Will I see a large improvement in gaming from an I7 920 over clocked to 3.6 GHz to an I3 or low level I5?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Q

quinnmarc

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2009
33
0
18,530
I've been getting some mixed opinions regarding this conflict some say it'll be a minor improvement over I3 if any at all. However some say the I5 will give huge performance and some say not so much? Right now my I7 920 @ 3.6GHz runs most new games at med/high settings at 1920x1080 using an R9280x. Im just trying to get a general consensus from the community if I should wait till I can afford an I5 4690k or the I5 6600k and skip the I3 or lower I5 upgrade.
Thank you to any who reply.
Marc
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
TofuLion

TofuLion

Admirable
Oct 10, 2014
1,761
0
6,460
like you said, its a matter of opinion. most games are GPU limited anyway, and if you are happy with your current settings, i would wait. no need jumping and buying a decent CPU that wont be decent in 2 years. might as well wait and get something that will give you 5 years...
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,298
4,146
174,240
It depends on your games.
If you play sims, strategy and mmo types, the much faster single thread performance of a i3-4170 will be very good.
They depend on the performance of the single master core.

If your games are more fast action shooters, then a graphics card upgrade would be higher priority.

------------------------------------------------------------
To help clarify your CPU/GPU options, run these two tests:

a) Run YOUR games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.
If your FPS stays the same, you are likely more cpu limited.

b) Limit your cpu, either by reducing the OC, or, in windows power management, limit the maximum cpu% to something like 70%.
Go to control panel/power options/change plan settings/change advanced power settings/processor power management/maximum processor state/
This will simulate what a lack of cpu power will do.
Conversely what a 30% improvement in core speed might do.

You should also experiment with removing one core. You can do this in the windows msconfig boot advanced options option. set the number of processors to less than you have.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many cores.

If your FPS drops significantly, it is an indicator that your cpu is the limiting factor, and a cpu upgrade is in order.

It is possible that both tests are positive, indicating that you have a well balanced system, and both cpu and gpu need to be upgraded to get better gaming FPS.
-------------------------------------------------------------

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,740
4,559
142,790
Moving from an i7 Bloomfield which sees @5-6% lower performance in games vrs a equitable Haswell, to a current i3 or weaker i5 is going backwards. That i7 at 3.6GHz will blow the doors off a i3/i5 Haswell cpu at 3.2GHz.

The only place a Haswell cpu sees @20+% performance increase over an equitable Bloomfield is in productivity software, things like rendering videos, 3d apps etc. For gaming, your i7 is the better cpu by far. For gaming purposes, even an upgrade to a 4690k or 6600k won't see any appreciable improvement, it would be a waste of money. And then there's the games themselves. Your quad core is just fine for most games. Only a newer i7 with HT will see much difference in a relatively few games that are optimized for 4+ core usage.

If you aren't seeing cpu usage in the high 90% range during your heaviest hitting games, then the cpu is not on need of upgrade. A 280x is a different story at 1080p. That gpu is on the low end of the scale at high+ settings. You'll need a gtx970/r9 390 to get ultra in most everything. It used to trade blows with a gtx770, just a couple of years ago, but it's 3Gb is really showing a difference in today's games, so it's still a viable 1080p card.

There's only 2 real reasons to upgrade. It died or you just can't live with the results anymore. Your i7 is still healthy and the 280x is respectable. Start saving for the day that all changes. Who knows, by then Intel maybe in trouble and AMD Zen king of the gaming Hill.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Q

quinnmarc

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2009
33
0
18,530
Thank you for the thorough response. I feel the upgrade wouldn't be too significant either. MY concern for going to higher end GPU from the r9280x to say an 390x is bottlenecking issues with the I7 . Thanks again I think I will stick with my I7 for now.

If you aren't seeing cpu usage in the high 90% range during your heaviest hitting games, then the cpu is not on need of upgrade. A 280x is a different story at 1080p. That gpu is on the low end of the scale at high+ settings. You'll need a gtx970/r9 390 to get ultra in most everything. It used to trade blows with a gtx770, just a couple of years ago, but it's 3Gb is really showing a difference in today's games, so it's still a viable 1080p card.

There's only 2 real reasons to upgrade. It died or you just can't live with the results anymore. Your i7 is still healthy and the 280x is respectable. Start saving for the day that all changes. Who knows, by then Intel maybe in trouble and AMD Zen king of the gaming Hill. [/quotemsg]

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,298
4,146
174,240
A game showing only 25% cpu busy on each of 4 cores does not necessarily indicate that cpu capability is adequate.
In fact, that specific example is highly indicative of a single threaded cpu limited game.
What you see is windows rotating a single thread among the available cores.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IntelDiesel

IntelDiesel

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
100
0
18,680
I'm in the exact situation as the OP
My 920 @3.6 seems really good still
My 670gtx seems to be the issue @2560x1440. I want 60fps

My goal is to upgrade to a 970 GTX and pray this will last me 1 more year

My favorite game is Rust right now
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bystander

Champion
Dec 9, 2009
15,141
6
57,965
I just upgraded over the weekend from an i7 920 running at 3.7Ghz (had to lower it over the years to maintain stability) to an i7 5820k. I'm seeing some major improvements in the games I was hoping to. Dragon Age Inquisition, went from seeing FPS around 40-50 around the Crossroads, Red Cliff, the Sword Coast and a few other key spots, to never dropping below 60, and mostly at 85+ FPS in those same spots. I have noticed it can use up to 48% of my CPU, which means up to 6 cores completely pegged. Grim Dawn, which is a single threaded game, also saw improvements, from 50 FPS at the low, to about 70 FPS at the low end.

Every game will not use cores like Dragon Age Inquisition, and not everyone experiences nausea from sub 70 FPS, but there is definitely room for improvements with your CPU if you are after higher minimum FPS. (Fry's had a super deal on the 5820k).

It really depends on what you are aiming for and the type of gamer you are. I require high FPS and will lower settings to get there. That means the CPU can help more, but if you are ok with your minimum FPS, and want to use higher settings, a GPU will help a lot. I also had issues with my motherboard and Windows 10, and Gigabyte had not updated drivers for it in 4 years.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bystander

Champion
Dec 9, 2009
15,141
6
57,965


It was messing up the OC. My performance tanked. When looking online, it appears to be a common issue, and updating the drivers and/or BIOS fixes it, only I had none to update to. I think the problem was that Win 10 wouldn't control the multiplier properly.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,740
4,559
142,790
@IntelDiesel,

If you are gaming on 1440p, you'd be best off looking at a r9 390 over the gtx 970

Have you checked windows power settings? Your prior OS was probably set to accommodate the OC, but upgrading to 10 prolly set those settings back to default, which can have funky power saving eco crap which will play havoc with OC voltages that have already been streamlined. Also, things like hibernate get turned back on, c-states, min/max cpu usage %
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
IntelDiesel

IntelDiesel

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
100
0
18,680


I really am
Long time ATI user. I'm just wondering about driver support. I felt catalyst in the 2010 eras didn't have good support.
I wondering if I need to read up on Rust to determine what users feel on both driver sets

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,740
4,559
142,790
As far as I have heard, amd seems to have pretty much ironed out catalyst issues for a single gpu, its only in CF that issues still remain, apart from games not having decent CF support. Nvidia drivers still have temporary issues, but they tend to get fixed real quick, and SLI has a greater game support for sure. If not the r9 390, then a gtx980 has similar performance but costs more.
 
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