CPU for 3440×1440

I game at 3440 x 1440 (ultra wide) and its my preferred resolution for the games I play and I am not changing that. I have a 1080ti but I don't plan to upgrade it for another year as even the 2080ti is not huge improvement over it given its price.

However my CPU is Intel i5 4670k and I had it for good 4 years now and given black Friday is coming, I thought maybe its time for an upgrade. So I looked into reviews and I find that CPU seems to make hardly any difference when you go up in resolution. For example at 4K, the Ryzen 9 3900X gives 1 more extra frame compared to Ryzen 7 1800X!!! Same with the mighty Intel i9 9900k as well.

So my question is it worth upgrading my own CPU? Anyone here game at 3440 x 1440 or 4K and what CPU you guys have? I think @sakichop does?

Given my current setup, I tend to get around 50-60 FPS at high settings in modern games like Assassin Creed Odyssey, Greedfall etc.





https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/1…ryzen-5-3600x/

Very few games take advantage of CPU so it is probably pointless. CPU is something you upgrade when your chipset no longer supports the GPU you need or if you have excess money!

I do recall the X games needed a good CPU for simulating the universe when your fleet got extrememly large but I can't recall many others. It isn't like 10 years ago when it actually made a difference.

Yep, agree. Doesn't matter much. Don't get confused by all the benchmarks which show huge differences on 720p or something. Yes, if you remove the GPU bottleneck, you will see some difference. But it's nothing you'd notice in the real world.

At that resolution your gpu is going to be the bottleneck. Thats why you don’t see any performance gain in the benchmarks.

If I were you I’d stick with what you have and wait to see if the next gen gpu’s remove the bottleneck and make a cpu upgrade worthwhile.

The only exception to that would be if you need more cores. For instance my son plays a lot of heroes of the storm and was getting a ton of stuttering. He has a titan x pascal video card so i knew that wasn’t the problem. We upgraded him to an 8 core cpu and all stuttering was gone. This is a game specific example though and currently 4 cores will be enough for the vast majority of games. He also games at 1080p where the gpu will be less of a bottleneck.

So as I said above I’d stick to what you have for now and check back when the next gen gpu’s come out or if more games start requiring more cores.

@lostforever

Yeah, you have a massive CPU bottleneck.

Most new mid-range CPUs will do. You want something like 8700K, 9700K but even a cheap AMD 2600 would give very noticeable performance gains.

You also want 16GB RAM!

Well it looks like I saved some money!! Thanks all for your replies.

My PC is mostly used for gaming so I don't have any other reason to upgrade the CPU so I will stick with what I have.

I don't think we get many CPU which are CPU bound these days. Only thing that comes to mind is Assassin Creed Odyssey but I am finished with it now.

Originally Posted by SirJames
@lostforever

Yeah, you have a massive CPU bottleneck.

Most new mid-range CPUs will do. You want something like 8700K, 9700K but even a cheap AMD 2600 would give very noticeable performance gains.

You also want 16GB RAM!

Hmm thats not what others are saying though? Are you saying if I go to say 8700K then I will see increased frames rates at 3440×1440?

Originally Posted by lostforever
Hmm thats not what others are saying though? Are you saying if I go to say 8700K then I will see increased frames rates at 3440×1440?

Definitely. I'd say above 40% better framerate.

The 8700k might even fit your motherboard? (edit: socket 1150 vs 1151, so probably not )

Originally Posted by SirJames
Definitely. I'd say above 40% better framerate.

The 8700k might even fit your motherboard? (edit: socket 1150 vs 1151, so probably not )

Hmm Why is that in the above benchmarks there is no difference between 8700k and a Ryzen 7 1800X?

Or Are you saying that there is huge difference between Ryzen 7 1800X and i5 4670k?

Edit: yes mine is socket 1150.

Well, your CPU isn't in the benchmarks.

Yours is 4 cores and 4 threads (no hyperthreading)

All the CPUs in the benchmarks are 6 cores with 12 threads up to a massive 12/24.

Anything with 6cores and 12threads will have no CPU bottleneck so the GPU becomes the limiting part again.

I think the interesting thing about the benchmarks is that i5-9400 which, like your CPU, also lacks hyperthreading, which is almost standard on CPUs these days. It's obviously been done on purpose, probably with rejected chips intended for more expensive CPUs, to limit the chip enough to sell it in the low end bracket. I can see the 9400F at my local computer store for $234 AUD (125 GBP) and its at the top of those benchmarks.

It shows that 6 averagely clocked cores on it's own is very capable!

Originally Posted by SirJames
Well, your CPU isn't in the benchmarks.

Well thats why I posted here I guess I need to find benchmark where someone compares my CPU to something like Ryzen 7 1800X and then extrapolate from there

I would say where 1800X gets 70FPS average 4670k gets 30FPS average. But I'd love to see the real benchmark if you find it.

edit:
Even if you assume that core for core your cpu is equal in performance to 9400, which it is not with its 3MB less cashe and 300MHz lower top speed, 2 more cores is 50% more cores which should be 50% more performance. So, "above 40%" is a pretty conservative estimate, isn't it? Could easily be over 50%

From what I understand, if you are gaming at 3440×1440 then the CPU is not hitting 100% so the theory is that doesn't matter how good your CPU… For example my CPU maybe hitting 80% and 9400 maybe at 60% but who cares since I am not making full use of my CPU as it stands now. I maybe wrong here but thats what I understand from posts above.

