F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Yes, four cores can still be sufficient depending on your needs and workload.

Yes, four cores can still be sufficient depending on your needs and workload.

Yes, four cores can still be sufficient depending on your needs and workload.

S
Seer413
Member
120
04-13-2016, 07:42 PM
#1
I understand you're testing performance on a single-core processor. For gaming purposes, it's worth considering whether four cores will still provide sufficient power. Regarding your system specs, the i5-4590 runs on four cores and should handle most modern games, but keep in mind its overall performance is limited by its single-threaded architecture.
S
Seer413
04-13-2016, 07:42 PM #1

I understand you're testing performance on a single-core processor. For gaming purposes, it's worth considering whether four cores will still provide sufficient power. Regarding your system specs, the i5-4590 runs on four cores and should handle most modern games, but keep in mind its overall performance is limited by its single-threaded architecture.

M
mcDavoz
Senior Member
544
04-20-2016, 10:37 AM
#2
It varies by game and your gaming goals. I usually check how much improvement the minimum and suggested specs offer relative to my processor. Some classic titles only mention clock speed and core count, while modern games list something like Ryzen 3 or 5 or an i7. You might gain a slight performance lift and extend your system’s life by a few years if you manage to get an i7-4790 or similar.
M
mcDavoz
04-20-2016, 10:37 AM #2

It varies by game and your gaming goals. I usually check how much improvement the minimum and suggested specs offer relative to my processor. Some classic titles only mention clock speed and core count, while modern games list something like Ryzen 3 or 5 or an i7. You might gain a slight performance lift and extend your system’s life by a few years if you manage to get an i7-4790 or similar.

V
Velizar06
Posting Freak
865
04-20-2016, 11:03 AM
#3
This subject requires careful evaluation of each component's performance alongside the number of cores available. For example, choosing an i3 12100F over a i5 10400F is preferable since the i3 offers 25% faster cores, making it quicker in most scenarios despite having fewer cores. Regarding longevity, results vary based on your usage. If you mainly play modern AAA titles, recent releases demand more than just 6 threads—hyper-threaded CPUs like the 4790K will outperform older models such as the 4690K. For lighter workloads, a chip like this should suffice for a longer time.
V
Velizar06
04-20-2016, 11:03 AM #3

This subject requires careful evaluation of each component's performance alongside the number of cores available. For example, choosing an i3 12100F over a i5 10400F is preferable since the i3 offers 25% faster cores, making it quicker in most scenarios despite having fewer cores. Regarding longevity, results vary based on your usage. If you mainly play modern AAA titles, recent releases demand more than just 6 threads—hyper-threaded CPUs like the 4790K will outperform older models such as the 4690K. For lighter workloads, a chip like this should suffice for a longer time.

I
iskela99
Member
247
04-20-2016, 01:41 PM
#4
Currently, I'm mainly focused on games from the late 90s because they work on my system. They might not be smooth, but they function. I’m leaning toward playing Armored Core when it launches—or nearly does—but I doubt it will be a good experience.
I
iskela99
04-20-2016, 01:41 PM #4

Currently, I'm mainly focused on games from the late 90s because they work on my system. They might not be smooth, but they function. I’m leaning toward playing Armored Core when it launches—or nearly does—but I doubt it will be a good experience.

I
iskela99
Member
247
04-23-2016, 01:18 AM
#5
Currently I feel my CPU is quite outdated. Switching to a 4790 doesn’t seem like the smart choice when a 12100 costs $80. It seems better to hold off for a few months and then upgrade to something more recent. AAA games aren’t the main priority, especially with my 900p display, but I’ve noticed my system struggles with DirectX 12 titles.
I
iskela99
04-23-2016, 01:18 AM #5

Currently I feel my CPU is quite outdated. Switching to a 4790 doesn’t seem like the smart choice when a 12100 costs $80. It seems better to hold off for a few months and then upgrade to something more recent. AAA games aren’t the main priority, especially with my 900p display, but I’ve noticed my system struggles with DirectX 12 titles.

P
patty_chen
Member
53
05-02-2016, 12:53 PM
#6
Upgrading to a 4790 is mainly a temporary fix rather than a lasting improvement. However, it's important to mention they are about half the price of a 12100 and won't force you to replace your motherboard or RAM. The additional four threads can have a noticeable impact, especially with more multithreaded workloads, and also boost clock speed.
P
patty_chen
05-02-2016, 12:53 PM #6

Upgrading to a 4790 is mainly a temporary fix rather than a lasting improvement. However, it's important to mention they are about half the price of a 12100 and won't force you to replace your motherboard or RAM. The additional four threads can have a noticeable impact, especially with more multithreaded workloads, and also boost clock speed.

R
Razlorus
Posting Freak
976
05-02-2016, 01:49 PM
#7
I recently switched from an i5 3550 to a i5 13500 and the improvement is significant—not just in games, but in nearly everything else. My previous setup was adequate for browsing, YouTube, and mid-low gaming, but in the end I believe I made the correct decision.
R
Razlorus
05-02-2016, 01:49 PM #7

I recently switched from an i5 3550 to a i5 13500 and the improvement is significant—not just in games, but in nearly everything else. My previous setup was adequate for browsing, YouTube, and mid-low gaming, but in the end I believe I made the correct decision.