i5 or i7 for gaming?

[Felix]

My friend thinks that the i5 processors are better then i7 for gaming,is that true?
Sub question. Any good AMD proceesors or are Intel's supperior for gaming?

[Jamebonds1]

100% Recycled Awesome님이 먼저 게시:

Jamebonds1님이 먼저 게시:

I wouldn't waste on K series unless you overclock it. I5-4670 is good choose.

True, but the overclocking can buy you a few more years out of a processor. I went with the i5 4670K because I'm going to overclock it later when I need the additional speed. I'm currently leaving it at stock multiplier, but the capacity to boost it up to 4.2 ghz will let me keep this processor for 4+ years.

It might helpful website that show you good time to upgrade it.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

NOTED: this is not compare CPU.

Stock clock are okay with Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 for now. Didn't have to overclock that higher.

[100% Recycled Awesome]

Jamebonds1님이 먼저 게시:

It might helpful website that show you good time to upgrade it.

I'm familiar with that. I went up 5 levels on this new computer. Old E7500 Core 2 Dual to a i5 4670k.

Stock clock are okay with Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 for now. Didn't have to overclock that higher.

True, but OC potential does give you a certain level of future proofing.

The ugly part about the PC market is that the high end stuff is still largely overpowered for what people use it for. The old first gen i7s are still extremely powerful comparatively.

[Crusador]

i use a10-5800k, and play all games . need only closed filters

[Tito Shivan]

Citru님이 먼저 게시:

Guys, I have something to ask, it's off topic, and I realise that I'm not the OP...

The stock cooler on the FX 6300 is too damn loud, it's at roughly 50 C while playing, at almost full load. Is it worth buying this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181030 ? To make it silent...

Please, make your own thread. hijacking a thread only messes the discussion

[mason]

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

100% Recycled Awesome님이 먼저 게시:

But the LGA 2011 prices are horriffic.

Yes they are.

I just dont understand why people think LGA 2011 is so overpriced. Comparing a 4820k plus decent motherboard (Lets say, P9X79LE) and a 4770k with a decent motherboard (ASUS Z87-PRO) is only around a $40 difference, so I dont think they are that bad at all, if you weigh in the advantages of X79.

[Rove]

§ Dokis ?!>toge?!>Coop?!>님이 먼저 게시:

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

Yes they are.

I just dont understand why people think LGA 2011 is so overpriced. Comparing a 4820k plus decent motherboard (Lets say, P9X79LE) and a 4770k with a decent motherboard (ASUS Z87-PRO) is only around a $40 difference, so I dont think they are that bad at all, if you weigh in the advantages of X79.

People are already saying the i7's are overpriced and to get a i5 for gaming instead...

I don't agree with "only $40 difference" either because the cheapest X79 boards I can find are like $180 and they are crappy small micro-ATX boards mostly. Meanwhile you can pick up a full ATX Z87 board for $100~ for a nice Biostar board with plenty of VRM (10 phase heatsinked I think) for overclocking, Crossfire support but no SLI support as the only downside. So right there is $80 difference plus whatever CPU price difference plus like I said people are already saying i7's are overpriced and so you could get a Z87 with a i5-4670K and save over $200 (total cost $300-$350). That $200 saved is worth it to a lot of people because of the speed with which technology progresses and the potential for a sooner upgrade.

Also look at the price jumps AFTER the i7-4820K, double price, then double price again, no where near double performance and then double performance again though.

By their pricing scheme the i7-4960x should be 2 times as fast as the i7-4930K and 4 times as fast as the i7-4820K. It's simply not the case.

[Niko]

Almost 2 years old but still a good read:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/20/which-cpu-to-buy/

[mason]

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

§ Dokis ?!>toge?!>Coop?!>님이 먼저 게시:

I just dont understand why people think LGA 2011 is so overpriced. Comparing a 4820k plus decent motherboard (Lets say, P9X79LE) and a 4770k with a decent motherboard (ASUS Z87-PRO) is only around a $40 difference, so I dont think they are that bad at all, if you weigh in the advantages of X79.

People are already saying the i7's are overpriced and to get a i5 for gaming instead...

I don't agree with "only $40 difference" either because the cheapest X79 boards I can find are like $180 and they are crappy small micro-ATX boards mostly. Meanwhile you can pick up a full ATX Z87 board for $100~ for a nice Biostar board with plenty of VRM (10 phase heatsinked I think) for overclocking, Crossfire support but no SLI support as the only downside. So right there is $80 difference plus whatever CPU price difference plus like I said people are already saying i7's are overpriced and so you could get a Z87 with a i5-4670K and save over $200 (total cost $300-$350). That $200 saved is worth it to a lot of people because of the speed with which technology progresses and the potential for a sooner upgrade.

Also look at the price jumps AFTER the i7-4820K, double price, then double price again, no where near double performance and then double performance again though.

By their pricing scheme the i7-4960x should be 2 times as fast as the i7-4930K and 4 times as fast as the i7-4820K. It's simply not the case.

