CPU Shootout: i5-760 vs i5-4670K - (updated w/760@3.5GHz) Where's the progress?

[Ventanni]

Except that this will result in worse game performance overall. In most gaming system upgrades, the GPU(s) should cost roughly double the price of the CPU.

I have to respectfully disagree, not with the performance point you made, but the price point you make. I've been in PC gaming far too long to spend $500-600 on a GPU. A good CPU you make an investment in, because architecturally the upgrade from the previous generation isn't as big. Case in point, the Core2 Duo I have listed below was bought with a Geforce 8800GTS 320mb. The Core2 Duo I can still game with within reason, but I dare say the 8800GTS is up to the task for most newer games.

Because of that, I've learned that spending top dollar on video cards isn't always the smartest idea. That's my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to agree with it, but I can spend $200 on a video card today and keep it for two years, then spend $200 two years from now and get a better performing, lower power consuming product than had I spent $600 on a top end GPU from the start, all for less money.

So yes, that reinforces your point that the GPU plays a larger role in determining the "gameplay experience", but I don't agree with spending twice that of the CPU. Anything past the mainstream segment and you're paying exponentially more for performance.

 

[crashtech]

i3 dual core and 7970 vs quad i7 and 7870

I'd rather have higher min fps and a lower top end than lower minimums and higher top end. How is this a question? Sure, I can go play a game like bf3 multiplayer and stare at the sky and get 100fps but when I turn to where the action is at and watch my fps plummet to the 40s.

Maybe I'm the exception.

It's not a question to me, because there is evidence to back up my assertion in the general sense in the OP's tests, and the Anandtech tests here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p/9

I'd be very interested in seeing some hard data to support your assertion.

 

[crashtech]

I have to respectfully disagree, not with the performance point you made, but the price point you make. I've been in PC gaming far too long to spend $500-600 on a GPU. A good CPU you make an investment in, because architecturally the upgrade from the previous generation isn't as big. Case in point, the Core2 Duo I have listed below was bought with a Geforce 8800GTS 320mb. The Core2 Duo I can still game with within reason, but I dare say the 8800GTS is up to the task for most newer games.

Because of that, I've learned that spending top dollar on video cards isn't always the smartest idea. That's my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to agree with it, but I can spend $200 on a video card today and keep it for two years, then spend $200 two years from now and get a better performing, lower power consuming product than had I spent $600 on a top end GPU from the start, all for less money.

So yes, that reinforces your point that the GPU plays a larger role in determining the "gameplay experience", but I don't agree with spending twice that of the CPU. Anything past the mainstream segment and you're paying exponentially more for performance.

There's always a danger in tossing out a rule of thumb like I did, because everyone is different. The 2:1 suggestion is for new builds, and for the most part, a $100 CPU will run the $200 GPU in your example just fine, and possibly handle your next GPU as well.

A "rule" like that is just a starting point, a reminder to builders about what matters most for games.