I'm looking at updating my hardware with an eye toward VR or triple display configuration for those titles that aren't VR friendly. It's been at least 6 years since I last built a machine or paid much attention to the state of hardware. Any recommendations? Should I definitely go with the current gen i7? Does an i5 suffice? NVidia 1070 seems to be well regarded, is it sufficient? Are dual-GPU SLI configurations relevant to current sims? Appreciate any thoughts.

Kodika80

I7 s still have great performance......AMD throwing good multi-core chips into the mix but certainly for gaming its still Intel hands down.

GTX 1070 a great card but if you're going VR go for the 1080 or 1080ti if you can afford it for higher frame rates and much longer before you would need to entertain an upgrade.

AMD Vega chips hugely disappointing and nowhere near the performance they were initially claiming, and they're not offering bang for buck either.

FWIW, in AMD tests using Steam VR benchmark, AMD RX Vega 56 and 64 did show better VR performance than 1070 Ti and 1080 (Vega 56 beat 1080 by 15%). So, get a 1080Ti to be sure to beat Vega 56 or 64 in VR (according to Steam benchmark). RX Vega 56 and 64 also perform very well in DX12 and Vulcan driver games (i.e. newer games).

RX Vega is very competitive at list price or less. But, the price is high above list because the Cryptocurrency miners are driving the prices up -- Vega has very good "compute" ability in addition to gaming graphics. I'm waiting for the price to come down to buy one (an AMD fan). I may be waiting until March/April when the Ryzen and Vega 12nm refreshes are said to be coming.

Still, for the games on the shelf today, a high end Intel CPU running over 4GHz per core all the time and 1080Ti graphics are the "top" (an AMD fan saying this). If one wants a cost-effective rig to last through several years as new games are released, the answer may be different now and different again 4 or 5 months from now.

What exactly does an i7 bring to the table that the i5 does not? I thought VR was more about GPU and not so much about CPU?

That's a good question Ice.
Any thoughts Allen? (anybody)?

Fuzzy

I don't know about VR in particular -- since I don't own a VR setup.

Based on general knowledge, I'm guessing I5 and I7 CPUs running the same core count and same CPU frequency give graphics results too similar to "see the difference". In fact, I5 sometimes beats I7 in that situation (according to test reports).

Often, the CPU does not mean much to graphics FPS performance. The differences between two "good" higher end CPUs are too small to perceive ("measure" but not perceive while playing). CPUs only matter in certain games and simulations that are truly CPU limited -- I've only run across a few -- even then, the difference was only measurable, and rarely perceivable while playing.

That may change some now that CPUs are going from a standard core count of 4 to a standard core count of 6 to 8 -- and games are programmed to expect more CPU horsepower. But, I don't expect it to be a real big deal in the next couple years.

Hyper threading. This can make a big difference in many programs such as video editing or anything CPU intensive. Games have lagged behind but a number are starting to use more than four threads. Battlefield 3/4/1/Hardline, and any other future EA title (since they all use Frostbite) will take advantage of them. Some other new games such as Assassin's Creed Origins apparently will see a notable jump as well. In other words, AMD Ryzen will age better than an i5. Also keep in mind the higher the resolution the less of a difference CPUs make.

If money is no object, get the new 6 core 12 thread i7s, but they are a lot more pricey than AMD especially when accounting for the motherboard prices. In second place would probably be Intels 6 core i5s.

Here is an example. The higher IPC/clocks make the Intel offering better than AMD's in AC Origins, but the lack of threads hurts the 4 core 4 thread i5 (7600K). So much so that the Ryzen 5 1600 (6 core 12 thread) comes out on top even though it has inferior IPC and lower clocks.



Did I mention the Ryzen 1600 can be had for $220 or less on sale? And comes with a cooler that is more than sufficient to keep the CPU cool? It is a good bargain! But if money is no object, again, get the high end Intel because you will have the cores/threads and IPC/raw GHZ.

I'd give the nod to the 8600K if gaming is your only concern due to the 6 cores and higher IPC, but AMD's offering does have hyper threading and last time I checked will come in about $100 less overall. Which makes it great if you're on a budget.

Edit: Of course, keep in mind as we move up to 1440P, the differences between the CPUs will shrink.

