Top 5 CPUs for Gaming: It's all about those glorious frames per second

[slamscaper]

For those of you still running on older Z97 boards, you may find this interesting. The i7 4790K easily matches the i5 8400 in gaming performance. The i7 8700K admittedly is a pretty nice jump, but not exactly HUGE.

I have to say I'm very happy that I waited for the refresh of Haswell before upgrading my CPU and core system. This 4790K has been a hell of a buy and doesn't hold my 1080Ti back whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKaixUwXfDg

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I would still stick with intel for gaming due to that IPC.

Yeah, AMD is close now, but AMD was also close with phenom II. Look up old Phenom II vs sandy benchmarks, they were very close. But today, while sandy bridge still holds its own, phenom II chokes on the strain.

We will see how well AMD holds up in 5 years, but the higher core IPC from intel has traditionally done better, especially for ports or emulators (looking at you PCSX2)

For those of you still running on older Z97 boards, you may find this interesting. The i7 4790K easily matches the i5 8400 in gaming performance. The i7 8700K admittedly is a pretty nice jump, but not exactly HUGE.

I have to say I'm very happy that I waited for the refresh of Haswell before upgrading my CPU and core system. This 4790K has been a hell of a buy and doesn't hold my 1080Ti back whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKaixUwXfDg

The biggest benefit of the new platforms over haswell or older is the memory speed. DDR4's bandwidth is great for big RTS games that gobble up bandwidth.

 

[dirtyferret]

Problem with gaming benchmarks is that they don't measure the actual gaming experience. How many gamers do a clean install from an image every time they play a game? How many gamers only play on a local machine with no online matches? Given the margin of error in fps measurements are the hand-full of fps between the i5 and the Ryzen ever going to be seen in the wild?
Online gaming can be more CPU intensive - do the extra cores of Ryzen offset Intel in these situations (benchmarks won't help on this - too uncontrolled - need data from thousands of machines to make this kind of assessment) ?
So yes Intel produces the best benches in raw gaming benchmarks - hollow victory if you need to run a fresh install to get this performance (Ryzen's "spare" processor headroom may be able to cope with additional background tasks).
(disclaimer - my main rig is an intel i7 7820X).

....I totally agree with these nonsensical ramblings. In fact I think Julio and Steve need to test the difference between AMD and Intel CPUs when it comes to streaming porn! Sure the high IPC advantage in Intel might help them out in a single couple scene or even a solo scene but the future of porn is in large groups...12 people plus where the extra cores in AMD would offer a clear advantage to Intel's CPUs. Sure you might say there are countless tests out there using Google Octane, Mozilla Kraken, and WebXPRT with all of them showing a clear advantage to Intel...but they don't test the CPUs streaming porn! Sure you may say streaming a single person scene is no different then streaming a multiple person scene and I have no clue to what I am talking about but until I see facts backing up my opinion I will continue to believe AMD has a clear future proof advantage over Intel when it comes to streaming porn.

 

[Sum Guy]

2011 v3 v4 anything worth looking into. I am still using an ES E-5 2650 v3 with 128gb of ddr4 2100. Been waiting 3 years for a sub 300 chip. Seems to perform fine for, but benchmarking programs says my PC sucks.

I just hoping to find a much better cpu before my socket becomes obsolete if not already.

 

[Stark]

No AM4 2700? TS BS.

Actually when I was unfamiliar with TS I would have thought so too, but they are actually one of the very few honest people left in tech reviews. This is "gaming" only per se hence all Intel, but when you factor other kind of workloads into equation it is totally different result.
they have actually given conclusion on both fronts and people need to factor their usage before making a decision.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Neither does Intel. Kind of hard to consider the parade of vulnerabilities this year as a "consistent track record". If you had said that in 2017 then yes but it's definitely in question right now.


That said, what are the chances we can get CPU utilization figures for benchmarks. I'm just interested in seeing how much fuel is left in the tank for processors when running games or applications.

Cool story, bro.

