Is the 4690k still the gaming sweet spot?

BeardedBadger

Just more of a discussion than anything, even though I'm suffering the upgrade itch. I know skylake should be here within the next few months and dx12 supposed to be here by July. I've also noticed that the xeon has been suggested a lot here recently.

My question is will the xeon begin to outperform the 4690k if dx12 is all its cracked up to be, or is 4 cores still going to be the holy grail for games?

I'm still running a phenom 965 BE (not overclocked) but I'm hoping of the two above will be next for me unless the 4790k drops in price

Xenoronin

i5 2500K -> 3570K -> 4690K

This is pretty much the trend of middle/high end intel CPU for gaming/overclocking in the last few years. So to answer your question, yes, that would be the sweet spot. The Xeon is recommended based on budget which can hold around 250€ being blown on the processor but don't care about overclocking. The 4690K is recommended for around 250 when you care about overclocking.

To answer the second question. DX12 will be graphics card upgrade. In general the processor is less of a bottleneck in gaming PCs than the GPU. Whatever graphics card you have should support it (unless it is over approx 4 years old). However, it may not support all the new features.
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/178904-directx-12-detailed-backwards-compatible-with-all-recent-nvidia-gpus-will-deliver-mantle-like-capabilities

Sweet spot for gaming currently would be the GTX 760/960 or R9 270X for 1080p. 1440p would best be on a GTX 970 or R9 280X. 4K is unrealistic for meer mortals right now... also still a pointless advance in technology until everything else catches up.

Looking at the future. The 970 should support the majority of the DX12 featureset (citation needed) and also is the benchmark for the Oculus Rift (should you be interested).
Another look towards the future will be the new AMD cards. If they are more than slapping a new number on old tech at a reasonable price, they may be worth looking at for DX12 features

Serephucus

I'd ditch the 960 mostly, and recommend the stretch to the 970. If you just can't swing it, fair enough, but it's much better bang/buck.

Other than that, ^what he said. :P

TerrorFirmer

Xenoronin wrote: »

Sweet spot for gaming currently would be the GTX 760/960 or R9 270X for 1080p. 1440p would best be on a GTX 970 or R9 280X. 4K is unrealistic for meer mortals right now... also still a pointless advance in technology until everything else catches up.

Looking at the future. The 970 should support the majority of the DX12 featureset (citation needed) and also is the benchmark for the Oculus Rift (should you be interested).
Another look towards the future will be the new AMD cards. If they are more than slapping a new number on old tech at a reasonable price, they may be worth looking at for DX12 features

I wouldn't class the 280X with the GTX 970, the 970 is a much faster card.

The 280X belongs with the GTX960 realistically, similar performing cards and both ideal for 1080p at high-max settings for the most part.

1440p would push both cards unfavorably unless you compromised on settings - I wouldn't go below a R9 290 or GTX970 for that resolution.

BloodBath

I think the xeon 1231v3 is the sweet spot even more so than the 4690k especially if you aren't overclocking.

Those extra threads will serve you better in the long run over 500-600mhz higher clockspeed on an overclocked i5.

Digital Solitude

Bloodbath beat me to it.

I'd always give to the Xeon over 4690k

Really the K series aren't a sweet spot IMO

BeardedBadger

Xenoronin wrote:

To answer the second question. DX12 will be graphics card upgrade. In general the processor is less of a bottleneck in gaming PCs than the GPU. Whatever graphics card you have should support it (unless it is over approx 4 years old). However, it may not support all the new features.

I'm sorry but I can't make sense of this?
Dx12 is going to be a "closer to the metal" api, like mantle, trying to eliminate cpu bottleneck. Dx12 as far as I know does nothing to upgrade graphics cards, it increases draw calls from the cpu so that the threads of the cpu are all utilised equally/efficiently so single core performance will become less of an issue. In other words, the gpu won't have to wait for the processor. Early benchmarks should be taken with a pinch of salt I know but they do show some promising signs of cpu utilisation.

I understand what you're saying that in general it's not the cpu that limits a games performance but dx12 could help a lot of people knock an extra year out of an older processor or at a stretch help amd close the gap on Intel by making gpus the only potential system bottleneck. I would like to see more focus on better graphics cards though because that seems to be something that we always seem behind in. Here's hoping the new amd cards will be able to hold their own at 4k in a single card configuration.

Correct me if I misunderstood anything

lickme

Any i5 will do to be honest unless you care about an extra few frames or getting a 120 hz monitor.

Xenoronin

Ahhh, sorry, showing my ignorance of what DX12 is actually doing. I did note the "mantle-like" performance of DX12 but failed to understand what that actually meant. Will read up more on it! I was focusing more on the new features that DX12 was adding to the field that older cards won't be able to make use of.

Looked at the benchmarks again on my comparisons between the different nVidia and AMD cards. Didn't realise just how far out the 970 was in comparison to the 280X or even the 960. The 290X holds it's own and slightly edges it but damn that's a powerful card.

Learning!
So based on the improved thread utilisation of DX12, more threads = more power (in an incredible feat of oversimplification). Meaning i7 and Xeon (essentially an i7) win out.

Another question to try and wrap my head around this. Due to these changes, will this improve the gaming performance of older CPUs like the hexacore and octacore FX series AMD chips?

BeardedBadger

Xenoronin wrote: »

Learning!
So based on the improved thread utilisation of DX12, more threads = more power (in an incredible feat of oversimplification). Meaning i7 and Xeon (essentially an i7) win out.

Another question to try and wrap my head around this. Due to these changes, will this improve the gaming performance of older CPUs like the hexacore and octacore FX series AMD chips?

I think so but maybe not as quickly as hoped or as drastically, yet. Most people are still gaming on 4 core cpus so it'd be foolish to alienate that whole market of people and by the time games do start using upwards of 4 cores efficiently I think the single core performance of the FX series just won't be enough.

The idea of team red getting to be right up there with Intel is an exciting one for our wallets though and it seems that AMDs mantle was really the driving force behind dx12 which makes me think they've got a plan of some sort. Intel also know all of this is coming so I think skylake will be a counter to AMD if their cpus start to perform better.

Sadly I can't see dx12 becoming mainstream until at least late 2016 (some games still use dx9 ffs) but hopefully the xbone will help speed up adoption rates.

Sadly I can't post links yet so I can't recommend any readings

TerrorFirmer

BloodBath wrote: »

I think the xeon 1231v3 is the sweet spot even more so than the 4690k especially if you aren't overclocking.

Those extra threads will serve you better in the long run over 500-600mhz higher clockspeed on an overclocked i5.

I don't think so necessarily. The whole 'more cores are better for the future' has been going around since 2006 and to this day, it's still not by any means essential to have a quad core.

A decent dual core i3 can run any game - or at least 95% of them - at a high enough framerate that the GPU is the bottleneck at the higher end. Even the Pentium range which don't even have HT can play the vast majority of new games to good levels paired with a decent GPU.

If you had bought a 2500K several years ago, it's still A1 today when overclocked. Whereas at stock speeds, it's very noticably behind the 3rd and 4th gen i5's.

This will probably still be true in a few years, when comparing the 4690K OC'd and the stock xeon - I could easily see the 4690K with a strong OC beating the Xeon in games.

People spend far too much time worrying about CPU grunt when in 90% of cases it's the GPU holding you back. There has never been a better time for budget machine building with the absolutely insane processor performance per euro out there right now.

Personally I would skip the i5, get a lower end i3 and put the extra cash into a better graphics card - you gain far more that way, and given the low price of the i3 they hold value very well meaning an upgrade down the line will be very affordable.

Comparing the i3-4340 with a GTX970 to the i5-4460 with the same card recently, the difference in frames was about 5% in Battlefield Hardline.

BloodBath

Yes and the advice I gave 1-2 years ago was that a quad was fine but now with 8 core consoles and 16+ core pc processors and the likes of DX12 you can safely assume that 8 cores will be the new standard starting right now.

Sure it's not necessarily needed but if buying a new system I'd definitely recommend the Xeon especially when not overclocking.

If you want to get into streaming or recording your games at high quality then forget about it with a quad core as well in modern titles like BF4.

Assuming a 4-5 year life cycle of a PC you can bet that Xeon will serve him better in the long run.

Obviously if price is a concern then an i3 or pentium or entry i5 is a good option.

BeardedBadger

I'm with bloodbath on this. Games are going to start using more threads and the fact that the Xeon is on par with an i7 will probably be more "future proof".

i5 is still an absolute beast for today's games though and is recommend it to any that wants to try overclocking if they can't stretch for an i7.