Yes, I am aware of hyperthreading.... I was asking what an i7 brings to the table over an i5 in the context of VR games and programs.

It brings more frame rates in a few recent titles, I did provide one example...

But now with i5s coming with 6 cores that point may become less relevant.

As Flogger says you generally get slightly better performance with a hyper-threaded CPU however this is usually only a few % as games are still not optimised for multi core (and multiple 'logical core' cpus)

The advantages of hyper-threading are emphasized outside of gaming in media, photo/video editing and virtualisation where the logical cores can be utilised, so like anything, it comes down to a cost/performance exercise in how you will utilise your own environment.

Hopefully it's in the very near future that we'll see game developers really trying to support multi-core cpus from AMD and Intel properly. There has been very little impetus in PC gaming so far due to the raw speed of single cores, the importance loaded onto GPUs and the overall landscape of console gaming but recent years have indicated that we are more than ready for change.

Again --- what does it bring in the context of VR games and programs??

Yes, it does bring more fps in a few select games. However, I doubt AC Origins is played in VR...



Majority of current games do not tax a quad-core CPU so the question is --- is the extra cost of a 6-core CPU and motherboard a better investment compared to a better GPU?

How many years now have we had quad-cores? Yet they're not yet used to the max.... so I doubt we'll be taxxing 6-cores anytime soon. Anyone who buys a 6-core CPU now for future proofing won't really see much in the lifespan of that CPU.... by the time 6-core CPUs are utilized effectively, I bet 8-core CPUs will be the norm.

Investment wise (for a gamer): GPU first, CPU a relatively distant second. Memory speed is usually not a consideration -- except Ryzen wants 2.7GHz or better to be at its best (you won't see the difference, just measure it).

When calculating "what's really needed" to make one's game-day better consider: For most folks, a 10 percent difference in FPS will not be perceivable and probably 20 percent will be hard to perceive (the bottom 5 percent FPS is more important than the average FPS -- the CPU can affect the bottom of the FPS spectrum in some games -- particularly simulations). So, don't pay a big price premium for that last 10 to 20 percent (a small premium is okay to pay).

But, if one has the cash and its fun to spend the money for "having the best", then buy the fastest of both GPU and CPU and enjoy

Just opinions based on how my eyes work and some tests I've run over the years -- and how I occasionally spend my money

Again, this is not based on VR tests. There may be something "different" about the way VR handles things (for example, two images have to be calculated -- that may be more CPU and core intensive).

For VR it probably will not scale as well due to the higher resolutions. The gains would certainly be diminished. The number of games that can support more threads is growing. With more Frostbite, UE4 and other new engines becoming common it will certainly be worthwhile to look into more cores. In general, the extra cores/threads may not give you much higher frame rates but will also increase your minimums which is also important.

As for CPUs you will likely never see near 100% utilization across all cores because (as it was explained to me) that is not how games are written and execute when running. So while it certainly will be increasing in the coming months/years I wouldn't expect massive gains outside of a select few titles. Ironically some of the games that may in theory benefit the most from extra cores, DCS, ArmA, FSX - are all single threaded.

The good news is 6 core CPUs are no longer expensive. You can easily get one for under $200 from AMD, and you can get Intel's offering for around $250. I know you are talking strictly about games, but it is safe to assume a number of people will use their computers for some other tasks alongside gaming. Unless you are on a very tight budget, you're not going to save a lot of money but opting for a 4 core / 4 thread CPU. So I'd recommend one regardless. You can squeeze just as much GHZ out of the 6 core parts as you can the 4 core parts, so there will be no GHZ or IPC disadvantage. You'll see it take advantage of more games in the coming years, the resale value will be better and it will perform better outside of games. To me, that is well worth an extra $50 or so.

VR wise, outside of a few flight sims or racing sims, most VR games are trash anyways. I wouldn't get too worried about what performs well in VR until VR becomes a worthwhile experience outside of a select few titles.

I see what you're saying especially with minimum fps.... but how many VR games are developed under "new engines" that are VR? Are there any tests/reviews to back up your statements and tie the general concept you've mentioned to VR specifically?


I don't have the data for this but if what you say is true, then at least for us simming folk, then 6-core CPUs are just luxury items. Much like M.2 NVMe drives compared to SSDs. In BMS, I know that it benefits more from higher clock speeds, so in theory a 2-core higher clock can beat a 4-core or 6-core lower clock.... the only benefit more cores is the ability to run other programs (YAME, TS, Helios, etc.) and not have them affect the base simulation, so 4-core CPUs are more than enough.....


I've since learned that this is very subjective and regional prices for items can vary greatly. If you can get a 6-core CPU and the needed motherboard for $50-100 more than a 4-core setup, then maybe it will be worth it..... but at this stage, we need to consider the bigger picture. Is that $50-100 better spent elsewhere? This then goes to discussion about GPU choice and price variations, SSDs, etc.


I really don't like it when people say "most VR games are trash".... really high-and-mighty there. I'm sure if we looked at the amount of PC games (looking at Steam Greenlight for example), the ratio might be the same.... it's just that with a bigger pool, we get distracted by SO MANY good PC games but with a smaller pool for VR, it's easier to come across the bad VR games. I do agree with the essence of your statement..... but also remember that VR is still growing, still finding it's feet, and for what the good VR games bring to the table, I would not make such a disparaging remark.

Probably more over time will be developed on these. Seeing that UE4 is fairly popular among small projects, which VR titles seem to be for the most part, I think there is a good chance there will be more VR UE4 games in the pipeline. Now seeing as most of these titles are hackjobs, "tongue in cheek games" and people just cashing in on a few fad I can't imagine they will be optimized well in any case. As for minimum frame rates, you can view just about any CPU related benchmark site (I like hardocp, tech power up). Although with G-Sync and Free Sync becoming popular, even this isn't as necessary anymore because we don't need a solid 60 frame rates to prevent tearing via G Sync. I have a G-Sync monitor myself, and while I do prefer 60+ frame rates I no longer have to worry about minimums dropping to 54 or so every now and then.



That is true, but most of us who play these kinds of games also run virus scans, maybe play other AAA games that do support multi threading, or do something else that may benefit from it. Also keep in mind that the mainstream socket CPUs all OC about the same. I think Intel still offers 2 core i3 CPUs on the desktop, but I don't think they will reach the clockings of the 4 or 6 core parts as they are low end parts. Last I recall the i3s always had lower clocks and no unlocked models. So while in theory a higher clocked 2 core will be better if it had higher clocks / IPC, such a product doesn't exist.



AMD and Intel offer 6 cores in their standard desktop socket. The motherboard costs are the same regardless of using 4 core, 6 core or in AMD's case, 8 cores. I'm not sure how much pricing will vary outside of the US. But it seems like in Europe the pricing difference is roughly on par with that of the US. You can probably do a quick check at your preferred retailer and see what the differences are.



VR can be great, but most games so far have been trash. Not just from a gameplay, but a technical perspective. People just like to jump on new fads without thinking. VR is great for a flight sim, but it will not make a 3rd person story driven action adventure game like Mass Effect any better. And games like Mass Effect are what gamers want to play. VR should supplement a game, such as replacing a switch on your HOTAS or your Track IR for looking around a cockpit in a realistic manner. But some VR games I've seen control human movement by tilting your head back and fourth. That makes zero sense, and really isn't any more fluid or realistic than using a mouse/keyboard. Again, poor implementation to cash in on a new fad.

When the dust settles maybe some good games that are actually fun to play will come out for VR. But that is the biggest hurdle for VR right now. Perhaps the second is the realization that VR isn't for every type of game (again, refer to a title such as Mass Effect). But until such a change happens I will say that most VR games are trash. I do understand that is highly opinionated so you can always disagree with that!

So no test/reviews to back up your statement then.



For the umpteenth time, are those for VR? The effect on regular gaming monitors are known, no need to rehash that info; I was asking about VR.



You run a virus scan while gaming????



Um, yeah.... that's why the phrase "in theory" is in the sentence.



8700K is £398 while a 7700K is £308.... 8600K is £259 while a 7600K is £212....
Picking a specific mobo with a 370 and 270 version, prices can vary from a £20 difference onwards....

If strapped for cash, that money can easily be spent on other items with a more tangible effect.... having a min-max fps of 66-92 on a 7700K or spending £90 more to get min-max of 71-94 on a 8700K... an additional 5 fps on your min and 2 fps on your max for £90? So we go to Allen's wisdom where all that extra cash spent won't really be giving a noticeable difference.