 

[fadingfool]

....I totally agree with these nonsensical ramblings. In fact I think Julio and Steve need to test the difference between AMD and Intel CPUs when it comes to streaming porn! Sure the high IPC advantage in Intel might help them out in a single couple scene or even a solo scene but the future of porn is in large groups...12 people plus where the extra cores in AMD would offer a clear advantage to Intel's CPUs. Sure you might say there are countless tests out there using Google Octane, Mozilla Kraken, and WebXPRT with all of them showing a clear advantage to Intel...but they don't test the CPUs streaming porn! Sure you may say streaming a single person scene is no different then streaming a multiple person scene and I have no clue to what I am talking about but until I see facts backing up my opinion I will continue to believe AMD has a clear future proof advantage over Intel when it comes to streaming porn.

Obviously this needs more research and you are just the person to do it. May I suggest crowdfunding to provide the necessary funds for this highly scientific endeavor?

 

[Evernessince]

Cool story, bro.

That's one way to say you don't care and concede your point at the same time.

 

[hahahanoobs]

That's one way to say you don't care and concede your point at the same time.

Wake me when you say something on a topic that's actually plausible...

 

[Evernessince]

Wake me when you say something on a topic that's actually plausible...

Hm I seem to remember a special someone avoiding the topic with

"Cool story, bro."

ironic and funny. Please go on.

 

[slamscaper]

The biggest benefit of the new platforms over haswell or older is the memory speed. DDR4's bandwidth is great for big RTS games that gobble up bandwidth.

I don't really see that. I mean even with the fastest DDR4 I only see large gains in synthetic benchmarks that focus on memory, like Sisoft Sandra and others. Real-world performance isn't there.

But you are definitely right about the platform (or chipset) being the best reason to upgrade from say, Z97 to Z370. The support for x4 NVMe drives natively (Z97 supports NVMe M.2 drives natively, but only at 10Gb/s speeds, AKA 1200MB/s) is a really big deal since these drives are so popular now. So I'd say NVMe support along with some other improvements in the chipset are the biggest reasons to upgrade. DDR4 is nice but not a game changer in my opinion.

I also do have to admit that the 8700K is a great CPU. If you can drop the cash for one and upgrade to the newest chipset, you will get a very decent upgrade. I was just comparing the lesser CPU's to Haswell's refresh, like the i5 8400. Let's also not forget that the 4790K all but matches the 6700K in performance, and is only very slightly slower than the 7700K. I was very surprised to see just how close these three CPU's perform. As far as the i5 8400 goes, I expected it to really do a lot better in heavily threaded apps against the 4790K but it just doesn't since the clockspeed is so low and it cannot be OC'ed easily. The 4790K hits 4.7Ghz pretty easily. I can hit over 5Ghz on mine if I crank up the vcore, although I prefer stability and life out of my hardware, so I run it at 4.7Ghz@1.9v myself.

 

[Evernessince]

I don't really see that. I mean even with the fastest DDR4 I only see large gains in synthetic benchmarks that focus on memory, like Sisoft Sandra and others. Real-world performance isn't there.

But you are definitely right about the platform (or chipset) being the best reason to upgrade from say, Z97 to Z370. The support for x4 NVMe drives natively (Z97 supports NVMe M.2 drives natively, but only at 10Gb/s speeds, AKA 1200MB/s) is a really big deal since these drives are so popular now. So I'd say NVMe support along with some other improvements in the chipset are the biggest reasons to upgrade. DDR4 is nice but not a game changer in my opinion.

I also do have to admit that the 8700K is a great CPU. If you can drop the cash for one and upgrade to the newest chipset, you will get a very decent upgrade. I was just comparing the lesser CPU's to Haswell's refresh, like the i5 8400. Let's also not forget that the 4790K all but matches the 6700K in performance, and is only very slightly slower than the 7700K. I was very surprised to see just how close these three CPU's perform. As far as the i5 8400 goes, I expected it to really do a lot better in heavily threaded apps against the 4790K but it just doesn't since the clockspeed is so low and it cannot be OC'ed easily. The 4790K hits 4.7Ghz pretty easily. I can hit over 5Ghz on mine if I crank up the vcore, although I prefer stability and life out of my hardware, so I run it at 4.7Ghz@1.9v myself.

I don't even think NVMe is a good reason to upgrade. The performance advantages over SATA SSDs aren't perceptible a majority of the time.

The 2600K and it's platform are still very very capable. IMO the only CPU worth upgrading to for users rocking a 2600K is an 8700K and even that isn't a huge bump up and delidding is a huge hassle.

 

[jukeyjunk]

For those of you still running on older Z97 boards, you may find this interesting. The i7 4790K easily matches the i5 8400 in gaming performance. The i7 8700K admittedly is a pretty nice jump, but not exactly HUGE.

I have to say I'm very happy that I waited for the refresh of Haswell before upgrading my CPU and core system. This 4790K has been a hell of a buy and doesn't hold my 1080Ti back whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKaixUwXfDg

I'm still running my 3770k recently overclocked and water cooled... I still can't pull the trigger on a complete new rebuild (cpu/mobo/ram) for only a 25% performance bump. The 1070FTW I've got paired with it eats up everything I've thrown at it @ 2440p.

 

[Evernessince]

I'm still running my 3770k recently overclocked and water cooled... I still can't pull the trigger on a complete new rebuild (cpu/mobo/ram) for only a 25% performance bump. The 1070FTW I've got paired with it eats up everything I've thrown at it @ 2440p.

I don't blame you. At that resolution there's really no reason to upgrade as nothing will provide you with much more performance CPU wise.

 

[jukeyjunk]

I don't blame you. At that resolution there's really no reason to upgrade as nothing will provide you with much more performance CPU wise.

My typo of 2440p was meant to be 1440p... Yah ill just keep lusting new gear till it really grabs me to upgrade.

 

[slamscaper]

I think when we see 8c\16t i7 CPU's that cost $300-$330 USD, it will be time for those of us with good CPU's like the 4790K to upgrade. I was a bit upset when Newegg sent me a new NVMe drive to review but my Z97X-UD5H board's built in M.2 slot was rated only at 10 Gb/s. Plus, even installing an M.2 drive into it means you'll lose two SATA 3 ports from the main Intel controller, which is unacceptable to me since I'm using them all. I also noticed that even though it's rated at 10Gb/s AKA 1200MB/s, real world speeds are around 750 MB/s at the best according to most tests. The current NVMe drive I was sent is Corsair's MP300 240GB drive, which is rated for 1875 MB/s.

This alone could make some people want to upgrade, so they can get full onboard support for x4 NVMe drives. In my case I was able to get around this. I recently ditched SLI for one EVGA 1080Ti SC2, which gave me room to install a very nice m.2 to PCIe adapter. This allows the x2 NVMe drive I was sent to perform at optimal speeds. Since Z97 was the first chipset from Intel to support NVMe boot, I can even boot from the drive as well. This will surely allow me to get even more time out of this setup.

 

[EndRessentiment]

Consumers are also not going to jump to AMD without seeing a consistent track record, performance and stability. AMD doesn't have that yet.

That might be true besides the point about stability. Since when is AMD less stable? Sounds absurd to me. What matters is: is it reasonable or logical? A good product is a good product. It is completely irrelevant if other (prior) products by the same manufacturer are not good.
Now perhaps this would be a bit different for those who upgrade relatively quickly, if Intel would be using their sockets for a bit longer. But Intel doesn't, they appreciate milking their userbase too much for that.

 

[hahahanoobs]

That might be true besides the point about stability. Since when is AMD less stable? Sounds absurd to me. What matters is: is it reasonable or logical? A good product is a good product. It is completely irrelevant if other (prior) products by the same manufacturer are not good.
Now perhaps this would be a bit different for those who upgrade relatively quickly, if Intel would be using their sockets for a bit longer. But Intel doesn't, they appreciate milking their userbase too much for that.

RAM compatibility was poor out of the gate.
Optimizations are lacking.
Power consumption isn't where it should be.
Ryzen only been available a short time.

You'd be a fool to jump on Zen if the work you need it to do is critical.

Fanboy harder for AMD then get back to me...