Is it worth getting an i7 4770k for gaming?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

RagingCuppCakes

Reputable
Mar 4, 2014
23
0
4,510
Should i get an i7 4770k for my first gaming PC build or an i5 4670k and spend the extra 100 on a better graphics card? (possibly the GTX 770 or 780)

Thank you for you help
 
Solution
larrym
if your just going to game, get the 4670K and better gpu. 4770K, for now, is not that much better for gaming. you probably wouldnt even notice the difference. But you would notice with a better gpu.
Sort by date Sort by votes
larrym

larrym

Honorable
Oct 29, 2012
725
0
11,060
if your just going to game, get the 4670K and better gpu. 4770K, for now, is not that much better for gaming. you probably wouldnt even notice the difference. But you would notice with a better gpu.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
CraigN

CraigN

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2013
1,437
0
19,960
Games are single threaded applications for the most part, and games don't utilize more than four cores at the moment. The i5 will be fine, single threaded performance is the key here and the i5 doesn't fall far behind the i7 in that category, and you can overclock to make up that difference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CraigN

CraigN

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2013
1,437
0
19,960
http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/734/bench/CPU_01.png

From http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

The i7-4770K performs identically to the i5-3570K. The *previous* generation i5. Battlefield 4 doesn't take any extra advantage of those hyperthreaded cores, because the i5-single thread performance is so good to begin with.

The only conversation starter here is that (because its an AMD optimized game) the 8350 actually uses all 8 cores to *keep up* with the Intel chips.

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

Only a small frame difference in this review, which can be easily made up for in overclocking (That i7 is not overclocked)

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/8

Disabling cores on a 3570K showed no discernible loss of performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

matt798

Reputable
Mar 13, 2014
166
0
4,710
than why did u buy the very same core he is asking about? because it stands to last much longer in the long run? it seems some on here would have people do differently as they do or run dated stability tests for nearly no reason before a conversation had involded more than 2 people he was running prime and planning on 2 hours. or cas 11 1333 will give u the same performance as cas 9 1866
its a no brainer the i7 will give u better performance for a longer duration but the i5 is a fine right now core
what level of performance do u want to command? thats what u really need to decide as craig did
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CraigN

CraigN

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2013
1,437
0
19,960


Because I do more than gaming, like larry mentioned before me. Just happens to be gaming is one of my more frequent activities. Also, you seem to be missing a crucial point of the data set there.

The Core i5-3570K launched Q2 2012, which makes it 2 years old this upcoming summer, and *still* goes toe to toe with the Haswell chips that just came out Q2 of last year. I'm not sure where long lasting/future proofing is a concern with a nearly 2 year old quad core is still banging out 90+ FPS and holds up against this year's chips, in other words, it's *not* the limiting factor in your high end system *at all*. The graphics card is. He would be MUCH Better off buying the i5 and getting a *much better* video card than getting an i7 with VERY LITTLE performance gain.

The i5 will give *plenty* fine performance in the long run. If he's worried about his level of performance, he should get the better video card and the i5, that way he leaves himself open for the very slight performance gain in the future, instead of robbing himself of the much larger one now. The difference of a 770 or a 780 over a 750 Ti or a 760 is huge compared to the ~1% up to 10% gain average the i7 might get you, assuming his applications support HT. If they don't support HT, guess what? That big expensive i7 is just a 100 Mhz faster i5.



People here suggest differently than they do because there are different fits for different people. This is his *first* gaming build. He doesn't need an i7 if he doesn't *already* require his computer to do other things. I have no idea what you're talking about "dated stability tests," as BF4 is a new game, those are perfectly legitimate articles. I have absolutely no idea why you're even bringing up RAM, as it has *nothing* to do with what the OP asked.



False. See above about age of the i5.



Don't presume to know what I did/decisions I made to build my system. Also, Jesus Christ, Grammar and Spell Check are your friend, it was almost impossible to understand your coherent argument in that paragraph of run-ons.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

matt798

Reputable
Mar 13, 2014
166
0
4,710
ya i understand what your saying. correct me if im wrong on my reasoning why the i7 is what it is concerning games and gpu threads vs cpu. there will be a point when games catch up to the hardware and then it would have to be giving at least 50% more real world performance as seen my by the kaveri apu having disappointing performance with 8gpu and 4cpu.
i think technology evolves fast and we may even see a 22nm parallel gpu and a 14nm or so cpu in not so long of time
i can say for curtain its worth a thought the way your threads are being scaled
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CraigN

CraigN

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2013
1,437
0
19,960
I really can't understand what you're trying to get across. I'll try to address what I can however.

