5 ms·

I wonder what games really stress the CPU these days and I wish to get some example beyond dwarf fortress of games that actually stutter without a top end syste

I wonder what games really stress the CPU these days and I wish to get some example beyond dwarf fortress of games that actually stutter without a top end system, I got a midrange one built around a old core i5 and a modern Radeon 570 and even physic bound games like beam.ng and games with lots of agents like arma 3 run just fine.

ycombinete 7y ago
There is some difference. The most marked difference is between dual core, and quad core. There are quite a few youtube videos out there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMh-SZQuWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMh-SZQuWM
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  yeah so it just does 80-90 fps? I'm not talking about "any difference", I'm talking games right now that require a high end cpu, since everyone upward in the thread was claiming gamers need top end cpu, and I can't think of a game that stutters with a mid range one. also, the fps reduction seems more in line with the low end intels having less pci lanes, and not the game being cpu capped.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    Unless you're a competitive gamer, and young with very good vision, keeping above 100fps at 1440p or better, you're very unlikely to notice the difference. Very few people genuinely notice the difference. I ran a 3600 while waiting for a 3950X, and if I had it to do over, would probably have just gone 3900X to start with... For the most part, I don't notice the difference, only after I'm running a couple databases and a few services that are active to I even come close to seeing a difference in general use. I know GPU and Monitor options are similar, and CPU/GPU combination in terms of balance are important. Unless you're going RTX 2080 or higher, then it's much less of a difference in general use anyway.
alecmg 7y ago
Battlefield V likes as much CPU power as it can get. But it also likes GPU... There is a free to play game Armored Warfare (crysis engine?), which I genuinely used to test stability of my cpu. 8 threads fully loaded and probably with some form of AVX. Reviews of upcoming Mount&Blade also note how it loads 16+ threads (mostly for NPC on battlefield). Arma3 was notorious for being bound by single thread performance and low latency memory.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw_RH0RQ2oA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw_RH0RQ2oA on a old midrange i5 6500 b5 does a solid 30+ fps on ultra and cpu load doesn't top out so I find the claim that it needs a top of the line cpu very dubious. I'll try armored warfare since it's free.
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    so just tested out armored warfare and at full had maximum quality I get 60fps with 70% cpu utilization on a i5 6500 with the rx570 gpu
    - alecmg 7y ago
      If you are interested in cpu being utilised, should lower graphics setings from ultra. On ultra GPU is the main bottleneck. Try same on Low settings

ycombinete 7y ago

There is some difference. The most marked difference is between dual core, and quad core. There are quite a few youtube videos out there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMh-SZQuWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMh-SZQuWM

LoSboccacc 7y ago
yeah so it just does 80-90 fps? I'm not talking about "any difference", I'm talking games right now that require a high end cpu, since everyone upward in the thread was claiming gamers need top end cpu, and I can't think of a game that stutters with a mid range one. also, the fps reduction seems more in line with the low end intels having less pci lanes, and not the game being cpu capped.
- tracker1 7y ago
  Unless you're a competitive gamer, and young with very good vision, keeping above 100fps at 1440p or better, you're very unlikely to notice the difference. Very few people genuinely notice the difference. I ran a 3600 while waiting for a 3950X, and if I had it to do over, would probably have just gone 3900X to start with... For the most part, I don't notice the difference, only after I'm running a couple databases and a few services that are active to I even come close to seeing a difference in general use. I know GPU and Monitor options are similar, and CPU/GPU combination in terms of balance are important. Unless you're going RTX 2080 or higher, then it's much less of a difference in general use anyway.

alecmg 7y ago

Battlefield V likes as much CPU power as it can get. But it also likes GPU... There is a free to play game Armored Warfare (crysis engine?), which I genuinely used to test stability of my cpu. 8 threads fully loaded and probably with some form of AVX. Reviews of upcoming Mount&Blade also note how it loads 16+ threads (mostly for NPC on battlefield). Arma3 was notorious for being bound by single thread performance and low latency memory.

LoSboccacc 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw_RH0RQ2oA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw_RH0RQ2oA on a old midrange i5 6500 b5 does a solid 30+ fps on ultra and cpu load doesn't top out so I find the claim that it needs a top of the line cpu very dubious. I'll try armored warfare since it's free.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  so just tested out armored warfare and at full had maximum quality I get 60fps with 70% cpu utilization on a i5 6500 with the rx570 gpu
  - alecmg 7y ago
    If you are interested in cpu being utilised, should lower graphics setings from ultra. On ultra GPU is the main bottleneck. Try same on Low settings