Thread replies: 30
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
Question goes:
>Is it worth to buy i7? I am going to build a pc for gaming. I want to futureproof it as much as I can, budget is almost limitless but don't want to buy really expensive graphics card since gtx960 will suit my needs now and will most likely upgrade later when 4k monitors will become cheaper and graphics cards which run 4k/60fps will become cheaper. Also hyperthreading maybe in future becomes a thing?
>Story goes: going to upgrade over my horrible 400 buck hp desktop. (it was on sale at the time) aka HP Pavilion p6-2303a PC/AMD A8-5500/8GB/1TB/NVIDIA GeForce GT 620. Explanation for this piece of crap: It was reasonable purchase imo since I did not really and even now do not play many demanding games. Now there are some I want to play 1080/60. Also did not want to go trough building my own computer because of laziness.
tl;dr Is it worth to buy i7 in order to futureproof when next generations of graphics cards running 4k become cheaper and upgrading graphics card then?
>>
no because im disabled
>>
>>
No matter what you buy, it will be obsolete in a year.
>>
I put a Q6600 in my computer the month the first Intel quads came out. 2gb of ram, Vista, 8800GT. The system is still kicking, although the ram, gfx card, harddrives and power supply have all been updated. Going with the top of the line CPU is worth it imo.
>>
You won't see any difference in gaming between an i5 and an i7, even at high resolutions.
>Also hyperthreading maybe in future becomes a thing?
For gaming? I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.
>>
>>46268559
No it's not worth it to get an i7 get an i5 with a true quad core and put the rest of the money into an actual GPU especially with the advent of DX12 which is supposed to rely less on your CPU anyways
Get a Haswell i5 4690k and put the extra $100 into getting a 970 instead of the 960 since it is trash
>>
>>46268559
No. You will get next to no performance gains from an i7 in gaming over an i5. The only exception is if you're planning on more than two GPUs, in which case you'll need an LGA 2011 CPU for the added PCIe lanes.
>>
>>46268638
bullshit
complete and utter bullshit
i7 2600k is still competetive
4 years old fuckface
same with 3770k and 4770k
fuck even a high overclocked core2quad can still game well in most titles
>>
>>46268638
This, if you're going the get a comp only expect it to last around 5-6 years before you start to visibly see your quality lowering.
>>
>>46268657
Dont want to buy 970 since of that damn bug. It was the original idea but now no thanks unless that gets fixed.
>>
>>46268689
I'm mega pissed off about that shit, returning mine in a couple of days
>>
>>46268689
It's still a good deal regardless although if you really wanted you can stick with the 960 for a couple months and then sell it for maybe like $50 less and get one of the 300 series from AMD
>>
Never buy intel. Go AMD.
>>
>>46268724
You only really ever need a fx-6300 for 1080p gaming, 4k is really another question.
>>
File: http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg (109KB, 601x592px) Image search:
[Google]
109KB, 601x592px
Yes.
Don't buy a quad core in 2015.
>>
>>46268724
For one high end GPU, sure. I just had to upgrade from an FX-6100 because it was bottlenecking the R9 290 I bought.
>>
>>46268724
Not OP but personally I was going to go with AMD originally but decided not to since their current CPU offerings are garbage will wait to see if Zen is any good
>>
>>46268778
>one cherrypicked game
>the non-extreme i7 leads by a very small margin
Yeah, totally worth it.
The majority of benchmarks will show little or no difference between i5 and i7 if you ignore the LGA 2011 socket.
>>
File: http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Watch_Dogs_Bad_Blood_-test-wd_proz.jpg (86KB, 523x440px) Image search:
[Google]
86KB, 523x440px
>>46268778
>>
>>46268778
>Don't buy a quad core
The i7-4770k is a quad core, you moron.
>>
File: http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4_China_Rising_-test-bf_4_proz.jpg (113KB, 601x592px) Image search:
[Google]
113KB, 601x592px
>>46268819
>>
>>46268788
You know the answer to that last question already.
>>
>>46268828
Isn't it technically 8 with hyperthreading? I mean unless you mean physical cores.
>>
>>46268878
>he thinks hyperthreading actually does anything
I disabled HT on my i3 after two years of having it, I've noticed no difference whatsoever in anything I do (media streaming, music, movies, light gaming, programming, general use, ricing, etc.). I even ran a few benchmarks (linpack, superpi), no difference. You can't just magically create cores.
>>
>>46268778
>>46268819
>>46268846
Now I wonder how these charts would look with my 4690k @ 4.5 on air. Haven't come across anything that bottlenecks my CPU so far
>>
>>46268908
Wow 5 star post you totally explained what hyperthreading is and how it relates to my question.
>>
>>46268908
its only beneficial when the cores wouldn't be fully utilized otherwise, it doesn't claim to magically create cores. All it does is schedule things so there is less downtime between loads. I don't see why you would go out of your way to disable it
>>
>>46268846
>Requires a 5.0 GHz AMD 8 core to outperform a 3.5 GHz Intel 4 core
I don't get how anyone can defend AMD's CPUs
I bet my old 920 could outperform most of the junk AMD puts out.
>>
hm looks like I'm going get an i7 instead. the i5 sucks. thanks /g/
Thread posts: 30
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4