So what can I do with the LGA1150 socket?

Watch
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
My CPU is the i5-4690k @ 3.5GHz but with it being 6 years old, games like Black Ops Cold War really struggle with this chip and it bottlenecks my 1060 a lot. I want to upgrade to Ryzen 3 but that involves changing the motherboard and RAM as well as the CPU which just isn't in my budget. Is there any 4th gen intel CPU I could upgrade to just to tide me over? Well one that still keeps up anyway? Thanks.
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
(Original post by CosmicApathy1)
My CPU is the i5-4690k @ 3.5GHz but with it being 6 years old, games like Black Ops Cold War really struggle with this chip and it bottlenecks my 1060 a lot. I want to upgrade to Ryzen 3 but that involves changing the motherboard and RAM as well as the CPU which just isn't in my budget. Is there any 4th gen intel CPU I could upgrade to just to tide me over? Well one that still keeps up anyway? Thanks.
An i7 4790 or 4790K would be the best option for the socket and immediately doubles your thread count, which should yield some improvement. CeX have both in stock at around the same prices as they seem to sell for on eBay.

https://uk.webuy.com/search?stext=47...ategoryIds=911
2
reply
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Gofre)
An i7 4790 or 4790K would be the best option for the socket and immediately doubles your thread count, which should yield some improvement. CeX have both in stock at around the same prices as they seem to sell for on eBay.

https://uk.webuy.com/search?stext=47...ategoryIds=911
These prices aren't actually that bad either. Do you know if these chips could squeeze out at least 2 more years?
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by CosmicApathy1)
These prices aren't actually that bad either. Do you know if these chips could squeeze out at least 2 more years?
They should be fine to keep up with your 1060. By all accounts they can keep up with 1080/2060 level cards without choking them, especially if you're overclocking. If you have plans to move to a more powerful card than that, I'd be inclined to keep that cash aside for a move to a more modern platform.
0
reply
AndyChow
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
1060 is pretty low end I doubt it's your CPU bottlenecking.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
It would probably be better to upgrade to something much newer rather than replacing one 6 year old part with a slightly better 6 year old part. The direct upgrade is going to be much cheaper but at the same time won't keep you going anywhere near as long.
1
reply
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by AndyChow)
1060 is pretty low end I doubt it's your CPU bottlenecking.
My CPU whole running Cold War was at 100% utilisation and my GPU was at 45-50% at all times. Changing graphics settings didn't change the frame rate at all, it's definitely the CPU.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by CosmicApathy1)
My CPU whole running Cold War was at 100% utilisation and my GPU was at 45-50% at all times. Changing graphics settings didn't change the frame rate at all, it's definitely the CPU.
Sounds like it is either really poorly optimised or you are running too many things in the background. When looking up the minimum/recommended specs it seems like there is something else causing the problem rather than the CPU
0
reply
spotify95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by AndyChow)
1060 is pretty low end I doubt it's your CPU bottlenecking.
There's certainly worse graphic cards out there still being used, though there were actually two versions of the GTX 1060 released.
One has 6GB of video memory, the other only has 3GB. The 3GB model will definitely be more of a bottleneck as more games require more video memory to run at higher settings.

4th gen i5's should still be pretty good, though an upgtade to the best i7 you can get on that platform would also be a nice improvement.
If the GPU needs upgrading then upgrade to something that will work on a more modern platform as well, as when the time comes to change platforms, you can still use the older CPU/GPU combo in a secondary system.
0
reply
AndyChow
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by CosmicApathy1)
My CPU whole running Cold War was at 100% utilisation and my GPU was at 45-50% at all times. Changing graphics settings didn't change the frame rate at all, it's definitely the CPU.
Didn't know games these days are this CPU-heavy...Then yeah 4790K it is, gets you 4 more virtual cores so you will see around 50% gaming performance increase.
0
reply
_gcx
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by AndyChow)
Didn't know games these days are this CPU-heavy...Then yeah 4790K it is, gets you 4 more virtual cores so you will see around 50% gaming performance increase.
I don't think this is a fair promise, it won't scale like this at all. I'm not sure if the OP would see any more than a marginal increase. Definitely not worth the £80 imo or £135 for the K, better saving that towards a beefier upgrade down the line.
Last edited by _gcx; 1 month ago
0
reply
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Sounds like it is either really poorly optimised or you are running too many things in the background. When looking up the minimum/recommended specs it seems like there is something else causing the problem rather than the CPU
Actually you have a point about poor optimization. I guess it was a beta, not like Treyarch is actually done so you might have a point. Even though last year's Modern Warfare pinned my CPU at 100% I was still getting at least 66fps most of the time. Other genres of games run fine, heavily modded GTA V runs smoothly.
0
reply
AndyChow
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by _gcx)
I don't think this is a fair promise, it won't scale like this at all. I'm not sure if the OP would see any more than a marginal increase. Definitely not worth the £80 imo, better saving that towards a beefier upgrade down the line.
Not saying this exact game, could be poor optimization or some other bottleneck. But in general in thread scaling games like BFV when CPU bottlecked, a virtual thread is worth half a physical core. Also 50% I mean theoretical compute performance not FPS
Last edited by AndyChow; 1 month ago
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by CosmicApathy1)
Actually you have a point about poor optimization. I guess it was a beta, not like Treyarch is actually done so you might have a point.
An open beta this close to launch (it's almost certainly gone gold at this point) is almost always some combination of server testing, game balance and plain old marketing/publicity material, rather than for significant optimisation. If there's major bugs to be fixed they'll almost certainly come in a post-launch patch. For me it ran very well, I had a stable 90fps at 1440p max settings in (non-warzone) matchmaking.

Also as per the above comments, don't expect a 50% uplift in performance from the introduction of hyperthreading, that's not how it works.
0
reply
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Gofre)
An open beta this close to launch (it's almost certainly gone gold at this point) is almost always some combination of server testing, game balance and plain old marketing/publicity material, rather than for significant optimisation. If there's major bugs to be fixed they'll almost certainly come in a post-launch patch. For me it ran very well, I had a stable 90fps at 1440p max settings in (non-warzone) matchmaking.

Also as per the above comments, don't expect a 50% uplift in performance from the introduction of hyperthreading, that's not how it works.
Yeah that's true, we're less than a month away from launch so not much except gameplay tweaks is going to be done. Can I ask what specs you run? I tried running it at 1440p at the lowest settings and still got nothing great.
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by CosmicApathy1)
Yeah that's true, we're less than a month away from launch so not much except gameplay tweaks is going to be done. Can I ask what specs you run? I tried running it at 1440p at the lowest settings and still got nothing great.
Sorry I forgot to stay! I'm on an i7-7700 and 1070, so still fairly modest.

Is your 1060 a 3GB or 6GB model?
0
reply
username5383500
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Gofre)
They should be fine to keep up with your 1060. By all accounts they can keep up with 1080/2060 level cards without choking them, especially if you're overclocking. If you have plans to move to a more powerful card than that, I'd be inclined to keep that cash aside for a move to a more modern platform.
Fun fact: As of writing the 3rd place 3DMark Port Royal benchmark is running a 3090 paired with a 4790K. Most of the other top scores were using a 10900K. For the less informed, don't interpret that as "a 3090 won't be bottlenecked by a 4790K" as that's not the case at all.

I'd be in agreement, the 4790(K) is the play here for any immediate improvements. But how big those improvements are is tough to say. Hyperthreading will certainly help, but I'd wager the extra 0.5GHz clocks will be more impactful. OP doesn't really have any other immediate options without a new platform, and I think that'd be a hard sell with AM4 socket support rumoured to end next year.

It basically comes down to "do you want some immediate improvement now" or "are you willing to wait another year and put this money towards a new platform". In the long run, I'd be inclined to go with the latter. For someone on a budget, I can understand trying to eke out as much performance for as little as possible but sinking money into a platform with no upgrade path doesn't seem practical.
0
reply
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by Gofre)
Sorry I forgot to stay! I'm on an i7-7700 and 1070, so still fairly modest.

Is your 1060 a 3GB or 6GB model?
The 6GB model is the one I own, games use too much VRAM for 3GB imo. That's also a good combo I'll say.
0
reply
RoyalSheepy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by CosmicApathy1)
My CPU whole running Cold War was at 100% utilisation and my GPU was at 45-50% at all times. Changing graphics settings didn't change the frame rate at all, it's definitely the CPU.
Do some research. I'm guessing this is the case for Cold War as well but with COD: WarZone people with Intel CPU's were reporting this too (myself included). I think the answer could be poor optimisation for Intel processors.
Last edited by RoyalSheepy; 1 month ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (711)
33.95%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (895)
42.74%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (395)
18.86%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (93)
4.44%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed