i7 >>>> i5

>>58995154
Because human eye doesn't perceive difference above 25 fps?

File: 1482425306195.jpg (140KB, 640x629px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 640x629px

>dumb corelets fighting over muh 4 extra threads
>mfw buying an 8 core 16 thread beast for $320

>>58995189
Holy fuck please end your life

>>58995190
A limping beast.

File: 1487376440929.jpg (90KB, 538x604px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 538x604px

>>58995220
>a-at least it has 5% f-faster single core performance
>y-you only need 4 cores

>>58995189
fpbp

File: fishabouttobite1.jpg (54KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x600px

>>58995189

>>58995154
>can push stable 60 fps
>for some reason I should pay extra to get over 110 fps

unless you're planning to play at 144 hz or whatever in which case neither CPU pushes it

To be fair that's the most CPU-intensive area in the game, my 6600K hits 100% usage there but most of the game is more GPU-heavy. Also most people shooting for above 60fps in AAA games already have an i7, while i5fags usually have 60hz monitors still

File: 1486853805946.jpg (201KB, 1440x1555px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1440x1555px

>>58995409
>>58995424
VR is 90hz, you cuckolds.

Because only children playing shit games think it matters.

>>58995437
Most VR games are low spec as fuck though, CPU-heavy games like RotTR and Watch Dogs 2 are extremely demanding AAA games. Fuck, Resident Evil 7 is probably the most demanding VR game but it's not on PC yet, either way it's more GPU heavy than anything. Once Fallout 4 gets ported to VR, yeah that will probably require a monster CPU.

>>58995154
>i5 at 4.8ghz doesn't compare to the i7 at stock
>i7 has higher max and min frame rates

With the GPU load lessening this performance disparity would only continue to grow. Faster GPUs will show the i7 further ahead in frame rates.

What most people are saying is that its better to give more money for the gpu.
But shit if you can spare the money why not?

>>58995469
It's at 1080p with a Titan XP. The ever-climbing resolution treadmill will ensure GPU's are the main limiting factor in gaming for a bit longer. Plus if you can afford a Titan XP you can probably afford an i7. The main issue is people don't want to pay $100 more for a CPU when you could pay for a higher tier GPU instead.

File: [HorribleSubs] Gabriel DropOut - 05 [720p].mkv_snapshot_12.31_[2017.02.06_18.22.24].jpg (73KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x720px

>>58995459
I don't care about your nerd games. Honey Select slows to a crawl at higher resolutions in VR..

>>58995154
Is there any real difference between the i7 7700k and the i5 7600k other than slightly bigger cache and hyper threading? The cores themselves are the same, right?

>>58995664
i7 has twice as many threads, dingus.

>>58995687
That's hyper-threading, you double dingus.

>>58995701
The fuck did you just call me?

>>58995719
A jebend.

I game on my fucking Phenom II, modern current games. If you can maintain 60FPS and you're not playing Quake II it's a complete non-issue.

File: 1476934083480.jpg (79KB, 718x540px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 718x540px

>>58995742
Is that some sort of low-energy insult?

>>58995154
there are very few games where an i5 and an i7 at the same clock speed will have significantly different performance, and even then, putting that extra $120 into your GPU will likely result in higher performance. the i5 is overkill for 99% of daily tasks and games, whereas a stronger GPU will help push you up on every single game you play.

that's why. just like you might see a difference in games having DDR3 1333 or DDR4 3200, its so minor based on the price point that you'd be better off putting it into the GPU

>>58995154
Because 2+ years down the line, that i7 won't bottleneck a new GPU.
It's wayyy cheaper to buy a new GPU than upgrading ur CPU,ram, and Mobo.

>>58995437
i remember when 120Hz+ was recommended for 3D over 10 years ago
our standards are just getting worse

>>58998008
>10 years ago

show me dude. show me the sauce on 10 years ago they were saying that.

thanks in advance

>>58995154
Because the people complaining already bought i5's recently and are mad about their decision but don't want to admit it.

File: 1485304036378.png (12KB, 245x205px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 245x205px

>>58995190
>Tfw already rocking dual E5 2680s
Don't overclock, single threading is okay tier, but at least they have ECC to keep the substantial amount of memory I use in line.

>>58998008
What? Crts were usually 75-89Hz at most and early LCDs had trouble getting above 75Hz. The 120Hz and 144Hz trend started in 2009 at the earliest and it was still pretty niche at the time.

HAHHAHA INTEL NIGGERS TALKING ABOUT i7s AND i5. RYZEN IS GOING TO END THE CAREER OF AN I5 AND THE I7 WILL BE STOMPED BY THE MIGHTY 1700X

8 CORES&16THREADS OR BUST FAGGOTS

>>58995154
>Why the fuck do people keep saying that getting an i7 over an i5 for gaming is pointless?

People keep saying it because it was true about 10 years ago and once someone reads something it's hard to get them to think otherwise.

You shouldn't be running less than 6 cores in your desktop PC if you can help it. If you already have an old i5 you can overclock the crap out of then have at it, but I wouldn't build a new PC with one of those.

