Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#4393919 - 12/08/17 10:48 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
A quick look at an i5 8600K review at Tom's shows:

Civ 6
8700K = 69 - 82.8
8600K = 66 - 77.9
3fps min, 4.9fps avg

WH 40K DoW III
8700K = 100 - 113.2
8600K = 83 - 100
17fps min, 13.2 avg

GTA V
8700K = 61 - 96.3
8600K = 74 - 101.3
-13fps min, -5 avg

Shadow of Mordor
8700K = 114 - 150.3
8600K = 111 - 149.1
3fps min, 1.2 avg

Project CARS
8700K = 70 - 106
8600K = 62 - 99.2
8fps min, 6.8 avg

Rise of Tomb Raider
8700K = 104 - 114.9
8600K = 112 - 147.4
-8fps min, -32.5 avg

Source


Aside from WH 40K DoW, most fps gains are single-digits when comparing an 8700K and an 8600K so assuming all other PC components are priced the same, you just spent $104 (newegg) or £139 (Scan.co.uk) for single-digit framerate increase and on some titles, you've paid for a framerate hit! My point is that an i7 is not automatically better than an i5, and even when it is better, the buyer has to consider the cost vs. the improvement it will bring to the table.

Again, this is under the premise that the buyer is interested in getting a good value for his money, bang-for-his-buck. If the buyer has extra cash to burn, does not mind paying the premium, or just wants bragging rights, then obviously that moves the goalposts and my points are moot.


- Ice
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4393951 - 12/09/17 01:57 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Originally Posted by - Ice
Yes, if Ashes is your main game or if your main game is known/proven to benefit from DirectX or i7s over i5s, then that is a strong reason to spend the extra cash. However, my counter is that by the time DX12 games become the norm, we'll be at least 3-4 years from today and you'll be looking to upgrade your Coffee/Kaby Lake CPU at that point, so buying an i7 Coffee/Kaby CPU at this point in time for a "maybe" in 3-4 years does not really make sense even if you consider future-proofing..... unless your upgrade cycle is 5 years or more.


I'd disagree with that, if you're buying a new CPU now then you'd be taking a gamble in thinking that you're going to upgrade again before you can actually make use of the additional cores/hyperthreading that your extra £40-90 will get you. Given that DX12 games are already trickling through and will only get more and more common it's worth looking for that extra performance now, however my PC is not only for gaming and serves general use too so it is/was a no-brainer for me.

You also talk as if you only get the benefit when DX12 games are the norm even though you mentioned a specific game you like may be better served by an i7 over an i5....however the same applies. You may only need to experience a single DX12 game or have a particular release in the genre that you play for the additional costs of a hyperthreaded CPU to become worthwhile. It's very unlikely that a high percentage of games have to be DX12 before the benefits become cost effective for your own use. I'd say there is a very high chance that an existing game that gets patched or you acquire a new title within the next 3-4 years will realise the benefits of your i7 over your i5.....and that one game could well be worth the difference in initial cost.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4393981 - 12/09/17 06:02 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice
Lots of words.


I see what you mean now. You originally specifically mentioned i5 vs i7 (without mentioning which generation), I went off talking about the advantages of extra threads and cores from Intel and AMD's offerings for games in general. My mistake.

In any case CPUs will perform the same in a VR title. As the trend for AAA games is to take advantage of more threads and the most popular indie game engine (UE4) takes advantage of it, I would certainly recommend getting more than 4C/4T. Would I suggest an 8700K over an 8600K for gaming? Not really, unless you had a bigger budget. 6C/6T 8600K should be perfectly fine gaming wise. Even in the heavily multithreaded titles the jump from 6 to 8 cores is very diminishing.

We have seen a few games in the past few years see a notable jump from extra threads:
Gears of War 4 (UE4)

[Linked Image]

The games coming out in the next 1-3 years will likely mirror what we see here. Not all of them, but a growing number. And a number of those will also be VR titles that are built for DX12 and Vulkan.

But if VR gaming is your only focus, you only care about titles out as of today, then I'd agree with you. Little reason to get a current gen i7. If that is your only criteria then I'd suggest an 8600K (6C/6T). If on a tight budget, I'd get an AMD Ryzen 1600 (6C/12T) mainly for the AM4 platform. With i5s being 6C/6T now I think the i7 has become a little excessive for gaming. In other words, I agree with you (referring to current gen only).

The good news is that in a market of horrid RAM, SSD and GPU prices, at least CPUs are giving you more bang for your buck compared to the last few years.

#4394004 - 12/09/17 02:33 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Paradaz
I'd disagree with that, if you're buying a new CPU now then you'd be taking a gamble in thinking that you're going to upgrade again before you can actually make use of the additional cores/hyperthreading that your extra £40-90 will get you. Given that DX12 games are already trickling through and will only get more and more common it's worth looking for that extra performance now, however my PC is not only for gaming and serves general use too so it is/was a no-brainer for me.

That is correct. I am talking about what we know now... which games work with DX12, what performance gains have been shown in an i7 over an i5, etc. We don't know what the future would bring.... your least-favorite developer could come out next week announcing a DX12 game that you are absolutely positive that you will play and worship for the forseeable future.... or nothing interesting may come out in the next 4-5 years.... or what would come out isn't DX12.... so whether to invest in this gamble is up to the buyer at the time of purchase.

Originally Posted by Paradaz
You also talk as if you only get the benefit when DX12 games are the norm even though you mentioned a specific game you like may be better served by an i7 over an i5....however the same applies. You may only need to experience a single DX12 game or have a particular release in the genre that you play for the additional costs of a hyperthreaded CPU to become worthwhile. It's very unlikely that a high percentage of games have to be DX12 before the benefits become cost effective for your own use. I'd say there is a very high chance that an existing game that gets patched or you acquire a new title within the next 3-4 years will realise the benefits of your i7 over your i5.....and that one game could well be worth the difference in initial cost.

This is under the assumption that every game you buy and play, you compare benchmarks for them looking at i5 and i7 numbers all the time. Do you do that? You choose an i7, you play Project Cars, and you enjoy your 8fps min, 6.8fps avg framerate gain and you tell yourself "I'm so glad I bought an i7!!".... but do you then go an play GTA V and lament your -13fps min, -5fps avg framerate loss?

As for something being "worthwhile," that is such a relative term.... some people will not blink at the extra cost of an i7 over an i5 CPU which can be something like $104 or £139 whereas some people will consider their purchases carefully. If an i5 8600K (£259) can give you 83fps (£3.12/fps) in DoW III and the i7 8700K (£398) can give you 100fps (£3.98/fps) for a min fps gain of 17fps, that's £8.18 you've paid for for each additional fps.... and that's the best-case scenario as far as the tests have shown... Project Cars is an 8fps min gain, so that's £17.37 for each additional fps. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, then my point is moot. If you have other projects that make full use of i7s over i5s, then my point is moot. I only tackle this from a cost- and gaming-perspective.

If you are talking about the future, then I do not have any evidence to pit against that simply because we cannot yet test what has not come out yet, so I can only offer what we know NOW and present that. Someone could well be sitting on a game engine where it totally makes use of the additional cores and hyperthreading and it also scales well with SLI/Crossfire setups, but until that game engine comes out....


- Ice
#4394006 - 12/09/17 02:50 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Originally Posted by - Ice
Lots of words.

There really wansn't a need for a quote, now, was there? screwy

Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I see what you mean now. You originally specifically mentioned i5 vs i7 (without mentioning which generation), I went off talking about the advantages of extra threads and cores from Intel and AMD's offerings for games in general. My mistake.

I talk about i5s and i7s and you go off including AMD. Your mistake.
I ask about CPU effect on VR and you go off quoting stuff for monitor-display performances. Your mistake.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
In any case CPUs will perform the same in a VR title.

Source?


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
The games coming out in the next 1-3 years will likely mirror what we see here. Not all of them, but a growing number. And a number of those will also be VR titles that are built for DX12 and Vulkan.

And as I pointed out above, making a decision today about titles that will come out tomorrow is a gamble and it is impossible to calculate value-to-perforance on something that is yet to be released. A good number of games might well come out in the next 1-3 years but what if none of them are games you want to play? What if the handful you DO want to play doesn't care if you have an i5 or an i7? What if THE game you want to play and makes use of i7s over i5s comes out in 4 years' time and the CPU you purchased today just can't compete with the latest-and-greatest in year 2021? Then you just spent that extra money that never really got used. Bottom line, we can't predict the future so any purchase to day would be a gamble. Nothing new could come out until your next upgrade or the next-best-thing-since-sliced-bread could be announced next week....


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
The good news is that in a market of horrid RAM, SSD and GPU prices, at least CPUs are giving you more bang for your buck compared to the last few years.

Wasn't there a review about how CPU development has roughly stayed flat (or minimal gains) over the past 5-8 years but GPU improvements has gone leaps and bounds? More bang for buck, yes, but IIRC the idea was "If you're still on a XXXX CPU and considering the new YYYY CPU, then it's just not worth upgrading at the moment. If you're on the older AAAA CPU, then get YYYY and you'll appreciate what improvements it has."


- Ice
#4394009 - 12/09/17 03:22 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Originally Posted by - Ice
As for something being "worthwhile," that is such a relative term.... some people will not blink at the extra cost of an i7 over an i5 CPU which can be something like $104 or £139 whereas some people will consider their purchases carefully. If an i5 8600K (£259) can give you 83fps (£3.12/fps) in DoW III and the i7 8700K (£398) can give you 100fps (£3.98/fps) for a min fps gain of 17fps, that's £8.18 you've paid for for each additional fps.... and that's the best-case scenario as far as the tests have shown... Project Cars is an 8fps min gain, so that's £17.37 for each additional fps. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, then my point is moot. If you have other projects that make full use of i7s over i5s, then my point is moot. I only tackle this from a cost- and gaming-perspective.


Even if you tackle an upgrade from a budgeting perspective I very much doubt there is anyone making calculations of fps per £...... to steer their purchase. Whilst an 8fps minimum gain (your Project Cars example as worst case) may not look much, a standard monitor/TV/4K TV will be 60Hz in the UK (max 60fps) and therefore your 8fps is a 13% minimum improvement and that can be the difference between a very good experience, one that stutters during gameplay or forces you to start dropping the graphical fidelity. Over the course of a few years, or your next upgrade it's a no-brainer to me......every time you play your game you have the same experience so unless your budget is absolutely constraining you why wouldn't you pay that little bit more for what can make a big difference in the end result?

You're always going to find an example of a game which doesn't follow the pattern and GTA 5 seems to be one of them. The i5 4690K beats out both the i7 4790K and the i7 5960x in GTA 5 however you'd also notice in benchmarks that the i5 is constantly running at 90-100% and the i7s are anywhere between 30-50% utilisation.....that indicates that apart from GTA 5 not being optimised at all well for the additional cores/hyperthreading the i5 is also maxxed out and therefore very little headroom left in there. Again, at least to me (a non-GTA 5 player) that screams out to buy the CPU that offers more headroom for future proofing given that you know when buying a CPU today you're going to get a good few years out of it so why put constraints and caveats in place that you will have over the lifetime of that particular CPU.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4394033 - 12/09/17 05:05 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Oh, I was just using the fps per ££ to illustrate the point further. Like I said, is spending an addtional £139 worth it for the extra 8fps gain? An 8fps gain may be 13%, but as I understand it, on a 60Hz monitor, the difference between 70fps and 60fps would not be noticeable. You can measure it, sure, but I doubt you can notice it unless you're very sensitive to those things.


Originally Posted by Paradaz
You're always going to find an example of a game which doesn't follow the pattern and GTA 5 seems to be one of them.

Indeed, and that's why I said the decision on which CPU to buy can be strongly influenced by the types of games the player prefers.


Originally Posted by Paradaz
The i5 4690K beats out both the i7 4790K and the i7 5960x in GTA 5 however you'd also notice in benchmarks that the i5 is constantly running at 90-100% and the i7s are anywhere between 30-50% utilisation.....that indicates that apart from GTA 5 not being optimised at all well for the additional cores/hyperthreading the i5 is also maxxed out and therefore very little headroom left in there.

Source? As for the headroom, what does it matter if there is more headroom or less?


Originally Posted by Paradaz
Again, at least to me (a non-GTA 5 player) that screams out to buy the CPU that offers more headroom for future proofing given that you know when buying a CPU today you're going to get a good few years out of it so why put constraints and caveats in place that you will have over the lifetime of that particular CPU.

I agree, but also tie that into your statement earlier that this type of decision is based on a gamble.... as for the "lifetime" of the CPU, that would depend on your upgrade cycle.


- Ice
#4394077 - 12/09/17 09:12 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice


I talk about i5s and i7s and you go off including AMD. Your mistake.


As I already mentioned, I was talking about the topic in the context of the OP. "Hardware Recommendations" and "an eye toward VR or triple display configuration for those titles that aren't VR friendly". I quoted your comment because it contained an interesting sub-topic of the advantage of extra threads. In the context of the OP, I'd recommend something with more than 4C/4T. It was worth quoting because in years past 4C/4T i5 has been the standard recommendation, but that is changing. And many do not know that i5s are now 6C/6T. Maybe I should have been more clear that I was wanting to let the OP know what there is certainly a benefit to more than 4C/4T and that there are other viable alternatives to an i5.

If you want to play particulars you never mentioned what generation of i5/i7 or what model. Some i5s only have 2C/2CT, some have 4C/4T and some 6C/6T. Depending on what is being considered, an 4C/8T i7 would bring a lot to the table(for games (VR or not) and outside of games.

Originally Posted by - Ice

I ask about CPU effect on VR and you go off quoting stuff for monitor-display performances. Your mistake.


And I am trying to stay on topic in regards to the OP. Which was not strictly asking only about VR. As I already mentioned, I decided to go off and talk about potential benefits of having more than 4C/4T to give some recommendations to the OP. You specifically mentioned i5 vs i7. As I already said, as a response to your questions only, my mistaken. But I am not strictly speaking to you and only you.

Originally Posted by - Ice

Source?


The performance is the same. VR will not behave different in regards to CPUs. The utilization of a CPU in a VR title will come down to the following:

- Game engine.
- Optimization.
- Resolution.

We have both already established that CPU performance jumps are minimized at higher resolutions such as multi monitor and VR. What I (and Paradaz) are mentioning is more and more games are going to be taking advantage of more than 4C/4T in the future. And that will include VR titles. I already pointed to Gears of War 4 as that uses UE4, which is a very popular engine with indie developers and small game projects which is what a lot of the VR titles use. GoW4 is not a VR title, but does show the potential advantages of extra threads/cores in an engine that will end up being used in a number of up coming games.

Originally Posted by - Ice

And as I pointed out above, making a decision today about titles that will come out tomorrow is a gamble and it is impossible to calculate value-to-perforance on something that is yet to be released. A good number of games might well come out in the next 1-3 years but what if none of them are games you want to play? What if the handful you DO want to play doesn't care if you have an i5 or an i7? What if THE game you want to play and makes use of i7s over i5s comes out in 4 years' time and the CPU you purchased today just can't compete with the latest-and-greatest in year 2021? Then you just spent that extra money that never really got used. Bottom line, we can't predict the future so any purchase to day would be a gamble. Nothing new could come out until your next upgrade or the next-best-thing-since-sliced-bread could be announced next week....


You bring up a good point, and if you are on a tight budget I recommend AMD's Ryzen platform as an alternative to either. Seeing that a lot of games cannot use more than 4C/4T and if none of the games you play today (VR or not) can use the extra threads, I see no reason to get a 6C/6T i5 because you will spend almost twice as much on an i5 when factoring the more expensive motherboards in Intel's current socket. The same can be said for Intel's previous gen i5s, they are more expensive, an outdated platform and their resale value is dropping at a quicker rate. If this is your stance and none of your games can utilize 4C/4T, then buying any Intel CPU right now is not a good value. Even the IPC gains of an i5 are razor thin unless you are running 1080. But if you are running VR then you will be using a higher resolution, making the Ryzen a very good buy.

In this scenario an i7 is certainly not worthwhile. But an i5 is in the same boat. Expensive with excessive cores that won't be used. With the AM4 platform you can always upgrade and keep the motherboard 2-3 years later in the event new titles use more than 4C/4T or Ryzen 2/3 has notable IPC gains. The same cannot be said for Intel unless they decide to start re-using sockets for multiple CPU generations.

Originally Posted by - Ice

Wasn't there a review about how CPU development has roughly stayed flat (or minimal gains) over the past 5-8 years but GPU improvements has gone leaps and bounds? More bang for buck, yes, but IIRC the idea was "If you're still on a XXXX CPU and considering the new YYYY CPU, then it's just not worth upgrading at the moment. If you're on the older AAAA CPU, then get YYYY and you'll appreciate what improvements it has."


That was true for a long time, but that has changed these past few months. On AMD's side we can get 6C/12T CPUs, which in most AAA games perform the same as an i5 (if using a resolution 1440 or more). And these CPUs cost less than Intels 4C/4T offerings, with lower costs for motherboards and the ability to upgrade down the line. On Intel's side we are getting more cores for roughly the same price as previous years. For games and VR, as of now, the gains are not that big. But outside of games the gains can be massive. So I'd certainly say that CPU development has seen a good bump in performance overall.

GPU wise development has slowed. Performance increases are less significant over previous generations, prices are going up and the gaps between generations have been increasing. I have already had my GTX 1070 for over a year and there is no replacement in sight. The performance jump in regards to games is certainly much better than CPUs, but it has been slowing. The recent RAM shortage and mining craze hasn't helped with prices either. Right now is just a horrible time to put together a gaming PC.

#4394081 - 12/09/17 09:54 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Originally Posted by - Ice
Source? As for the headroom, what does it matter if there is more headroom or less?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLs-sMteggg

Headroom matters......if GTA5 is maxxing out your CPU, what will GTA6 do to it? What if you want to record your footage? What if you get a new video card and want to crank the settings up.....your CPU will become the bottleneck.


[quote
Originally Posted by - Ice
I agree, but also tie that into your statement earlier that this type of decision is based on a gamble.... as for the "lifetime" of the CPU, that would depend on your upgrade cycle


I think we can safely assume that if you're upgrading your CPU then you're likely to have it for a few years. It's only really a gamble as such if you have no idea what sort of games you're likely to buy in the near future and/or you're relying on your new CPU to provide the improved performance in game within your existing library.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4394087 - 12/09/17 11:45 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by Paradaz

Headroom matters......if GTA5 is maxxing out your CPU, what will GTA6 do to it? What if you want to record your footage? What if you get a new video card and want to crank the settings up.....your CPU will become the bottleneck.


I believe his stance is how CPUs perform in VR titles that are out as of today, period.

I agree with you though, because even if you primarily intend to play VR games of today you will likely use your PC for something else (even if infrequent) that can use the extra cores/threads.

#4394089 - 12/10/17 12:20 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I believe his stance is how CPUs perform in VR titles that are out as of today, period.


Maybe so, but that's not what we're replying to in response to the original poster......and it's largely irrelevant because if you're thinking about upgrading your CPU in the first place then I assume there's a reason behind it. If your CPU is good enough for VR titles today then you wouldn't need to upgrade in the first place.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4394095 - 12/10/17 01:17 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
As I already mentioned, I was talking about the topic in the context of the OP.

Well, you quoted my post in your reply and never quoted the OP's post, so it's hard to make the connect between replying to me vs. replying to the OP's original context which includes non-VR. Maybe quote properly next time to avoid confusion.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
If you want to play particulars you never mentioned what generation of i5/i7 or what model. Some i5s only have 2C/2CT, some have 4C/4T and some 6C/6T. Depending on what is being considered, an 4C/8T i7 would bring a lot to the table(for games (VR or not) and outside of games.

Ah yes.... because I could well be talking about 2-core i5s in this day and age? Really? I thought it was obvious that talk of hardware recommendations NOW would be talking about CPUs that are available NOW. Also talking about gaming and VR would mean top-shelf products and not the lower-end versions. Therefore, unless specifically stated, i5s refer to 8600Ks, 7600Ks, and 6600Ks and i7s refer to those i7 equivalents.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
And I am trying to stay on topic in regards to the OP. Which was not strictly asking only about VR. As I already mentioned, I decided to go off and talk about potential benefits of having more than 4C/4T to give some recommendations to the OP. You specifically mentioned i5 vs i7. As I already said, as a response to your questions only, my mistaken. But I am not strictly speaking to you and only you.

Again, quoting ME and then responding to the OP's questions wasn't really the smartest way to make a reply. What would happen if I quote YOUR post but tackle Paradaz's points? Confusion.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
The performance is the same. VR will not behave different in regards to CPUs. The utilization of a CPU in a VR title will come down to the following:

Says you. Where is your source? This is why we have game tests and benchmarks because expected behavior does not always follow... I would love it if you have a source because this way, it will help guide future upgrade decisions if we can establish that CPUs do or do not affect VR titles.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
You bring up a good point, and if you are on a tight budget I recommend AMD's Ryzen platform as an alternative to either.

I have no argument there. I know AMD was an option in the past, my first gaming PC was Team Red in both CPU and GPU, and it seems like AMD is making a comeback with Ryzen, but I have not taken a deep look at AMD's latest offerings.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Right now is just a horrible time to put together a gaming PC.

Exactly. It seems like a 4-5 year upgrade cycle for CPU/GPU is reasonable.... from a value standpoint. smile

I had my jaw drop when I looked at the price I paid for a 16GB RAM kit in Dec 2015 (£95) vs. what you could get for that price today... frown The exact same kit costs almost double!!


Originally Posted by Paradaz
Headroom matters......if GTA5 is maxxing out your CPU, what will GTA6 do to it? What if you want to record your footage? What if you get a new video card and want to crank the settings up.....your CPU will become the bottleneck.

Thank you for the link.... but I do not understand how it is showing headroom or CPU utilization levels. It shows framerate and frametime... I'm not exactly sure what the numbers on the upper-right means. As for the value of headroom, indeed, if you want to do more, then that would justify the extra expense. I was making the argument under simply using the gaming rig for gaming smile


Originally Posted by Paradaz
I think we can safely assume that if you're upgrading your CPU then you're likely to have it for a few years. It's only really a gamble as such if you have no idea what sort of games you're likely to buy in the near future and/or you're relying on your new CPU to provide the improved performance in game within your existing library.

Yes, I would think at least 2 years, maybe more.... again depending on your upgrade cycle. As for games you're likely to buy, this is in the future and any benefit of an i7 over an i5 and whether that justifies the extra cost is unknown and is thus a gamble. The i7 would make more sense if you do other productivity tasks or do extra things such as streaming or video recording while gaming, but as mentioned, I'm taking this on a purely gaming standpoint.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I believe his stance is how CPUs perform in VR titles that are out as of today, period.

Please do not confuse my discussion with you regarding VR with my discussion with Paradaz. He has not responded to my threads with a direct quote from my post regarding VR so our discussion is not strictly VR.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I agree with you though, because even if you primarily intend to play VR games of today you will likely use your PC for something else (even if infrequent) that can use the extra cores/threads.

Unless that "something else" is rendering objects or editing big pictures or videos, I would still think you'd need/want to justify, at least to yourself, why you're spending extra. If you do these CPU-intensive tasks as part of your job/hobby/etc., then yes, an i7 will make more sense. If you just do these as an occasional homework project or editing pictures for a birthday banner, I think the story would be different. I doubt things like MS Word or MS Excel or Adobe Photoshop cares whether you use i5 or i7.


Originally Posted by Paradaz
Maybe so, but that's not what we're replying to in response to the original poster......and it's largely irrelevant because if you're thinking about upgrading your CPU in the first place then I assume there's a reason behind it. If your CPU is good enough for VR titles today then you wouldn't need to upgrade in the first place.

Yup, hence my first post's question in this thread....


- Ice
#4394106 - 12/10/17 02:18 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,581
Raw Kryptonite Offline
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
Raw Kryptonite  Offline
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,581
MS
Quick .02
Get the best the budget affords and in a couple of years, sell it and upgrade to get the highest end cpu you can that fits the socket.
Easy. I sell my gpu’s and cpu’s right here.
If it were me, I’d go i5. When that i7 drops, make the switch in a couple of years if it makes sense then. Put that $100 difference towards the gpu or in your pocket.
Thats a major advantage of pc gaming: you can evolve.


·Steam: Raw Kryptonite ·MWO & Elite Dangerous: Defcon Won ·Meager youtube channel
·Intel i5-9600K ·EVGA GTX1070 FTW 8GB ·EVGA CLC 120 Cooler
·16 GB Patriot Memory VIPER 4 3000MHz ·GIGABYTE Z390 AORUS PRO WiFi Mobo
· CORSAIR CARBIDE AIR 540 case ·BenQ BL3200PT monitor
#4394107 - 12/10/17 02:19 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice

Well, you quoted my post in your reply and never quoted the OP's post, so it's hard to make the connect between replying to me vs. replying to the OP's original context which includes non-VR. Maybe quote properly next time to avoid confusion.


It is an open discussion and I often respond or carry on the discussion by picking out certain bits. I know there was not a lot of previous replies, but I did not feel like quoting all of the previous bits. Perhaps I should have deleted the second sentence in the quote. The topic of extra threads/cores was merely interesting which is why I chose your post to quote. smile

Originally Posted by - Ice

Ah yes.... because I could well be talking about 2-core i5s in this day and age? Really? I thought it was obvious that talk of hardware recommendations NOW would be talking about CPUs that are available NOW. Also talking about gaming and VR would mean top-shelf products and not the lower-end versions. Therefore, unless specifically stated, i5s refer to 8600Ks, 7600Ks, and 6600Ks and i7s refer to those i7 equivalents.


It is important to note because the OP did not mention whether they plan to use a desktop (more likely, I will admit that) or a laptop. Quad core i5s are a very recent development for mobile if I am not mistaken.

Originally Posted by - Ice

Again, quoting ME and then responding to the OP's questions wasn't really the smartest way to make a reply. What would happen if I quote YOUR post but tackle Paradaz's points? Confusion.


I see your point. However I wasn't really "tackling" your point initially, just adding onto it in the context of the OP. Is it worth getting an i7 over an i5? <--- My mistaken for going off onto core/thread counts rather than focusing purely on i5 vs i7. I suppose I should have clarified that, but I shy away from i5 vs i7 arguments these days because our understanding of their capabilities has changed in the past 6 months whereas they were at a standstill for years. I should have clarified that better.

Originally Posted by - Ice

Says you. Where is your source? This is why we have game tests and benchmarks because expected behavior does not always follow... I would love it if you have a source because this way, it will help guide future upgrade decisions if we can establish that CPUs do or do not affect VR titles.


I skimmed a few VR related benchmarks and the results were very much what we would expect. Now keep in mind, I am going to refer to cores/thread counts and not merely i5 vs i7. Here is one example:

HardOCP

Quote
Our VR gaming results showed a very different processor however! While the AMD Ryzen was not the "fastest" system in our VR gameplay, it did however show that it could fully deliver a top-shelf Virtual Reality gaming experience. In the arena of VR gaming, we are seeing that these newer gaming engines are very much thread aware in general, and of course when we have that, the more CPU cores and threads, the better. When looking back at our aging 2600K we see that while sometimes, it actually had a quicker average frame rendering time, than even the Ryzen, the variance in those numbers are much more narrow when we look at Ryzen and the newer Intel CPUs. I actually find these VR gaming benchmarks much more telling than our other scores in showing that the Ryzen scheduler and instruction prefetch abilities are surely where they need to be in order to be competitive. All that said however, clock is still king in the gaming arena and no matter how you look at it, the 7700K at 5GHz is a formidable opponent.


Even though Ryzen IPC is roughly on par with the 2600K when accounting for the GHZ difference, apparently the minimum frame rates are higher than the 2600K. The Ryzen tested had 8C/16T, the 2600K had 4C/8T. Even if small, at least some of the titles seemed to have benefited from the extra C/T. If only AMD could get their IPC on par with Intel!

Looking for a benchmark with an i5 is fairly hard to find, because the general consensus for VR on some of the review sites seems to be that minimum frame rates need to be high for a proper VR experience and therefore they do not review i5s. I am sure we can find a few if we put some more time into it.

Originally Posted by - Ice

I have no argument there. I know AMD was an option in the past, my first gaming PC was Team Red in both CPU and GPU, and it seems like AMD is making a comeback with Ryzen, but I have not taken a deep look at AMD's latest offerings.


If you need a cheap PC (for the kids, or an extra cheap light gaming PC?) do look into Ryzen. I have no regrets. I only spent $110 swapping out my i5 platform for my 1600X, and had I not mulled around it would have been $90. Performance in games is almost identical including single threaded games (ArmA, DCS). In a few titles my frames went up a tiny bit. The best part is the Wraith cooler works flawlessly and is very quiet. I thought I would have to spend $30 on an aftermarket cooler, but with an ambient temp of 93F playing a AAA game my temps were fine and PC was almost totally silent. It helps that I have a high airflow case, a Fractal Design Define S. If you can snag a Ryzen 1600 and don't mind OCing it to 3.8GHZ, don't hesitate. Buying an Intel equivalent would cost more than my Ryzen + motherboard. The Intel is better, but the difference is so small. I can't comment on the prices you'd pay, but for me, the difference in games was certainly not worth the extra I'd have to pay.

Originally Posted by - Ice

Exactly. It seems like a 4-5 year upgrade cycle for CPU/GPU is reasonable.... from a value standpoint. smile


My i5 was four years old and was running perfectly fine! I just wanted to sell it off before the value plummeted now that 6C/6T is the norm. My Ryzen setup is likely worth more than my i5. Maybe I will update to Ryzen 2 if the IPC jumps are big enough. With luck I won't need to upgrade my motherboard to. IMO, that is the best aspect about the Ryzen platform. It may end up being very budget friendly.

Originally Posted by - Ice

I had my jaw drop when I looked at the price I paid for a 16GB RAM kit in Dec 2015 (£95) vs. what you could get for that price today... frown The exact same kit costs almost double!!


I paid $110 shipped for a Crucial 750GB SSD last year. The best deal I found this year was $140 shipped for a 500GB. And I missed those $22 (not a typo) 240GB WD Blue SSDs last year. I thought "why would I want a 240GB SSD? I can probably grab a 500GB next year for $100!" Here I am now trying to add an SSD to a new laptop, and the best price I can find is $70 for a 240-250GB.

Originally Posted by - Ice

Please do not confuse my discussion with you regarding VR with my discussion with Paradaz. He has not responded to my threads with a direct quote from my post regarding VR so our discussion is not strictly VR.


My mistaken. I suppose I consider anything posted on a forum to be open to responses and anyone can jump in/out whenever they want. I suppose that can be confusing.

Again I do apologize if I was confusing; it wasn't my intent to single you out. smile

#4394121 - 12/10/17 03:39 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
It is an open discussion

Indeed and I have no argument there. However, quoting ME and then responding to the OP is confusing.... might've been less so if you just responded, but adding in my post in quotes means you are responding to that specifically.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
It is important to note because the OP did not mention whether they plan to use a desktop (more likely, I will admit that) or a laptop. Quad core i5s are a very recent development for mobile if I am not mistaken.

No dice there. The OP talks about updating his hardware.... been some time since he built a machine.... dual-GPUs.... all pointing to desktop. It'll be a stretch to say laptops were a possibility.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I see your point. However I wasn't really "tackling" your point initially

Then why quote me in your response???


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I skimmed a few VR related benchmarks and the results were very much what we would expect. Now keep in mind, I am going to refer to cores/thread counts and not merely i5 vs i7. Here is one example:
HardOCP

Thank you for that source.... however, he only does i7s (6900K at £960, 7700K at £308, and 2600K) vs. 1700X, and we can see that the quad-core 7700K does better than the octa-core 6900K and 1700X. Indeed, the reviewer says the difference between 9ms and 7ms is not "felt" by the user, we can still see that there is a difference and would thus guide the buyer in his purchase decisions and we definitely see that more is not necessarily better.... now is there an i5 vs i7 version of this test?


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Looking for a benchmark with an i5 is fairly hard to find, because the general consensus for VR on some of the review sites seems to be that minimum frame rates need to be high for a proper VR experience and therefore they do not review i5s. I am sure we can find a few if we put some more time into it.

Well, if that consensus is based on evidence, there should be a review somewhere. It would be nice to put this matter to rest... or at least see what gains an i7 offers over an i5 in terms of VR gaming and then let the buyer decide whether the extra expense of an i7 is worth it.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
If you need a cheap PC (for the kids, or an extra cheap light gaming PC?) do look into Ryzen.

My old PC does the job.... smile It's an i5 750 that I've upgraded from in Dec 2015 when his old PC died.... which I got for cheap from a fellow SimHQ member (Paradaz IIRC). I'm lucky enough to be able to afford Intel CPUs but I'm not floating in dough enough just to buy an i7 for an additional 8fps smile


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
My i5 was four years old and was running perfectly fine! I just wanted to sell it off before the value plummeted now that 6C/6T is the norm. My Ryzen setup is likely worth more than my i5. Maybe I will update to Ryzen 2 if the IPC jumps are big enough. With luck I won't need to upgrade my motherboard to. IMO, that is the best aspect about the Ryzen platform. It may end up being very budget friendly.

Like I said, my old CPU was an i5 750 which I bought in 2010 and even then, I did not feel the need for an upgrade but then again, I don't insist on 60+ fps on 4K smile If my son's PC was still working fine, I'd have stuck with that CPU for another year or two. I don't tend to sell my PC hardware as my son's PC becomes the hand-me-down setup.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
My mistaken. I suppose I consider anything posted on a forum to be open to responses and anyone can jump in/out whenever they want. I suppose that can be confusing.

It is open and you can indeed jump in/out.... just be clear where and when you do so smile


- Ice
#4394132 - 12/10/17 05:06 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice

Like I said, my old CPU was an i5 750 which I bought in 2010 and even then, I did not feel the need for an upgrade but then again, I don't insist on 60+ fps on 4K smile



I'm certainly of the 60 minimum FPS crowd. biggrin Except I don't do 4K, that requires constant upgrades and I'm not willing to spend $800+ on a GPU each year. To me below 60 becomes an eye sore. It depends on the game though. For an online shooter like Battlefield 4, I could not go back to 60 frame rates. I tried it once and my score dipped so low I was shocked. ~ 120 frame rates looks buttery smooth and it does help in those games that require quick reflexes. For single player titles I shoot for 60 frame rates. Now that I have G-Sync I don't mind as much if I dip to 53 or so every now and then. For flight sims (mainly limited to DCS and the once every year or two RoF) I think 60 is okay.

I'm sure with more proper VR titles (Fallout VR, Doom VR) we will see some better benchmarks come out soon.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0