Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Avoiding harsh bottlenecks on Gaming/Recording PC?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Bottleneck
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 24, 2014 12:27:01 PM

In a few months I'll be building a PC that will be used strictly for Gaming and Recording of that gameplay. I'll be using a GTX 980 and will only be gaming at max res of 1080p. I'm sort of torn between getting a 4790k or a 5930k CPU. I understand that GTX 980 will dominate 1080p gaming, but this build is for future proofing as well because I won't be able to upgrade for a few years. Recording takes a considerable amount of CPU power, and I want to record on max settings without losing too much FPS.

Which CPU would be better (Stock speeds) for gaming and recording that gameplay without being a harsh bottleneck?

More about : avoiding harsh bottlenecks gaming recording

a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 12:36:27 PM

You won't be bottlenecked at either of those CPUs. And either of them would be viable options. I personally would go with the 5930k if it is in the budget...just for the best future proofing...and more than likely you would not need to upgrade CPUs for years.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 902 à CPUs
September 24, 2014 12:37:42 PM

A 5820k would probably not be a bad idea, considering your uses. No point in getting a K series if you are not going to overclock. A 5820k should match the clock speed of a 4790k with ease.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a c 376 à CPUs
September 24, 2014 12:43:31 PM

I would vote for the 4790K.
It is cheaper and runs at 4.0-4.4 turbo stock. 5820K is 3.5
Few games can use more than 2-3 cores. 6 and 8 core cpu's are not that helpful for gaming. Faster clock speeds are more important.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 902 à CPUs
September 24, 2014 1:49:35 PM

geofelt said:
I would vote for the 4790K.
It is cheaper and runs at 4.0-4.4 turbo stock. 5820K is 3.5
Few games can use more than 2-3 cores. 6 and 8 core cpu's are not that helpful for gaming. Faster clock speeds are more important.


You totally missed the recording part. Not to mention the fact they intend to keep the system a few years. For a person that upgrades fairly often, the 5820k doesn't make sense, for gaming and recording. With this situation, the 5820k makes perfect sense.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 376 à CPUs
September 24, 2014 8:26:09 PM

Good point on the recording.
How many cores does it take to record?
I don't know, educate me. But I would be surprised if a 4790K could not do the job.
With the hyperthreads, performance won't be that shabby.

We all know that "future proofing" is a somewhat fruitless endeavor.
It is usually better to buy what you need when you need it and save some funds for the future.
The Q6600 was supposed to be a "future proof" chip which launched some 6 years ago at a $530 price. It has been mostly obsolete for some time.

I suspect that planning for more than 3 years out would not be that useful.

Still, a 6 core 5930K at twice the 4790K price could be a viable chip.
But then, why not the 8 core 5960X $1000 cpu, would it not be even more future proof?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 8:50:27 PM

Wfs0801 said:
In a few months I'll be building a PC that will be used strictly for Gaming and Recording of that gameplay. I'll be using a GTX 980 and will only be gaming at max res of 1080p. I'm sort of torn between getting a 4790k or a 5930k CPU. I understand that GTX 980 will dominate 1080p gaming, but this build is for future proofing as well because I won't be able to upgrade for a few years. Recording takes a considerable amount of CPU power, and I want to record on max settings without losing too much FPS.

Which CPU would be better (Stock speeds) for gaming and recording that gameplay without being a harsh bottleneck?


Most modern gameplay recording software doesn't actually consume that much of your compute resources. I record games on a 4770k with MSI Afterburner and Dxtory, and both drop my framerate in games by maybe 5fps. It's a non-issue these days.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 8:59:18 PM

Doesn't one of the x99 boards come with an onboard video recorder for 1080p at h264? Asus or one of the others? One would think there is a hardware solution you could leverage for this that wouldn't affect the CPU at all (either motherboard or daughter card), which would open up your budget to pick the most viable parts for gaming by itself.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 10:27:54 PM

All valid opinions that I will continue to think on, thanks a bunch guys.

I chose the k series because I do plan to overclock, just not right out of the box. I hope to not have to overclock until down the road some when the hardware begins to become obsolete, just to make it last a little longer. The key in this build is future proofing for high end gaming as I simply won't have the income for the next few years to purchase anything more than the games I will play and the occasional beer.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 902 à CPUs
September 25, 2014 7:15:58 AM

geofelt said:
Good point on the recording.
How many cores does it take to record?
I don't know, educate me. But I would be surprised if a 4790K could not do the job.
With the hyperthreads, performance won't be that shabby.

We all know that "future proofing" is a somewhat fruitless endeavor.
It is usually better to buy what you need when you need it and save some funds for the future.
The Q6600 was supposed to be a "future proof" chip which launched some 6 years ago at a $530 price. It has been mostly obsolete for some time.

I suspect that planning for more than 3 years out would not be that useful.

Still, a 6 core 5930K at twice the 4790K price could be a viable chip.
But then, why not the 8 core 5960X $1000 cpu, would it not be even more future proof?


Given how long the sandy bridge - E chips have been viable cpus, I see the 5820k making sense, if the OP intends to keep the system awhile. The SNB-E 6 core chips still hold their own well against a 4770k. I do not see the 5930k being worth the added cost, just for the extra PCI-E lanes. Considering even PCI-E 1.1 can still handle many current high end GPU's, with very little performance loss, vs 2.0 or 3.0, I don't see that being an issue in coming years. That is why I vote 5820k for this case. Personally, I would never probably buy that expensive of a setup, as I am not in need of that much speed, as the most I do, currently, is play WoW. :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 7:22:49 AM

Recording or streaming shouldn't be an issue there, considering the 980 gtx has built in h.264 video encoding, just as 600+ series cards, if not better. If you won't add another gpu, getting the 5820/5930k makes no sense. For gaming, the 4790k is actually superior at the moment, due to higher clock speeds (with and without oc'ing).
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 376 à CPUs
September 25, 2014 7:30:13 AM

Worth is something only the OP can determine.
A 4790K, a asus-A motherboard, and a 16gb kit of ram will cost about $620.
A similar 5820K setup will cost about $915. Mostly because of the need for a more expensive motherboard and ddr4 ram.
m
0
l
September 25, 2014 9:33:32 AM

Would it change anyone's opinions if I stated that I'll be adding a second 980 soon after the initial build?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 9:41:49 AM

In that case, if money isn't a concern, go with the 5930k for the extra PCIe lanes.
m
0
l
September 25, 2014 10:09:12 AM

Does the 5930k help to utilize the extra PCIe lanes better than the 4790k? Sorry, I haven't spent much time learning about CPU's yet. As long as it will help optimize my gaming/recording for the next few years, i'll be more than willing to spend the extra cash.

EDIT: I'll have the cash to build this around mid November. How do Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales look for pc parts? I haven't been in the market around that time of year so I'm not sure if I should just wait the extra week or two to make purchases.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 10:56:56 AM

Can't really tell you about sales, as I'm living in europe. The 5930k has support for 40 pci lanes, so you can run both gpus on pci 16x. With the 4790k, you're limited to running them on 8x both, which technically isn't a problem either. Just if you want to add an m.2 ssd or something else that is connected by pci, one gpu would only run at 4x, which isn't supported/recommended for SLI. 5820k wpuld bypass that with 28 lanes, but the expensive part about x99 aren't the cpu's but the ram and motherboard. Might as well go into the extremes when spending that much money.

Which, to reiterate won't yield you any performance gains in gaming. A stock 4790k is more than enough to support two 980's. So unless you're adding pci connected devices, or do a LOT of productivity stuff, thats the most reasonable option.
m
0
l
September 25, 2014 11:39:54 AM

I haven't fully decided on a mobo yet, but I'm like 90% sure I'll go with the z97. I only have watched 1 review video on the x99, but it was by a source I really trust and it didn't seem worth the money to me.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 12:52:15 PM

Yeah, thats what I'm saying. For gaming, at least, you will see absolutely not benefit. With a z97 board the best cpu you can (currently) get is the i7 4790k.
m
0
l
September 25, 2014 5:50:45 PM

Did a little reading at work today and the z97 w/ 4790k seems to be the consensus match-up across the interwebs. So considering the 4790k is the best with the z97, should that match-up over power the desire to run 2-way SLI on 16x with the 5930k? I need to read more into 16x vs 8x on the GPU's but from what I'm getting on these posts it's really down to that being the final decision maker at this point.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 376 à CPUs
September 25, 2014 7:15:23 PM

No current graphics card is limited by 16x pcie 3.0
Only the very strongest cards are limited by X8, and that is barely measurable, think 1-2%
Running X8/X8 is no limitation.
It is only when you are trying to run 3 or 4 cards that the X99 motherboards come into play.

m
0
l
September 25, 2014 7:54:41 PM

The cutting edge Dual GPU cards are absolutely limited by running in 8x, to the point where you'll see issues while playing games in them. This is a pretty rare setup though. But if you put 2 295x2 cards into a system that is running 8x/8x, you're bottleneck the communication between the first 2 and second 2 GPUs.

Really though, unless you're dropping a cool 2k on GPU's and going to the extreme end of the hardware, you can run 8x/8x just fine. The bigger issue is running SLI and then later adding a PCIe SSD (which is likely in the next few years).
m
0
l
September 25, 2014 8:18:12 PM

I won't be adding anything to the PCIe in the next few years, and if PCIe SSD's become a big thing, it probably won't happen for me for quite a while. If running 2-way SLI on 8x even has a chance of causing issues, I'm not going to take the risk. I need a stable setup for my gaming and recording.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 11:38:47 PM

8x/8x has absolutely no chance of causing issues, at least not stability wise. The worst that could happen is that you get 1-2% less good performance than with both running at 16x, which you won't be able to notice outside of benchmarks. And this would only be the case if you were running two titan z's or two r9 295x2's.
If you are sure you won't use other pcie devices, the 4790k is a safe bet.
m
0
l
!