Which CPU fpr Starcraft 2 and others

[Dice144]

I had a 2500k OC @ 4.4 Ghz, but got an itch to sell it for some money to pay off debts without touching my house fund. My RL friend I basically hooked up because I get cheap stereo etc all the time from him. I planned to buy the 4770k but something is holding me back. (hell I think Intel CPU are over priced).

Went back to using my AMD X6 1090 currently running at 3715 mhz NB around 2.5 ghz.

At this speed it is "fine" for skyrim but painful at times in SC2. SC2 almost seems more slow with the NB overclocked.

Rest of system, OCZ AGI 256 SSD, Corsair 750 PSU, AMD 7970 Gigabyte Windforce, all in a HAF. Playing games on my 2560x1440 Korean monitor and LG 1080p second screen.

Side note, I have my new water pump that came in to replace my Rasa RS240 stock pup/rad that died.

Starcraft is the only game that runs slow so far since I switched from the 2500k back to my AMD X6. I know SC2 runs better on Intel but what CPU would you guys recommend for all around?

I was thinking of trying the 8350 for the 8 core power. (I am odd and tend to open tons of stuff at once). Example use to box Everquest 4+ accounts, watch TV and sometimes load another game while waiting for a namer to spawn. lol)

Guys at work just said get a 4670 and that the extra HT is not needed for games. But somehow going from 6 cores back to 4 is hard to swallow.

Budget is under $400 ish. I would prefer to downsize my case to something like the Bitfinex prodigy. So ITX is my goal with using my water cooling gear.

The 6800k caught my eye but it would be dropping down to "only" four cores. Be a lot easier if a ITX board that could OC was around for the 8350...

Stopping before I rant more!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

i5-4670k, it's faster than your x6 in MT anyways there is no going back.

i7 is good for some workloads, but very few games benefit from it when you have 4 physical cores.

8350 would do next to nothing for you in SC2.

 

[Centauri]

Yeah... SC2's engine sucks at multicore. It's especially funny considering that Legacy of the Void, which is going to be released god knows when, will be using the exact same engine.

 

[ShintaiDK]

4670K.

Forget AMD, unless you encode videos all day or something.

 

[Durvelle27]

A FX 8350 would be a upgrade over that 1090T even in StarCfat II

No a A10-6800K would be a downgrade from Phenom II x6 1090T


If your gonna be mostly playing single threaded games then it would be smarter to get an i5-4670K

 

[blackened23]

Intel CPUs and nvidia GPUs seem to have a large advantage in blizzard games. I know this wasn't directly asked your original post, but just as an example - while I consder the GTX 680 and 7970 to be equals overall, the GTX 680 seems to have quite a bit of a performance lead over the 7970 in SC2.

As others have mentioned, the 4670k would be a good choice for single threaded games. The GPU is another thing to consider, as blizzard games just seem to be better optimized for nvidia.

 

[chernobog]

FX 8350>i5 4670k

FX 8350 has more multi-threading power, if you plan to stream a game that uses 4 cores then you are screwed on i5 4670k that is hotter and consumes more than i5 3570k.

Later you can upgrade to FX 8550 that should stomp i7 4770k with ease, I have done some of my research and was collecting data, even here on anandtech I found great informations from other people in the forum with their research.

i7 4770k multi-threaded cinebench 11.5 8.1-8.2pts(has hyperthreading)

FX 8350 multi-threaded cinebench 11.5 6.8-6.9pts

FX 8550 multi-threaded cinebench 11.5 9.8-9.9pts(calculations from available data)

 

[beginner99]

A FX 8350 would be a upgrade over that 1090T even in StarCraft II

but would still be slower than a the nearly 4 year old lynnfield i5-760.

For SCII you need to go intel. Anything else makes no sense. IMHO you should have just kept that 2500k.

 

[ShintaiDK]

FX 8350>i5 4670k

FX 8350 has more multi-threading power, if you plan to stream a game that uses 4 cores then you are screwed on i5 4670k that is hotter and consumes more than i5 3570k.

Later you can upgrade to FX 8550 that should stomp i7 4770k with ease, I have done some of my research and was collecting data, even here on anandtech I found great informations from other people in the forum with their research.

i7 4770k multi-threaded cinebench 11.5 8.1-8.2pts(has hyperthreading)

FX 8350 multi-threaded cinebench 11.5 6.8-6.9pts

FX 8550 multi-threaded cinebench 11.5 9.8-9.9pts(calculations from available data)

Like multithreaded games like this?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-CPU-Test-1068140/

The FX CPUs are just utter rubbish.

 

[Durvelle27]

Like multithreaded games like this?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-CPU-Test-1068140/

The FX CPUs are just utter rubbish.

I will agree Intel i5s & i7s are better but i would disagree the newer FX chips are not total rubbish.


FX-8350 58.6 Avg-Fps58.7 Avg-Fps57.4 Avg-Fps
i5-3570K 50.5 Avg-Fps52.6 Avg-Fps54.7 Avg-Fps

 

[ShintaiDK]

I will agree Intel i5s & i7s are better but i would disagree the newer FX chips are not total rubbish.


FX-8350 58.6 Avg-Fps58.7 Avg-Fps57.4 Avg-Fps
i5-3570K 50.5 Avg-Fps52.6 Avg-Fps54.7 Avg-Fps

And this is the game the FX series do best. Its only downhill from there. Not to mention 77W vs 140W...

 

[Durvelle27]

And this is the game the FX series do best. Its only downhill from there. Not to mention 77W vs 140W...

There's alot of newer games were the FX 8 can compete with an i5 but older games not so much

 

[ViRGE]

This is a thread about Starcraft 2, not Crysis 3. So if you're going to quote benchmarks, they had best be for the right game
-ViRGE

 

[laputan machine]

Have you tried pushing that 1090t a bit more? You might very well get it up to around 4.1 ghz, maybe that'd give you enough fps to not be annoyed. For a new cpu for mostly SC2 you should forget about AMD at this time. With a setup as good as yours, a 4670k or 4770k would be great. I have a 3570k @4.4 ghz in an itx case and very happy with that btw.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Haswell would just improve on this:

 

[Durvelle27]

Haswell would just improve on this:

Thats outdated





OP, If you have a AM3+ board that supports the 8350 then get that but if you have to buy a new board and chip then get a i5-4670K

Also if ITX is mportant to you then the i5 is the only way to go as AM3+ boards are only available in M-ATX, ATX, and E-ATX

 

[ShintaiDK]

Thats outdated

15 FPS from AMD...ouch.

 

[chernobog]

@ShintaiDK

[redacted], Starcraft 2 is a bad exsample. It relies on ancient x87 and It does not even use SSE. So why bother to do benchmarks on a game that has a badly programmed engine as Fallout 3-Skyrim?

If you want to go Intel get i5 3570k and not i5 4670k so that it does not blow up.

Also FX 8350 is more future proof, because next gen consoles will use 8 cores thus all cores from FX 8350 will be used while i5 4670k will be left behind.

Personal attacks are not allowed
-ViRGE

 

[blackened23]

@ShintaiDK

[redacted], Starcraft 2 is a bad exsample. It relies on ancient x87 and It does not even use SSE. So why bother to do benchmarks on a game that has a badly programmed engine as Fallout 3-Skyrim?

If you want to go Intel get i5 3570k and not i5 4670k so that it does not blow up.

The obvious answer here is that the OP was asking specifically about SC2. Your second comment also seems pretty ridiculous (4670k "blowing up").

 

[chernobog]

The obvious answer here is that the OP was asking specifically about SC2. Your second comment also seems pretty ridiculous (4670k "blowing up").

Yes the outdated StarCraft 2 but the OP was also doing heavy multi-tasking thus an i5 would be less ideal than FX 8350 so you missed the point. Only an overpriced i7 can fit the role but at what cost.

TekSyndicate's ES sample went nuke and retail ones are inferior to cherry picked ES samples and in the end Haswell consumes more than Ivy Bridge.

You're new here so I'll cut you some slack. But when a mod requests that the subject stay on Starcraft 2, we mean it. Meanwhile you already have your own thread on Haswell, which is the only appropriate place for having a discussion about its contents
-ViRGE

I understand Virge except we are helping a guy to choose a processor, he is playing StarCraft 2 but he also is doing some heavy multitasking and we all know that FX 8350 has more multitasking power than an i5 so thus focusing on StarCraft 2 that has an oudated engine is like failing on epic proportions.

"Starcraft is the only game that runs slow so far since I switched from the 2500k back to my AMD X6. I know SC2 runs better on Intel but what CPU would you guys recommend for all around?

I was thinking of trying the 8350 for the 8 core power. (I am odd and tend to open tons of stuff at once). Example use to box Everquest 4+ accounts, watch TV and sometimes load another game while waiting for a namer to spawn. lol)

Guys at work just said get a 4670 and that the extra HT is not needed for games. But somehow going from 6 cores back to 4 is hard to swallow.

Budget is under $400 ish. I would prefer to downsize my case to something like the Bitfinex prodigy. So ITX is my goal with using my water cooling gear.

The 6800k caught my eye but it would be dropping down to "only" four cores. Be a lot easier if a ITX board that could OC was around for the 8350..." - he can't afford an i7 3770k/4770k and a 1555/1550 motherboard.

Haswell costs more than Ivy Bridge while Piledriver is cheaper than Ivy Bridge, FX 8350 is in the middle of i5 and i7 in multithreaded/multitasking performance. If he lives near Micro Center then he can get an i7 with a motherboard under 400$ while he could get an FX 8350 and a great cooler and overlock it to 5ghz and get Haswell's i7 multi-threaded performance.

- Chernobog

 

[yottabit]

I like my 3570k for SC2

I believe SC2 is really only optimized for 2 cores, one handling AI and one handling the physics or something like that. I remember them mentioning (supposed) issues in making it multithread with more than 2 cores. So single threaded performance is huge in the game.

Here are some benchmarks showing this:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/2

Perhaps you could pick up a used combo? Maybe you could get even an i7-2600k or something if you really care about the 8 threads.

 

[frozentundra123456]

15 FPS from AMD...ouch.

Those results look like a nice improvement from haswell. However, I don't understand how he got such low framerates at such low resolution with a titan and no AA.

At 1080p, using a stock i5 2320 and a lowly HD7770, I get 35 to 40 frames per second on ultra settings.
I don't understand how he can get similar fps at lower resolution, with such a more powerful card.

But in response to the op, Intel is definitely the way to go for blizzard games.

 

[yottabit]

Those results look like a nice improvement from haswell. However, I don't understand how he got such low framerates at such low resolution with a titan and no AA.

At 1080p, using a stock i5 2320 and a lowly HD7770, I get 35 to 40 frames per second on ultra settings.
I don't understand how he can get similar fps at lower resolution, with such a more powerful card.

But in response to the op, Intel is definitely the way to go for blizzard games.

Because the results are CPU bound.

You may get 35 to 40 fps with an i5 2320 in normal gameplay, but if you play a 4v4 with maxed out armies and there is a big battle with 1600 units I'm sure you'd find your framerate drop down close to zero. Same goes for some of the custom games, etc. I believe the mission they used for that particular benchmark had a lot of units.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Because the results are CPU bound.

You may get 35 to 40 fps with an i5 2320 in normal gameplay, but if you play a 4v4 with maxed out armies and there is a big battle with 1600 units I'm sure you'd find your framerate drop down close to zero. Same goes for some of the custom games, etc. I believe the mission they used for that particular benchmark had a lot of units.

That is a possible explanation, I agree. I dont play much online because I am not that good.
In single player, surprisingly, I am strongly gpu limited even with a relatively weak card. I tried several skirmishes against the computer AI and actually it took a 10 player map to max out the cpu. So depending on the number of units, I suppose it is possible to be cpu limited even with a Titan.

 

[Dice144]

Thanks guys. I know Intel is the way to go for SC2. Guess I will either wait and get a 4770k after all or see if AMD comes out with the newer cpu by end of summer.

Started to play Bioshock Infinite and boy that is fun! I also play Crysis 3 since they both came free with my 7970.

If I wasn't closing on a house in the next few days I would just get a 4770k or 2011 series cpu to get more threads than I need.

Oh, my board is an older gigabyte AMD3 no + or I would get the 8350 for a toy.

Down the road I want a second gaming rig for my nephews to come over and game with me. However, need to wait till I move so I have room for the extra rigs.

So games I play the most in no order; Skyrim, Starcraft 2, Bioshock Inf, Crysis 3, Everquest (old).

Planned to get the new Sim City sometime soon as well. Now to find time to actually play games!