struggling with which CPU to buy

C

cardboardbox

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
105
Hey guys, first post here, be nice. :D

I have an HTPC/Steam box that I upgraded in Dec. Here's what I have:

G3220
MSI Z87I
8GB 1600 ram
Radeon 7850
120gb SSD
640 HD

I wanted to downsize to ITX, had mATX before this. I got a relatively large Fractal Node 304 case to handle the graphics card and got the low end CPU because I thought it was good enough for now and I'd upgrade later. I thought I'd play some games on it but at the time still intended to get a PS4.

I know I need to upgrade (or OC) the graphics card a little to get to PS4 level but I'm waiting for prices to come down after the coin mining slows down. My main focus right now is upgrading the CPU and here are my questions:

1. I'm looking at the i3-4130, i5-4570, and i5-4670k. At my local Microcenter these are $100, $160, and $190. And buying the 4670k will also give me $30 off any mobo. I dont need the mobo but I could sell it or have a cheap mATX spare for future use. I've read that the PS4 CPU might be similar in power to the FX-6300. The passmark score for the FX-6300 is considerably higher than the i3-4130 yet the i3 is better for gaming. Is that correct? If so, would the i3 be good enough to get me through maybe the next 4 years? My main goal is for games to look as good as they do on the PS4 and I'll be using it on my 1080p tv so no need for super high resolution.

2. Since I have a Z87 mobo, would saving $30 by getting the i5-4570 instead of the 4670k be stupid? Is the 4670k ridiculous overkill for someone who wants something to perform equal to a PS4?

3. Should current cpu prices drop when Intel does the Haswell refresh?

4. Do I need more than 8 gb of ram? If no, will I in the near future?

5. completely off the topic but... I have shoulder/neck issues which make keyboard/mouse gaming very painful. But I can manage with a controller. Now on a console almost everyone is using a controller so its a level playing field but on PC I'd guess most of the FPS gamers are mouse/keyboard. Will online FPS games on PC be very difficult for me with a controller?

sorry for such a long post. But thanks for any thoughts you can give!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
crap, I didnt see that forum, saw "Hardware" in the name of this sub forum and thought this was the place. Wow, screwed up on the very fist step. :( And dont want to annoy the mods by posting the same thing in two forums.

edit: pm'd a mod and asked to move this thread
 
Last edited:
No worries it is a little confusing. I mean the forum is labeled pc gaming and hardware. We don't mind helping but general hardware is more dedicated to builds.

For general gaming and htpc use the 4570 would be the better buy. The i7 is generally overkill for gaming. If you do a lot of encoding and ripping the i7 may be better for you in regards to that but gaming you're not going to see much of a difference.
 
cardboardbox said:
Hey guys, first post here, be nice. :D

I have a PS4 unopened that I'm trying to sell, I'm past the return period so cant just return it. I'm on a budget and figured I'll revisit buying a PS4 when a Naughty Dog game is released because right now there's not much coming on PS4 this year that I cant get on PC. PC games are cheaper and I have most of the parts already so its a pretty big money saver.

So I already have an HTPC/Steam box that I upgraded in Dec. Here's what I have:

G3220
MSI Z87I
8GB 1600 ram
Radeon 7850
120gb SSD
640 HD

I wanted to downsize to ITX, had mATX before this. I got a relatively large Fractal Node 304 case to handle the graphics card and got the low end CPU because I thought it was good enough for now and I'd upgrade later. I thought I'd play some games on it but at the time still intended to get a PS4.

I know I need to upgrade (or OC) the graphics card a little to get to PS4 level but I'm waiting for prices to come down after the coin mining slows down. My main focus right now is upgrading the CPU and here are my questions:

1. I'm looking at the i3-4130, i5-4570, and i5-4670k. At my local Microcenter these are $100, $160, and $190. And buying the 4670k will also give me $30 off any mobo. I dont need the mobo but I could sell it or have a cheap mATX spare for future use. I've read that the PS4 CPU might be similar in power to the FX-6300. The passmark score for the FX-6300 is considerably higher than the i3-4130 yet the i3 is better for gaming. Is that correct? If so, would the i3 be good enough to get me through maybe the next 4 years? My main goal is for games to look as good as they do on the PS4 and I'll be using it on my 1080p tv so no need for super high resolution.

2. Since I have a Z87 mobo, would saving $30 by getting the i5-4570 instead of the 4670k be stupid? Is the 4670k ridiculous overkill for someone who wants something to perform equal to a PS4?

3. Should current cpu prices drop when Intel does the Haswell refresh?

4. Do I need more than 8 gb of ram? If no, will I in the near future?

5. completely off the topic but... I have shoulder/neck issues which make keyboard/mouse gaming very painful. But I can manage with a controller. Now on a console almost everyone is using a controller so its a level playing field but on PC I'd guess most of the FPS gamers are mouse/keyboard. Will online FPS games on PC be very difficult for me with a controller?


sorry for such a long post. But thanks for any thoughts you can give!
Click to expand...
  1. I don't know where you read that the i3 is better for gaming. The i3 line of processors was meant more for office-related tasks. The computer I use at my place of work has an i3. While it is great for the work I do in data mining and Excel, I can't imagine using it for any kind of gaming. If you're not going to be overclocking I would pick up the i5-4570. It is imperceptably slower than the i5-4670 but costs a lot less. I also think it would last longer performance wise than either the i3 or FX-6300.
  2. Not at all. You may arguably be losing something if you were to SLI/Crossfire on a full-size ATX board.
  3. Probably not. Haswell-E is aimed more toward the power user crowd from my understanding. Those who want a HPC/Server-level CPU in terms of performance and operability but do not want to pay the premium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine current pricing to stay the same while Haswell-E will be priced somewhere in between Ivy Bridge-E and their Extreme line of processors.
  4. I can't imagine you would, but it wouldn't hurt with more newer games being compiled to 64-bit because of the current generation of consoles. There have been some reports of Battlefield 4 using up to 7GB and Thief using up to 10GB of system memory on systems with 16GB or more. Fact is games will always use whatever memory is available to them.
  5. I have noticed recently that more and more people playing online FPS games have been using a controller. The telltale sign is when they can't turn around very fast. I think this would be the only real disadvantage. Some people can be close to the accuracy of a mouse user when using a controller.
 
Sigh the reports on theif and be using that much ram is due to a memory leak. Personally theif uses less than 3gb on my system. Recommended specs for both games is 4gb of ram.
 
Out of those 3, buy the i5 4570.

Only reason to buy an i3 is to save $$$ upfront on the CPU and spend more on the GPU, only to eventually buy an i5. i3's will run games probably OK but an i5 is a better buy.

AMD stuff....you'd have to buy a new board to go along with it and they typically use more juice and run hotter. Stick with Intel especially in ITX.

I see no reason to buy a K series unless you're going to a) stick with stock voltage overclocking or b) buy a better HSF. I still say buy the i5 4570 and put leftover budget money in the 'new GPU fund' jar.

No you don't need more than 8GB of ram, unless it's a VM or SQL machine (and it's clearly not).
 
Climber said:
Sigh the reports on theif and be using that much ram is due to a memory leak. Personally theif uses less than 3gb on my system. Recommended specs for both games is 4gb of ram.
Click to expand...
Minimum requirements for both games is 4GB. Recommended for Thief is "4GB+" and Battlefield 4 is 8GB. What I was trying to say is that 8GB is fine, but if he is looking to keep the system around for 4 more years as said in the OP, then upgrading to 16GB wouldn't hurt. The reason I say this is from experience. The last system I built started with 4GB, but as little as 2 years later I had the need to upgrade to 8GB because of bloating requirements from Windows and the increase in VRAM capacity. I started with 16GB this time around because there is no telling how far developers of games and video cards will go in the next couple of years. It never hurts to have too much memory. If OP was just using this computer as an HTPC, then I would confidently say stick with 8GB.
 
Climber said:
No worries it is a little confusing. I mean the forum is labeled pc gaming and hardware. We don't mind helping but general hardware is more dedicated to builds.

For general gaming and htpc use the 4570 would be the better buy. The i7 is generally overkill for gaming. If you do a lot of encoding and ripping the i7 may be better for you in regards to that but gaming you're not going to see much of a difference.
Click to expand...
I'm only looking at an i3 and two i5's. Did you mean the 4670k is overkill for gaming?
 
Armenius said:
I don't know where you read that the i3 is better for gaming. The i3 line of processors was meant more for office-related tasks. The computer I use at my place of work has an i3. While it is great for the work I do in data mining and Excel, I can't imagine using it for any kind of gaming. If you're not going to be overclocking I would pick up the i5-4570. It is imperceptably slower than the i5-4670 but costs a lot less. I also think it would last longer performance wise than either the i3 or FX-6300.
Click to expand...
I was looking at this at tomshardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

If that doesnt link to page 6, select it in the drop down box near the top. The i3-4130 performed better on average than the FX-6300.
 
zero2dash said:
Out of those 3, buy the i5 4570.

Only reason to buy an i3 is to save $$$ upfront on the CPU and spend more on the GPU, only to eventually buy an i5. i3's will run games probably OK but an i5 is a better buy.

AMD stuff....you'd have to buy a new board to go along with it and they typically use more juice and run hotter. Stick with Intel especially in ITX.

I see no reason to buy a K series unless you're going to a) stick with stock voltage overclocking or b) buy a better HSF. I still say buy the i5 4570 and put leftover budget money in the 'new GPU fund' jar.

No you don't need more than 8GB of ram, unless it's a VM or SQL machine (and it's clearly not).
Click to expand...
So I definitely cant use the stock HSF if I overclock? Even if its just a little bit? I'm not using the stock HSF but the one I am using I doubt is significantly better. Not even sure what it is anymore.

At stock speeds the 4670k is 10% faster than the 4570 (according to cpubenchmark.net) but costs 19% more so I see your point if I'm not OC'ing.

Yeah I already crossed AMD off my list because of the test I saw at tomshardware and I'd rather not have to get another mobo.
 
cardboardbox said:
So I definitely cant use the stock HSF if I overclock? Even if its just a little bit? I'm not using the stock HSF but the one I am using I doubt is significantly better. Not even sure what it is anymore.
Click to expand...

(Can only speak on IB and Haswell from what I've heard)
Those CPUs cook and the stock coolers are not that good.
On SB (i5 2500K), the heatspreader TIM was better so they ran cooler.
Now Intel supposedly uses cheap TIM between the CPU core and the heatspreader, so the thermal transfer is not as good and the temps are higher accordingly (which is why some people have taken to de-lidding to compensate).

You can do it, it's not impossible - just watch the temps. It will heat up (greater than an i5 2500K would have, basically).

60C load temps are where I'd draw the line....and I was getting those on my i5 2500K under a TRUE120 and only .0125 Vcc bump in an Air 540 case (ie with lots of airflow). Take your projected setup, 4670K, ITX, SFF case with limited airflow...you're probably getting 70C+ easily on the stock cooler.
 
cardboardbox said:
I'm only looking at an i3 and two i5's. Did you mean the 4670k is overkill for gaming?
Click to expand...

Lol, I just went i3, i5, then assumed i7. No the 4670k isn't overkill but the i7 would be. Don't really need HT and if your not going to OC then don't get the k version.
 
cardboardbox said:
So I definitely cant use the stock HSF if I overclock? Even if its just a little bit? I'm not using the stock HSF but the one I am using I doubt is significantly better. Not even sure what it is anymore.
Click to expand...
Find out what HSF that you have. You never know: It might actually be good.

But I do agree with zero2dash that it's not a good idea to overclock with the stock cooler. It has certainly been done before but those people are often doing so with little care whatsoever about the longevity of the CPU and/or have very good cooling ATX cases.

In regards to what zero2dash said about the crap TIM used between the CPU and heatspreader of the Haswell and IB CPUs: That is indeed true. However it looks like Intel has been listening to our complaints about that problem: the Haswell refresh (talking about the regular desktop CPUs and not Haswell-E), CPUs will actually come with significantly better TIM/solder/whatever the hell they're using. So you might get better overclock performance with the Haswell refresh.

As for pricing on the Haswell refresh, judging from past trends in Intel pricing, more than likely Intel will price the Haswell refresh CPUs at the same pricing as their current Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs in order to drive sales of the newer CPUs. If the current/older CPUs do drop in price, it will probably occur after a few months and even then wouldn't be much of a drop to warrant the wait.
 
If you'ere not going to overclock then look at the S and T versions of the CPUs for their lower TDPs.
 
cardboardbox said:
its this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835186084

It was free after rebate, only reason I got it :eek:
Click to expand...
Yeah....the stock Core i5 cooler is actually going to be better cooling since it has a copper base which allows for easier/better heat dissipation.
Quartz-1 said:
If you'ere not going to overclock then look at the S and T versions of the CPUs for their lower TDPs.
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree with this: The idle power usage between the S, K, T and regular Core i5 CPUs are effectively the same. The lower power usage under load is not worth the loss of performance from the overall lower clock speeds and turbo boost speeds.
 
