade; back in the Pentium 3 and so days, your CPU simply got slower. Once we started adding cores, it changed things and made it more situational.

[UserNotFound]

This takes me back to the days when I'd gotten involved in debates over SB 2500K vs 2600K/2700K recommendations. I was a proponent of the more cores/threads the better, hence I would recommend the 2600K at the very least. I was countered with, "You don't need the extra threads, 4 cores is enough, besides, 4C/4T OC better than their 4C/8T counterparts."

My argument was that double the thread count with HT would improve longevity when more threads are needed, and that no matter how well the i5's 4C/4T OC, they can't magically sprout the extra threads that may be needed. As usual, I was shouted down by many though had a few who would agree with me, and some who'd even proposed 4C/8T CPU's which I'd then agree with.

Even now, there are some who are happy enough with the performance of 4C/8T SB CPU, heck, I have a 6C/12T SBE CPU in the i7 3960X and it's doing damn well in games (coupled with a VEGA64).

As I'd said, if OP is satisfied with the performance of the i3 8350K, then leave it be. Should it start to hold him back in games in the future, then perhaps an upgrade to a 6C/12T (at the very least) CPU would be in order....

[r.linder]

Diposting pertama kali oleh mikey:

This takes me back to the days when I'd gotten involved in debates over SB 2500K vs 2600K/2700K recommendations. I was a proponent of the more cores/threads the better, hence I would recommend the 2600K at the very least. I was countered with, "You don't need the extra threads, 4 cores is enough, besides, 4C/4T OC better than their 4C/8T counterparts."

My argument was that double the thread count with HT would improve longevity when more threads are needed, and that no matter how well the i5's 4C/4T OC, they can't magically sprout the extra threads that may be needed. As usual, I was shouted down by many though had a few who would agree with me, and some who'd even proposed 4C/8T CPU's which I'd then agree with.

Even now, there are some who are happy enough with the performance of 4C/8T SB CPU, heck, I have a 6C/12T SBE CPU in the i7 3960X and it's doing damn well in games (coupled with a VEGA64).

As I'd said, if OP is satisfied with the performance of the i3 8350K, then leave it be. Should it start to hold him back in games in the future, then perhaps an upgrade to a 6C/12T (at the very least) CPU would be in order....

The i5-10400F has gotten stupid cheap while the competition from Ryzen has either stayed the same price or actually increased. It's actually interesting for once, seeing Intel offer a 6 core 12 thread part for an actually good price.

No overclocking, but that's irrelevant as long as Ryzen 5 is in the state that it's in right now. The 10400F beats the 3600 in games for less, and the 5600X is a lot more costly.

[Illusion of Progress]

The Core i5 10400F doesn't beat the Ryzen 5 3600X though, not even in games. They're pretty close in games, but it's behind more often than not still, and the gap widens outside games. The only time it might be slightly better overall would be with a Z series motherboard allowing for higher speed memory (being hamstrung to 2,666 MHz makes it lose double digit percent performance in some cases), but that goes against the entire purpose of why you'd go with it over the Ryzen, and even then it's not meaningfully faster, it's just... not slower either.

Granted, it IS the better buy with the way prices are, but cheaper AND faster isn't quite true.

Diposting pertama kali oleh mikey:

This takes me back to the days when I'd gotten involved in debates over SB 2500K vs 2600K/2700K recommendations. I was a proponent of the more cores/threads the better, hence I would recommend the 2600K at the very least. I was countered with, "You don't need the extra threads, 4 cores is enough, besides, 4C/4T OC better than their 4C/8T counterparts."

I heard that argument when comparing Core 2 Duos to Quads, but not in the case of Sandy Bridge.

The Core i5s didn't really overclock further so much as they could run cooler, since Hyper-threading added to heat generation (and even sometimes hurt performance slightly), but you could turn it off. Usually the argument I heard was that it might be worth saving the $100 (and as a bonus, getting a cooler running CPU or one you could clock sliiiightly higher if heat was limiting you), which wasn't a wrong argument.

In hindsight, I wouldn't say either was objectively a better buy, since it very much depended on what you played/did. I went with the Core i5, and for me, I think that was the better buy at the time as the extra $100 wouldn't have given me much (if any) of an increase on the life I got out of it (though part of the reason for that is because I got a silly long life from it to begin with).

[r.linder]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Illusion of Progress:

The only time it might be slightly better overall would be with a Z series motherboard allowing for higher speed memory (being hamstrung to 2,666 MHz makes it lose double digit percent performance in some cases), but that goes against .

H410 and B460 supports up to 2933.