I added up the prices on PC Part Picker for the 4820k plus P9X79LE and got $534 or so, and the 4770k plus the Z87-PRO is around $490, thats how I got the $40 difference. Not choosing the cheapest, but choosing good for the money boards.

[Rove]

§ Dokis ?!>toge?!>Coop?!>님이 먼저 게시:

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

People are already saying the i7's are overpriced and to get a i5 for gaming instead...

I don't agree with "only $40 difference" either because the cheapest X79 boards I can find are like $180 and they are crappy small micro-ATX boards mostly. Meanwhile you can pick up a full ATX Z87 board for $100~ for a nice Biostar board with plenty of VRM (10 phase heatsinked I think) for overclocking, Crossfire support but no SLI support as the only downside. So right there is $80 difference plus whatever CPU price difference plus like I said people are already saying i7's are overpriced and so you could get a Z87 with a i5-4670K and save over $200 (total cost $300-$350). That $200 saved is worth it to a lot of people because of the speed with which technology progresses and the potential for a sooner upgrade.

Also look at the price jumps AFTER the i7-4820K, double price, then double price again, no where near double performance and then double performance again though.

By their pricing scheme the i7-4960x should be 2 times as fast as the i7-4930K and 4 times as fast as the i7-4820K. It's simply not the case.

I added up the prices on PC Part Picker for the 4820k plus P9X79LE and got $534 or so, and the 4770k plus the Z87-PRO is around $490, thats how I got the $40 difference. Not choosing the cheapest, but choosing good for the money boards.

Ya well if you do that then the numbers say whatever you want.

Also where is the 16 core i7-4960x? Not there, 4 times the price of a i7-4820K but not 4 times the cores or performance. They could have at very least made it a 10-12 core CPU but they didn't and they still charge such a crazy premium. There are 10 core Xeon's though and maybe 12 or 16 also.

[ironbender800]

Citru님이 먼저 게시:

Might go off topic here but:

I recently assembled my very first PC. I've always been a fan of Intel just because I didn't know better, and well Intel is always what people said was the best of the best... My AMD FX 6300 (cheap) and GTX 660 .. 8GB RAM is running BF3 on Ultra @70 FPS average, doesn't drop below 50 FPS even while recording with Fraps. FX 8 I think would be a good enough processor with it's 8-core. In future games...

You always hear people go crazy about how good Intel's processor are, but you should give AMD a try!

People say intel is better simply because THEY ARE.

amd is fine on a budget but a performance based pc will be built on an intel platform.

check benchmarks and watch some youtube comparisons where they compare FPS differences testing cpus not gpus meaning running the games on low settlings as well as several other benchmarks.

intel cpus dominate.

its not being a fanboy its just being realistic.

[UnReal-4-Life]

It dosnt matter what CPU you have as long as you have your windows on an SSD drive and your games on a SSD drive. You will be happy with what ever you have. Spin drives are the bottle necks to all the other GREAT points that everyone above made.

[yusupov]

yes, intel has dominated the CPU market for far too long. its a shame really.

[Lancewielder]

an i5 will equal an i7 in most games, making the extra outlay useless.

[Micro]

ironbender800님이 먼저 게시:

Citru님이 먼저 게시:

Might go off topic here but:

I recently assembled my very first PC. I've always been a fan of Intel just because I didn't know better, and well Intel is always what people said was the best of the best... My AMD FX 6300 (cheap) and GTX 660 .. 8GB RAM is running BF3 on Ultra @70 FPS average, doesn't drop below 50 FPS even while recording with Fraps. FX 8 I think would be a good enough processor with it's 8-core. In future games...

You always hear people go crazy about how good Intel's processor are, but you should give AMD a try!

People say intel is better simply because THEY ARE.

amd is fine on a budget but a performance based pc will be built on an intel platform.

check benchmarks and watch some youtube comparisons where they compare FPS differences testing cpus not gpus meaning running the games on low settlings as well as several other benchmarks.

intel cpus dominate.

its not being a fanboy its just being realistic.

Yeah, I agree. But AMD in my opinion is still more bang for your buck, I'm doing video editing quite a bit, and for the same price of an FX 6300, the i3 gets stomped on by the 6300. And it still does everything I want for the price of 100 bucks... I should of mentioned that I ment not only for gaming, but most people eventually want to start editing, and to already have the 6300 is a big deal for those with a small budget.

A friend of mine is running the 6300 @4.6GHz together with a GTX 670, so it's all about preference I guess. So wouldn't the AMD FX 8 be a much better choice for him? If he eventually starts video editing he won't have a problem with that 6-8 core (difference isn't that big of a deal in games today, but say in 1-2 years wouldn't it be better to grab an AMD)? As it stomps Intel, for the same price. I still think AMD's processor are a much better choice for future proofing.

Even IF Intel is better in benchmark tests, you still won't run into problems with an AMD...

[🔻Anderson]

It also depends on what graphics driver you get, such as HD 2500