Any CPUs better than 4770k for gaming?

Stardust342

Distinguished
Aug 12, 2012
258
0
18,860
I've been looking at a lot of benchmarks, and it seems like 4770k beats everything at gaming and single core stuff. Even the 4960x seems to get beaten by the 4770k in terms of gaming. (Why do they call it 4960x when it isn't even haswell based? Seems misleading...) Will Haswell-E CPUs (59xx) be better for gaming when they come out?
 
Solution


It died 10 days ago and you had to go and resurrect it.

TR0n_A

Reputable
Apr 4, 2014
83
0
4,660
Who knows? I would expect the 5xxx to be better. And no, the 4770K is pretty much the benchmark. The AMD FX 9590 can just about hold it's own against the 4770K, but that CPU has so any caveats it's only worth it if you really want something different to the typical i5/i7 stuff.
 
The CPU isn't that important for gaming. So you shouldn't overspend on it. I recommend at least a Core 2 Quad Q6600 for gaming and a Core i5 4670K at most. Anything lower or higher than those 2 CPUs is a waste of time for gaming purposes. Of course I'd never recommend buying a core 2 quad but it's ok to do some light gaming on if you happen to have one already.
 
If you were to play a game on the lowest settings possbible, with a good gpu, then there would be a good ammount of framerate difference between say a 4670k and a 4770, (this is just a hypothetical test since there's no point to doing this)
However, pretty much all high end cpu's nowadays will be bottlenecked by even the best graphics cards when it comes to gaming, so that's why atm it doesn't really matter if you get one or the other.
 

Stardust342

Distinguished
Aug 12, 2012
258
0
18,860

I'm pretty sure that would bottleneck my GPU and do horrible with any type of physics.


WILL be bottlenecked? or wont?
Pretty sure you meant wont... but uber highend graphics cards are bottlenecked by even the best CPU's.
Also, you have the best name/avatar ever. I'm a warrior myself.
 


What i said was, cpus will be bottlenecked by the GPU's when playing games, that means graphics cards need to be a whole lot better in order to use the cpus at their full potential. that means you don't really need the best cpu to play games at ultra, you need the best graphics card.
 

leeb2013

Honorable
depends entirely on what your GPU is. Pointless getting a decent CPU if your GPU is rubbish.

However, assuming you have a good GPU, GTX780 or similar, I'd be tempted to go with an I7. I've found an 8 threaded CPU performs significantly better in BF4 and expect it to do so for heavy physics games such as watch dogs.
 


An Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 will give you a bottleneck. I didn't mean that you should get a Core 2 Quad I was just giving you a range of CPUs that are ok for gaming and the Q6600 is at the bottom of the range. I absolutely do not recommend getting a Core 2 Quad but if you already have one it's still viable for a lot of games. And on the top of the range I put the Core i5 4670K meaning that that's the best CPU you should get for gaming and anything higher than that is a bit of a waste.
 

leeb2013

Honorable
it also depends on the game. BF4 is hard on the CPU, my I5 at stock clocks would be nearly at 90-100% whilst the 7950 crossfire GPUs were at 50% each. So you could say the I5 was bottlenecking dual 7950s!

Conversely Titanfall bare wakes my Xeon, whilst a single R9-290 is nearly 100% (on 3 monitors).
 
It's all relative, imagine there's a game with 8bit graphics, but that stresses the cpu to the absolute limit,in that case the cpu will bottleneck most graphics cards, but right now, with most of the games out there, the minimum framerate is most likely to be determined by the gpu-this is why it is not worth it to buy a 4770k just for gaming, you will be better off buying an i5 and investing the difference into a graphics card.
There's no real way to compare a cpu and a graphics card with eachother, they do different things, but when a game demands x ammount of calculations from the gpu and y ammount of calculations from the cpu, the one that reaches the limit of the calculations required first bottlenecks the other.
/silly explanation
 

Stardust342

Distinguished
Aug 12, 2012
258
0
18,860
That doesn't make sense to me... if you have a bad CPU, how would upgrading your graphics card increase the minimum FPS? If the CPU is bottlenecking at certain points, that will drop the FPS to the minimum, but when it's a CPU stressless moment, the graphics will go to a high.

 
You linked a situation where it seems a good cpu is bottlenecked by the two most expensive cards you can get in sli-in a particularly cpu intensive game-at high fps.
As i said.
In MOST games, this will not happen.
So, after you get a titan, you can get a better cpu than 4670k for gaming.
 

Stardust342

Distinguished
Aug 12, 2012
258
0
18,860


I accidentally clicked "select as best answer".. oh well enjoy it.
 


You can unselect it if another answer helps you with your problem.

 

Matt Bull

Honorable
Jan 15, 2014
111
0
10,710
Go the 4770k. Im not sure why people recommend basic tech over futre proof tech. It is now confirmed that watch dogs recommened is 8 core 4 core min. More games will be 8 core. Battlefield 4 is a game that takes a large advantage of 8 cores. There are ben hmarks showing a 15 plus frame increase using i7 over i5. Crysis and farcry 3 also benifit from hyperthreading.

Also its pieace of mind. Spend an extra 80$ and then ull never wonder if u made right desiin and when watch dogs. Omes out and ur runninv physics and waether effects perfectly ull smile
 

Francisco Costa

Honorable
Nov 16, 2013
1,440
0
11,960


Hum, hum, cool story bro.

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1061&page=8
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1061&page=6

And even if Watch Dogs runs better on i7s than i5s (which will, no doubt about that), the difference will be minimal and the bottleneck will probably still be the GPU.
And the difference between and i5 4670k and an i7 4770k is $90-100, never $80.
 


Because money isn't infinite, and for most gamers a 4770K is a waste.

The whole term "future proof" is wrong. A bunch of people bought 2x 580s for SLI when those released thinking they'd be future proof, only for VRAM to jump up to 3GB the next generation and 1.5GB became terrible for high-end GPUs.

People stocked up on 32GB of DDR3 RAM, only for DDR4 to be announced a few months later, so that 32GB will be obsolete before it's ever used.

You could get an i7-4770K, but now that DX12 and Mantle are set to just turn this into a cores game, chances are 4-core CPUs will be obsolete in a couple years anyway, which would mean all the people who bought the absolute best CPUs for "future proofing" just wasted their money.

Future proofing is pretty much a crock.