Is a 3.6Ghz with 4 Cores good?

[timstargraal]

I’m planning on building my PC and on a decent but pretty tight budget for one which games. I don’t play very demanding games, I usually only play games such as Counter Strike Global Offensive and was wondering whether a 3.6 GHz processor 4-Core (Intel i7 4790) was enough to run these games at least at around 120fps. If it isn’t enough, can you guys recommend me a better processor which is not too expensive (over $500)? Thanks in advance!

 

[Makef0rt]

GPU matters more. As for frames, I can not really tell. 4 core processor with 3.6 GHz seems like a nice deal, but before you actually go for it, research the said product. Not all CPUs are good. Some have issues. Some that you find weaker might actually outperform others. You should research the 4790 in depth to see how good it really is.

 

[OursIsTheFury]

It's gonna go down to your graphics card. I agree, the processor helps a bit with the gameplay experience, but the workload relies on your GPU. Basic rule is, GPU for graphics related concerns like FPS or performance in general; hard drive for loading times, processor and memory for minor performance boosts. Still, it's the GPU that does all the work. A 1060 6 GB will do fine for most games these days.

 

[Makef0rt]

It's gonna go down to your graphics card. I agree, the processor helps a bit with the gameplay experience, but the workload relies on your GPU. Basic rule is, GPU for graphics related concerns like FPS or performance in general; hard drive for loading times, processor and memory for minor performance boosts. Still, it's the GPU that does all the work. A 1060 6 GB will do fine for most games these days.

1060 with 6 GB will do fine? Hell, my 1050 with 2 GB works great, that thing would most likely run anything he wants Although, I remember my friend telling me something about the middle series and their difference between end series (5/6 vs 8/9). Some series used to have better performance on the middle ones.

 

[OursIsTheFury]

1060 with 6 GB will do fine? Hell, my 1050 with 2 GB works great, that thing would most likely run anything he wants Although, I remember my friend telling me something about the middle series and their difference between end series (5/6 vs 8/9). Some series used to have better performance on the middle ones.

It does fine for now but I hear the 1080 has a lasting potential because it's so advanced it will take a while for games to catch up to its limitations. So if you are considering getting a new one, they suggest the 1080 because with it, you will have no problems with gaming requirements for at least another 3 years, maybe more. That's what I heard though, and I've been thinking about it and moving up, while giving my 1060 to my brothers' PC.

 

[Makef0rt]

Well, I just checked it out. EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition, 8GB GDDR5X, LED, DX12 OSD Support (PXOC) Graphics Card 08G-P4-6180-KR. 600$. Quite pricey considering you are only buying graphic card. Although, I have to agree with you. It will most likely be the beast for any upcoming title for next 3 years and even more

 

[OursIsTheFury]

You also have to consider the motherboard in this situation. You can't just pick something off a list and add it to your PC. Your motherboard must be compatible, otherwise you'll have to change it with something that can fit both your new hardware and the old ones from the computer. It's a tough choice, and you may even end up spending more when you replace your entire setup. Just something to consider.

 

[Makef0rt]

You also have to consider the motherboard in this situation. You can't just pick something off a list and add it to your PC. Your motherboard must be compatible, otherwise you'll have to change it with something that can fit both your new hardware and the old ones from the computer. It's a tough choice, and you may even end up spending more when you replace your entire setup. Just something to consider.

Yeah, indeed. Actually, there are quite a few sites that offer you to find the best hardware (with good compatibility) at your set money rate. I can't recall the names, but there are some really good ones. And the best thing is, even when they give you the decisions, you can adjust it to your liking. If you are not into hardware that much, this might be a good starting point. After you find something you like you can always come back to the forums and post the setup and ask for opinions.

 

[overcast]

I think this looks like decent. 4 cores are good enough for most of the games out there. Also some of the console ported games do make use of the 4 cores requirement. So this should be more than enough. I do however think that for some games it may be worth getting core 5 or more if possible if your games are of that level.

 

[ZXD22]

Yea 4 cores with even 3 ghz is more than enough to handle todays games. It's more intensive on the GPU as the others have said. I have the Intel Core i7 7700k and they are 4.2 ghz stock. I could overclock it to 4.6 if I wanted to with my Corsair h100i but no need.

 

[dero56]

That will be a good CPU, but you also need sufficient ram, and a decent video card. the CPU is one piece that you'll need to have at above average but won't affect your gameplay as much as a top tier video card would.

 

[Makef0rt]

That will be a good CPU, but you also need sufficient ram, and a decent video card. the CPU is one piece that you'll need to have at above average but won't affect your gameplay as much as a top tier video card would.

Yeah, and a lot of people think different. I myself have went with Nvidia graphics, but I am running an AMD CPU. Sure, it might not be the best thing around, but so far it was able to run everything on max without problems. AMD costs less, look at some of their models too.

 

[OursIsTheFury]

Yeah, and a lot of people think different. I myself have went with Nvidia graphics, but I am running an AMD CPU. Sure, it might not be the best thing around, but so far it was able to run everything on max without problems. AMD costs less, look at some of their models too.

I used to have a Sapphire Radeon 7970 before I upgraded to a 1060 6GB. I thought the Radeon stuff sucked. The updates on their software are nonexistent, the programs crash a lot, and the games would not be optimized because the software for Radeon can't open. They won't update, won't open, so basically a useless program all around. I researched and apparently it's a problem for all who use the graphics card and that AMD is "working on a solution" and most players just "live with it."

 

[Makef0rt]

I used to have a Sapphire Radeon 7970 before I upgraded to a 1060 6GB. I thought the Radeon stuff sucked. The updates on their software are nonexistent, the programs crash a lot, and the games would not be optimized because the software for Radeon can't open. They won't update, won't open, so basically a useless program all around. I researched and apparently it's a problem for all who use the graphics card and that AMD is "working on a solution" and most players just "live with it."

The reason why I never wanted the AMD graphic card is the fact they are missing so much. Many games had special features only for NVIDIA users. Basic example was NVIDIA PhysX. Ridiculous.

 

[OursIsTheFury]

The reason why I never wanted the AMD graphic card is the fact they are missing so much. Many games had special features only for NVIDIA users. Basic example was NVIDIA PhysX. Ridiculous.

Yup, after seeing the difference between a Sapphire 7970 and a Nvidia 1060, I'm never going back. If I ever upgrade in the future, I'll stick with Nvidia. AMDs really suck, no matter how many comparison screenshots and FPS ratings websites show. It's the lack of software support that does them in, and I'd rather not have problems with simple updates.

 

[m33kuh]

Yep. 3.6ghz is pretty decent actually. Most of the budget gamers even use 3.0 to 3.2 ghz of core2duo or core i3. It all depends on your graphics processing unit. Just make sure though that you won't bottleneck both.