i7 4790 ok for new titles?

[It's Chase]

I'm putting together a cheap PC for a friend. I have an old GTX 1080 and some Asus 1150 with 16gbs or RAM in it. Just need a CPU to complete the build.

Looking on ebay, i7 4790 are around $50. Can you even run anything on quad cores anymore? I'm thinking it might not be worth it.

[Meatball]

Bad 💀 Motha님이 먼저 게시:

Yes with something like gtx 1080 and 16gb ram and at least one ssd... it's enough to run rdr2 smoothly at 1080p with decent visuals

It's kind of amazing how old hardware is still capable to maintain 30-60 FPS on new AAA games.
The 1080 is still a beast but I dunno about the 4790 though.
Sounds like a bottleneck.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

No I had no problems using a gtx 1080 or 1080 Ti to its full ability coupled with cpus like 4770, 4790K (even stock clocks) or even FX-8350. With 16gb of ram and OS plus Games on SSDs its not a problem for 1080p or even 1440p. Above those gpus though is where you would see the gpu maybe can't be fully utilized due to such a cpu lacking. For example if you tried gpu such as 2070 Super or 2080 Super... the cpu just isn't enough in demanding games to where the gpu can shine to the fullest.

Might not be able to crank up every visual and still have very smooth fps but yea you tweak the games to smooth out your fps averages more to your liking.

Now if the game is highly cpu intensive then it might not be so good. Like the Total War: Warhammer games or Mount & Blade 2 for example. But for all the Tomb Raider games, GTAV, RDR2, Kingdom Come, Metro games... haven't had any problems really with bad performance

[Jamebonds1]

It is okay for some AAA games. I upgraded from 3rd to 9th generation Intel when newer video games was not doing well with that CPU.

[Illusion of Progress]

Medication님이 먼저 게시:

It's kind of amazing how old hardware is still capable to maintain 30-60 FPS on new AAA games.

It's actually expected if you consider the trend of CPU advancements over time, and look at how the last decade was largely full of low growth periods.

I think between Sandy Bridge and the Intel 10th generation I think it was, CPUs didn't even really get twice as fast in IPS (instructions per second, not clock, meaning even WITH the newer CPUs being clocked faster, they weren't quite firmly over twice as fast, which also meany those older ones overclocked lessened the gap a little bit). Now, twice as fast is not nothing, and in some things it might have actually been (much) more than twice, or even (much) less. that's also obviously ignoring core count, but core count isn't a "default" increase for CPUs like IPC or clock speed is... and to "only" get that much faster over almost a decade is rather slow compared to before those times. But this might be the new normal given we're approaching limits of things.

But ultimately, if today's CPUs are good for high refresh rate gaming, then of course something at least half as fast will have a good chance of being good for 60FPS (let alone 30FPS+) a good amount of the time.

GPUs have been advancing faster but now it seems it may be becoming their turn. Generations used to be a year apart, a while back it changed to two like CPUs, and the rate they are getting faster is also slowing as they have to rely on simply raising TDP to keep the pace going (like CPUs have had to at times). Worse, the rate they are getting faster at the same price point is advancing even slower. The $259 GTX 1060 STILL doesn't have something twice as fast at its same price point 6 years later. I know inflation has been a thing but even even considering that, it's not there yet. The $329 RTX 3060 is closest, and it's not twice as fast, and last I looked, it's going for closer to RTX 3060 Ti pricing anyway (which in unfortunate as the non-Ti was already the worse value).

So people still using aged hardware, and it being capable (especially when you consider the majority doesn't play at higher resolutions, and sometimes not high refresh, greatly lessening the barrier of entry so to speak), shouldn't be much of a surprise.

[Jamebonds1]

I would like to add someone. Upgrade your CPU and motherboard to current is a good time because this time Intel use soldered thermal for k series. That is what I did with i9 9990k.

[Snow]

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

I think between Sandy Bridge and the Intel 10th generation I think it was, CPUs didn't even really get twice as fast in IPS

That's a really good point, and also the one I've been making for years. I've been on Sandy i5 for long, then on Ivy Xeon up until recently, and if you keep your expectations in check - you can still play pretty much anything on Sandy/Ivy i7/Xeon. Yes, 30 fps on newest titles, but 30 fps isn't half as bad as people paint it, if it's stable 30 fps with low latency, Kaldaien's Special K can help with that, Latent Sync to be specific (it's tearline control technique, pretty much like what consoles do to make 30 fps feel fine).

