Gadgetory

welcome back to harbor unboxed today we're talking about quad-core CPUs and where they stand for game is in late 2017 now this isn't a benchmark video I've kind of already done all the testing needs to be done the subject for now rather I'm going to discuss a few thoughts and opinions so earlier this year the world's tech media which included myself raved about the pentium g 4560 and well why not it was basically a cable 8 core i3 for an incredibly low 64 dollars us the generation prior you were looking at spending twice that amount of money to get the same level of performance the g 45 60 also obliterated anything AMD had an offer in the sub $100 u.s. price range with two cores clocked at 3.5 gigahertz plus the aid of hyper-threading we found it to be very capable and the perfect budget pairing for something like the geforce gtx 1060 or radeon r X 480 the G 45 60 was such a great Buy that even passionate aim D Farren's were willing to stick their hand up and say yeah that's pretty good despite that though there were those that argued no matter the price the G 45 60 was junk and a dual-core CPU in 2017 was a bad joke I'd probably agree if the G 45 60 lacked hyper threading supportin wasn't able to deliver playable performance in all the latest games now don't even bother try to tell me it can't handle 64 player battlefield 1 action sure it might stutter every now and then but I found delivers an enjoyable and certainly very satisfactory experience for what you're paying performance might look a bit ordinary when paired with a GeForce GTX 1080 T I'm sure that does suggest a limited lifespan but it does also cost less than $100 and works well with $200 GPUs therefore it's my opinion that right now in late 2017 the Pentium G 45 60 is still a viable option and really is a great solution for entry-level budget gaming you know for guys that can live with the odd frame hitch now and then in extremely demanding titles so that being the case what do I make of quad-core CPUs for gaming in 2007 well I feel like I've said or what I've said so far kind of covers that one but let's go down that rabbit hole anyway recently when we reviewed the rise in three twelve hundred and found that it was an exceptionally good value CP for budget gamers with its four overclockable cause the vast majority of you seem to accept that of course once again there were those claiming that quad-core CPUs are dead and have no right being used as gaming CPUs in 2017 I also hear stuff like this probably quite a bit more actually when talking about CPU such as the core i5 7600 K as if the are three twelve hundred and seventy six hundred K are anyway comparable in terms of gaming performance this right here is the heart of the issue for me it just seems like some people tend to generalize a bit too much just because one quad-core CPU might offer a bad experience in modern titles it certainly doesn't mean they all will unless of course we're talking about the absolute fastest quad-core CPU but based on my own experiences I find that a bit hard to believe now this most recently came up in an unboxing boxes episode of horror videos when discussing the new asrock mini ITX a m4 motherboard I said something on the lines of how this would be a perfect home theater pc type gaming rig with the Rison 3 1200 and a mid-range GPU and a shoebox sized PC case but my hull was quick to shoot that idea down though and seemed rather annoyed that I even entertained the idea of recommending the quad core rise and three CPU to gamers he also claimed today's games require a minimum of six to eight threads we went back and forth on the issue and he also claimed that the core i5 7600 K doesn't provide smooth gaming performance claiming that it will experience dramatic frame drops whenever the OS decides to do stuff in the background or drawl call heavy workloads appear in a PC game I don't mean to single this particular viewer out even though I realized that I just sort of have but anyway some of the points made were valid at least they would be with a bit more context I picked this comment though because it is a very recent comment and it's really in line with other comments that I've seen on the channel that talked about quad cores being no good for gaming in my opinion there really is a massive difference in performance between something like the AMD athlon x4 950 which we've sort of recently see make its way to the retail channels along with Rison 3 1200 a huge difference between those two particular quad cores and then the rise in 3 1200 and something like the core i5 7600 k those there's a massive difference between those two CPUs when it comes to gaming performance and again they are all four core four threaded CPUs so do gamers require six to eight threads in 2017 well no I don't believe they do and I've shown this through extensive testing on the channel already I'm also not basing this opinion on a few thousand benchmark runs conducted on a clean system I've actually spent many many hours gaming on the rise and three 1200 rig now and in instances where I found it to actually be quiet a week had nothing to do with the core count coming from my core i7 7700 K gaming rig the horizon 3 CPU really struggled with Starcraft 2 what's the action got hectic in a 4 V 4 game to be fair though even the 7700 K slows a little but that's because the game really only heavily taxes a single core and that core needs to be clocked extremely high and offer excellent IPC performance my 77 arcade gaming system also runs with the geforce gtx 1080 TI at 1440p for playing with the r3 1200 I've been using a 1080p display with the gtx 1064 the level of investment it's my opinion of the experience on the Rison 3 1200 system with the gtx 1060 is exceptional and for the most part i have to admit it really isn't that noticeable from my high-end gaming rig the 7700 k is of course still a quad core but it has hyper-threading support for 8 threads and my system has also been overclocked to 4.9 gigahertz if you love the Rison 3 1200 in with the geforce gtx 980ti then sure compared to the 7700 okay it doesn't look great that said at no point is the experience bad it just looks weak pushing a hundred and six FPS and battlefield one opposed to 168 FPS with the 7700 k so let's circle back to the core i5 7600 k is it a bad gaming cpu in late 2017 no certainly not at least in my opinion as much as I like the rise in CPUs the 72 enrique is arguably the better cpu right now for the vast majority of games out there you can certainly find titles where the rise and fire 1600 is faster and it could possibly end up being the superior CPU down the track but for now most DirectX 11 titles play better on the quad-core okay so the 7600 K is still an impressive CPU in late 2017 but would I buy it now let's for a moment pretend that the 8th generation series isn't coming in a few weeks time and with that we will get 6 core Core i5 CPUs so again let's pretend that the 76 Henry K is it from Intel in 2017 there will be no better CPU for 240 dollars u.s. so would I buy it well again no I wouldn't buy it because I'd get the rise in 5 1600 which is not only cheaper but also supports overclocking or more affordable motherboards and it ships with a decent cooler as important as all those things are when it comes down to value the r5 1600 is every bit as fast as the Core i5 7600 ok when using the geforce gtx 1070 or perhaps even vega 56 how many of you will actually spend more than $400 u.s. on your graphics card anyway actually it doesn't really matter because if you are spending $500 plus on a graphics card you're likely looking at a more substantial cpu purchase anyway in a few weeks time we will have the eighth generation intel core series and with that for the first time ever we will have a four core 4 thread core i3 cpu and because of that this debate will no doubt fire up all over again and they'll be those that claim that the core i3 8100 for example will be a bad buy because it only has 4 threads yet we'll find that if you pair the cpu with an affordable graphics card then it's going to deliver a similar experience to a cpu that cost significantly more then we have the upgraders debate it's no secret that Intel's bright lines have stagnated over the past 5 years or so and with no competition from AMD until very recently things have been slow to get moving if quad cores are indeed dead in 2017 those rocking a Sandy Bridge Ivy Bridge has well or maybe even a Broadwell processor are probably in desperate need of an upgrade truth be told if you have a locked Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge Core i5 processor then upgrading to something like the risin 5 1600 will often noteworthy gains even with a mid-range GPU however if you're lucky enough to have an unlocked Core i5 and you've overclocked it to 4.5 gigahertz or higher then the upgrade to the r5 1600 is more of a sidestep than a tangible upgrade at this point in fact for the older but still very popular titles such as csgo the old unlocked quad cores are likely going to be superior as these games typically only utilize a single thread for these kind of games you want a high clock chip with strong IPC performance much like what we saw in Starcraft 2 so when picking your next CPU you want to consider a good many things how long do you plan on going between upgrades what kind of GPU will you be using and can you see yourself getting an extreme GPU in the future you know something that costs four hundred dollars plus and really just as importantly what other games you'll be playing my advice is not to get too hung up on the whole core count thing a CPU with more cause isn't necessarily better the one with less and this is particularly true if they're of different architectures the CPUs architecture and operating frequency really influences how many calls you require for acceptable performance in games though the games also have to be able to utilize the amount of cores you bring to the table as well so again it comes back to the games you plan on playing CPU utilization isn't always the best indicator either I know people always focus on this but it really isn't we saw with the core i5 2500 K at its stock clock speed it was pegged at 100% in battlefield 1 and yet it provided a much smoother and better experience than say the FX 83-70 which only saw utilization hovering around 70 to 80% finally if you want to do something like streaming then even a highly overclocked 7600 K might struggle and this is a valid argument for picking up something like the Rison v 1600 in the end it really comes down to what you can afford obviously the cheapest 4 core 8 thread CPU from AMD is priced at 160 dollars u.s. and well that is very reasonable for what you get it's still not much good to someone who can only afford $100 for a final hypothetical scenario if the core i5 7600 K was priced alongside the horizon v 1400 and that is to say it cost 160 dollars u.s. then despite the fact that it only has half as many threads as the AMD CPU I would be picking the core i5 every day week as I've said all CPUs aren't created equally and even in core heavy games such as ashes of the singularity a stock 7600 K beats an overclocked Rison 5 1400 doesn't however mean it's worth spending 50% more on the core i5 processor because if you're pairing with a mid-range graphics card there's really going to be little to no difference between the two well that's gonna do it for this one let me know what you guys think in the comments below I'm your host Eve see you again soon