Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Answer to this question will enlighten lots of ppl. Experts answer pls

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 21, 2012 7:58:33 PM

I have decided to build a pc purely for gaming. I want to play all imba games on the market like crysis , modern warfare , skyrim , battlefield alllll the games you can think of which require awesome graphics.

I am not going to ask which one is better , xxx cpu or yyy cpu. My question is :

How should a gaming CPU and gaming motherboard be ? For example , do I need lots of cores ? do I need lots of GHZ ?

I already know graphic card is the most important but I've already figured it out. I'll pick radeon hd 6970. Now I want to give this system a CPU that it deserves! I dont want the graphic card to swear at me "dude wtf why u give me this cpu , I could perform better if you had given me a xxx ghz xxx core xxx processor"

Everyone in the world suggests i5 2500k. Why ? phenom ii x4 980 has 3.7 ghz which is more than i5 2500k

(NOTE * I WILL NOT OVERCLOCK)

My question is a bit deeply technical but I want to understand it well. I dont ask for recommendetion what to buy , I wish to learn which specialities a cpu and a motherboard must have for PURE AND PURE GAMING

Telling your ideas will complicate the thread. Please just share your knowledge very specificaly ; " A gaming CPU must have lots of ghz ! noone cares about cores , games cant benefit lots of cores anyway. Thats it! End of discussion! (this is just an example i dont know if its true) and so on.

Thank you so much in advance. -Regards-
February 21, 2012 8:09:02 PM

If you refuse to overclock, get an i5 2400. It will serve your 6970 for years to come.
m
0
l
a c 287 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2012 8:09:56 PM

Quote:
How should a gaming CPU and gaming motherboard be ? For example , do I need lots of cores ? do I need lots of GHZ ?


You don't really need either. Really the difference between having an i5-2500K and an i5-2400 is like +-.2GHz, and the other difference is that the 2500K is an unlocked CPU which means it can be overclocked. Even on the most demanding games like BF3 you'll never use beyond 80% of the CPU's full capacity.

Quote:
I already know graphic card is the most important but I've already figured it out. I'll pick radeon hd 6970. Now I want to give this system a CPU that it deserves! I dont want the graphic card to swear at me "dude wtf why u give me this cpu , I could perform better if you had given me a xxx ghz xxx core xxx processor"


While the Radeon 6970 is a good choice I'll agree there, a lot of them are in the process of being phased out and discontinued. The 7950 would be a better choice as it's a lot newer and based off a newer design but it will run you quite a bit more.

Quote:
Everyone in the world suggests i5 2500k. Why ? phenom ii x4 980 has 3.7 ghz which is more than i5 2500k


Like I said before - having +-.2GHz and a couple of extra cores is going to mean nothing. CPUs for the most part have bottomed out - as AMD proved with their FX series, they're not changing drastically any time soon.

The reason why the i5-2500K is the most preferred CPU of choice is because Intel created a true winner. For the price, the performance can't be matched anywhere - it even outperforms the $1,000 i7-990X and in some cases can out perform the $1,050 i7-3960K. And the unlocked CPU means you can take it to 4.5GHz on standard air cooling without breaking a sweat. The accompanying Z68 and P67 chipsets that are used with the CPU are very flexible in terms of the accompanying hardware they will support (unlike the aging 970, 870, and 770 AMD platforms), and Intel has already committed to the socket LGA-1155 used for SB by releasing new Ivy Bridge CPUs with them.

The reason a lot of people hesitate to recommend AMD anymore is that benchmark after benchmark shows that the i5-2500K is the leader of the pack without question. The AM3 platform is aging technology - it's been around for years, and that's the main reason why FX failed is because AMD tried to introduce new sets of instructions on a chip that can't handle them. There will be a new AMD platform (AM4? Something else?) but when they actually do create a new socket for their CPUs remains to be seen.

Quote:
Telling your ideas will complicate the thread. Please just share your knowledge very specificaly ; " A gaming CPU must have lots of ghz ! noone cares about cores , games cant benefit lots of cores anyway. Thats it! End of discussion! (this is just an example i dont know if its true) and so on.


Yes, you're correct there. Most games are just now starting to catch up to quad core technology - hex and octo-core support is going to be a long, long way off. The software is always going to be one or two generations behind the hardware and the developers know this. Where the biggest benefit in any system will be is from your GPU. On any build that's the most important part, bar none, after the PSU. You want to select this one very carefully as the right one you pair with your system will allow for the highest frame rates and resolutions you can get.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b à CPUs
February 21, 2012 8:42:21 PM

WhatDoesSSDmeansLol said:
Telling your ideas will complicate the thread. Please just share your knowledge very specificaly ; " A gaming CPU must have lots of ghz ! noone cares about cores , games cant benefit lots of cores anyway. Thats it! End of discussion!

Very sorry, but the answer isn't really that simple. I'll try to keep it as short as possible, though.

GHz isn't a measure of speed, it's a measure of how many "cycles" a processor goes through each second. A cycle on Processor X is not necessarily the same as a cycle on Processor Y. X may get a lot more done on each cycle, or maybe Y has trouble with certain types of workloads.

Instead, you should be asking which CPU gives you the best bang for the buck. The 2500k gets recommended so often because it's cheap (~$200), quad core (which is the sweet spot right now) and is very fast. AMD's offerings may have higher clock rates and more cores, but they are actually much slower in most cases because Intel chips get a lot more done on each cycle, and the extra cores on AMD chips don't matter most of the time (not to mention their Bulldozer chips really have half as many cores as are advertised).
Share
February 21, 2012 8:50:26 PM

willard said:
Very sorry, but the answer isn't really that simple. I'll try to keep it as short as possible, though.

GHz isn't a measure of speed, it's a measure of how many "cycles" a processor goes through each second. A cycle on Processor X is not necessarily the same as a cycle on Processor Y. X may get a lot more done on each cycle, or maybe Y has trouble with certain types of workloads.

Instead, you should be asking which CPU gives you the best bang for the buck. The 2500k gets recommended so often because it's cheap (~$200), quad core (which is the sweet spot right now) and is very fast. AMD's offerings may have higher clock rates and more cores, but they are actually much slower in most cases because Intel chips get a lot more done on each cycle, and the extra cores on AMD chips don't matter most of the time (not to mention their Bulldozer chips really have half as many cores as are advertised).


g-unit and willard , seriously , you have literally made my brain grow bigger today with your perfect explanations . I have perfectly understood .

Is there a way I can learn how much a cpu can do each cycle? I mean is it shown in the product overviews ? for example the amount of cycles a processor goes through each second is being explained with an amount of GHz as I understood from what you are saying. Is there a value used for the amount of things done each cycle ?

m
0
l
a c 287 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2012 9:13:38 PM

WhatDoesSSDmeansLol said:
g-unit and willard , seriously , you have literally made my brain grow bigger today with your perfect explanations . I have perfectly understood .

Is there a way I can learn how much a cpu can do each cycle? I mean is it shown in the product overviews ? for example the amount of cycles a processor goes through each second is being explained with an amount of GHz as I understood from what you are saying. Is there a value used for the amount of things done each cycle ?


:lol: 

To answer your question - here's a good resource that compares several different models of Intel and AMD CPUs and explains the differences better than I can: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/processor-architect...
m
0
l
!