Is there any game that a i7 950 @ 3.8 can't handle?

S

savagepagan

Gawd
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
673
I really don't want to spend $ on a new gaming rig. If I do, it would be a i5 2500k. I plan to get the 290x maybe to xfire in the future. Tell me that my cpu is more than sufficient for only gaming.
Oh. I have a 30 inch monitor.
 
savagepagan said:
I really don't want to spend $ on a new gaming rig. If I do, it would be a i5 2500k. I plan to get the 290x maybe to xfire in the future. Tell me that my cpu is more than sufficient for only gaming.
Oh. I have a 30 inch monitor.
Click to expand...

Is it "sufficient"? That really comes down to what you feel is sufficient, and likely related to exactly which games you play. For most people, even something as slow as a Core2Quad or even a Core2Duo would still be "sufficient" for gaming.

With that said, there are plenty of games these days which are CPU limited just as much if not more than they are GPU limited. That is the case even on overclocked Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell processors. If you're going to spend most of your time playing a game like Rome2 Total war for example, you really need the best CPU you can get.
 
Totally fine man, get the 2500k and put the extra money into GPUs. 30 inch monitor? You mean 2560x1600?
 
An i7 950 should be sufficient for most games. You are getting near the end of its useable life if you are the type to play the latest and greatest top of the line games (e.g. BF3-4, Crysis 3, etc.) . From what little we have seen of BF4 in the beta, it is looking like it could be a multi-threaded monster of a game. Your CPU may also bottleneck some multi-GPU setups running multi-monitor. However, for 90% of what's out there, it should be fine.

My recommendation? Upgrade that CPU next generation unless you decide to go multi-GPU and/or multi-monitor sometime soon. Wait for the Intel Core 5000 series.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
An i7 950 should be sufficient for most games. You are getting near the end of its useable life if you are the type to play the latest and greatest top of the line games (e.g. BF3-4, Crysis 3, etc.) . From what little we have seen of BF4 in the beta, it is looking like it could be a multi-threaded monster of a game. Your CPU may also bottleneck some multi-GPU setups running multi-monitor. However, for 90% of what's out there, it should be fine.

My recommendation? Upgrade that CPU next generation unless you decide to go multi-GPU and/or multi-monitor sometime soon. Wait for the Intel Core 5000 series.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this, but just wanted to add, if you are planning on xfiring 290's, don't get a 2500k, but get something that supports pci-e 3.0, like a 3570k or better.
 
At 3.8GHz the Bloomfield i7 should have similar gaming performance to a stock speed i5-2500. I wouldn't upgrade it necessarily due to CPU performance limitations, but as mentioned above PCIe 3.0 may help a bit with xfire.
 
pxc said:
At 3.8GHz the Bloomfield i7 should have similar gaming performance to a stock speed i5-2500. I wouldn't upgrade it necessarily due to CPU performance limitations, but as mentioned above PCIe 3.0 may help a bit with xfire.
Click to expand...

not only with the Xfire in general, but more with the 290X the direct Rail Xfire technology without bridge can maximize a PCI 3.0x16 Lane.. I agree with the go to a 3570K or better..
 
It'll handle any game. Obviously newer, faster processors will do better with certain games, such as BF4, that doesn't mean yours won't "handle" it. A 2500k would be a side grade for a lot of games, again, BF4 being one of them. It has no problems scaling to 8 threads so whatever IPC and clock speed advantage you get by going 2500k, at least some of that is negated by the fact that it doesn't have HT. If you want your upgrade to not be a complete waste of time and money, you really would want to upgrade to another i7, or simple stay with what you've got.

PCIe 3 may help with CF 290x, but as you said, that's in the future. PCIe 2.x is plenty of bandwidth for a single 290x
 
Once I switched to windows 8 (64bit) and turned my HT back on .. my i7-930 could handle BF 4 at stock speed (2.9Ghz)with all 8 treads being used at around 54% and 4 to 4.5Gb of ram used at 1920 x 1080 with in- game Ultra settings with no adjustments..

Video card is HD7950 Boost at stock also with forced constant voltage which locks it to 925Mhz and it was running at DX 11.1 which really helps the cpu load. I don't think you need another cpu myself if BF 4 is what your thinking about as Bloomsfield is very powerful at low clock speeds and doesn't need the higher clocks with windows 8 ..

But it leaves a lot left on the table if needed !!
 
Here ,, You can watch this as frap in running and settings are as posted above .. game played smooth as crap even at 30fps as I didn't feel or see any slow downs.. Youtube messed my video up some how making the camera look as if it's moving when it's not.

Put it in 720p .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWrwkb15IM
 
fanboy said:
I found this for you as the guy benched a i7-950 @3.6 Ghz and the i7 4770 @ stock

Desktop work the 4770 is fast.. gaming is about even and show how little Intel has worked in that area.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=379308
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what he's testing there. Resolution? Settings? Why does the graph say vsync on there? Is he testing with vsync on vs off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top