If money is no object, however, then any argument I make is moot. Go get the enthusiast version, gold plated motherboards, and do a quad-SLI setup on 3x 4K screens



Such as??? Anyway, who forced you to buy trash games? Why are we talking as if the VR owners will buy trash games?



True, some VR games are poor.... but the same can be said for PC games.... at least VR is a new tech that is just feeling it's way around. Nobody has a good handle on what it can do yet, everyone is experimenting with what can be brought to the table with VR. Expecting miracles this early is just unrealistic.

Also using Mass Effect is a poor excuse. Might as well use Starcraft. Some games play better on a console or on a gamepad (Super Mario), some games play better on a PC or on a keyboard/mouse (shooter games), some games play better on a PC and a HOTAS/wheel (flight sims, racing sims).... VR is simply a display solution.... so while it may work awesome for flight/racing sims, space sims, or first-person shooters, it's not the same for games such as side-scrollers or 3rd-person shooters or RTS.



I hope someday you realize the significance of an INFORMED opinion with evidence to support that opinion.

Just because most games on VR is not fun for YOU does not mean most VR games are trash. Go watch reviews for VR games and buy those that aren't trash, that way you'll enjoy VR. Or go buy something like the Brookhaven Experiment, get your buddies or your wife to play it, and enjoy as they squeal in fright and duck an incoming zombie swipe. Some games are fun to play, some games are fun watching other people play them. If none of them do it for you, then fine, maybe VR as it exists today and games for it as they are now are not for you.... but to say they are trash is just silly.

Take a look at VR games such as Audioshield, the Brookhaven Experiment, Final Approach, Google Earth VR, Subnautica, theBlu, Tilt Brush, and Vanishing Realms for a few good VR games.... not to mention DCS, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, and IL2. I will agree with you that there are a lot of trash games and maybe some of them are indeed just riding this fad and jumping on the bandwagon, but to judge VR by these titles is unfair to VR. Take a look at those games I mentioned and you'll see the fun games available..... if you insist on still spending time on the trashy VR games instead of the good VR games, then that's no longer the fault of VR.

I believe you're having a different discussion than I am. While I did originally quote you what I wrote was in context of the OP. He wasn't only including VR, he was also talking about triple screens and gaming in general. Regardless of VR or not, extra threads are certainly worth investing in. Had you asked 5-7 years ago most would agree, the i7 would have been near useless for gaming and an i5 made much more sense. Now days it is foolish to not get at least a 4 core 8 thread CPU, even for gaming. We have already established that a number of big titles can take advantage of more than 4 threads and that list will expand.

You can get a 6 core 6 thread CPU for fairly cheap:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...;cm_re=intel_8400-_-19-117-824-_-Product

You're not going to save much money by opting for a 4 core CPU. The same can be said for AMD's offerings.

Also keep in mind, CPUs behave just the same for VR titles as they do non-VR titles. What matters is the resolution. The higher the resolution, the less relevant the CPU is. And VR does run at a higher resolution. In other words, all of these points are equally valid for VR. CPUs are less relevant (especially IPC differences are minimized) at higher resolutions, regardless of what type of screen you use, curved, multiple, or VR.

Over here there is really no reason to get a 4 core 4 thread CPU anymore, because the potential cost savings are so small. AMD's 4 core 4 thread offering as an example is $130, their 4 core 8 thread is $170 and you can get a 6 core 12 thread for $$199. The CPU will age better as more developers for games utilize the extra cores, and outside of games the gains will be significant. Same situation with Intel. Even VR games in time will take better advantage of the extra threads/cores. You can make the point that, as of today, the few VR titles worth playing cannot take advantage of VR and that it is worth saving the extra money. But the difference really isn't that large. If you are investing in VR (an expensive peripheral, with little support, which requires a high end GPU) the extra cost likely is not a problem. If you are cash strapped and $30-80 means a lot to you then you probably cannot afford a decent VR setup in the first place.

I also skimmed Amazon.UK CPU prices and the difference was not that large from what I would pay at major retailers.

