Is a more modern CPU better for gaming?

D

deastr

n00b
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
7
I have an Intel 2600k CPU (4c/[email protected]), which is 10 years old, and an Nvidia 2070. I was wondering if a more modern CPU would be better for games so I checked two comparisons at 3DMark between a 2600k+2070 test and a 5600x+2070 test (stock CPU speeds and very similer GPU speeds). If I'm interpreting the results correctly the FPS difference between two CPUs seems to be around only %3-5 which doesn't seem enough to warrant an upgrade. Am I thinking wrong about these results or only speed and core/thread count matters when it comes to gaming?
 
3Dmark isn't a very CPU limited benchmark, its more of a GPU limited one. You need to find a comparison that uses something thats a bit less GPU limited.

It's hard to find benchmarks that use the 2600K against Ryzen 5000 series, however -

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...ance, turn time,be waiting about 78.5 seconds.

Look at something like Far Cry 5 here and consider that the 5600X is probably 15% faster than the 9900K that's at the top.
 
Much would depend on what you were planning on playing as well. Games such as Civ 6 that have a lot of compute-based tasks would see significant gains as well. Then there is the wholistic aspects of upgrading to the current generation too. Assuming you already are utilizing a SATA SSD, moving to even a third generation NVMe drive should yield noticeable improvements in game/level load times. Add in things like USB3 support, a lower thermal profile, etcetera....

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-5600X/621vs4084
 
As mentioned specific game matters, as does resolution and settings. If you're running 4k with high settings and your GPU limited, then there won't be much difference. If your running 1080p and looking for high FPS then it will be very noticeable. Also, try looking at 1% lows as well as average FPS, those are the little stutters and slowdowns that happen infrequently but can be annoying.
 
Ready4Dis said:
As mentioned specific game matters, as does resolution and settings. If you're running 4k with high settings and your GPU limited, then there won't be much difference. If your running 1080p and looking for high FPS then it will be very noticeable. Also, try looking at 1% lows as well as average FPS, those are the little stutters and slowdowns that happen infrequently but can be annoying.
Click to expand...
I'm using 1080p with vsync on.
 
Mega6 said:
A potato will do you just fine.
Click to expand...
It still depends on the game MS flight sim, even at 1080 medium settings and the FPS locked at 60 ( vsync with a 60hz anyway ). He might be better turning off vsync if he is playing that game. There is a thread on FS forums where a guy is using a 1080 monitor with a 2600k and a 1070 and is getting 45 FPS, Which he says is very playable, but would probably have stuttering issues with vsync on.
 
I made the upgrade last year from X58 to Zen+/Zen2 on my home systems. For gaming it made a world of difference. Your 2600k to Zen 3 would be an even bigger difference.

The improvement for you is going to be very noticeable on any modern games IMO, more so if you move to an NVMe drive too.
 
bartz118 said:
It still depends on the game MS flight sim, even at 1080 medium settings and the FPS locked at 60 ( vsync with a 60hz anyway ). He might be better turning off vsync if he is playing that game. There is a thread on FS forums where a guy is using a 1080 monitor with a 2600k and a 1070 and is getting 45 FPS, Which he says is very playable, but would probably have stuttering issues with vsync on.
Click to expand...
And without specific mention of these exceptions, we can only speak in genral terms. So - speaking GENERALLY.. 1080p with vsync ON, Its not very demanding. Now, if the OP wants to get into specfic examples, we can sure entertain such, without delving into the unending and unbounded fantasy of "what if".
 
And here I thought I was living in the past with my 3770. Zen 3 is probably where I'm going to upgrade but it has more to do with wanting a Firecuda as all the old games I play still run fine at 1080p.
 
Mega6 said:
And without specific mention of these exceptions, we can only speak in genral terms. So - speaking GENERALLY.. 1080p with vsync ON, Its not very demanding. Now, if the OP wants to get into specfic examples, we can sure entertain such, without delving into the unending and unbounded fantasy of "what if".
Click to expand...
Hm I don't have any specific game in mind to be honest. A few games I can think of are mostly future games like Cyberpunk, Hitman, Vampire Masquerede, Stalker 2, Star Citizen and some PS5 ports. I guess I mostly play graphic-heavy games (except SC).
 
Mega6 said:
And without specific mention of these exceptions, we can only speak in genral terms. So - speaking GENERALLY.. 1080p with vsync ON, Its not very demanding. Now, if the OP wants to get into specfic examples, we can sure entertain such, without delving into the unending and unbounded fantasy of "what if".
Click to expand...
Depend on the game with RTX on and ultra setting Watch Dogs/Assassin Creed Valhalla and newer game will probably be commonly hard to run at 1080p.

For example:
https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/watch-dogs-legion-pc-performance-analysis/

Good gap between playing with an i7 4930K versus a new newer CPU.

It depend you game to play but late 2020/2021 title made with new console in mind could start to hard on older cpu. If that the type of games the OP tend to play, yes an CPU update and maybe more so faster ram that would come with the change would be better for gaming,
 
Everything since Coffee Lake and Zen 2 was worth upgrading to from Sandy Bridge, but only if you care about being able to do more than a meagre 60FPS. If you don't, then don't bother until you find a game that you really want to play but cannot get acceptable performance in. There's really no need to ask others about this when it is almost 100% subjective. Objectively? Yes, a modern CPU is absolutely better for gaming, there's no arguing this (higher minimum & average FPS = better), but whether that quantifiable difference will actually mean anything to you due to your own personal requirements for acceptable performance for enjoyment is something nobody else can answer.
 
deastr said:
I have an Intel 2600k CPU (4c/[email protected]), which is 10 years old, and an Nvidia 2070. I was wondering if a more modern CPU would be better for games so I checked two comparisons at 3DMark between a 2600k+2070 test and a 5600x+2070 test (stock CPU speeds and very similer GPU speeds). If I'm interpreting the results correctly the FPS difference between two CPUs seems to be around only %3-5 which doesn't seem enough to warrant an upgrade. Am I thinking wrong about these results or only speed and core/thread count matters when it comes to gaming?
Click to expand...

3DMark is just about the last thing to look at when trying to figure out how hardware compares for gaming.
 
Fire up Afterburner and watch gpu & cpu utilization + frametime in your most played games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrDoU
like this
More and more modern games are requiring AVX instructions so it will make a difference as some games won't even be playable in the future. Especially with the launch of a new console generation where they are going to eek out every fps they can by using those instructions.
 
Mega6 said:
You said AVX. AVX2 is more than a bit away if ever.
Click to expand...
I am curious what you mean by that, isn<t any Directx12 game compiled with a recentish compiler (it supported since visual studio 2012) are successible to use those calls ?

Specially that both Ps5 and the new Xbox now support avx2.
 
LukeTbk said:
I am curious what you mean by that, isn<t any Directx12 game compiled with a recentish compiler (it supported since visual studio 2012) are successible to use those calls ?

Specially that both Ps5 and the new Xbox now support avx2.
Click to expand...
My bad, you guys are correct.. I see assassins creed valhalla has avx2 as a requirement for example. Thats intel Haswell core/xeon or better.. or AMD Excavator or better cpu for avx2. I was thinking AVX 512.
 
Anandtech Bench 2020 still has DDR3 CPUs, but they only go back to Haswell.

I cued-up 4770k versus 5600x:

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2659?vs=2676

Th e gamning benches are near the bottom, and i f you have a heavily-overclocked 2600k, then justy compare with the 4790k

Performnance increase (1080p max / average) is up to 50% higher in newer games!
 
deastr said:
I have an Intel 2600k CPU (4c/[email protected])
Click to expand...
Overclocking it to ~4.5GHz and check your RAM setting. Afterwards if you don't notice a difference then no a CPU upgrade wont help.
If you do notice a difference and your still below 95% GPU usage and you want more FPS then upgrade your CPU if not then don't.

A upgrade to 5600X could potentialy improve FPS by ~50% if you are completly CPU limited or it may make 0% difference if you are completely GPU limited.
 
5600X + B550 motherboard with 32GB of RAM will make a huge difference that you can feel. I can't tell you how much more FPS you will see but the responsiveness and smoothness will be a LOT better.
You could potentially make this upgrade for just $650. 5600X $300, B550 Aorus Master $250, 32GB 3600 DDR4 $100.

Now if you don't have an SSD gaming drive yet, buy yourself a 1TB SSD for $100 and just watch your game load times cut in half or better!
 
Mega6 said:
Win10 doesn't need 32GB for games. 16 is fine.
Click to expand...
32GB is so cheap that you might as well get 32GB.

Also I really don't consider 16GB enough these days. I have multiple titles that use over 16GB themselves, not even considering windows overhead or if you want to have chrome open in the background.
 
TheSlySyl said:
32GB is so cheap that you might as well get 32GB.

Also I really don't consider 16GB enough these days. I have multiple titles that use over 16GB themselves, not even considering windows overhead or if you want to have chrome open in the background.
Click to expand...
what titles are those? Because nothing comes even close for me, even with loading a vm and tons of browser windows while gaming. So I think 32GB in just a couple games but not many maybe. idk, never needed it.
 
Last edited:
Cities skylines, Planet Coaster (and Zoo).
MS Flight Simulator 2020 has actually used over 24GB for me, it would have probably used more but that's all I had free.
 
Mega6 said:
what titles are those? Because nothing comes even close for me, even with loading a vm and tons of browser windows while gaming. So I think 32GB in just a couple games but not many maybe. idk, never needed it.
Click to expand...
If you are using windows 10, is the amount of data being compressed in ram rise up quite a bit ?

That a difference going to 32 gig, I feel like (I could be misremembering), but the amount of data that is being compressed could be much lower.
 
LukeTbk said:
If you are using windows 10, is the amount of data being compressed in ram rise up quite a bit ?

That a difference going to 32 gig, I feel like (I could be misremembering), but the amount of data that is being compressed could be much lower.
Click to expand...
idk.. i have 32 and never push near 16. Maybe 10 or 12 is the highest ever. guess if you are using a game that needs 32GB - you'd know it. just havent run into it yet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top