End User wrote:My current gaming rig is based on a 3770K. My current fav game is Ghost Recon: Wildlands. While Wildlands maxes out my 3770K I still get 80 FPS @ 2560x1440 because I have a good GPU (GTX 1080).
I'd focus less on the CPU and more on the GPU if gaming beyond 1920x1080:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/i ... ew,20.html
While it is unnecessary to wait for the next round of CPUs it may be prudent to wait for Nvidia's next gen of gaming GPUs.
swaaye wrote:I have a 4.3 GHz 2500K + 1080 machine and a 4.8 GHz 7600K + 1080 Ti TVPC. Sure the 7600K is a lot faster in various ways, but really I have a hard time saying that it's all that apparent in games. I played some pretty beefy recent games on the 2500K including Dishonored 2 / DotO and Prey.
I think it's more important to have the fastest CPU possible if you have a high refresh monitor and want to get 120 fps in current games.
Chrispy_ wrote:Just this week I've had the experience of upgrading someone who was gaming on a 2500K. I found them a used GTX 970, doubled their RAM to 16GB and threw an SSD in there that I had lying around.
Don't get me wrong; They were thrilled with the upgrade from mechanical storage and their GTX 460, but I know from experience that the GTX 970 should run better than it did.
I'm 100% convinced it was a thread shortage on the CPU and given that developers have been working on the baseline hardware (PS4, XB1) having eight threads for several years now, it seems dumb to buy anything with less than that. Despite CoffeeLake's obvious gaming prowess, that means the i7 is the only option for a build that is designed to last. It's just not a good idea to buy anything less than that any more, even if the CoffeeLake i5's look attractive. Time will tell, but I'm going to bet that in a few years the 6-thread count will come back to haunt the current i5s, just as is it did the 2C/2T Pentium anniversary and more recently the i5 quad cores.
And although the IPC and clocks are lower, that is why the mediocre gaming chips like the Ryzen5 1600 are still looking pretty appealing.
JustAnEngineer wrote:There may be more to it than just the four-core four-thread thread limit. Sure, Intel slowed down development and dribbled out performance improvements to desktop processors at a slow pace when AMD wasn't challenging them, but even at +5% per generation, a lot of time has passed since the Core i5-2500K was released seven years ago.
https://ark.intel.com/compare/52210,971 ... 685,126684
How is the old 4C/4T Sandy Bridge Core i5-2500K performing versus the 4C/8T Core i7-2600K vs. the 4C/4T Core i3-8350K versus the 6C/12T Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K in your favorite games?
Chrispy_ wrote:My reference 970 example is my HTPC which is running a 3770K at stock speeds. That thing is as smooth as silk when gaming, hence why I raised the point in the first place. His 2500K was running at 4.2 which isn't exactly a large overclock but it's a 27% clock gain and more than enough to make IPC or clock a relevant argument against my 3770K. As part of the upgrade I also upgraded Windows 7 to Windows 10, so it was effectively a clean OS install too.
Games that didn't seem to run as smoothly on his machine whilst running fine on mine were Witcher3, GR Wildlands, RotTR and PUBG. Admittedly, PUBG is really hard to compare machines from match to match, but the whole experience just seemed stuttery more often on the 2500K.
The Egg wrote:On a related note, it would be interesting to revisit how modern games respond to different numbers of cores/threads with some scientific testing. Since nothing meaningful has changed with the architecture since Skylake, we should be able to get the full range of 2/2, 2/4, 4/4, 4/8, 6/6, 6/12 and do a fairly close apples-to-apples with everything clocked the same.