Edit:

Apparently I5-4690k is better than Ryzen 7 1700x at 2k!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-YYwvL1T2E

https://youtu.be/xGZag4Kf1cA

Sir James would be correct if you were gaming at 1080p but at your resolution gains will not be noticed.

Here’s a video comparing CPU’s. Pay special attention to the 4K, 1080ti comparison. The difference between a 4690k ( very comparable to your 4670) and a 9900k is 1 FPS.

Obviously different games will show different results but they’ll all be pretty close. Unless the game is very cpu dependent or requires more cores. Both those instances are pretty rare right now. Given your playing all your games at around 50fps I’d guess your not playing any games that fit in that category.

Basically if the gpu is the bottleneck then cpu ( unless its ancient dual core or something) wont make a significant difference.

It really depends on you. What FPS are you currently getting? Is that OK with you? Are you experiencing stuttering? Does your PC you do anything in the background while gaming?

It also depends on the games you play. Most use 4 to 6 cores so an 8-core would be somewhat an overkill if you're just gaming. i5 9400 or a Ryzen 3600 (non x, unless you can find it for the similar price it's not worth the extra $30) would be fine for any game.

And one of the important things nobody mentioned: If you decide to upgrade from your CPU, you'll need a new motherboard AND new RAM. Your CPU supports DDR3 and anything newer that would be an upgrade is on DDR4. So factor that in and decide if it's worth it.

Your CPU sux if you didn't overclock it before playing AC4 - the game will have occassional stutters.
Of course this statement is bs, it's AC4 with no optimization that sucks, not the CPU.

Unless a game you desperately want to play with 6+ cores minimum requirement appears, or your i5 suddenly dies, I see absolutely no reason to switch it.
Note that such future is closeby, there was a moment where some new games simply refused to work on 2core CPUs even when it was not logical really. That's still not a reason to rush anywhere.

However, if you're not using PC only for videogames but additional stuff that would breathe more easily on a better CPU, go for it.
Just don't ask me if Facebook(ing) needs a new CPU.

Originally Posted by Ivanwah
It really depends on you. What FPS are you currently getting? Is that OK with you? Are you experiencing stuttering? Does your PC you do anything in the background while gaming?

It also depends on the games you play. Most use 4 to 6 cores so an 8-core would be somewhat an overkill if you're just gaming. i5 9400 or a Ryzen 3600 (non x, unless you can find it for the similar price it's not worth the extra $30) would be fine for any game.

And one of the important things nobody mentioned: If you decide to upgrade from your CPU, you'll need a new motherboard AND new RAM. Your CPU supports DDR3 and anything newer that would be an upgrade is on DDR4. So factor that in and decide if it's worth it.

I am currently around 55 FPS average and I have seen things dip to 30 FPS and goes up to 70ish. I am happy with it and if I can boost it by upgrading the CPU then why not?

Yes I am aware that I need new MB and RAM and I am factoring that into the cost as well. Budget is around £400 to £500.

Originally Posted by joxer
Your CPU sux if you didn't overclock it before playing AC4 - the game will have occassional stutters.
Of course this statement is bs, it's AC4 with no optimization that sucks, not the CPU.

Unless a game you desperately want to play with 6+ cores minimum requirement appears, or your i5 suddenly dies, I see absolutely no reason to switch it.
Note that such future is closeby, there was a moment where some new games simply refused to work on 2core CPUs even when it was not logical really. That's still not a reason to rush anywhere.

However, if you're not using PC only for videogames but additional stuff that would breathe more easily on a better CPU, go for it.
Just don't ask me if Facebook(ing) needs a new CPU.

Yes I know AC games are bad for proper comparison as they really tax CPU. What I am going to do is run few of my games tonight and will post back with CPU and GPU usage numbers.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Sir James would be correct if you were gaming at 1080p but at your resolution gains will not be noticed.

Here’s a video comparing CPU’s. Pay special attention to the 4K, 1080ti comparison. The difference between a 4690k ( very comparable to your 4670) and a 9900k is 1 FPS.

Originally Posted by lostforever
I am currently around 55 FPS average and I have seen things dip to 30 FPS and goes up to 70ish.

I think paying attention to 1440p is more valid because res is ultrawide and not "4k"
4k is about 8M pixels
3440x1440 is about 5M

From that video I would assume he had a good 15 to 20fps to gain.

I think 30 FPS dips is pretty telling. I'll bet you there's someone in the world with a 1080ti and better cpu who can get a solid 60fps with dips to maybe 55.

Everyone here is just taking a guess and "cpu doesn't matter" has been a reasonable thing to say since the performance leap we got with intels 2nd gen cpus, but with every following generation pretty much being rehashes of the same excellent 4 core solution we haven't seen a leap like that ever since. Modern GPUs, especially the big ti cards, are much more demanding than the high end cards we had in 2nd gen days.

The 2nd generation i7s, like 2600k, are still barely holding in there and get a small bottleneck on a GTX 1070 but are good enough with an overclock. But, even overclocked, 2600k just can't keep up with the 1080ti and it's definitely worth an upgrade. It shouldn't be hard to verify that because it's old news to everyone.

So, the 2600k was about 3.8GHz with 8MB cache and 8 threads, your CPU is 3.8 with 6MB and 4 threads. Even 8 years ago your CPU wasn't very impressive.

All of these 6 core CPUs in the original benchmark are much faster than your 4 core. You are getting bottlenecked performance and will definitely get a significant performance boost from a new CPU.

Dips to 55! What's the bet?