[Jessie]

These days you need at least 64 Cores and 128 Threads running at 8.5 Ghz - any less and you are not a true gamer.

[Nabster]

It is fine for 60fps, would need upgrade if you want 144fps

[Pocahawtness]

CPU's are the least effective upgrade, but that doesn't mean there is no point in upgrading them.

[DeadBeat]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Escorve:

The i5-10400F has gotten stupid cheap while the competition from Ryzen has either stayed the same price or actually increased. It's actually interesting for once, seeing Intel offer a 6 core 12 thread part for an actually good price.

No overclocking, but that's irrelevant as long as Ryzen 5 is in the state that it's in right now. The 10400F beats the 3600 in games for less, and the 5600X is a lot more costly.

10400F $189.99 Cdn, 3600 $279.99 Cdn and 5600X $429.99 Cdn (out of stock). I figured I'd look it up after reading your post.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Escorve:

Diposting pertama kali oleh mikey:

This takes me back to the days when I'd gotten involved in debates over SB 2500K vs 2600K/2700K recommendations. I was a proponent of the more cores/threads the better, hence I would recommend the 2600K at the very least. I was countered with, "You don't need the extra threads, 4 cores is enough, besides, 4C/4T OC better than their 4C/8T counterparts."

My argument was that double the thread count with HT would improve longevity when more threads are needed, and that no matter how well the i5's 4C/4T OC, they can't magically sprout the extra threads that may be needed. As usual, I was shouted down by many though had a few who would agree with me, and some who'd even proposed 4C/8T CPU's which I'd then agree with.

Even now, there are some who are happy enough with the performance of 4C/8T SB CPU, heck, I have a 6C/12T SBE CPU in the i7 3960X and it's doing damn well in games (coupled with a VEGA64).

As I'd said, if OP is satisfied with the performance of the i3 8350K, then leave it be. Should it start to hold him back in games in the future, then perhaps an upgrade to a 6C/12T (at the very least) CPU would be in order....

The i5-10400F has gotten stupid cheap while the competition from Ryzen has either stayed the same price or actually increased. It's actually interesting for once, seeing Intel offer a 6 core 12 thread part for an actually good price.

No overclocking, but that's irrelevant as long as Ryzen 5 is in the state that it's in right now. The 10400F beats the 3600 in games for less, and the 5600X is a lot more costly.

Only time the 10400f can keep up is if you pay out a premium for a Z board and high end RAM.

10400f on a locked chipset with limited RAM speed is slower than even a 3600 in many cases, part of what made the 10400/10400f such a hard recomend before. Now that they are cheaper they are *easier* to recomend, but the added cost of the board and RAM if you want an actual comparable build put them back to nearly the same costs as going Ryzen 3k and having a 5k upgrade path for the same performance now...

Intel shot themselves *hard* with the RAM speed lock beinghind paywall on Z boards this time around...

[r.linder]

Diposting pertama kali oleh xSOSxHawkens:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Escorve:

The i5-10400F has gotten stupid cheap while the competition from Ryzen has either stayed the same price or actually increased. It's actually interesting for once, seeing Intel offer a 6 core 12 thread part for an actually good price.

No overclocking, but that's irrelevant as long as Ryzen 5 is in the state that it's in right now. The 10400F beats the 3600 in games for less, and the 5600X is a lot more costly.

Only time the 10400f can keep up is if you pay out a premium for a Z board and high end RAM.

10400f on a locked chipset with limited RAM speed is slower than even a 3600 in many cases, part of what made the 10400/10400f such a hard recomend before. Now that they are cheaper they are *easier* to recomend, but the added cost of the board and RAM if you want an actual comparable build put them back to nearly the same costs as going Ryzen 3k and having a 5k upgrade path for the same performance now...

Intel shot themselves *hard* with the RAM speed lock beinghind paywall on Z boards this time around...

Intel's always been doing that and it never harmed them until Zen2 because of the 3600 and 2600's value proposition and upgrade potential.

The 10400F (paired with H410/B460 and 2933 MHz RAM, all together is around 50$ cheaper than a 3600 + cheapest B450 (which is 50$ cheaper than the cheapest LGA1200 board) + 3200 MHz RAM) is a stronger value proposition right now, and it doesn't need super fast RAM to be good, people are reading too much into reviews that are just showing the difference, because when people are buying for price/performance, they sure as hell aren't going to get expensive RAM or an expensive motherboard.

Part of the demand for Ryzen, even simple Zen2, is just a downside of everyone constantly saying good things about it, and it only made it easier for Intel to lower their prices because it became more necessary.