Because of Amdahl's Law, there's only so much that extra cores/extra threads really gains without creating more overhead, which is why you only see a marginal jump in performance with the addition of more cores. You can make transistors smaller and add more parallel processes all you want, but AMD's Bulldozer has already shown us that more cores/threads =/= more throughput, as the FX series struggles woefully with single-threaded applications (i.e., CPU Intensive Games) and has to be overclocked up to 4.5-4.6 GHz to be competitive.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116561-the-death-of-cpu-scaling-from-one-core-to-many-and-why-were-still-stuck/2

Pretty good explanation on how Amdahl's law effects our CPUs. Until we develop better materials that allow faster single core performance, more than 4 cores doesn't net you very much, hyperthreading or no.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

raithos

Honorable
Jun 14, 2012
15
0
10,510
The benchmarks linked are for single player. The MP is a whole different beast, and VERY CPU intensive. BF4 and Crysis 3 do in fact benefit from the i7. No reason not to get it if you can afford it, and as stated above it 249.99 at micro center, no reason not to get it. Especially now that the new consoles are here, more and more games will make use out of the hyper threading. I say get the 4770k, and save a few more weeks for your GPU. It's only $100 like you said. Do not limit yourself unless you have to. Be patient and by the best you can, you'll regret it later if you don't.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CraigN

CraigN

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2013
1,437
0
19,960
Of course Benchmarks are single player. You can't benchmark something that isn't repeatable, and multiplayer isn't repeatable.

Either way, it's still a very strong indicator of overall performance. I don't know anyone using an i5-4670K who's having problems in single player on BF4. Also, not everyone has a Microcenter near them, and most of the time that deal requires you to walk in to get it, not order online.

Edit:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/413248/Core_i7_4770K_35GHz_Socket_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor

Says In-Store only on the product page. Hope he has one near him.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

raithos

Honorable
Jun 14, 2012
15
0
10,510
Well yeah but deals can be found, you just have to be patient and look. I was just pointing that out about the MP, because that's what most people will spend their time on. And when it comes to MP BF4 and Crysis 3 (as well as many future titles) he will definitely see a difference. Neither one is a bad choice though, both are great CPU's. But with the architecture of the new consoles being so close to PC now, we are already starting to see a rise in games using our systems to the fullest. If it can be afforded, no reason to possibly limit yourself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CraigN

CraigN

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2013
1,437
0
19,960
If you're lucky enough to have a Microcenter that's close, you might get somewhere to price match it, but even here in Texas I only know one retailer who's willing to do that here, and the Microcenter is over an hour away so I'm happy they do it.

Of the two options he presented, however, the 4670K is not going to bottleneck his performance much at all when paired with a 770 or a 780. A card and chip combo like that will easily be able to deal with Multiplayer, if he can't afford the 4770 and the faster card.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

PatStef

Reputable
Mar 23, 2014
23
0
4,510
I agree with mat and raithos, plan for the future which is already here in terms of games that utilize hyperthreading. Ps4 and Xbox 1 are almost par with computers in terms of graphics and even the hardware is similar.. Go for the i7, it's only 100$ extra.it's like a 3-4 years warranty on being able to game on max settings, whereasthe i5's warranty is only 1-2 years. That's my opinion.. And dude online play requires no lag and top performance to be successful.. Who the he'll plays offline.?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

RagingCuppCakes

Reputable
Mar 4, 2014
23
0
4,510


I read that still not all cores are being utilize. Can you explain a little more on this please?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

RagingCuppCakes

Reputable
Mar 4, 2014
23
0
4,510


Well I actually play single player games more than I play multiplayer, do you still recommend the i7?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

RagingCuppCakes

Reputable
Mar 4, 2014
23
0
4,510


Well due to complications I have to wait another 3 months, so I still might be able to get the i7
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CraigN

CraigN

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2013
1,437
0
19,960
RagingCuppCakes - The Intel CPUs have much better single thread operation, which is better for games. The AMD chips will suffice, but if you're looking to give yourself some room to grow without wanting to consider an upgrade anytime soon, then I'd go with Intel.

I've already provided several links on the i5 performance, and I don't know *anyone* from the builds I've done for friends who's having performance issues in multiplayer with an i5-4670K. If you want to "future proof" yourself for awhile, then go for the i7.

If the choice is between an intel i7 and an AMD FX 8-core, having owned and used both, I'd go with the i7 every day of the week.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom