Is my configuration good for gaming

[prems]

Hi All,
Is my configuration good for gaming
Pros - Intel core i5 3570K
Mobo - P8 Z77 V PRO
Graphics card - Nvidia GTX 650 TI AMP EDITION

 

[Dayle McNeela]

Definitely, the i5 3570K is one of the best gaming CPUs...
I would recommend the GTX660 or 760 though... but either way, excellent build!

If I have answered your question, please select 'Pick as the Solution'

 

[jnjnilson6]

Hi All,
Is my configuration good for gaming
Pros - Intel core i5 3570K
Mobo - P8 Z77 V PRO
Graphics card - Nvidia GTX 650 TI AMP EDITION

Get an i3-3250 and a HD 7950! The i3-3250 performs only 8% worse than the i5-2500: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/410/Intel_Core_i3_i3-3250_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500.html! Since you can't overclock the i3, you won't need such an expensive motherboard and will be as good with it as with a $30 ~ $40 one.. So you may as well go for the HD 7950..

 

[Dayle McNeela]

Hi All,
Is my configuration good for gaming
Pros - Intel core i5 3570K
Mobo - P8 Z77 V PRO
Graphics card - Nvidia GTX 650 TI AMP EDITION

Get an i3-3250 and a HD 7870! The i3-3250 performs only 8% worse than the i5-2500: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/410/Intel_Core_i3_i3-3250_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500.html!

The i5-2500 is a sandy bridge CPU, it uses the old 32nm process technology.
The i5 3570k uses the new 22nm process technology, it is also an ivy bridge CPU which is much newer than Sandy Bridge, please just stick to my suggestion and youll be fine, if you use the i3 3250, you will bottle neck your system.

 

[logainofhades]

Hi All,
Is my configuration good for gaming
Pros - Intel core i5 3570K
Mobo - P8 Z77 V PRO
Graphics card - Nvidia GTX 650 TI AMP EDITION

Get an i3-3250 and a HD 7950! The i3-3250 performs only 8% worse than the i5-2500: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/410/Intel_Core_i3_i3-3250_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500.html! Since you can't overclock the i3, you won't need such an expensive motherboard and will be as good with it as with a $30 ~ $40 one.. So you may as well go for the HD 7950..

With future games going more multicore, as Crysis 3 has already shown, I would never consider an i3 anymore. FX 6300 or better for AMD and an i5 ivy or better for Intel. The 3570k is a great chip. I have no complaints with mine.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Hi All,
Is my configuration good for gaming
Pros - Intel core i5 3570K
Mobo - P8 Z77 V PRO
Graphics card - Nvidia GTX 650 TI AMP EDITION

Get an i3-3250 and a HD 7870! The i3-3250 performs only 8% worse than the i5-2500: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/410/Intel_Core_i3_i3-3250_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500.html!

The i5-2500 is a sandy bridge CPU, it uses the old 32nm process technology.
The i5 3570k uses the new 22nm process technology, it is also an ivy bridge CPU which is much newer than Sandy Bridge, please just stick to my suggestion and youll be fine, if you use the i3 3250, you will bottle neck your system.

Why are you talking to me as if I don't know those basic, simple facts? The i3-3250 performs like the i5-2500 and an i5-2500 will never, ever bottleneck a HD 7950 (I have an i7-3770K)!

 

[Mr_Dark]

Your Cpu Can Handle Any Game Or Graphic Card Without Any Problem .

The Gpu Can Run Almost The Game In High/Ultra With 40+ Frams In Screen Res Like 1366*768 Or 1600*900

Any Rec Over This You Will Need To Reduca The Graphic Setting In The Game

I Recumended You Upgrade Your Gpu To Gtx 660 ti Or Gtx 760

 

[jnjnilson6]

Hi All,
Is my configuration good for gaming
Pros - Intel core i5 3570K
Mobo - P8 Z77 V PRO
Graphics card - Nvidia GTX 650 TI AMP EDITION

Get an i3-3250 and a HD 7950! The i3-3250 performs only 8% worse than the i5-2500: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/410/Intel_Core_i3_i3-3250_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500.html! Since you can't overclock the i3, you won't need such an expensive motherboard and will be as good with it as with a $30 ~ $40 one.. So you may as well go for the HD 7950..

With future games going more multicore, as Crysis 3 has already shown, I would never consider an i3 anymore. FX 6300 or better for AMD and an i5 ivy or better for Intel. The 3570k is a great chip. I have no complaints with mine.

I am an owner of both an i7-3770K and an i3-3250! The CPU usage in games in the case of the i3 is only x1.75 higher, and I played Crysis 3 on max with the i7-3770K at 1920x1200 and got a CPU usage of only 10%, so I can say that an i3-3250 is absolutely enough for even the most demanding games!

 

[logainofhades]

Once 4 physical cores are needed, an i5 2500 would pull away from an i3. Hyperthreading cannot make up for physical cores. Not to mention an i3 is a locked chip and cannot overclock. All i5 quads have turbo, therefore can be manually overclocked to their top turbo multi making it an even better CPU. Dual cores, at this point for a gaming rig, are a waste of money. For a general everyday office/home pc use, I agree, they are still great chips, even though I would still probably pick an FX 6300 over one.

 

[Dayle McNeela]

Hi All,
Is my configuration good for gaming
Pros - Intel core i5 3570K
Mobo - P8 Z77 V PRO
Graphics card - Nvidia GTX 650 TI AMP EDITION

Get an i3-3250 and a HD 7870! The i3-3250 performs only 8% worse than the i5-2500: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/410/Intel_Core_i3_i3-3250_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500.html!

The i5-2500 is a sandy bridge CPU, it uses the old 32nm process technology.
The i5 3570k uses the new 22nm process technology, it is also an ivy bridge CPU which is much newer than Sandy Bridge, please just stick to my suggestion and youll be fine, if you use the i3 3250, you will bottle neck your system.

Why are you talking to me as if I don't know those basic, simple facts? The i3-3250 performs like the i5-2500 and an i5-2500 will never, ever bottleneck a HD 7950 (I have an i7-3770K)!

Excuse me, you recommended a Dual core i3 for a gaming build and you wonder why I commented?

 

[jnjnilson6]

Once 4 physical cores are needed, an i5 2500 would pull away from an i3. Hyperthreading cannot make up for physical cores. Not to mention an i3 is a locked chip and cannot overclock. All i5 quads have turbo, therefore can be manually overclocked to their top turbo multi making it an even better CPU. Dual cores, at this point for a gaming rig, are a waste of money. For a general everyday office/home pc use, I agree, they are still great chips, even though I would still probably pick an FX 6300 over one.

I get more CPU usage with my i7-3770K in Crysis 1 than in Crysis 3 and I could max out Crysis 1 on the i3-3250 with the HD 7790 without any problems at 1920x1200. The game ran ultra smooth and not once slowed down or lagged.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Hi All,
Is my configuration good for gaming
Pros - Intel core i5 3570K
Mobo - P8 Z77 V PRO
Graphics card - Nvidia GTX 650 TI AMP EDITION

Get an i3-3250 and a HD 7870! The i3-3250 performs only 8% worse than the i5-2500: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/410/Intel_Core_i3_i3-3250_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500.html!

The i5-2500 is a sandy bridge CPU, it uses the old 32nm process technology.
The i5 3570k uses the new 22nm process technology, it is also an ivy bridge CPU which is much newer than Sandy Bridge, please just stick to my suggestion and youll be fine, if you use the i3 3250, you will bottle neck your system.

Why are you talking to me as if I don't know those basic, simple facts? The i3-3250 performs like the i5-2500 and an i5-2500 will never, ever bottleneck a HD 7950 (I have an i7-3770K)!

Excuse me, you recommended a Dual core i3 for a gaming build and you wonder why I commented?

Of course I'd recommend it, because I own it as well as a 3770K! The i3-3250 runs all of the latest games without any problems.. I think that the owner of a CPU can judge the best how it deals with games, because he has tested it. And in this case I am the owner.

 

[logainofhades]

Even THG doesn't recommend anything less than an i5 for Crysis 3. No matter the settings, the i3 was not up to the task with regards to minimum FPS.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

 

[Dayle McNeela]

Once 4 physical cores are needed, an i5 2500 would pull away from an i3. Hyperthreading cannot make up for physical cores. Not to mention an i3 is a locked chip and cannot overclock. All i5 quads have turbo, therefore can be manually overclocked to their top turbo multi making it an even better CPU. Dual cores, at this point for a gaming rig, are a waste of money. For a general everyday office/home pc use, I agree, they are still great chips, even though I would still probably pick an FX 6300 over one.

I get more CPU usage with my i7-3770K in Crysis 1 than in Crysis 3 and I could max out Crysis 1 on the i3-3250 with the HD 7790 without any problems at 1920x1200. The game ran ultra smooth and not once slowed down or lagged.

That's great, but not all games rely on the GPU... newer games are beginning to become more CPU intensive, therefore a dual core i3 is out of the question, I would never recommend a gaming rig to use sandy bridge or any i3.

Minimum of 4 cores.
Minimum of Ivy bridge.

If he wants to play battlefield 4 on the i3 you recommend, he wouldn't have much luck would he?

Therefore I still recommend using the i5 3570K and updating his GPU to a GTX660 or GTX760 like I said in my first post.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Even THG doesn't recommend anything less than an i5 for Crysis 3. No matter the settings, the i3 was not up to the task with regards to minimum FPS.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

I have twice as more CPU usage while playing Crysis 1 on the i7, compared to playing Crysis 3, which means that Crysis 1 requires higher levels of CPU performance. I have tested the i3 on Crysis 1 and had absolutely no problems on the highest settings as I have already mentioned. And since Crysis 1 has higher CPU usage than Crysis 3, I think that the situation gets obvious from there..

 

[logainofhades]

Crysis 1 isn't as optimized for multiple cores compared to crysis 3. Not to mention Crysis 1 was horribly coded to begin with. If you want to argue with the facts that THG has provided, be my guest.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Once 4 physical cores are needed, an i5 2500 would pull away from an i3. Hyperthreading cannot make up for physical cores. Not to mention an i3 is a locked chip and cannot overclock. All i5 quads have turbo, therefore can be manually overclocked to their top turbo multi making it an even better CPU. Dual cores, at this point for a gaming rig, are a waste of money. For a general everyday office/home pc use, I agree, they are still great chips, even though I would still probably pick an FX 6300 over one.

I get more CPU usage with my i7-3770K in Crysis 1 than in Crysis 3 and I could max out Crysis 1 on the i3-3250 with the HD 7790 without any problems at 1920x1200. The game ran ultra smooth and not once slowed down or lagged.

That's great, but not all games rely on the GPU... newer games are beginning to become more CPU intensive, therefore a dual core i3 is out of the question, I would never recommend a gaming rig to use sandy bridge or any i3.

Minimum of 4 cores.
Minimum of Ivy bridge.

If he wants to play battlefield 4 on the i3 you recommend, he wouldn't have much luck would he?

Therefore I still recommend using the i5 3570K and updating his GPU to a GTX660 or GTX760 like I said in my first post.

OK, explain how Crysis 3 can be more CPU intense than Crysis 1 if the CPU usage of Crysis 1 on my i7 is twice as high as the usage I get while playing Crysis 3 fully maxed out at 1920x1200..

 

[jnjnilson6]

Just to add, I know a person who has Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz and GeForce GTX 560 SE and maxes out Battlefield 3 Premium without any problems at 1680x1050.. I had a Celeron G530 in the past and it ended up that when he tested his CPU on Cinebench 11.5, I had a little higher score.

 

[Dayle McNeela]

I'll let you think what you like,
Prems, I stand my my suggestion, get the i5 3570K and try to upgrade to a GTX660 or GTX760

DO NOT get a Sandy Bridge CPU or an Intel Core i3

 

[jnjnilson6]

I'll let you think what you like,
Prems, I stand my my suggestion, get the i5 3570K and try to upgrade to a GTX660 or GTX760

DO NOT get a Sandy Bridge CPU or an Intel Core i3

At least you love Intel and not AMD.. Gosh, how I hate AMD CPUs..

 

[Dayle McNeela]

I'll let you think what you like,
Prems, I stand my my suggestion, get the i5 3570K and try to upgrade to a GTX660 or GTX760

DO NOT get a Sandy Bridge CPU or an Intel Core i3

At least you love Intel and not AMD.. Gosh, how I hate AMD CPUs..

Well at least that's one thing we can agree on.
Intel CPU's are the best and only processors I would ever use on any of my person computers.

 

[logainofhades]

FX 8320 is a nice chip for the $$$ to. Allows for a better GPU for the same amount of money.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Once 4 physical cores are needed, an i5 2500 would pull away from an i3. Hyperthreading cannot make up for physical cores. Not to mention an i3 is a locked chip and cannot overclock. All i5 quads have turbo, therefore can be manually overclocked to their top turbo multi making it an even better CPU. Dual cores, at this point for a gaming rig, are a waste of money. For a general everyday office/home pc use, I agree, they are still great chips, even though I would still probably pick an FX 6300 over one.

I get more CPU usage with my i7-3770K in Crysis 1 than in Crysis 3 and I could max out Crysis 1 on the i3-3250 with the HD 7790 without any problems at 1920x1200. The game ran ultra smooth and not once slowed down or lagged.

That's great, but not all games rely on the GPU... newer games are beginning to become more CPU intensive, therefore a dual core i3 is out of the question, I would never recommend a gaming rig to use sandy bridge or any i3.

Minimum of 4 cores.
Minimum of Ivy bridge.

If he wants to play battlefield 4 on the i3 you recommend, he wouldn't have much luck would he?

Therefore I still recommend using the i5 3570K and updating his GPU to a GTX660 or GTX760 like I said in my first post.

I'll let you think what you like,
Prems, I stand my my suggestion, get the i5 3570K and try to upgrade to a GTX660 or GTX760

DO NOT get a Sandy Bridge CPU or an Intel Core i3

FX 8320 is a nice chip for the $$$ to. Allows for a better GPU for the same amount of money.

Just to add, Battlefield 4 has the same system requirements as Battlefield 3 and I know a person who has Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz and GeForce GTX 560 SE and maxes out Battlefield 3 Premium without any problems at 1680x1050.. I had a Celeron G530 in the past and it ended up that when he tested his CPU on Cinebench 11.5, I had a little higher score.

 

[Dayle McNeela]

Once 4 physical cores are needed, an i5 2500 would pull away from an i3. Hyperthreading cannot make up for physical cores. Not to mention an i3 is a locked chip and cannot overclock. All i5 quads have turbo, therefore can be manually overclocked to their top turbo multi making it an even better CPU. Dual cores, at this point for a gaming rig, are a waste of money. For a general everyday office/home pc use, I agree, they are still great chips, even though I would still probably pick an FX 6300 over one.

I get more CPU usage with my i7-3770K in Crysis 1 than in Crysis 3 and I could max out Crysis 1 on the i3-3250 with the HD 7790 without any problems at 1920x1200. The game ran ultra smooth and not once slowed down or lagged.

That's great, but not all games rely on the GPU... newer games are beginning to become more CPU intensive, therefore a dual core i3 is out of the question, I would never recommend a gaming rig to use sandy bridge or any i3.

Minimum of 4 cores.
Minimum of Ivy bridge.

If he wants to play battlefield 4 on the i3 you recommend, he wouldn't have much luck would he?

Therefore I still recommend using the i5 3570K and updating his GPU to a GTX660 or GTX760 like I said in my first post.

I'll let you think what you like,
Prems, I stand my my suggestion, get the i5 3570K and try to upgrade to a GTX660 or GTX760

DO NOT get a Sandy Bridge CPU or an Intel Core i3

FX 8320 is a nice chip for the $$$ to. Allows for a better GPU for the same amount of money.

Just to add, Battlefield 4 has the same system requirements as Battlefield 3 and I know a person who has Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz and GeForce GTX 560 SE and maxes out Battlefield 3 Premium without any problems at 1680x1050.. I had a Celeron G530 in the past and it ended up that when he tested his CPU on Cinebench 11.5, I had a little higher score.

I was talking about BF4 not 3... it may say thar on the box, but in game, BF4 needs a good CPU

 

[jnjnilson6]

Once 4 physical cores are needed, an i5 2500 would pull away from an i3. Hyperthreading cannot make up for physical cores. Not to mention an i3 is a locked chip and cannot overclock. All i5 quads have turbo, therefore can be manually overclocked to their top turbo multi making it an even better CPU. Dual cores, at this point for a gaming rig, are a waste of money. For a general everyday office/home pc use, I agree, they are still great chips, even though I would still probably pick an FX 6300 over one.

I get more CPU usage with my i7-3770K in Crysis 1 than in Crysis 3 and I could max out Crysis 1 on the i3-3250 with the HD 7790 without any problems at 1920x1200. The game ran ultra smooth and not once slowed down or lagged.

That's great, but not all games rely on the GPU... newer games are beginning to become more CPU intensive, therefore a dual core i3 is out of the question, I would never recommend a gaming rig to use sandy bridge or any i3.

Minimum of 4 cores.
Minimum of Ivy bridge.

If he wants to play battlefield 4 on the i3 you recommend, he wouldn't have much luck would he?

Therefore I still recommend using the i5 3570K and updating his GPU to a GTX660 or GTX760 like I said in my first post.

I'll let you think what you like,
Prems, I stand my my suggestion, get the i5 3570K and try to upgrade to a GTX660 or GTX760

DO NOT get a Sandy Bridge CPU or an Intel Core i3

FX 8320 is a nice chip for the $$$ to. Allows for a better GPU for the same amount of money.

Just to add, Battlefield 4 has the same system requirements as Battlefield 3 and I know a person who has Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz and GeForce GTX 560 SE and maxes out Battlefield 3 Premium without any problems at 1680x1050.. I had a Celeron G530 in the past and it ended up that when he tested his CPU on Cinebench 11.5, I had a little higher score.

I was talking about BF4 not 3... it may say thar on the box, but in game, BF4 needs a good CPU

Yes, but if a Core 2 Quad Q8200 (a bit worse than Celeron G530) can max out Battlefield 3 Premium, I guess that an i3-3250 won't have any problems what so ever even with BF4 .. The 3250 is light years away from a G530..