New to PC Gaming Question

JrGaming

Honorable
Aug 29, 2013
49
0
10,530
I was wondering if this gaming PC can keep up with the current/upcoming video games at 60 fps at 1080p and is worth the money, or can I get a better one around the same price? If I can get a better PC, would you please provide a link for it ? ...ty http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1zMIe
 
Solution


The i7 is [NOT] a 8 core. It is a 4 core/8 thread. It still has only 4 real cores but allows 2 thread to each core. That is the main reason that a lot of games have to have Hyperthreading turned off in the BIOS to prevent stuttering. Windows may see 8 cores but it is fake.

For gaming rigs a i5 is still the best option.

The only thing I would change if you have the funds would be to up the CPU to a FX-8350 other than that it looks good. A AMD FX- based system can handle games just fine fitted with a good mid-high end GPU.

I have a FX-8120 with a Crossfire Sapphire HD 7950 and a FX-8350 with a Crossfire Sapphire HD 7970 and both...


The i7 is [NOT] a 8 core. It is a 4 core/8 thread. It still has only 4 real cores but allows 2 thread to each core. That is the main reason that a lot of games have to have Hyperthreading turned off in the BIOS to prevent stuttering. Windows may see 8 cores but it is fake.

For gaming rigs a i5 is still the best option.

The only thing I would change if you have the funds would be to up the CPU to a FX-8350 other than that it looks good. A AMD FX- based system can handle games just fine fitted with a good mid-high end GPU.

I have a FX-8120 with a Crossfire Sapphire HD 7950 and a FX-8350 with a Crossfire Sapphire HD 7970 and both of those rigs can keep up in my games every bit as good as my i5 3570K Gigabyte SLI GTX 670 rig.

All of my rigs run 5760x1080, on games that support that resolution, max/ultra running 60fps Vsync'ed.
 
Solution

dragonfrom12

Honorable
Sep 14, 2013
81
0
10,640
lol dog no need to get pissed. some young bucks are still new to pc hardware and have no time to look up new stuff constantly. i saw a few things say it was 8 core so i thought it was 8 core. thanks for the info though.
 

ddbtkd456

Honorable
Sep 4, 2013
1,476
0
11,660


Agreed the "only" again i will say "only" processors with 8 cores are the FX-8xxx Series, i7's have 4 cores in hyper-threading (8 fake cores, or 4 real cores and 4 fake cores). The reason that i7's are a lot better then the FX-8xxx series is because of the fact that they are hyper threaded i5's basically (or hyper-threaded quad cores), that is the reason also that the i7 can not truly be compared to the FX-8xxx series. Also the FX-8xxx series outweighs the i7 in any program that can fully utilize 5+ cores. This is simply because the i7 (after 4 cores) has to have a "double load" on anything for cores 5-8 (hyper-threaded split cores is what i call them), where as the AMD FX-8xxx series has a real core for everything that can use cores 5-8, therefore because it doesn't need to "double load" everything on the first 4 cores, it's performance outweighs the i7. I know this since i work with both (the i7 is my work computer & my AMD FX-8350 is my home computer). So the use of the processor comes down to what you want to use it for. If multi-cored performance (5+ cores) is what you want the the FX-8xxx series is a great choice, if your after programs that only use 1-4 cores then i7 is better. Hope this helps clear things up a little bit. Reason I run an AMD FX-8350 is because my home computer runs Media-monkey which can utilize as many cores as it gets thrown at it (also Winamp is the same way) (which is awesome), and I can encode about 600 songs from 96 kbps to 320 kbps in about 10 minutes flat, since it does about 60 songs a minute or about 7.5 songs in each core a minute. Sure beats that old P4 Hyper-threaded & over-clocked to 3.5 GHz I was running for the longest time. The i5's are the pick for gaming for a number of reasons. I will explain them, so everyone understands why they outweigh the i7 and the AMD FX 8xxx series. The i5's are quad core (4-core) cpu processors, that do not have the hyper threading feature as the i7's do. This is better for games since most games (even the new games) don't utilize more then 4 cores, and can't not use the extra cores that the FX-8xxx series has or the hyper-threaded (split) cores that the i7 has. Also since it is a quad-core and there isn't everything extra to push around (4 more cores in the FX series or the hyper-threading of an i7) they are generally (not always) a little bit faster. Now the difference is that most programs on a computer can't even utilize more then 4 cores which is also why the quad core is still the standard for computers bought in big box stores. Also the FX 8xxx series has a different agriculture then the i7, and utilizes it's extra cores to smooth out any applications or games that only utilize the first 4 cores (acts like a buffer), that said the i5 or the i7 will still heavily outweigh the FX-8xxx series in speed, and anything that doesn't require 5+ cores. Hope this helps.
 


If you mean me I was not "pissed" if I came of that I am sorry that was not my intention.
 

Nossy

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2005
216
0
18,680
While the i7 does indeed only have 4 physical cores with 8 threads, it does perform faster than the i5, but only a small percentage in games and some games that takes advantage of HT you will see noticable difference.

Having said that if you are a gamer, you would rather go with an i5 and spend the 80-100 bucks extra on an improved GPU. Where the i7 really shine is in video and picture processing. If you plan to edit video (encoding, etc) then the i7 will be a no brainer. If you are mostly gaming, the i5 is the best option. If you don't plan to OC, you can stick to the non-K version and a H87 mobo (instead of the Z87).
 

Tradesman1

Legenda in Aeternum
Another thing about the i7 and 4 cores w/ Hyperthreading, it out performs the 'true' 8 core AMD CPUs quite handily - of course at a bit of a price premium, the the true 4 core i5s like the 4670K also outperform the higher AMD FX CPUs in everything except rendering clock for clock