What GPU + CPU combo would you get?

[a3venom]

It baffles me how many low - mid range GAMING builds these days consist of i5 + 270x [ or equal nvidia ] that I would like to know what yall think.

i5 is a waste of 100$+ in a budget build that could be spent on a GPU. [My 2 cents]

If you have limited budget, and making a rig for GAMING solely, what would you get? And why?

 

[doug_7506]

g3258 + 290x/970.

A g3258 is a proven contender for most games. I say get a g3258 and overclock it like hell and pair it with 290x/970. When you outgrow it, add an i7. A G3258 will be fine for 97% of all games (with a few exceptions -- i've heard of it causing stuttering in GTAV, but cannot personally confirm. EDIT this video seems to quash that...).

But you know what they say, proof is in the numbers.

Crysis 3 -- i7 74 fps | G3258 73 fps

--in the following test they used a 780ti.--

Metro Last Light -- i7 74 fps | G3258 59 fps

Sleeping Dogs -- i7 140 fps | G3258 105 fps

Bioshock Infinite -- i7 109 fps | G3258 106 fps

Hitman Absolute -- i7 89 fps | G3258 56 fps

Tomb Raider -- i7 85 fps | G3258 87 fps

Grid Autosport -- i7 119 fps | G3258 90 fps

 

[Araxie]

if those are the only choices well, i3 + 290 would be my preferable choice however I would look for a used old i5 2500K or 3570K and overclock the hell out of those chips.. + a 290 even if that mean i have to extend the budget a little more.. you will do nothing having a 290X/GTX 970 and then being unable to enjoy the fully gaming experience due to crappy frametimes, it will be all kind of things except a smooth gameplay.. all of those GPU power that can not be used properly its a waste of money..

the above post show how horrible can be a dual core chip for gaming.. not only due to the massive bottleneck it can mean for certain games (sleeping dogs, Metro Last Light, Hitman absolution, GRID Autosport according to those links) but due the Frametimes which are the truly cause behind the stuttering and choppy gameplay... look at the crysis 3 frametimes (which also must be similar to other games)

Those horrible frametimes are a sample of how even if the framerate are there, the gameplay can be a horrible experience and a stuttering fest..

 

[walkingdog]

It baffles me how many low - mid range GAMING builds these days consist of i5 + 270x [ or equal nvidia ] that I would like to know what yall think.

i5 is a waste of 100$+ in a budget build that could be spent on a GPU. [My 2 cents]

If you have limited budget, and making a rig for GAMING solely, what would you get? And why?

a 4 core cpu and middle-to-high end card should do it, depending on how much $ you have.
generally while maxing all settings in games, gpu usually becomes the bottleneck before cpu dries out.

 

[Tgrove]

I voted for g3258 because it goes pretty hard in games, and you can add like a 4790k later when you want

 

[trick0502]

I feel going forward you are going to want the extra cores. More and more games use more than 2 cores. And, newer API's will greatly benefit from more cores.

 

[Dayaks]

if those are the only choices well, i3 + 290 would be my preferable choice however I would look for a used old i5 2500K or 3570K and overclock the hell out of those chips.. + a 290 even if that mean i have to extend the budget a little more.. you will do nothing having a 290X/GTX 970 and then being unable to enjoy the fully gaming experience due to crappy frametimes, it will be all kind of things except a smooth gameplay.. all of those GPU power that can not be used properly its a waste of money..

the above post show how horrible can be a dual core chip for gaming.. not only due to the massive bottleneck it can mean for certain games (sleeping dogs, Metro Last Light, Hitman absolution, GRID Autosport according to those links) but due the Frametimes which are the truly cause behind the stuttering and choppy gameplay... look at the crysis 3 frametimes (which also must be similar to other games)

Those horrible frametimes are a sample of how even if the framerate are there, the gameplay can be a horrible experience and a stuttering fest..

Was the 3258 overclocked in that review? It makes a boatload of difference.

Actually looks like it wasn't. Overclock it by 50% and it helps.
http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor/3

Obviously you're still at risk bottlenecking some games. I think that's happening a lot in GTA V and people blame their cards first...

Edit: my bad, Araxie's chart did have the OC'd version. He's spot on.

 

[doug_7506]

Was the 3258 overclocked in that review? It makes a boatload of difference.

Actually looks like it wasn't. Overclock it by 50% and it helps.
http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor/3

Obviously you're still at risk bottlenecking some games. I think that's happening a lot in GTA V and people blame their cards first...

If you look at the graph, there are scores for both the overclocked version and the stock version. OC'ed version is on par with 2500k

 

[Dayaks]

If you look at the graph, there are scores for both the overclocked version and the stock version. OC'ed version is on par with 2500k

Oh darn you're right.... Small phone screens kill me. I knew Araxie was smarter than that to post a non OC'd 3258 too. Shoulda looked twice.

 

[misterbobby]

g3258 + 290x/970.

A g3258 is a proven contender for most games. I say get a g3258 and overclock it like hell and pair it with 290x/970. When you outgrow it, add an i7. A G3258 will be fine for 97% of all games (with a few exceptions -- i've heard of it causing stuttering in GTAV, but cannot personally confirm. EDIT this video seems to quash that...).

But you know what they say, proof is in the numbers.

Crysis 3 -- i7 74 fps | G3258 73 fps

--in the following test they used a 780ti.--

Metro Last Light -- i7 74 fps | G3258 59 fps

Sleeping Dogs -- i7 140 fps | G3258 105 fps

Bioshock Infinite -- i7 109 fps | G3258 106 fps

Hitman Absolute -- i7 89 fps | G3258 56 fps

Tomb Raider -- i7 85 fps | G3258 87 fps

Grid Autosport -- i7 119 fps | G3258 90 fps

Um they tested Crysis 3 on medium. That game will take a crap in some spots with just 2 cores on very high which the 970 is capable of. You would have to limit the framerate to 30 fps in that game for it to play smoothly at all in some parts.

And a game like Watch Dogs is complete mess with 2 cores. Even using 2 of mine did not deliver an even close to playable game.

In GTA V you will only end up with about 35 fps on the same settings on a 970 that can give well over 60 fps if using an i5.

I think you would have to be a freaking idiot to pair a high end gpu with a Pentium dual core at this point. A cpu is something most people keep at least 3 or 4 years so either do it right by getting an i5 or dont do it at all.

 

[Dangman]

Considering the following:
A) CPUs are more time consuming and physically harder to upgrade than a GPU
B) The relatively steady single digit rate at which Intel CPUs are increasing in performance. Meaning that you don't really have a reason to upgrade a Core i5 after 4 years.
C) Intel switches sockets every year to two years or so which means that any future CPU upgrade will either require you to go the used route or switch mobo and RAM.

That's why I voted i5 + r9 270x: From a long-term standpoint, it's the better purchase. If I'm looking at strictly short-term, probably i3 + R9 290.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

I voted for the i3+R9 290 combo. You will see titles that were borderline unplayable with the Pentium become much more fluid with a HT enabled CPU such as the i3. 2c/4t or 4c/4t should be the bare minimum considered in this day and age, where ports from console are utilizing 6c/6t, and PC optimized titles taking advantage of the 4c/8t on offer from mainstream i7 CPUs.

Still, the i3 is no substitute for a native quad core, as misterbobby has more/less pointed out.

 

[Killerxp100]

I would spend the extra $100 and get the quad core and r9 290.

 

[Rizen]

Pentium dual cores are going to bottleneck the hell out of you. There are already games that will not run on at least 4 core CPUs, and i3s - with 2 cores + HT - can run those games, while the G3258 cannot.

The difference between the 290 and the 290X isn't really significant, that is the most well-rounded option if you want your system to last a couple of years.

 

[5150Joker]

None of those choices is good. Spend a little more and get a quad cpu and bare minimum 290.

 

[durquavian]

It baffles me that anyone in their right mind or with even a tiny bit of knowledge would ever recommend a2 core CPU of any type. 2cores, outside of grandmas facebook machine, are an utter waste of money and in no way competitive in the desktop market. I find it funny that with all the other programs we run along side our games that no one tests the multi-use ability of CPUs. There is the occasional scarce, obscure review but generally it is with top end lines not 2 cores. Maybe the assumption is we should already know how bad they are and the conclusion is then fore-gone.

BUY a 4 core and be done with it if you are going Intel. AMD is going to have to be 6 core in my opinion minimum, excluding Kaveri but that is a different machine setup altogether. Typically would not recommend less than the 8 core with AMD

 

[rabidz7]

Do not get a graphics card without a RAMDAC, such as the 290 and 290X.

 

[Dan_D]

If you look at the graph, there are scores for both the overclocked version and the stock version. OC'ed version is on par with 2500k

The G3258 needed a substantial overclock to match a stock Core i5 2500K which is an old CPU at this point. Don't forget that the Core i5 2500k overclocks like crazy. You can hit 4.6GHz on them without hardly any trouble and more if your water cooling. I could hit 4.8GHz on multiple CPUs with a variety of motherboard combinations. The worst Core i5 2500k I ever worked with was easily capable of 4.4GHz-4.5GHz on any motherboard I tried it with.

 

[a3venom]

the thing is - every single game in the universe will run better on an i3 + 290 than I5 + 270, all the arguements a out dual cores being a thing of the past can't change that.

And anyone suggesting to spend $100 more, I could spend a lil more and get5690x and 4x Titan SLI and a new buggati

 

[doug_7506]

Considering the following:
A) CPUs are more time consuming and physically harder to upgrade than a GPU
B) The relatively steady single digit rate at which Intel CPUs are increasing in performance. Meaning that you don't really have a reason to upgrade a Core i5 after 4 years.
C) Intel switches sockets every year to two years or so which means that any future CPU upgrade will either require you to go the used route or switch mobo and RAM.

That's why I voted i5 + r9 270x: From a long-term standpoint, it's the better purchase. If I'm looking at strictly short-term, probably i3 + R9 290.

This is probably, IMO, the best reason not to go G3258. (I voted G3258) It really is a PITA to change out the MOBO + CPU, especially if you are doing a custom cooling solution and have a RAID configuration setup. (i'll rock my x79+i7 until it hurts because of this.) On the other hand, it really is easy to swap a graphics card.

Getting a i5 now, and pairing it with an 270x (or equivalent), and then in six months to a year upgrading your gpu makes the most sense. GPU prices fall a lot faster than CPU. There is no way, I could sit on a g3258 and not want to upgrade it. I would want to fully unleash the potential of my gpu.

 

[MacLeod]

Most games these days are GPU bound a lot more than they're CPU bound. If it was a choice between those 3 as my only options I think I'd opt for the 290x/GTX 970 and overclock the hell out of the Pentium. Yes it's going to bottleneck but a CPU bottleneck combined with a high end GPU will still give you better performance than a high end CPU and a low to mid level GPU.

 

[Dan_D]

Definitely. A higher end video card is going to do more for you than any CPU will. People get hung up on not reaching a GPUs maximum potential without a CPU to back it. Even then you really have to overclock to prevent the CPU from being a bottleneck.

Of course many of the same people that harp on this also run a single sub-24" 1080P monitor which doesn't require all the hardware they think you need to buy to max out games.

 

[DraginDime]

With the small performance jumps per generation for CPUs, you would be better off to go with an i5 processor and a mid range GPU to start. Like stated above, you could easily get by on an i5 for a few years. I heard with FarCry 4, it won't start unless you have at least a 4 core cpu. That's the only game I know of with that limitation, but who's to say future games won't have that same requirement.
That said, new GPUs seem to come at a much faster rate with higher performance jumps. 2 or 3 years down the road, you could upgrade your GPU and still have a very viable gaming rig with a much lower risk of a CPU bottleneck.

 

[Hagrid]

Get an I5 OC it, and save for a 290x.

 

[Armenius]

It looks like your price ceiling in the poll is about $370 US for both. In that case I would go with an i5-4670k and R9 280X, or used R9 290. None of the options in the poll are going to give that good of an experience in recent releases.

 

[Rizen]

Definitely. A higher end video card is going to do more for you than any CPU will. People get hung up on not reaching a GPUs maximum potential without a CPU to back it. Even then you really have to overclock to prevent the CPU from being a bottleneck.

Of course many of the same people that harp on this also run a single sub-24" 1080P monitor which doesn't require all the hardware they think you need to buy to max out games.

While true, in the examples given, I think you would feel the inconsistent frame times and overall slower performance between the G3258 and the i3 more than you would feel the FPS difference between a 290 and a 290X/970, especially at 1080P. I felt a huge difference going from a i7 920 to an i7-4770K, both of which are much stronger than the dual core examples listed.

 

[PornoSatan]

No one should ever be recommending dual cores without hyperthreading these days. I don't care how "fast" it is. You'll be blowing more money in the future on the same "upgrade" (ie another CPU) if you're wanting to stay on that platform because the i5 / i7's are much better. You're gimping yourself on multitasking if you go with a Pentium. Go with an i3 bare minimum or an i5. An i5 will have "platform lasting" power, it won't feel too slow until the platform needs to be replaced. A little dual core without hyperthreading? You're going to be kicking yourself and wondering why you did that and if you should buy an i5/i7 (which you should have already did in the first place) and then you'll have a Pentium sitting there collecting dust.

 

[a3venom]

I think this is stupid logic to buy an i5 but everyone is entitled to their own opinion -
i5 + 270 then upgrade to a nicer card after say 6 months = play all games flawlessly on high / medium 1080p and have fun for 6 months
i3 + 290 and then upgrade to i5 / i7 later = play all games almost flawless on ultra + 4x MSAA, use VSR/DSR etc for older games and have even more fun for 6 months


So when you are buying a gaming PC, you would sacrifice gaming capabilities because you think upgrade path is better with getting a faster cpu first?
it will cost the exact same $ to upgrade a cpu or gpu in this situation.


my friend has a haswell i5 + 270 and
my i3 + 290 completely destroys it in all games.

I'm gonna get a 4690k asap though

 

[Armenius]

I think this is stupid logic to buy an i5 but everyone is entitled to their own opinion -
i5 + 270 then upgrade to a nicer card after say 6 months = play all games flawlessly on high / medium 1080p and have fun for 6 months
i3 + 290 and then upgrade to i5 / i7 later = play all games almost flawless on ultra + 4x MSAA, use VSR/DSR etc for older games and have even more fun for 6 months


So when you are buying a gaming PC, you would sacrifice gaming capabilities because you think upgrade path is better with getting a faster cpu first?
it will cost the exact same $ to upgrade a cpu or gpu in this situation.


my friend has a haswell i5 + 270 and
my i3 + 290 completely destroys it in all games.

I'm gonna get a 4690k asap though

A CPU and platform chipset has greater lasting power than a video card ever will. I think it is a better strategy to pick the platform first that will last you 5-7 years, and then pick the video card. The video card is only going to last you 2-3 years, meaning the underlying platform could last through as many as 3 video card upgrades. With DirectX 12 and Vulkan it only means that your platform is going to be able to last longer for gaming applications. In my opinion, you're gimping yourself out of the gate by choosing a CPU with a low IPC.

 

[defaultluser]

The i5 will get you a couple more years out of the platform over an i3, but unless you want to run CFX/SLI, you're wasting your money buying that extra CPU power.

I'd probably save a little more money and get the Core i5 anyway for a dedicated gaming machine, because unlike most people I don't get a constant upgrade itch

But given the above restrictions and the need to have it today, I'd buy the Core i3/290 in a heartbeat. There's no better value gaming processor out there, unless you want to overclock (and deal with the issues 2 threads may bring).

 

[Michaelius]

There's no point spending money on 290 if you are going to run it with i3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9pxeF08qmtg

If you go with i5 now you will have solid base that will last years and serve you through multiple gpu updates while that 290 will be obsolete as soon as 16nm gpu start hitting in 2016.

 

[Simmonz]

I would go for an AMD FX-6300 and an R9 290. Price would be similar but the extra cores will really help out in more and more modern games.

That being said I would go i3 and 290 with the choices available. Too few games would really need the i5.

 

[cageymaru]

I would go for whatever CPU that has the most cores for the money. DX12 is coming around July with the rollout of Windows 10. DX11 has gimping game engines for a long time. DX12 on the other hand will use every core that you can feed it. Thus those dual core Intel chips will go the way of the dinosaur. I guess you will still be able to use them in a retro gaming box.

 

[Dan_D]

I would go for an AMD FX-6300 and an R9 290. Price would be similar but the extra cores will really help out in more and more modern games.

That being said I would go i3 and 290 with the choices available. Too few games would really need the i5.

Most games still don't utilize more than four threads. Lets not forget the IPC of those cores either. Even AMD's flagship FX-9590 struggles to beat a Core i3. It gets trounced by the Core i5's and i7's in Battlefied 4 and other games that supposedly work better with more CPU cores. When you factor in overclocking the AMD options look even worse. The Intel's have more room for clock speed gains despite the AMD CPUs higher default clock speeds.

The only way this would make sense is if he already had an AM3+ motherboard and got a deal on the AMD FX CPU.

 

[Kaisei]

Well, it actually depends on the games you are playing or looking to play in the future. I know currently GTAV locks out all dual core processors that cannot hyperthread. So, unless Rockstar wants to unlock that capability for dual core processors, people would either have to find a i3 HT or go with the i5+270x.

Don't underestimate the 270x, though. At that price, the 270/x (270 is the exact same card with a slight underclock), is a monster of a card.

 

[Elf_Boy]

Most games still don't utilize more than four threads. Lets not forget the IPC of those cores either. Even AMD's flagship FX-9590 struggles to beat a Core i3. It gets trounced by the Core i5's and i7's in Battlefied 4 and other games that supposedly work better with more CPU cores. When you factor in overclocking the AMD options look even worse. The Intel's have more room for clock speed gains despite the AMD CPUs higher default clock speeds.

The only way this would make sense is if he already had an AM3+ motherboard and got a deal on the AMD FX CPU.

Wouldn't that also depend on what games one wants to play? What other productivity applications could be used.

I know [H] is big on shooters. Nothing wrong with that. Shooters do have different demands then say an MMO or a SIM or a Strategy game.

Also seems to me it depends on how old and how well written the code would be. My example on that would be TSW vs ESO. About 3 years between release dates. TSW sticks pretty much everything on 1 core.. the intels will, I suspect, go to town. ESO I see the CPU load go evenly between the even cores and evenly between the odd cores.

Pretty clear ESO is not ever going to CPU bind, MY Gpu is at 99% load when my Cpu is at 40%.

I am not for or against Intel or AMD. I think both have good uses and both have a place in gaming systems. [H] Makes a lot of good headway with real world testing. I appreciate that. Just seems to me the testing is a little narrow sometimes.

 

[Simmonz]

With the New features of DX12 it may be a big deal. If they can actually put every last bit of every core to work it may be huge.

 

[a3venom]

Most games still don't utilize more than four threads. Lets not forget the IPC of those cores either. Even AMD's flagship FX-9590 struggles to beat a Core i3. It gets trounced by the Core i5's and i7's in Battlefied 4 and other games that supposedly work better with more CPU cores. When you factor in overclocking the AMD options look even worse. The Intel's have more room for clock speed gains despite the AMD CPUs higher default clock speeds.

The only way this would make sense is if he already had an AM3+ motherboard and got a deal on the AMD FX CPU.

I was happy that no one mentioned AMD CPUs till this.
We can't compare current-gen AMD to Intel atleast for gaming. Probably wait till their next gen to compare to be fair.
The guy is absolutely right.

 

[Simmonz]

Most games still don't utilize more than four threads. Lets not forget the IPC of those cores either. Even AMD's flagship FX-9590 struggles to beat a Core i3. It gets trounced by the Core i5's and i7's in Battlefied 4 and other games that supposedly work better with more CPU cores. When you factor in overclocking the AMD options look even worse. The Intel's have more room for clock speed gains despite the AMD CPUs higher default clock speeds.

The only way this would make sense is if he already had an AM3+ motherboard and got a deal on the AMD FX CPU.

I paired my FX-8350 at 4.5 GHz with a GTX 980 and Watch Dogs had an AVG FPS in the 70`s from start to finish of the game. I used FRAPS during every session. That was 1080P, SMAA, all other settings maxed out. I have a hard time believing an i3 could do that.

 

[Dan_D]

Well, it actually depends on the games you are playing or looking to play in the future. I know currently GTAV locks out all dual core processors that cannot hyperthread. So, unless Rockstar wants to unlock that capability for dual core processors, people would either have to find a i3 HT or go with the i5+270x.

Don't underestimate the 270x, though. At that price, the 270/x (270 is the exact same card with a slight underclock), is a monster of a card.

Yes and no. While there are games that are starting to use more than four threads, the IPC of the Intel cores with HT still out paces the AMD CPUs when it comes to gaming. Even the so called games like BF4 that reportedly use more CPU threads than most still run nearly as well on an i3 as they do an FX-9590. A faster GPU is the better place to spend your money.

Wouldn't that also depend on what games one wants to play? What other productivity applications could be used.

I know [H] is big on shooters. Nothing wrong with that. Shooters do have different demands then say an MMO or a SIM or a Strategy game.

Also seems to me it depends on how old and how well written the code would be. My example on that would be TSW vs ESO. About 3 years between release dates. TSW sticks pretty much everything on 1 core.. the intels will, I suspect, go to town. ESO I see the CPU load go evenly between the even cores and evenly between the odd cores.

Pretty clear ESO is not ever going to CPU bind, MY Gpu is at 99% load when my Cpu is at 40%.

I am not for or against Intel or AMD. I think both have good uses and both have a place in gaming systems. [H] Makes a lot of good headway with real world testing. I appreciate that. Just seems to me the testing is a little narrow sometimes.

Well fi you want to bring productivity applications into it then by all means go AMD. The FX-9590 is well suited to that and beats the i3 and even the LGA1150 i7's some of the time. In terms of gaming alone, the i3 isn't always faster but it isn't far off and in many cases it is the better CPU. This is largely because games don't really make use of multiple threads all that well. Even when they do the GPU is still far more important.

I paired my FX-8350 at 4.5 GHz with a GTX 980 and Watch Dogs had an AVG FPS in the 70`s from start to finish of the game. I used FRAPS during every session. That was 1080P, SMAA, all other settings maxed out. I have a hard time believing an i3 could do that.

I'm not saying an AMD CPU can't give you a great gaming experience or get the job done. But have trouble if you like but there are plenty of benchmarks out there that back this up. The i3 is just as good, in some cases better or nearly as good as the FX-9590 when it comes to gaming alone. In the productivity segment the i3 gets killed in most cases.

I'm not saying the i3 is better by leaps and bounds. It obviously isn't. My point is that an i3 isn't going to gimp his GPU as much as you might think. What I am saying is that a better GPU is always better even if the CPU isn't fantastic. I'm pretty sure an i3 with a R290 will out run any i5 based with an R270. It will certainly outrun an FX-9590 with the lesser GPU. The GPU is always the more important piece when it comes to gaming. If your on a really tight budget I think money is better spent on the GPU than the CPU. That is, when gaming is your only concern.