And I didn't say people run virus scans while playing games... I merely pointed out that a 6 core CPU is better for other non-gaming programs that even most gamers occasionally run. An example being scanning for viruses. Even if you bought the PC with gaming in mind, you likely will find a use for the extra threads/cores if the games you currently play do not use them. If you're on a tight budget, it is well worth paying $30-40 more to get that Ryzen 1600 6 core / 12 thread CPU.

I’ll also add that whilst games (VR or otherwise) may not utilise the full amount of physical or logical cores any recent operating system will........at the end of the day a hyperthreaded CPU will have less utilisation across the cores/threads than the same game which doesn’t support it and all our games sit on these Microsoft resource hogging operating systems.

Although in some cases we may only be talking about 5-8fps it still could be 10% of the overall frame rate assuming that 60fps on a monitor is standard and when VR can be so sensitive around the 45/90fps mark for async reprojection the individual has to determine whether the difference in cost is worth it. As everyone is aware, aiming for 90fps in a 1440p headset takes some serious hardware and small percentages for some people can mean the difference between hitting that target for the best possible experience.

My personal thought is that anyone with a VR headset has already shelled out a decent amount of cash and will have something along the lines of a 970 GPU to drive it as a minimum. For anyone looking at buying a new CPU why wouldn’t you look to pair a hyperthreaded CPU with it if it even if it may only give you a chance of a minimal frame rate increase?......it could make a noticeable difference when the margins are so tight.

Moving forward and looking ahead to optimised games and DX12 the performance differences are much bigger, you only need to look at ‘Ashes of Singularity’ and AMD’s noise about multiple cores in their benchmarks to see the difference that hyperthreading and high core count makes. Whilst DX12 games are still few and far between it’s another indicator that the quicker it becomes the norm the more performance we will be able to extract from our hardware.

Wholly agreed with this post. Especially since you need to keep the minimum FPS high in VR.

True, the OP asked about VR and triple-screen gaming. However, my questions were directly in regards to VR. You quoted my post and talked about hyperthreading and video editing, etc., and again, I asked directly in relation to VR. You seem to struggle with the concept of "in relation to VR" as you keep citing points that I would not contest in a monitor display setup but I am asking about VR.



"Worth investing in" is a very relative term. As I said before, this is under the assumption that we are operating under a budget and every improvement must make sense in terms of performance gains in comparison to money spent. I've already shown the price differences between Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake for UK prices. On newegg, an 8700K is $404 while a 7700K is $340 ($64), a 8600K is $300 while a 7600K is $240 ($60).

We've already established that there are no tests on framerates under VR. With the price differences of around $60 (Coffee vs Kaby) to $100 (Coffee i7 vs Coffee i5) for a gain of 2-5fps, the end user will have to make a decision whether that gain is worth the extra cost.... or if the money is better spent elsewhere, maybe an SSD that would greatly improve performance and give a tangible effect during program startup, game loading, and system boot.



Yes, get at least a 4-core... the issue I am presenting is that any more cores doesn't really give the performance improvement given the higher price.



Exactly what I said on my first post here.



Well, I was talking about other programs that I would run to complement my gaming/simming experience... and then you mentioned virus scanning, so I took it along that line of the conversation.

As for 6-core CPUs, again it is better, yes, but is it worth the extra cost?



I would wager that if you're scanning for viruses intentionally, you wouldn't really be in the mood for playing games



Sigh.... again, only a minimal amount of games makes use of more cores/threads so unless your favorite game(s) takes full advantage of more cores/threads, it will boil down to whether the performance boost is worth the extra cash. It is not about whether you have an extra $60 or £90 or whatever the amount is.... it is whether that amount is worth the 2-5fps you will gain on a SELECT FEW games. Even in your example above, an 8700K ($404) got the same numbers as an 8600K ($300) and both are only 1fps higher on average framerates compared to an 8400 ($200).

Never really paid much attention to AMD offerings so I could be totally wrong in that area.



This is exactly why I was asking if there was a comparison article between i5 and i7 CPU performance specifically under VR.



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.

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.

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.

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)



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.

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.


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....

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


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.



Source?



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....



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."

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.

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.



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.



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



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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.



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.



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 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.



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

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... The exact same kit costs almost double!!



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



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.



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.



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.



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

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.

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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

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.



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.



Then why quote me in your response???



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?



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.



My old PC does the job.... 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



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 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.



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

I'm certainly of the 60 minimum FPS crowd. 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.