Lesson to learn - How much powerful processor does Gaming need? - Processors, Motherboards and Memory - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

Lesson to learn - How much powerful processor does Gaming need?


Recommended Posts

 

We're talking here more than once about, how much money should be spent (or spent more correctly) on a new and more powerful processor for gaming,

And build barbed wire of recommendations and computer specifications, no less than pushing her name Strong in specification and really making eights in the air,

All with the aim of convincing himself and his friends, about some sexy and prestigious K processor that pushes it to the extreme with Isotropic water.

But we forget one toddler thing in the field, which is the crucial one. 

 

Let's learn together about the existing performance gaps, between on the one hand the most expensive processor at a price of $ 500, and on the other hand the processor that is perhaps the cheapest available at $ 75 "poor".

The gap between the 9900K and the 9100F processor. Both are powered by the most powerful and expensive graphic accelerator on the market today - $ 1200. Do not make discounts to anyone.

 

Whoever buys such a graphic accelerator, surely sixty graphic settings that fit the video card from this caliber. The shofar is poor shofar - no less.

It is advisable that we memorize the next lesson to come, before we jump at all sorts of online benchmarks that come artificially for sale

An imaginary display in which the GPU is not at full load. Anyone who buys a 2080TI buys it more than once for . And not if they were demonstrating this 1440P

It would change the picture, since 2080TI is also at 100% load especially if the settings are on Ultra in the title, which is what will set on the computer 

Whoever paid $ 1200 for a video card. He did not buy it for 1080P LOW (for that he has a 2 year old Core15duo in the warehouse) ... : ) 

 

So here's a realistic demonstration for a change, 2080TI the way it was meant to be played - and even if it's extreme in order to convey a certain point,

It's not funny at all:

 

 

Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

In our tiny country, Professional (which is their livelihood?) Ie with real money, can probably be appointed on one hand.

There are perhaps more in the field who brag that they are like this, than real ones like this ...

 

The vast majority of the consumer target audience, that you, me, our language forum members, as well as the occasional visitors ...

We are not "professional players". We do not set ugly graphic settings - just to ease the visual clutter

With the aim of assisting enemy detection and assisting with carnage on the field. We do not set a low 720p to get 300FPS and minimum latency

From touching a mouse / keyboard to translating the command into a screen.

 

We are normative, domestic actors, and we enjoy the best graphic and fidelity quality that can be achieved. What video card not

We bought, we will define in the title optimal graphic settings, which on the one hand allow us maximum visual quality, and on the other hand guard us

FPS level which is good enough for us, let's say at least we have hz60 on the screen and no less, in order for the animation to be smooth
And the latency is low. ** Anyone with a 144hz screen will set a graphical load that converges to a refresh rate of their screen.

 

As long as the purchased processor supports the FPS level we want, and most of it is still 60hz screens, it follows that the banter in processors 

Getting much more from this FPS is not really relevant to us.

And as for the need to buy today a powerful processor with redundancy for the benefit of the future, it is very beautiful at first thought, but experience proves, that to save the

The money now and put aside, and just purchase the more powerful processor - in the future when we need it, it comes out cheaper in weighting

The overall of things. Minimum pay is possible today and a permit down the road. The future processor will be much cheaper than today.

Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

Really understand,

But we all know in the field know that for Battle Royal, you don't need strong hardware.

The $ 10400F processor at $ 200 will not exhibit a material measurable disadvantage from a $ 500 processor, and will not show a noticeable disadvantage to a person's senses from a nation,

Because another 10FPS and maybe a 20FPS roof in the range above 150 is already a discussion for theory only.

And even 3300x at $ 120, which I saw is about equivalent, probably in royals.

 

Anyone who cares about high FPS (as a competition) gives up on image quality settings and lowers them (including resolution) to get more FPS.

GTX970 also runs the royals of all kinds at a crazy pace, there are demos on the net that show it nicely.

 

My youngest son is 6.5 today and on the I7 920 with RX580 - which I built last year for ninety nine the whole computer in hand 2,

He runs everything great. The son is no longer a sucker at this age, started at a young age - I wonder who is to blame for this ... 

image.png.0abf0ee2871f2a16f5e61e0cb9b145e0.png

Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

He is one of the best reviewers today by the way and I have already watched some of his work before I even got to bring you out of my kitchen. And beautiful that you are the first to do so 👍

And the accent of course, I'm dead on it ...

 

It teaches us and strengthens my choice in the 3300x processor, as the best and most important processor today in the field .

After the optimizations he does about it, he explains and strengthens my claim / statement here in the forum, that the hexagonal core 3600 is not

Necessarily the right choice regardless of price.

Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

Gamers are looking for image quality

Competitive gamers are looking for as much FPS as possible

 

The video only provides examples of the non-competitive gamer

 

editing:

 

Noted that he was going to release a new video with this specification
Wonder what results they will get

 

GummyGruffi and that's why I'm preparing a video with this CPU in a $ 60 board, with a $ 39 Ballistix Kit, an RX570, a 1660s and you will see that people should care about memory tuning even more 😉
Edited By aviv00
Link to content
Share on other sites

Let's expand our learning - we'll see some more demos, this time some more Price range increases:

Starting from a base processor at $ 75 (4 cores without HT locked on 4.0Ghz operating frequency) to the top processor at $ 500

Which is 8 cores with HT and a high working frequency kissing at 5.0Ghz.

The graphical accelerator in the illustrated comparison is 2080super and switches between 1080P and 1440P resolutions to demonstrate

Are both a case where the GPU is not saturated and allows processors to give the maximum they can, and on the other hand a situation where the GPU

Close to being really saturated or saturated, to see how the gaps in FPS are narrowing.

We will see how much the financial outlay required for a processor and motherboard suits him, justify themselves, and how much there is a contribution

For multi-core.

 

Pay particular attention to min FPS and less to average FPS, because the human user experience game is more affected 

Of the minimum cases (if the minimum is low enough) there may be an experience injury, than the FPS average, which is more affected

From the max cases that pull it up.

 

Kerry with one machine manages to reach a maximum of 200FPS compared to another which is only 160FPS, these maximum cases will affect

On the average upwards Vito the numbers accordingly, but will not be perceived as a quality perceived by the player. After all, a human being has a hard time

Notice FPS levels so high. 

And on the other hand, minimum cases - if they are many and return frequently during the game, and are low enough cases in their values ​​(which is

Drops below 60FPS), so these cases may well catch the eye of the player and harm his user experience.

Therefore, focus on what is affecting and felt by the player as explained.

** Executive summary after the video I put below

 

 

 

Executive Summary and Initial Conclusions:

First of all we can get the impression that when intentionally setting such a resolution where the block is the processor and not the accelerator in the graphics,

Kerry spurs all processors to give as much FPS as they can, so all processors, perhaps surprisingly, are able to give

A nice and fast acting rhythm with no tangible or substantial compromises. The gap between the cheapest processor and the most expensive one comes up

On the order of 5-15% a typical average, not something that goes in correlation compared to the price difference between them.

Which is very interesting in itself.

 

Also at 1080P min resolution, no processor exhibits gross falls below the desired threshold that harms the user experience.

 

On the other hand when high resolution graphics games were 1440P, there were instances of less than 60FPS by the way

Almost all processors together, which tells us that the problem in these cases is less in the CPU processor and more in the graphics accelerator

Which is the one that is common to all the platforms in the exam. That is, in high resuscitation the falls are mainly due to over-saturation in the GPU.

In cases like this, it doesn't really help us with a powerful processor, even though it makes up for a bit, but still doesn't change the image

In essence it is experiential in principle, and the right thing to do in such cases is to switch to a more powerful graphics accelerator in order to give

Addressing graphical loads.

 

Principal amount:

At the moment it seems that even a 4-core base processor without HT like the popular 9100F, is able to provide a gaming experience

Good for the vast majority if not all of the titles. For there is no real state of necessity for a more powerful processor

In terms of working frequency and / or number of cores.

But when does this necessity that will come up raises the essential question?

It's hard to tell, is it just around the corner, or something far enough away that you can buy quietly 4 cores without HT today.

 

What is clear:

Integrated 9100F processor at $ 75 (314 NIS in TMS in the country) with Base, about $ 60 at Amazon (about $ 260 in the country)

To a total amount that scratches 600 shekels from below, will not constitute a compromise or material harm to the gaming experience as the first opinion

Ours believes. Not at the moment anyway, and it may be an option parked for a limited time or a long time. time will tell.

 

** Also consider that in this context, the May 2020 processors, the new 3300X and the 10100 at $ 120 per consumer, may 

To be a substantial $ 45 supplement, but one that justifies itself in the life of the computer.

The HT that these processors add to 4 cores will do the job and buy the machine more breathable air, in my estimation will justify the

This price increase in the retrospective view of the future.

Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

Either way or not.

In the meantime, there is a lot of talk about the next generation consoles ... but I still do not see that they need compute power parallel to With 8 cores.

When we see it in reality on the ground we will talk. Until then this is an assessment, albeit with a lot of logic behind it but not a fait accompli.

 

Not guaranteed and necessary to directly affect . In my estimation caution at this early stage, the 8-core consoles will be weaker than those

של , Just as 8 cores in a smartphone processor are not equivalent in power to 8 cores of a computer processor, or a working server processor

Half the frequency is about that of a computer . The console is also expected to have a clear reduction in core power compared to the PC's daughter.

 

And even if they are equivalent (as a hardware discount), the software code will not maximize all 8 in 100% utilization in the titles they write, no

In the beginning. Adopting the full hardware vendor is something that takes time and gradual stagnation on the part of the evolution of game code writing.

 

Ever since 4-core processors were born in the PC world let's remember, it took over half a decade for software code to use them and maximize capability

And that, too, was very gradual. In the same way from the time of birth to 8 cores, it would take about half a decade (or more) until the software code could maximize them

And utilize properly.

 

The complexity of writing 4 slices in parallel is not simple. The complexity of writing 8 slices in parallel is already a stepping stone 

Higher. Especially when these are not the same slices, when everyone is doing something different, and you need to synchronize and schedule everyone. The process leads

Losses (overheads) on the road and inefficiency in running, especially when there is interdependence between the slices and everyone works at a different computational load.

It is difficult to see a type of software from the "computer game" type - capable of placing a homogeneous load on the cores. In short there is still time until we are there, patience.

 

Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

Although I understand this argument, I would not want to find myself investing say 3000 shekels on a reasonable gaming computer now and find myself completely replacing it in two years when developers start learning to exhaust the console hardware properly and AMD decides they are tired and it's time to replace socket (Intel anyway Replace socket every week and a half). My inner feeling is that the days when a computer is replaced every three years are over, so it is already better to throw away a few hundred shekels on a proper processor that will hold at least another generation. Complete (8 cores, for 8 years).

 

In my working age from home, my home computer is used for both work and personal use I find myself running a thousand At the same time and the processor and memory are not enough for that anymore. Each and every one of his needs (and his budget). 

Link to content
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw, even by hanging here, but anyway thanks a friend and friend for the thought and caring ????

 

The truth is I thought to myself whether to bring this video to friends, but I did not like it - it does not display properly, focuses on all sorts of issues

There are old scales and I do not even know such problems, I have more experience than the video should choose (age gaps do their thing as they say).

 

He also shows irrelevant nonsense - shows benches who come a moment to admit the truth, do not interest anyone on his home computer and also

A computer is not just home. Who the hell runs a blender on Of the house and sees that it is too minutes, so I will not say, we will go buy a computer

New to shave for a few minutes to make the blender test run less time :D

 

In general, all this craft of dealing with synthetic benches and the emphasis that the reviewers put on them is already starting to get off my nose, which will only be seen

Normal use, such as how reactive the computer is when opening and closing a browser window, for example, do you suffer from something, what is the sensory latency,

And they will run a few games after defining the settings correctly and that's it, it's good enough to know if the machine is usable for us and how much ...

Or it's time to upgrade.

 

He had to just stick a game, show FPS versus a new computer, and show that it's almost the same, or the same in terms of

Practically because the GPU is the limitation and not the processor at all. Evidently I am with a 2500k that is weaker than the 3770K it demonstrates, and I understand nothing either

Two, not complaining. The computer flies for me, in all the games I play (and no, I do not play solitaire). My operating system is configured

High quality and I do not allow her to keep up to date with all the garbage that has been put into it over the years with all the SP that was done to it every six months and all malware protections

Stupidly irrelevant PCs in the house that have purged my processors . If anyone wants to understand why this malware and the noise they made

About two years ago it is not relevant to a home computer, so he will do an introductory course in cyber. the short version is that computer my home

Does not target professional burglars or intelligence organizations. They do not waste their time on nonsense, but on quality goals.

 

Another silly thing - he didn't do OC to his computer in the demo at all, so why bother to show us a 3770K processor and leave it on stock?

Very unprofessional and uninteresting video, so I chose not to bring it before you, despite its sexy title - which was initially curious

Me but before I watched the content.

Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

Join the discussion

You can then join the discussion and then join our community. If you already have an account with us, please Log in now To comment under your username.
Note that: The comment will appear to the surfers after approval by the board management team.

guest
Add a comment

×   The content pasted is with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically assimilated.   Show as regular link

×   Your previous content has been automatically restored.   Clear all

×   You can not paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site

Now it's official: the comeback of the GeForce RTX 2060

Now it's official: the comeback of the GeForce RTX 2060

The intermediate model from the Turing generation adopts the number of active units in its refreshed super version, equipped with double the volume of graphic memory - and goes out to provide a solution to some of the constant demand for more and more video cards