Doubts with pure performance and performance/price in processors for gaming
-
**What are (and in what order) the best processors for gaming in terms of pure performance and why?
What are (and in what order) the best processors for gaming in terms of performance/price and why?**
For example:
*(Based on reviews)
*What are (and in what order) the best processors for gaming in terms of pure performance and why?
i5 3570k
i5 3330
8350
8320
6300
Phenom 965
Athlon 750k*What are (and in what order) the best processors for gaming in terms of performance/price and why?
i5 3330
6300
i5 3570k
8320
8350
Phenom 965
Athlon 750k*The truth is that it's hard to find reviews where Intel isn't imposed:
-
As a curiosity, the difference between the highest and lowest price: 34€ - 3570k 52€ - 2500k 30€ - 8350 30€ - 8320 16€ - i5 3330 8€ - 6300 29€ - 965 14€ - 750k   -
The first questions you should ask yourself are what graphics cards you are going to put in, if you are going to put in any high-end ones even SLI and CF, without a doubt better Intel, resolution also influences.
AMD right now is very good for the general purpose of a computer but games are not their strong point, I'm talking about putting in powerful cards and SLI or CF, although if for example you have a 570,7870 then they should not do badly with AMD, cards like the Titan or 680 and 7970 should already do better with Intel, I'm talking about i5 or i7, because in Intel's socket 775 those cards would not do well either.
I would right now in a gaming computer that would last me as long as possible put in an Intel, for example a 3570k I think would be a good processor, besides it's the SB or IB platform which are good for putting in powerful cards and SLI or CF.
in any case it remains to be seen what the influence of the new consoles will be since they will have an AMD processor with 8 cores, perhaps in the end it will happen as with duals vs Quad, in the end the Quad lasted longer, now perhaps it will be Quad vs 8 cores, but although the AMD CPU has 8 cores it doesn't seem as powerful as a current Intel quad, even as an AMD Fx, that's why possibly the processors that will last are those with 4 cores like the 3570k or the next haswell 4670K.
In Intel a 2500K would be fine but I tell you a 3570K because it costs the same and has Pcie3, perhaps in the future it will be noticed, I'm talking about putting in powerful cards and even more than one.
regards
-
we could go even further …. how much does it cost to upgrade an intel and how much an amd (i think intel has a strange mania, changing the socket too often.)
regards -
The first questions you should ask yourself is what graphics cards you are going to put in, if you are going to put any high-end ones, even SLI and CF, without a doubt better Intel, resolution also influences.
AMD is currently doing very well for general purpose of a computer but games are not its strong point, I'm talking about putting in powerful cards and SLI or CF, although if for example you have a 570,7870 then they shouldn't do badly with AMD, cards like the Titan or 680 and 7970 should already do better with Intel, I'm talking about i5 or i7, because in Intel's socket 775 these cards wouldn't do well either.
I would currently put an Intel in a gaming computer that would last as long as possible, for example an 3570k I think it would be a good processor, besides it's the SB or IB platform which are good for putting in powerful cards and SLI or CF.
in any case, it remains to be seen what influence the new consoles will have since they will have an AMD processor with 8 cores, perhaps in the end it will happen like with duals vs Quad, in the end the Quad lasted longer, now perhaps it will be Quad vs 8 cores, but although the AMD CPU has 8 cores it doesn't seem as powerful as a current Intel quad, even as an AMD Fx, that's why possibly the processors that will last are those with 4 cores like the 3570k or the next haswell 4670K.
In Intel, an 2500K would be fine but I tell you an 3570K because it costs the same and has Pcie3, perhaps in the future it will be noticed, I'm talking about putting in powerful cards and even more than one.
regards
I'll send you some screenshots of my previous 2500k and my current i7 in Crysis 3:
I5 at 4.3ghz
I7 2700k at 4.3ghz:
The i5 with oc is choked and on top of that, outside of the forums, people don't usually do oc on their micros: Screenshot of a locked 2500k with a gtx 660ti:
The author already said that he didn't have vsync activated. Looking at the cpu usage at 99%, it is seen that it limits the micro.
An fx 8320 at 4.5ghz using its 8 cores:
It's not a good idea to put a pure quad, when there are already games that make better use of more cores. It's not the supposed future, it's the present.
The same was said of quads and duals and in the middle of 2013 recommending pure quads for long-term computers.:ugly:
Translated from the web:
Far Cry 3 Dragon Blood capable of unloading a maximum of 8 threads of modern processors, actively using all available resources.
-
I just don't think there's much difference between a 2500k and a 2700K, maybe it's noticeable with Crysis 3 which seems to take advantage of more cores and HT but in most games it should be the same, let's say games like GTA IV, enabling HT is worse than not enabling it, that's why games will influence it and I don't think HT will make much difference even with upcoming games that should make better use of 6 and 8 cores, the 2700K is good because they usually overclock better, although it's relative because if a 2500K comes out good it should also be okay.
Let's say that a 2500K still seems like a great CPU for gaming and what it should last, there's not much difference with Ivy or even Haswell, the only disadvantage I see for buying it right now is not having Pcie3, but maybe that's not even important.
It's that even an 920 if you let it overclock well it's still a CPU that holds its own well even with a Titan, it seems that if things don't change much a 2500K can last quite a while.
regards
-
Crysis 3 is already a nextgen game and seeing it choke with OC is just..................
As much as it remains a good micro, it is still only 4 cores and in games that pull more than 4 threads, it is where it can lag behind. My i5 was less than a year old when I got this shock. I also have to say that it was lazy. It only reached 4.5ghz with 1.36v
The i7, for now, in current games, that pull more than 4 threads, it uses it. Even in battlefield3, by default, the 2700k performs similar to the i5 with OC. All because in battlefield3 it uses all 8 threads and the processor runs more smoothly, making the fps stable.
The thing is to look a little to the immediate future and for now, I don't think it's a bad change, given what I've seen. That's why, for building a new pc, I wouldn't recommend a stock i5 to stretch the platform for 4-5 years.
-
Crysis 3 is already a next-gen game and seeing it choke with OC is..................
No matter how good the micro is, it's still only 4 cores and in games that use more than 4 threads, it's where it can lag behind. My i5 was less than a year old when I got this shock. I should also mention that it was lazy. It only reached 4.5ghz with 1.36v
The i7, for now, in current games that use more than 4 threads, it does use them. Even in battlefield3, by default, the 2700k performs similar to the i5 with OC. All because in battlefield3 it uses all 8 threads and the processor runs more smoothly, making the fps stable.
The point is to look a little to the immediate future and for now, I don't think it's a bad change, given what I've seen. That's why, for building a new PC, I wouldn't recommend a stock i5 to stretch the platform for 4-5 years.
I mean that when a 2500K with 4 cores is insufficient, an i7 with 4+HT will be almost the same, maybe a little better but when they show differences with 6 and 8 cores, no 4 core will be good, it might be a little better if it has HT but I don't think it's a solution.
I always used to go for more cores and the X platforms but seeing how green socket 2011 is, I've decided to go for a Haswell 4 core with HT, although if they show Ivy-E and it convinces me, maybe I'll wait, but I don't think the CPUs of the new consoles will be more powerful than a 2500K and less than a 4670K, I think that most games, even if they use more than 4 cores, won't be very CPU dependent because the console CPU doesn't seem that powerful, even if it has 8 cores or mini-cores.
regards
-
Obviously it won't hold up as well as the 2011 hexacores, but in demanding games that take advantage of it, it will hold up a bit more than pure quads.
These screenshots are from maldo:
To me it doesn't seem like an insignificant increase in performance. It is true that we still don't know what future ports will ask for. Currently I already have a few games that benefit from ht:
battlefield3, farcry 3 and its spin off and crysis3. As a general rule, ht comes into play when they ask for more than 4 cores. At least that's what users of these micros have told me, even from the hexacores + ht.
There will always be cpu-dependent games, whether there are consoles or not. There may be a game developed in parallel for pc, online games or exclusives that make good use of our equipment.