That, plus even now not that many games can make a good use of 8+ threads, making all those 20- and 24-threaded CPUs overkill for pure gaming.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Pretty much. There is only a very slight difference to be honest (plenty of benchmarks out there to show you this) between a 4790K (stock) vs 7700K (stock)

2500K was a good leap over past stuff. Unless maybe you were able to afford a nice LGA-1366 config.

Then after that, not a big jump until around the 4790K.

Then not a big jump until the 8700K or perhaps 9700K

Then a bigger jump with 12th Gen i7/i9 stuff.

But there are claims that the 13th Gen i5 is even enough to put every previous Intel and AMD consumer (non-workstation) CPUs to shame. So we'll see.

[mimizukari]

Bad 💀 Motha님이 먼저 게시:

Pretty much. There is only a very slight difference to be honest (plenty of benchmarks out there to show you this) between a 4790K (stock) vs 7700K (stock)

2500K was a good leap over past stuff. Unless maybe you were able to afford a nice LGA-1366 config.

Then after that, not a big jump until around the 4790K.

Then not a big jump until the 8700K or perhaps 9700K

Then a bigger jump with 12th Gen i7/i9 stuff.

But there are claims that the 13th Gen i5 is even enough to put every previous Intel and AMD consumer (non-workstation) CPUs to shame. So we'll see.

the 12900K/KF/KS already puts all consumer AMD cpus to shame both in gaming and workstation tasks, don't even really need to wait for 13th gen. 11th gen was lackluster but 12th became a major upgrade in every way.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

I've used them all; once you sit something like an Intel 12th Gen i9 next to even a Ryzen 5800X; you can't even tell the difference. The difference is Intel stuff is outrageously priced. CPUs might be around the similar price per performance; but for a good Intel board you're not getting a decent board for under $200 or so. And you don't exactly get the performance you should be getting if you are using DDR4 w/ 12th Gen.

[It's Chase]

Thanks for everyone who suggested it. I just installed it and am stress testing in right now. I'm kinda amazed, it still holds up really well.

[I'm_Not_A_Robot]

It's Chase님이 먼저 게시:

I'm putting together a cheap PC for a friend. I have an old GTX 1080 and some Asus 1150 with 16gbs or RAM in it. Just need a CPU to complete the build.

Looking on ebay, i7 4790s are around $50. Can you even run anything on quad cores anymore? I'm thinking it might not be worth it.

You CPU is not the one that will make a very big difference in game....Your GPU is the one that make the biggest difference in game....so you better to have a smaller cpu but put your cash on the GPU.

[mimizukari]

Iron Snake님이 먼저 게시:

It's Chase님이 먼저 게시:

I'm putting together a cheap PC for a friend. I have an old GTX 1080 and some Asus 1150 with 16gbs or RAM in it. Just need a CPU to complete the build.

Looking on ebay, i7 4790s are around $50. Can you even run anything on quad cores anymore? I'm thinking it might not be worth it.

You CPU is not the one that will make a very big difference in game....Your GPU is the one that make the biggest difference in game....so you better to have a smaller cpu but put your cash on the GPU.

If the CPU is that underpowered then it does make a difference. CPU is just as important as GPU, especially at lower resolutions like 1080p where the CPU will be doing most of the work.

[Jamebonds1]

Iron Snake님이 먼저 게시:

It's Chase님이 먼저 게시:

I'm putting together a cheap PC for a friend. I have an old GTX 1080 and some Asus 1150 with 16gbs or RAM in it. Just need a CPU to complete the build.

Looking on ebay, i7 4790s are around $50. Can you even run anything on quad cores anymore? I'm thinking it might not be worth it.

You CPU is not the one that will make a very big difference in game....Your GPU is the one that make the biggest difference in game....so you better to have a smaller cpu but put your cash on the GPU.

Not really. If it is too old CPU, then the GPU's full potential will be held by it. That is called bottleneck.

[Mr White]

Go for a Six Core Ryzen CPU.

[It's Chase]

Dragon Fire님이 먼저 게시:

Go for a Six Core Ryzen CPU.

Like i said i already have a spare motherboard and RAM. Buying a new CPU and motherboard + RAM is a bit too much since this is just something quick and cheap i can throw together.

I already bought the CPU for $50. To be honest it seems fine for 1080p 60fps paired with a GTX 1080.