Is your older CPU still relevant?

[Terry Rock]

I ask this question because I am on an older I7-3820 and have had zero issues with any game to date.
You'd have to go all the way back to the first quarter of 2012, that when the 3820 was released and yet, it still runs every sim currently released...quickly...and in VR.

 

[Emery]

CPUs matter much less than GPUs. I'm swapping GPUs about every 2-3 years, but still doing well with an i7-4770 from 2011-2012.

 

[Grudyjsy]

Now I’m using VR I’m only bothered with 90fps during game play. Not too worried with ultra settings.

 

[Jeremy Ford]

The fastest GPUs become CPU bound by those older CPUs. There's online benchmarks that show this. But it's not always noticeable in gaming outside the benchmarks if the frame rate already exceeds your needs.

I upgraded from a I7 4770k to I7 8700k and the performance jump is noticeable particularly in demanding VR games on my GTX 1080 Ti. The 8700k improved the minimum frame rates, and I could see the difference, situations that constantly produced stutter on the 4770k have been eliminated. For single screen gaming (at 144mhz) I couldn't tell the difference unless comparing the fps.

 

[Terry Rock]

I run a GTX1070 with that CPU.
I also use the 'force enable gen 3' hack to take advantage of PCI-e 3.0.
It could also be due to the fact that a lot of 'homework' was done to determine which of the two controllers was faster, and my OS SSD and game drive are attached to it.
Everything is fully optimized and I have no stutter.

 

[Jeremy Ford]

Here's a good article demonstrating how then older generation Intel CPUs fair with against the newest in gaming. https://www.techspot.com/review/1546-intel-2nd-gen-core-i7-vs-8th-gen/

 

[Insert Coin]

Still running a Core i7 2600k @ 4.5 GHz and I'm very happy with it (VR @ 90 fps with a nVidia GTX 1080).

 

[Terry Rock]

Here's two runs of the Assetto Corsa benchmark with first, every setting completely min and then with every setting completely max.
The 'old' I7-3820 is still doing a decent job without over-clock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC VERSION: 1.16.1 (x64)
POINTS: 38381
FPS: AVG=262 MIN=110 MAX=351 VARIANCE=14 CPU=85%

LOADING TIME: 17s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:1X AF:0X SHDW:512 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 0 SMOKE:0
PP: QLT:0 HDR:1 FXAA:0 GLR:0 DOF:0 RAYS:0 HEAT:0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC VERSION: 1.16.1 (x64)
POINTS: 16453
FPS: AVG=112 MIN=56 MAX=163 VARIANCE=2 CPU=65%

LOADING TIME: 17s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (1920x1080)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 8
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:5
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:1 GLR:5 DOF:0 RAYS:1 HEAT:1

 

[RasmusP]

It may be an interesting fact that when you read out the threads of assetto corsa, you'll only see one real "main thread".
I use process explorer for that.
So even if if your cores are equally loaded in the task manager, afterburner etc. The CPU will bottleneck before you see even one core at 100%.
I'm still searching/waiting to read a complete explanation of how windows uses 4 cores + HT with 1 thread. But it does, but not perfectly!

So what I wanna say: activate too many apps in AC and you'll see your fps vanishing! I use substanding for the Club races because it's the only app that provides me with the info I want (all drivers with full names and gaps to me) but I have to deactivate mostly everything for the race session as my fps drop below 60 (I use vsync)!

I have an I7 2600k @4.4 GHz. Raceroom is the same btw. too big grids and the fps go down without a CPU core or the gpu at 100% load.

So what I'll be looking at for the next CPU: single thread Performance and nothing else. All current CPUs are good enough for decent multicore applications. Assassins creed origins seems to be the first game screaming for more than 8 threads.

To underline my points: when you take a game that doesn't run in more than 2 "main threads" and you run a very low resolution to disable the gpu bottleneck you'll see a massive difference between the latest Intel I7s and the ryzen CPUs.
While the ryzens keep up nicely on multi threading, in games like cs:go the difference is up to 80fps! (will try to find the video about that again...)

I'm still waiting for some CPU bound benchmarking for our beloved Simracing titles in full action (not the benchmark things).

Anyway my point is:
Single thread performance is still the most important thing when comparing modern CPUs. They all have enough cores but a lot of games still can't use then properly
I'll still go with a ryzen CPU though as they are enough for most gamers and I think AMD earned their bite off the market back

Gotta be an interesting time until 2020!

 

[Emery]

Here's a good article demonstrating how then older generation Intel CPUs fair with against the newest in gaming. https://www.techspot.com/review/1546-intel-2nd-gen-core-i7-vs-8th-gen/

Note the results for the racing titles (pCARS 2 & F1 2017) and you can see that at max graphics setting, the ~20-25% edge enjoyed by the newest CPUs declines. Quoting from the F1 2017 comparison: "Increasing the resolution to 1440p results in a heavy GPU bottleneck and now the 2600K is just 6% slower than the 8700K, though it does only roughly match the stock 4770K."

Upgrading for a 25% fps boost usually is not revolutionary if you're already getting adequate fps at maximum graphic settings. If you're on the borderline for fps and/or having to turn down settings, then it can be a game-changer, yet it won't provide guarantees for future titles. A 50% fps boost, however, is always worthwhile!

 

[Eddie Ellis]

I've been sticking with my i5-2500k running @ 3.4ghz because the socket change from 1150 to 1151 locked me out from upgrades, unless I replace the MB and memory. The MB for $70 is no problem, but I'm too cheap to throw away 16G of DDR3 RAM.
It seems happy with my MSI 1050ti gtx running 1080P. My frame rates are around 100 fps in RR, AMS and AC with mild AF settings and I have NO jagged lines.

The reason I mention the MB socket change is that AMD has claimed to be keeping the same AM4 socket for 2 generations, rather than Intel changing sockets every time. That pretty much guarantees I will buy AMD next time around. Although I would buy A cheap i7 for my current rig, if I found one close to me.

 

[Tommi Ylén]

Still going strong with overclocked i5 2500k @4.2ghz, gpu GTX 1070

 

[Andy_J]

I run an I5-4670K @ 4.5ghz over clock on air cooling and have done for the last 4 years. It's superbly stable using win 7 64bit Pro. 16gb ram and last week I upgraded the GPU to a GTX1080 AURUS and it's been given a new lease of life once more. Everything game wise is is really twice as fast than previously and even Pcars 2 can be run with everything on ultra and I'm still over 120 fps in replays. This on my 34" Ultrawide LG. Love it.

 

[Full_Ninja]

I ask this question because I am on an older I7-3820 and have had zero issues with any game to date.
You'd have to go all the way back to the first quarter of 2012, that when the 3820 was released and yet, it still runs every sim currently released...quickly...and in VR.

I have the same cpu oc to 4.6. I wouldn't say I've seen any issues but I have read a lot of post of i7 8700k with same gpu 1080ti and simular graphics settings being able to run more cars in a field than I.

 

[Terry Rock]

I have the same cpu oc to 4.6. I wouldn't say I've seen any issues but I have read a lot of post of i7 8700k with same gpu 1080ti and simular graphics settings being able to run more cars in a field than I.

What motherboard are you currently using?
What brand and speed of controllers on it?
What type and how much RAM?
I'm at the stock CPU setting, but the system turbo boost to 3.8 GHz.
I usually run grids of 20-24 cars at max or 25-32 at high setting.
It run really smooth...(In addition to looking at the other cars on screen, a good indicator is to look at the scenery as it goes by for instances of micro-micro stuttering.)
Your system at that high of an over-clock, should be running fast and churning out massive fps.
I'm on a Biostar TP-X79 with 32 GB of DDR3..
It was the best money I ever spent on a MB...very few hiccups since it was built in 2012.

 

[Case_]

i5 2500k currently at 4.3 GHz. No real problems with it. Sometimes it seems I have less problems than those with better and newer setups.

 

[GuitarTech]

I have an i5 6600K Skylake running @ 4.4 Ghz. I don't think I'm going to see much difference with an upgrade to an i7. It's tempting because I have a modern Gigabyte MB with DDR4 memory, and an i7 would slot right in. At the most maybe a BIOS update. And it'd be €300 cheaper than a video card upgrade...
I think though I'll be better off upgrading my GTX 970 to a 1070 or 1080 with the new pascal chip, as, as far as I'm aware, ( somebody correct me if I'm wrong ), racing sims are primarily GPU dependant, so my i5 can stay for a while.
That's my provisional plan for 2018 unless I hear anything different from someone who knows more about these things than me.

 

[RasmusP]

I have an i5 6600K Skylake running @ 4.4 Ghz. I don't think I'm going to see much difference with an upgrade to an i7. It's tempting because I have a modern Gigabyte MB with DDR4 memory, and an i7 would slot right in. At the most maybe a BIOS update. And it'd be €300 cheaper than a video card upgrade...
I think though I'll be better off upgrading my GTX 970 to a 1070 or 1080 with the new pascal chip, as, as far as I'm aware, ( somebody correct me if I'm wrong ), racing sims are primarily GPU dependant, so my i5 can stay for a while.
That's my provisional plan for 2018 unless I hear anything different from someone who knows more about these things than me.

No please don't even think about to upgrade your CPU
My posts are only for completely new systems! I'll keep my 2600k for at least 2-3 additional years!
The more I learnt about PC Hardware and the more I wanted to run high settings, I upgraded my gpus.
Starting with a 560ti in 2011, getting it swapped under one month warranty left for a 760. Selling the 760 to a friend that wanted a low budget gaming PC and buying a 970.
Was very happy with it but I couldn't run highest setting and neither force a lot of anti aliasing. Also my case gets very very hot but is at least very silent due to it.
Another friend asked if I would sell it to him for a good price so I took the 180€ and got a 1070 preorder in 2016.
Runs a lot cooler, I can do everything I want and I won't swap it for a newer card in the next years as I find the graphics good enough now.

What I want to say: "today" as in "the last 7 years and probably the next 5 years at least", you buy a good CPU once for almost 10 years but you definitely swap your graphics card every now and then you want more pixel or higher settings for the latest games.

Your 6600k will be fine for many years. Only when it will reach its limitations you'll have to ask yourself if you regret not spending more for the i7 or if you're happy with your decision because you want more CPU power and can easily justify to upgrade to a newer one

To your 2018 plans: it feels (for me) like the gpus are slowly reaching the same point as the CPUs did in 2010/11. Making a massive step and then reaching the limits of their technology.
Volta will tell if the 10xx were already reaching the limits or if there will come a few more steps.
So I would recommend for you to wait with the gpu as the 10xx are reaching the end if their lifespan but they didn't get much cheaper. Not a good time to upgrade!
Volta will be down to 12nm. I doubt that they will go much lower. CPUs only have more cores and a more stable core clock but only about 15% more power effective.
970 to 1070 were +70% in many games for me!

 

[Ricky78]

Old CPUs perform better if paired with NVIDIA GPUs because AMD DX11 driver is heavier on CPU.

I have an old Core i5 760 @3.52 GHz with 16GB of RAM and in late 2015 I upgraded from a GTX 670 2GB to a R9 290X 4GB obtaining only small increases on games that are heavy on the CPU (like AC and pCars in the simracing scenario).
So I started to think about a total PC upgrade, but then in late 2016 the R9 died so I bought a GTX 1060 6GB: on paper this graphic card has the same performances of the R9 290X but on my system I got a 50% boost of performances with the same Core i5 760.

On Eurogamer/Digital Foundry there are some articles that cover this issue.

 

[Emery]

it feels (for me) like the gpus are slowly reaching the same point as the CPUs did in 2010/11. Making a massive step and then reaching the limits of their technology.

Every time I've felt that way about GPUs, along comes an architecture change that kicks performance up another notch. I can imagine a future where we go back to dual GPUs on a single card as the next revolution and I bet there are still ways to upgrade the render pipeline.

The question then becomes one of how long the next round will be released. In any case, for myself, that next round will be when I do a full computer upgrade: motherboard, CPU, & GPU.