>>58998158
the family dell box we got in 2000 came with a CRT that went up to 120Hz

kinda hard to find old info on 3D, especially since i never actually owned any shutter glasses, so don't really remember specific names for things
here's one reference;
http://www.andrewwoods3d.com/3D-PC/
>"The best image quality will be achieved with page flipping at non-interlaced 120Hz"
>Last Updated: 11 June 2005

>>58995154
Because for the most part it is, unless you have a 120Hz screen or something.

Look at your own image. You get >60FPS minimum frame rates in either case, so unless your screen is 90Hz or better you'll see no difference unless you want to wank over the FPS numbers.

>>58998221
>People keep saying it because it was true about 10 years ago and once someone reads something it's hard to get them to think otherwise.
Less 3 years ago when Pentium g3258 came out, it was trading blows with an i5 in most games. It's really only in the past two years that games have started using more than 2 cores, and even now an i5 is perfectly capable of delivering 60FPS minimums in almost all new games.

File: [HorribleSubs] Kuzu no Honkai - 06 [720p].mkv_snapshot_03.31_[2017.02.17_00.58.03].jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>>58998072
>2.3GHz

Literally 3rd world tier. How have you not offed yourself yet?

the performance gain doesnt outweigh the cost
even in the most CPU bound game, the difference isnt that big
the high end i7's exist for 2 kinds of people
"need the absolute best shit for myuh gayms" people and
"i want to get into professional work but not shell out 1400$ for a xeon" peple

>>58998287
>It's really only in the past two years that games have started using more than 2 cores, and even now an i5 is perfectly capable of delivering 60FPS minimums in almost all new games.

Simply false. The majority of AAA games have used 4 cores since 2010 (seven years ago!) and many can take advantage of more than that in smaller ways. You won't have an even split between threads, but you'll see 10-15% utilization on the extra threads. And extra cores frees up resources for your operating system.

>>58998194
Nobody will EVER need 16 threads.

File: 1485559194887.png (804KB, 1200x1235px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1200x1235px

>>58998302
Or people like me with VR headsets who don't won't to projectile vomit.

>>58998287
Ironically it's mostly because of consoles. PS4 and Xbone have weak 8 core AMD shit so recent AAA games are forced to optimize for that. PC-focused games on the other hand usually scale mostly off of clock speed instead of cores since they know most of their audience probably has a dual core.

>>58998292
>muh gigahurrrtz

nu-/g/, everyone

SMT has always given a good perf boost, it just was never shown in benchmarks/reviews because most games were still GPU bound until ~2 years ago.

also, i7s were terrible price/perf for a long time, though you can get a 2600k and z77 mobo right now for like $150, for better perf than a 6600k/7600k.

>>58998359
a 2600k is NOT better than a 7600k, dicklord

>>58998359
>also, i7s were terrible price/perf for a long time, though you can get a 2600k and z77 mobo right now for like $150, for better perf than a 6600k/7600k.
Yeah, no. Hyperthreading is only about 30% performance boost, and as it happens Skylake has about 30% higher IPC than sandy bridge. Even taking into account that you can likely overclock the 2600k a bit higher, it's only slightly better than 6600k if that, and only when you're doing something that scales linearly for 8+ threads. In most things, the 6600k is just plain better.

>>58995189
Human eyes dont see FPS shitforbrains.

>>58998292
You must have read something wrong. That CPU is 2.7ghz base with the capability to 3.5ghz turbo. And depending on his motherboard he can have it run at turbo all the time.

Usually middleclass plebs has the following situation:

A. Get an i7 and 1060
B. Get an i5 and 1070

And most gamers will choose B over A for obvious reasons.

>>58998008
120 for 3d back then was 60fps per eye
vr splits a screen between 2 eyes so its running 90fps per eye

so 50% faster frame rate per eye then 120fps unless you had an expensive as fuck screen that had 2 panels and both were 120fps, but not sure if they ever came to market.

>>58995214
>getting baited by that
go die in a ditch retard

>>58995437
Hey retard, I don't plan to play VR games.

Now get the fuck off my board.

File: speccy.png (37KB, 685x525px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 685x525px

>2017
>still arguing about i5 vs i7 on mainstream platform

Both are still pleb tier quadcores that will get absolutely destroyed by based Ryzen.

t. 6600k owner who will upgrade to Ryzen and Vega come summer

>>58995154
What game is that

Because gaymez that properly use 8 cores are still somewhat rare. I'd argue 6 cores are still enough for now and the increase in price for an 8 core model isn't worth it for muh gamez.

>>58995154
Rocking a 2500k gtfo

>build super gaming computer
>get bogged down by shit connection
>multiplayer populated with cheaters
Building a dedicated gaming pc is dumb they don't even make single player games hardly anymore, it's all online crap anyway and most people are running average to below average pc's anyway where having a good pc isnt going to improve anything for you

gaming pc is code word for having more money than common sense

>>58998292
>literally a weeb
how have you not offed yourself yet?

>>58995154
Back them, games didnt even started to use the 4th core due to DX11 being a trainwreck of an API, devs circunvented it through their engines making better use of the CPU, some games have a decent multithreading but paying more 130 dollars to get a few FPS is still pointless.

>>58995189
Nice meme friend.

File: Screenshot_5.png (92KB, 1243x515px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1243x515px

>>58998072
>ecc
>for gaming

Oh boy...

>>59000966
What did windows mean by this?

>>59000966
I play gaymes on an E5-2670 with ECC RAM. problem officer?

>>58995154
>gaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/v/

>>58995154
Because the worthy ones dont support windows 7
Or losing support was just a meme and it works with the new ones?

>>59001061

You have it backwards. Windows 7 doesn't officially support the cpus, no that the cpus don't support windows 7.

>>58995154
What game?

>>59001110
So if I upgrade to the 7700 it should work right?

>>58998760
I didnt, I went C.
Got an i7 and 1080s

>>59001061
the CPU should work on windows 7, its the integrated graphics that are not officially supported for it. some mobo companies like ASUS have their own drivers that come with the new boards to solve any compatibility issues. i heard some people had problems installing windows 7 using a 7700 when using a flash drive, but worked fine with a CD. then other people say it works fine both ways.

just check out forums and/or youtube to confirm for sure

>>58995154

>Why the fuck do people keep saying that getting an i7 over an i5 for gaming is pointless?

Because back in the day when Hyper Threading was a new thing it actually decreased performance in some games and that became part of the gamer lore.

Other thing is that people like to defend products they own and most people go with i5 because it's cheaper and as a result they like to stick to the old gamer lore because they can't admit to themselves they were too cheap or poor to put extra $100 towards better CPU in their $1k+ gaming rigs to gain 20% more performance in some titles.

t. Core i5 owner who admits that i7 would have been a better purchase in hindsight.

>>59001327
>t. Core i5 owner who admits that i7 would have been a better purchase in hindsight.
Still depends on what you're doing and which i5 you bought.

I bought a i5 2400 when it came out and I definitely didn't think i'd still be using it and didn't think I'd still be happy with it. One of the best and longest lasting purchases I made computer wise.

>>59001372

i5 [email protected], been using it since it came out.

>>59001414
I have the poorfag version and I still struggle to come up with a real reason to upgrade. I pretty much only use photoshop and play some older dx9 games so pretty much anything newer than what I have is overkill or not worth the money.

I really want a reason to own a 8 core ryzen or something but I know it would just be throwing away money.

If you play newer games or use applications that heavily benefit from additional cores then fair enough.

>>59000999
>paying 100 more for no diference

>>59001163
It should, but some features like encode decode video and etc may not be supported in windows 7.

>>59000867
when something in the background kicks on, 8 cores load balances that shit FAR better then 4 cores, and even better then 6 cores even on games that don't scale to 6 well.

You will have to do some digging as the info was gotten from the 5000 8 core and is old enough to be completely buried unless you know the article and video titles.

>Why the fuck do people keep saying that getting an i7 over an i5 for gaming is pointless?
Dyslexia much? People have been saying for years that buying an i7 for games is retarded when you can get 95% of the performance for much less. It's only very recently that games have begun being able to actually utilize those extra threads for something that affects performance.

>>59001558
Depends what that something is. I have a dual monitor setup and I always have photoshop/jewtube/chrome and some other shit running in the background and have never really noticed any impact in performance.

Obviously with an 8core you could happily transcode some fucking videos in the background which is pretty sweet but I have a different box for that and even then I rarely do it.

>>59001536
a while back you could buy a dual cpu mb, 8 core cpus, and 128gb of ddr3 ecc ram for 400$

the people who bought the shit new, bought it when a xeon at about equal clocks to an i7 cost less than the i7 and could be put into consumer boards.

the people who use an e5-2670 for gaming, bought the shit used years later at likely FAR cheaper than you paid for just the cpu.

>>59001558
Not arguing btw. Just saying I personally can't justify spending the money just yet. By the time zen+ comes around I might actually need it.

>>59001536
Depends what else he uses it for. The $100 might be more than justified.

>>58995189
24 actually

>>59001596
well, windows sometimes turns updates back on and that will ping a core to 100% till I kill it, chrome has recently been demanding 100% from my cpu for short bursts (quad core) and I can't determine why.

>>59001621
320$ if you are ok with self oc
380$ if you just want auto oc

still unknown how well it works, or if it does, or even what the difference between the 1700 or 1800 is.

for i7 matching, amds 8 core seems like a justifiable enough uptick, and if the x really is auto oc and its fucking good, that could easily justify another 60$, but the difference between 1700x and 1800x may not be justifiable.

I also assume that a 1700/1800x that you can state how good the oc was on it with X cooler, could be a silicon lottery roll that may net you a resale value 1-300$ higher then what you paid for it, meanwhile the moment that the zen+ comes out, the market may get flooded with used 8 cores to the point that resale on the 6 is almost impossible for even half price.

not saying I don't get your logic, I just tend to think a bit longer term with computers and it served me VERY well up to this point.