ryeshe :
I don't understand why they'd post game requirements as higher than they actually are.. you would think that they'd post them to be lower to try and attract more customers. And I do understand that there's a correlation between high specs and high quality graphics.. but this is something weird to be inaccurate about.
^ This = +1
System requirements in games are almost always understated. Perhaps they are always understated. The 4670k is a good CPU, but it's just a CPU. It has limits. OP mentioned Crysis 3. That game uses a high percentage on all 12 of my i7's threads no problem. Even with a 3930k @ 4.6 Ghz feeding a 780 ti, I can't turn up everything at 1080p. Same with Metro: Last Light. Perhaps Watchdogs and Wolfenstein will also prove to be as demanding. We'll see.
Will the 4670k run these games? Sure, but it will get pretty stressed. The same workload gets funneled into less threads, relying more on single-core performance. Luckily the 4670k excels in single core performance.
The point is that when people say an i7 is overkill for games, the truth of that statements really depends on how you define "overkill." My definition of overkill is having more computing power than your use scenario is capable of consuming. For instance, it would be overkill in the graphics department to run two Titan Blacks in a gaming machine hooked up to a 640 x 480 monitor. There is simply no way that 640 x 480 can draw upon the potential of those cards, no matter what settings you can make in driver tweaking software. What about a single Titan Black running a single 1080p monitor? Such a setup would be more expensive than it needs to be, but it wouldn't be complete overkill. The most graphically demanding games will actually draw more processing power at 1080p than even a Titan Black can deliver. Some people say it would be "overkill" because they have a different understanding of the term. A lot of people think overkill is having more processing power than their typical use demands. The difference is what separates regular gamers from computer enthusiasts.
The same thing applies to CPUs. Are you going to build your machine toward a typical use scenario, or are your going to build it with the most demanding uses in mind? For people who want to handle the most demanding scenarios, they step it up to an i7. There's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with sticking to an i5. This is especially true for fast CPUs like the 4770k vs the 4670k. They actually both have the same potential CPU power under 100% load, but the 4770k will be faster at less than 100% load. Most of the time, the CPU is under less than 100% load, so the 4770k will be faster most of the time.
But more to the OP's point, just trade up if you're concerned about it and want to build toward the most demanding scenario. You can sell a used 4670k to bring down the cost of a 4770k. Before doing that, though, I would definitely test your rig's performance under the exact conditions you'll want to run. If it's Wolfenstein, download it when it comes out, monitor your CPU usage during gameplay at your desired settings, while seeing how the game performs. If you're getting between 80% and 100% usage on the CPU with lower percentages on the GPUs, AND the game is running less well then you'd like, then a CPU might help. But if the game runs fine, even with high CPU usage, you're still under the processing potential of your CPU, and a new one won't help. Just test things and see what's up.
maurelie :
i have seen too many PC build on this forum these days using i7 4770k and even i7 4960X only for watchdogs, which is insane what the marketing tricks and false statements will do to people
The 4960x can definitely be overkill for a gaming-only machine, but a lot of people have crazy setups like this for non-gaming purposes. However, they also play games on the machine. The only time someone "needs" an X79 chipset for gaming is for multiple GPU configurations.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram