I5 enough for gaeyming?

>i5 enough for gaeyming?
>4 cores is the standard for gaeming?
>7700k is best for gaeming?
why is this shitty gaem proving people wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/9qADmD1JeEY
theregister.co.uk/2016/09/09/intel_soft_machines/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

if you can afford i7 then buy it

if not go for i5 - its still enough for gaming.
It also relies at games you are playing. Some are CPU intensive and some relay more on GPU

fpbp
FUCK OFF BACK TO

I play Skyrim Special Edition on core2duo tier amd on very high, you are fine.

>if not go for i5 - its still enough for gaming

Yeah, but it's not. You dumbasses don't seem to realise that the OP wasn't asking for your opinion - he was mocking the retards who bought an i5 and have now been BTFO by newer games wanting more than four threads (and ideally more than four cores). Even the 7700K is completely tapped out at times by Assassin's Creed: Origins.

Because the DRM literally runs a fucking VM and checks the executable at every controller input

You don't seem to realize a shitty port when you see one

This game is definitely not a shitty port retard.

The cpu core scaling for example is pretty good. i7 8700k is dominating. High core count ryzen cpu's and the i7 7700k are also doing fine. But 4c/4t cpu's are clearly a bottleneck.

>badly optimized ubishit game
because it's garbage just like everything else that is released at the moment

>The cpu core scaling for example is pretty good.
of course the scaling will be good since you need the extra cores to run the vm without bogging down the game itself

Yep, they are bottleneck because it's a very poorly optimized port, because not only it runs DRM, but it runs 2 of them, and one need to have a fucking VM in the background.
If this isn't a shitty port, what is?

...

It'll work fine 99% of the time. Hell the rx470 rig I'm running now is backed by a Q9550. It's a bottleneck yes but at the same time I can still play modern games without issue.

2500k master race.
Havent even pushed past 5ghz yet.

>When a 12c/24t cpu has more performance than a 8c/16t cpu a you honestly think it's caused by drm and/or vm.

1080, 6600k @ 4.5ghz

I can play ass creed origins at 1080p around 80 fps or more.

1080 for only 80 fps? LOL

I thought 1080 was for 1440p 144hz/4k 60? lmaoo

It plays 4k at around the same, i'm just stating that the cpu is the battleneck.

So next time actually contribute something to the thread instead of being a total moron.

Welp you got me then.

Sorry for being a dickhead

Coffee lake i5 stomps this shitty sjw game!! I5 8600k is life!!!!! I5 8600k is Love!!!!

AC Origins is very different to Skyrim, though.

>shit fps allaround
>even 7600k can't pull 60

How the fuck can they release this unoptimized shit and just fucking get away with it

Muh nibba
I'm planning to switch to 2600K/2700K, though.

>7600k just 30% faster than 2500k
>oc'd just 25%
>same amount of cores/threads as 2500k
>2500k is literally a 60$ chip from 2011 at this point
>a 4c/8t glued chip of amd and 4c/8t i7 are performing better even though per thread performance of the amd chip is significantly lower
>7600k can't perform bad, the game must be badly optimized

Oc'd i5 using only a 1070 more or less 99% CPU utilization
Source: youtu.be/9qADmD1JeEY

No point in defending an outdated processor design.

the new 6 core i5s are enough for gaming

It's just fine if you need to set your budget on that.

Some games take advantage of more threads (Battlefield 1 is the prime example of this) but for the most part will have little benefit in FPS.

Take a look at what games have a significant boost from CPU benchmarks, and make the decision if the price jump is worth it. You could always snag one in the future as Coffeelake tanks 7 series prices.

For a couple of years yes
In 5 years probably not.

If i get 5 years out of my 8400 i would be fine with that

Sup Forums pls go and stay go

>Some shills goys on Sup Forums cant accept that tech moves on
>like how jewtel keeps their 4cores for a long time until amd proved them wrong,
>and then forced to make another skylake knockoff and made a 6core 12thread out of it and made it into a canadian heater.
>we all know that skylake and its normal variants are only designed for 4core maximum
>similarly like how you fight which browser is better and x, y and z browser eat yo ram
>somehow you dont accept the fact that webpages are growing in size through time
>remember that a typical webpage decades ago dont exceed a megabyte, and now we way way more on one single page plus necessary addon to that, eg. encryption, java, adobe and many more
sometimes i wonder why you goys cant move on

Wolfenstein 2 scales just fine to quad core processors, and origins is fucking ugly for how performance heavy it is

How would an AMD fx8320 handle this game

i guess better than the intel equivalent of the time, the ivybridge

>Even the 7700K is completely tapped out at times by Assassin's Creed: Origins
Does fine for my games (arma & pubg).

If a game can look like TW3 and run perfectly fine on 4 cores, then it's up to developers to properly optimize their games.

>This game is definitely not a shitty port retard.
>ubisoft
Why did you even buy a pc if these were the type of games that you like to play?

yes, besides the fact it is embarassing to dumb the money on an i7 just for videogames

Take the fps hit on the spagetti-code badly programmed AAA titles on Ultra, but don't go through the embarassement of paying a fortune on videogames

5 years maximum.
8400 is locked so no oc headroom.
Intel will most likely launch a 8c/16t i7 mainstream processor in the next few years, ryzen is a fresh architecture with much room for icp improvements and a lot of room for clockspeed improvements. Intels core series cpu's have little to no headroom for icp improvements, without new process nodes there won't be any significant clock speed improvements, there are just two things intel might add: cores is the obvious one, intel will release higher core count cpu's to compete with Ryzen until 2020, it's also not unlikely for future i5s to have Hyperthreading because the missing Hyperthreading of i5s is more or less just a tool for market segmentation.

Maybe intel is also using a 2 core per thread solution to improve per thread performance in Singlethreaded workloads, but this one is pure speculation as well as the idea that amd could be using this technique in their ryzen+ lineup.

theregister.co.uk/2016/09/09/intel_soft_machines/

Important thing is, maybe in 2020 your processor will start being a bottleneck in newly released titles while using midrange graphic cards. It is even today by using a 1080ti on new titles like assassins creed origins.

>thread on Sup Forums
>"go back to Sup Forums"
>thread on Sup Forums
>"go back to Sup Forums"

neither of those games are AC:O you dimwitted retard.

Wait... Ryzen is actually competitive now? Better than the i5 Kaby Lake?

>athlon days
>even a pentium m is completely tapped out at times by ((crysis))
>does fine for my games (red alert, doom)
kek

AC:O is a console game that is available on pc. If this is the type of game that you're into then just get a console. Nobody bys a pc to play ubisoft games. Shit I don't even have an ubisoft account, and I don't buy those games off of steam.
>red alert
pffft you mean c&c generals zero hour right?

what's up with all these intel baits?
is someone mad?
is joao again?

How do the Cpus scale at a resolution that isn't 1080p?

Get an i5 8400

I've been using a 3570k for the past 5 years and just upgraded to a 8400. Like that other guy if it lasts me 5 years that's great

>pffft you mean c&c generals zero hour right?
meh, sure, its pretty much close

>athlon days
>even a pentium m is completely tapped out at times by ((crysis))
>does fine for my games (red alert, doom
>fx days
>you need more coars to play more games
>a 5ghz fx 9590 is still shittier than a sandy bridge clocked over 3.2ghz
double kek
If you like to play pc games buy intel. If you like to play console ports buy a console.

I upgraded from an fx 6300 to the 8400. Big jump, was very pleased. After learning the joys of overclocking a hot cpu like the fx series i didnt see the point in waiting and try to buy a k skew

Bullshit, at 5fps?

An i3 is enough for gaming. I use an old haswell i3 with a 1060 and I get high framerates in most modern games.

Pretty sure your CPU is bottlenecking your 1060

What the fuck? It's got nothing to do with shilling a product you fucking retard. If anything it's the opposite.
>you goys
Fuck of Shekelstein.

Why would you reward Intel for stagnating PC gaming on quad cores for a decade?

That game is 6 years old.

It isn't. People underestimate how much power they need for a gaming rig.

Overestimate. I'm a goof.

Depends on your mod setup and your ENB.

A lot of assumptions in this one. I don't intend to play this game.

And just because it's released by Ubisoft does not automatically imply it must be terrible optimized.

...

5 years top, possible less depending on quality of ryzen successors and their intel counterpart.

Nice bait but we all know bulldozer at this point

ubishit is bad at optimization, that's why.

Depends on the game obviously. Really modern titles? Of course bottleneck. Older ones? Possibly not.

Most important about an i3 are not the average but the minimum fps. Fewer cores can result in a very unstable framerate in certain games.

More cores = more costs. It's only natural in economy to maximize profits. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Another expert enters the discussion. How do you feel after writing such an important statement?

When a GOOD game start to demand a better CPU we talk.

>Sup Forums
>Playing video games

What the fuck, why would I choose to play at 30fps when I can play at 100? Keep shilling those consoles goyim

How many games even use multiple cores anyway? Blame devs for being shit

It's the other way around actually, why would devs optimize for more cores if most PC gamers are stuck on4 cores or less? Intel's 6 cores were ludicrously overpriced and locked to their high end mobos, they were too expensive for just gaming. Gamers couldn't afford 6 cores, so why should game devs waste time optimizing for it? It took consoles having 8 weak cores to move the industry forward, Intel stagnated PC gaming.

We've had fucking 4 cores as the standard for ages now, why not start with that?

And games have been optimized for 4 cores for ages too. Games inly just started optimizing for hyperthreading like 2 years ago, you know why? Because Intel's i7's were too expensive. Again, why optimize for something no one can afford? It's not like a high end GPU, where a more powerful GPU makes a difference in game even if the devs donj't know about it. You have to consciously optimize for higher core counts, which was pointless since no one had 6 core CPU's. Because of Intel. You've blaming game devs when it's Intel's fault for price-gouging higher cores count processors.