Thanks for the help!

One more thing I wanted to ask about again because I'm not sure of the answer...

No one recommends the i3-4130 but according to tomshardware testing its better for gaming than the FX-6300 and the FX-8120, both of which I've seen referenced as comparable to the PS4/XBOne CPU. It seems like this would be good enough unless you guys are saying get the i5-4570 because of the extra overhead a PC has to deal with.
 
cardboardbox said:
No one recommends the i3-4130 but according to tomshardware testing its better for gaming than the FX-6300 and the FX-8120, both of which I've seen referenced as comparable to the PS4/XBOne CPU. It seems like this would be good enough unless you guys are saying get the i5-4570 because of the extra overhead a PC has to deal with.
Click to expand...
Well for one thing, ignore any and all comparisons between the CPUs in the consoles and a desktop CPUs. They're effectively apples and oranges due to different ways they're used. Yes, even though they're both being used for gaming in this case, HOW they're being used for gaming is different enough to say that a direct comparison is not accurate.

Now the reason why we're recommending the Core i5 4570 (if you can afford it in the first place) is because the extra two cores do provide enough of a performance increase in heavily multi-threaded games (i.e BF4) to justify the higher costs. While the Core i3 4130's HT (and the increased IPC) does help it edge out the AMD CPUs in heavily multi-threaded games, it's not quite as effective as a full Intel core.

Also, for future reference, if you have to use Tom's for any reason, make sure whatever they're saying is backed up by at least two other sources. Tom's is not exactly a reliable source.
 
Dangman said:
I'd have to disagree with this: The idle power usage between the S, K, T and regular Core i5 CPUs are effectively the same. The lower power usage under load is not worth the loss of performance from the overall lower clock speeds and turbo boost speeds.
Click to expand...

I must disagree with you. This is a HTPC system and a lower TDP means less cooling is needed which means that the box is going to be quieter under load.
 
Quartz-1 said:
I must disagree with you. This is a HTPC system and a lower TDP means less cooling is needed which means that the box is going to be quieter under load.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing, which is why when I first decided to go to Haswell, I made a huge mistake and bought a 4770S. It has lower TDP, I thought, It'l run quieter and cooler. Nope. That thing was a toasty son of a bitch. If you want cool and quiet get a chip with a lot of oc headroom and undervolt/underclock it.
 
Quartz-1 said:
I must disagree with you. This is a HTPC system and a lower TDP means less cooling is needed which means that the box is going to be quieter under load.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily: if the system is spending more time to do a task, that means it'll spend more time at load which means it may potentially get hotter and louder over time. In addition, this is also a gaming PC as well. As such, the higher clock speed for those games will be far more beneficial than supposedly "lower noise". Any potential noise increase will be more than likely drowned out by the sounds of the games themselves. Also, a higher TDP doesn't necessarily mean more cooling is needed per se. The TDP is just an upper limit on how much power/heat the CPU can dissipate before damage. It does not mean that the CPU will always get to or be near that TDP limit.

Now granted, this is from three years ago and only talks about the SB CPUs as a result, but this article shows that that the lower TDP doesn't actually translate into massive savings in heat/power consumption that would warrant getting a S or T series CPU for a gaming PC:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-2500t-2390t-i3-2100t-pentium-g620t_8.html#sect0

@ Bluesun311
Were you running the CPU with the stock HSF or a 3rd party HSF? What's your definition of "toasty"?
 
Last edited:
hey good news! I bought an i5-4430 for $100 and although its a bit slower than the 4570 I had planned on getting I saved well over $60 after tax and discover 5% cashback. And yesterday I traded my EVGA GTX 660 Superclocked for an MSI GTX 760. The other guy wanted to SLI and couldnt find another identical 760 and he already had an EVGA 660 SC. I didn't realize they had to be identical but I'm not complaining. So thats a nice little performance bump. I also shuffled around some ram and now I have 16 GB in this rig. Maybe thats overkill but I really do think a PC needs more ram than a console to be equal. Or am I completely wrong about the RAM?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top