Jump to content



Photo

Should I build a gaming PC?

gaming steam pc

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#16 Decebalvs Rex

Decebalvs Rex

    Transylvanian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 14-March 12
  • Location: Romania
  • OS: Windows 7 64-Bit Home Premium SP1
  • Phone: HTC HD2 WP 7.8

Posted 05 May 2014 - 19:30

Sorry mate but i3 is a horrible CPU for gaming, you need an i5 at least. i3 performs less also only has 0.75MB cache per thread, both i5/i7 have 1.5MB cache per thread.... helps alot. i3 is for casual gaming like facebook, apps from the windows app store, browser based gaming etc. its not for serious gaming. its like choosing an AMD quad core instead of an 8 core.

I've seen Intel Pentium dual core Ivy running games without a hitch , most of them on very high details. My i5 is barely used in today's gaming, 1080p .

i3 should fare well enough if you own a decent GPU.




#17 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 05 May 2014 - 19:43

What games will you play OP?

 

I've seen Intel Pentium dual core Ivy running games without a hitch , most of them on very high details. My i5 is barely used in today's gaming, 1080p .

i3 should fare well enough if you own a decent GPU.



#18 Bonfire

Bonfire

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 08-August 05
  • Phone: Rotary Dial

Posted 05 May 2014 - 19:54

Sorry mate but i3 is a horrible CPU for gaming, you need an i5 at least. i3 performs less also only has 0.75MB cache per thread, both i5/i7 have 1.5MB cache per thread.... helps alot. i3 is for casual gaming like facebook, apps from the windows app store, browser based gaming etc. its not for serious gaming. its like choosing an AMD quad core instead of an 8 core.

 

It depends on what games you want to play really. I have a Pentium G2120 (an i3 without hyperthreading) that runs all of my games without any problems. Of course having a faster CPU never hurts if you can afford one. I just wanted something that would run cool and quiet (only 55 watts) and not cost me a fortune. It's certainly a budget CPU but I've yet to find anything it can't run just fine.



#19 James123

James123

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 May 2014 - 19:56

I've seen Intel Pentium dual core Ivy running games without a hitch , most of them on very high details. My i5 is barely used in today's gaming, 1080p .

i3 should fare well enough if you own a decent GPU.

 

He said he wants to stream it too, an i3 won't cut it for streaming games unless it's at low quality. I had an i5 4670k (OC to 4.5GHz) and playing newer games at 1080p plus streaming at 720p/60fps/5000kbps would max out the CPU, I've since upgraded to an i7 4770k and it's much better suited for gaming / streaming at high quality.

 

OP, It really depends what games you're playing, and what quality/resolution you said games to play/stream at. 



#20 OP Dale-Kurt Murray

Dale-Kurt Murray

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 19-August 09
  • Location: Kingston, Jamaica
  • OS: Mac OS X
  • Phone: Apple iPhone 5

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:21

He said he wants to stream it too, an i3 won't cut it for streaming games unless it's at low quality. I had an i5 4670k (OC to 4.5GHz) and playing newer games at 1080p plus streaming at 720p/60fps/5000kbps would max out the CPU, I've since upgraded to an i7 4770k and it's much better suited for gaming / streaming at high quality.

 

OP, It really depends what games you're playing, and what quality/resolution you said games to play/stream at. 

 

Whatever I go with has to keep me within the system requirements for the FPS of today, Battlefield 4, Call of Duty: Ghosts, Titanfall as well as MOBAs. I'm hoping a gaming PC will be a significant improvement above my existing console (Xbox 360) and will facilitate live streaming or game capture. 

 

@James123 is correct with his assumption, I want to play games at 1080p plus streaming at 720p/60fps/5000kbps 



#21 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 06 May 2014 - 02:25

Both the i3-4130 and i5-4430 would be commendable choices at their respective prices for a mid-range budget build. For streaming you can use the built-in QuickSync encoder which takes almost no CPU regardless of the model. Just make sure your motherboard supports integrated graphics (it should have an integrated video output). Using QuickSync without a monitor plugged in the integrated video output may involve manually installing the Intel graphics drivers and/or enabling multi-monitor support in the BIOS. Make sure you're using Windows 8+.

 

If you choose an NVIDIA video card you can also use NVENC for on-the-fly encoding (via ShadowPlay). For AMD I believe hardware encoding is also supported through "AMD APP" (see for ex. http://mirillis.com/..._streaming.html)

 

Sorry mate but i3 is a horrible CPU for gaming, you need an i5 at least.

It's far from horrible, tomshardware and other serious tech sites have been recommending them as mid-range (i.e. better than entry-level) CPUs for a long time, with benchmark data to back it up (example).



#22 James123

James123

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 06 May 2014 - 06:43

Both the i3-4130 and i5-4430 would be commendable choices at their respective prices for a mid-range budget build. For streaming you can use the built-in QuickSync encoder which takes almost no CPU regardless of the model. Just make sure your motherboard supports integrated graphics (it should have an integrated video output). Using QuickSync without a monitor plugged in the integrated video output may involve manually installing the Intel graphics drivers and/or enabling multi-monitor support in the BIOS. Make sure you're using Windows 8+.

 

If you choose an NVIDIA video card you can also use NVENC for on-the-fly encoding (via ShadowPlay). For AMD I believe hardware encoding is also supported through "AMD APP" (see for ex. http://mirillis.com/..._streaming.html)

 

The problem is when streaming, presumably to Twitch since it's the largest site, they consider anything > 3500kbps bitrate 'abuse' for non-partners. Unfortunately at low bitrates the hardware encoders look significantly worse than the software x264 encoder in OBS, especially with high motion FPS games. When recording locally since I can use high bitrates I always use NVEnc to offload the work from the CPU (~12000kbps bitrate recording from ShadowPlay looks similar in quality to a 4500kbps bitrate stream using the software x264 encoder in OBS) but if you tried to use that bitrate on Twitch they would give you the boot. 



#23 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 06 May 2014 - 16:03

The problem is when streaming, presumably to Twitch since it's the largest site, they consider anything > 3500kbps bitrate 'abuse' for non-partners. Unfortunately at low bitrates the hardware encoders look significantly worse than the software x264 encoder in OBS, especially with high motion FPS games. When recording locally since I can use high bitrates I always use NVEnc to offload the work from the CPU (~12000kbps bitrate recording from ShadowPlay looks similar in quality to a 4500kbps bitrate stream using the software x264 encoder in OBS) but if you tried to use that bitrate on Twitch they would give you the boot. 

You seem to be right, but I think the hardware encoders still do an OK job at 3500kbps, providing a low-cost, low-performance impact option. Some guy did a comparison of all 3 encoders and while x264 looks noticeably better, the two hardware encoders produce acceptable quality. Looks like x264 fast preset > QuickSync > NVENC. https://obsproject.c...c-laptop.11868/

 

Here's a frame taken in a fast action scene:

 

NVENC:

X0AOq38.png

QuickSync:

rArxMDW.png

X264, Fast preset:

VJzBc5f.png



#24 Krome

Krome

    Neowinian God!

  • Joined: 29-August 01

Posted 06 May 2014 - 16:31

3 of the image you post, they all look the same... Are there any differences that I should see?



#25 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 06 May 2014 - 16:38

Open the pictures in separate tabs and cycle through them, you should see some difference especially in finer detail like the road texture.



#26 Krome

Krome

    Neowinian God!

  • Joined: 29-August 01

Posted 06 May 2014 - 16:50

Thanks for the tip. Nothing significantly different to my eyes though.  Only saw what seems to be a noise artifacts that varied a little bit from the cycle.  But yes the road texture is what I think was just a noise artifacts.  But yes I do spot the difference.  Just not enough to be of significant to me.



#27 James123

James123

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 06 May 2014 - 18:16



You seem to be right, but I think the hardware encoders still do an OK job at 3500kbps, providing a low-cost, low-performance impact option. Some guy did a comparison of all 3 encoders and while x264 looks noticeably better, the two hardware encoders produce acceptable quality. Looks like x264 fast preset > QuickSync > NVENC. https://obsproject.c...c-laptop.11868/

 

Here's a frame taken in a fast action scene:

 

*snip*

 

 

It could possibly be because that scene is so dark you can't see all the artifacts, in my experience the difference is much larger. Here's a quick comparison I just took, one with x264 software 3500kbps the other with NVEnc 3500kbps and a large buffer. I'm panning the camera slowly, in a quick moving FPS the difference is even larger. 

 

x264 (veryfast preset, so it could look better at the same bitrate if you want to sacrifice more CPU resources) :

h70gs1G.jpg

 

NVEnc:

0IdyIdX.png

 

I don't have QuickSync set-up anymore, but it was only slightly better than NVEnc in the tests I did before upgrading my CPU.



#28 Sandor

Sandor

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 28-November 03
  • Location: Canada
  • OS: Win 8.1
  • Phone: WP8

Posted 06 May 2014 - 18:36

Recommending an i3 is spectacularly poor advice.

 

You need a quad core processor these days.



#29 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 06 May 2014 - 19:18

It could possibly be because that scene is so dark you can't see all the artifacts, in my experience the difference is much larger. Here's a quick comparison I just took, one with x264 software 3500kbps the other with NVEnc 3500kbps and a large buffer. I'm panning the camera slowly, in a quick moving FPS the difference is even larger. 

:o That is abysmal. I wonder why your results are so different than those posted on the OBS forum. Different video card model/drivers? 



#30 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 06 May 2014 - 20:36

Recommending an i3 is spectacularly poor advice.

 

You need a quad core processor these days.

For what? Game benchmarks generally show little difference between the two. Example.

 

"Overall, Core i3 has never been as recommendable as it is now. It will definitely be mentioned on this site again, as we put together our next PC build guide. It will find its way in most gaming systems – you should only need to upgrade to a Core i5 is you do a lot of other intensive multithreaded CPU tasks." - Carl Nelson, hardcoreware.net