Do you want the best CPU and get the maximum out of Battlefield 4, but you don't have time to read reviews? We selected the 5 best CPUs processors for gaming of the month January 2014.
While an i5 really IS a bottleneck in Battlefield 4, an i7 2600k/3770k/4770k is a much better purchase than the FX9590. The reason being that the standard i7 is not far behind the 9590 and can be overclocked more than the 9590 ever could. Essentially giving you better performance at less power cost. A 6core i7 is the best you can do, but the regular i7 is the one to have for Battlefield, even since BF3.
Wow I was just pricing 6 core on newegg right b4 this article.I think sandy bridge was 549 $ might be my next cpu
Agrees. The 9590 is a retarded choice. If you are going that high end, you HAVE to buy Intel. The 9590 is just far too hot and power thirsty to make any sense against a 4770k or even a 4670k. Which both overclock ridiculously better and stay far cooler without blowing up your PSU.
My 9590 hits and stays at 51C in BF4 and planetside2. All other games never go above 42 even after long play times. Still running it at 4.7. Can't really find a reason to boost it up yet. It's liquid cooled but I believe that cpu requires it. Running 2 r9 290s. My electric bill hasn't changed. ;)
You probably run it on water cooling then jdiggitty, because it is vastly hotter running than an i7 4770k and consumes more than twice as much power for less performance. The SOLE reason to buy a 9590 is because you own an AMD platform already and want to buy the fastest stock CPU. However, the FX8350 is still by far the better buy, simply because you just overclock it up to 9590 speeds. 9590 makes basically zero sense to any enthusiast. The 8350 can run just as fast, for half the price. The 4670 or 4770k are just as fast stock, use less power and make far less heat, plus they can be overclocked far beyond the reach of the 9590 easily. FX9590 gains 10 percent on air OC, that's optimistic too. i5 4670k gains easily 30+ percent. If you're building new, go intel. If you're upgrading AMD, buy an FX8350 and a better cooler for far less than an 9590 then OC it....
amd cpus OC way more than Intel.
Try overclocking the 9590 if you ever get the chance. I dare you.
why would anyone buy that hot monster?
IMO...there is absolutely zero reason to consider any AMD cpu for any form of 'high end' build...and that isn't going to change in 2014... Steam roller is a confirmed floater...they kept their promise and increased IPC performance by around 15%, however they also dropped clocks for better thermal control (its a denser architecture, after all)...translated: there is no tangible difference over piledriver cores...which was already lagging far behind Intel in single threaded performance... whether we like it or not...efficient use of more than 4 cores is still a ways off...BF4 is said to do that, but have you seen the benchmarks? Unexplainable dips and drops and cpu loads that just do not make sense...its hardly a title worthy of deciding factors for ANY PC, let alone a super high end one...and that will be the case until it gets some serious patches... AM3+ is ancient...if you bought a new AM3+ board, and a 'new' piledriver'd FX cpu for a future proof gaming PC...i'd be surprised... I'm not against AMD in any way...currently have an all AMD machine...its just crazy that AMD isn't going to release cpu parts that out perform what i have for at least another year...they're very much going in a different direction than Intel right now; with a big focus on APU design...and not the least bit worried about cpu performance...
By the way, I'm a proud owner of an i5 3570k @ 4.2GHz and some maps are so demanding in Battlefield 4 that it can't even fully use an overclocked HD7850. I have pictures as proof.
My question is. Why is it necessary to overclock a 5ghz processor? What cant it handle when its stock?
You keep blaming the CPU. Ever considered the motherboard? Ram speed? Whatever. Your CPU is fine. Really.
Thanks! I will look into that. I think something like the Intel Core i7-4930K Ivy Bridge-E 3.4GHz LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor is a Very good choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watc... pretty good comparison and the FX6300 is only £85.
The FX-8320 is the best bang for your buck you can get. If you are a hardcore enthusiast, nothing but Intel will satisfy you right now.
best CPUs processors?
Yo dog, I heard you like flagships, so we lit your wallet on fire and... thats about it.
my i7 990x and asus gtx770 give me 61 fps on ultra, not much more is needed.
Ummm... Pretty sure that was only 4... oh and this list is entirely chosen at random and obviously favors amd... just making a point.
Funny thing is my 8350 gets about 30fps more on GRID 2 than the i7 4770, why? because the game actually has full 8 core support. And this is paired with a mid tier 770. And as those games start rolling out more and more with higher core support intel will be left behind along with this threading policy.
i think the only reason why someone would go for an AMD 9590 over an i7 is because its better for live streaming ever so slightly. But honestly if you are going to be spending the money might as well get the i7. I currently got: core i5 3570k [email protected] gigabyte gtx 670 [email protected] 1x8GB 1600mhz 120 SanDisk extreme SSD 1TB seagate barracuda ASrock z77 Pro 3 mobo 750w antec trueblue psu needless to say I can play pretty much anything no problem @1080p, and most everything at 1200p
Apparently nobody else care that this list is only 4, not 5 processors. I cannot take the opinion of someone who cannot count to five seriously. Your journalism rights are revoked, please do not write ever again. Your website is total crap anyways. AMDfanboy.loser.suckit
look closer.. there are 5 processors
The 83xx and the 95xx are the same processor, one is just overclocked and overpriced.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.