WoW: Most needlessly graphic-intensive game?

[Tantaburs]

Yeah for people who browse facebook, not for gamers. Use the right tools for the job. i3 is not the right tool for gaming in this day and age.

Depends what you're playing saying i3s are not the right tool for gaming is like saying Ryzan 3s are not the right tool for gaming

A i3-10300 is going to be perfectly capable of playing most titles especially at higher resolutions and is $100 cheaper than a 10600k.

- - - Updated - - -

https://hexus.net/tech/tech-explaine...processor-igp/

As opposed to you and your alt account i have proof.

I'm done tho. I've proven you wrong so many times but at some point you just have to accept that some people are y2k and fact resistent.

Its kinda boring when the only oposition you get is "NO. I know its like this. You need education!" and then goes away while their standin takes a beating for the next couple of messages. :/

You explained with an article from 2009 that proves your initial post that motherboards have graphics today is wrong.

An iGPU doesn't borrow memory from your motherboard. Your mother board has like 128mb of memory at most, probably 32 or 64. That's not enough to do anything

Modern APUs borrow system memory from your RAM to act as VRAM. Also saying that APUs can't game is really dumb since all modern consoles run an APU.

[Djuntas]

People above me talking about 10300, when im here with 100+ addons installed playing wow on medium settings 1080p with a CPU from 2014 Q4...100-150 FPS in solo, 40-150 in groups depending on situation...

Stop tards. WoW is not demanding, never has been, wont ever be. Blizzard knows that people like me plays this game - They scan our PC hardware without our knowledge anyway, so they can tailor their shit to us.

[ClassicPeon]

Depends what you're playing saying i3s are not the right tool for gaming is like saying Ryzan 3s are not the right tool for gaming

A i3-10300 is going to be perfectly capable of playing most titles especially at higher resolutions and is $100 cheaper than a 10600k.

- - - Updated - - -



You explained with an article from 2009 that proves your initial post that motherboards have graphics today is wrong.

An iGPU doesn't borrow memory from your motherboard. Your mother board has like 128mb of memory at most, probably 32 or 64. That's not enough to do anything

Modern APUs borrow system memory from your RAM to act as VRAM. Also saying that APUs can't game is really dumb since all modern consoles run an APU.

motherboards have graphics today

When you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or what the conversation is about

[Tantaburs]

When you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or what the conversation is about

I havent at any point said that you couldnt run games with a tenth gen i3. Just like the integrated graphics of most MB's today are enough to run a lot of games. Thats not really what they are made for tho.

Just like the integrated graphics of most MB's today are enough to run a lot of games.

integrated graphics of most MB's today

You literally said most motherboards today have integrated graphics. You then linked an article from 2009 which stated on board graphics will be entirely phased out by 2012. This disproves your statement that most motherboards today have integrated graphics.

[Kalika]

A CPU having an iGPU is not the same thing as your motherboard having graphics. Your motherboard does not have a graphics card

Also K sku CPUs do have iGPUs K just means they are overclockable I believe you are confusing the K branding with the F branding which removes the iGPU

Your right I meant F I have a KF CPU

[Dilbon]

Modern i3-10100 (4 cores, 8 threads) is equivalent to three years old i7-7700. Both run games very well, although 4c/8t is starting to be a bottleneck in latest games. Not in WoW though.

[Kalika]

They are? As opposed to yours you mean? Thats an interesting viewpoint reeeally

Classic case of projection trying to flip it over when you’re the problem.

maybe they did 20 years ago. No idea about that.

Once again you have no clue, my 4-year MSI Leopard GP72 CPU is soldered to the board. I found that out when I took it apart to put better thermal paste on the CPU and GPU when I first got it. 20 years ago, is when they were not Soldered and replaceable because I replaced the MB in my Toshiba satellite.

No you didnt :/

Actually, I did you cherry picked my words and used them to look as though I was not referring to the “U” CPU.

You are obviously getting very angry about being wrong all the time. I'm just gonna let this one fizzle out now

I don’t get angry I have a 7-year-old, I only try to educate people when they are incorrect you are so off base that it is laughable. In addition, your grammar is the worst!

[zhero]

SL’s minimum (not “recommended” but “minimum”) requirement is an i5 processor. I have an i3 that runs GW2 (avoid game vs. game discussion) just fine but can’t run this ancient beast that is WoW? What a ripoff!

CPU: Intel Core i5-3450, which is about half the performance of the intel i3-10300. that i5-3450 came out like 8 years ago, so anything you have from the last 5 years is probably going to be good enough for the minimum specs.

[Wildpantz]

Saying an i3 runs just fine is a lie anything under 60 fps max graphics is unplayable and even a new high end can do that

[ZenX]

I don't do mythic raids etc. but for basically anything else my r3-2200g+rx480 (Single-dimm 8g) and r7-1700+gtx1080 (4x16gb in dual-channel) machines don't differ in the feeling I get out of the game. I was even able to get 4k-mid without AA on an rx460 2gb and 2gb gt1030 without getting much hit on general fluidity of the game.

Though I have been using nothing but at least AHCI SSDs in the minimum for the last 5 years with the r3-2200g machine running the game on a mid-range nvme ssd. That might have some part to play but WoW has been the most tame game for me in terms of almost being able to run in a toaster.

Will see how it will be in SL.

[Tantaburs]

Saying an i3 runs just fine is a lie anything under 60 fps max graphics is unplayable and even a new high end can do that

An i3 10300 will run most modern games at 60fps perfectly fine.

Games with more physics calculations or that are optimized to make use of more than 4 cores (which is very few) may expe ience some slowdown with an i3 vs an i5 but the vast majority of games aren't CPU bottlenecked especially at high settings

Even a 10100 barely bottle necks a 2080ti at 1440p.

[FuxieDK]

That was the point I think, cryptomining will eat your up your GPU. Malware that hijacks your GPU to cryptomine has been around for a while, they're suggesting you check for malware in case that is an issue since it is a bit unusual for GPU to be more taxed than CPU when it comes to WoW.

It's only when WoW runs, it uses 70% GPU.. When it's not running, it's <5%

[Corroc]

https://hexus.net/tech/tech-explaine...processor-igp/

As opposed to you and your alt account i have proof.

As we have said many times before: we don't allow alt accounts. We can and do ban them as we encounter them. Please report alts and evades when you suspect them, but also understand that we can't just assume every single new account is an alt account and ban it without any supporting evidence.

Make sure the report us if you are really that delusional.

[Sansnom]

Saying an i3 runs just fine is a lie anything under 60 fps max graphics is unplayable and even a new high end can do that

I think we need real benchmarks otherwise it is all just speculations. I have a feeling it would run. Whether it would run acceptably would partially depends on the gamer. Sure it most likely would not reach 60 with max graphics. People can turned down the graphic settings. The game does not have to run with everything at max. I certainly do not.

Not everyone can afford a GC to run with everything at max at high framerate.

[CrawlFromThePit]

Depends what you're playing saying i3s are not the right tool for gaming is like saying Ryzan 3s are not the right tool for gaming

A i3-10300 is going to be perfectly capable of playing most titles especially at higher resolutions and is $100 cheaper than a 10600k.

You know what I meant.

[Tantaburs]

You know what I meant.

Did you mean that i3's are perfectly serviceable CPU's for many sole gaming related tasks? cause if so saying that an i3 isn't the right tool for gaming is pretty silly.

Here's a review of an i3 10100 the lesser of the 10th gen i3's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAPq9Lthhnc&t=876s

Battlefield V ultra 140fps
Far Cry New Dawn Ultra 90 fps
Shadow of the Tomb raider Ultra 80 fps
RDR2 High 80 fps

Can we stop pretending that an i3 isn't a perfectly reasonable budget gaming CPU. Is an i5 10600k better? yes. Is a Ryzen 3600 better? yes but those chips are also more expensive and people have budgets. Comments like i3's are not gaming CPUs or that people are idiots for putting a i3 in a gaming CPU drive people away from PC gaming. Budget PCs can be very serviceable in most game.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we need real benchmarks otherwise it is all just speculations. I have a feeling it would run. Whether it would run acceptably would partially depends on the gamer. Sure it most likely would not reach 60 with max graphics. People can turned down the graphic settings. The game does not have to run with everything at max. I certainly do not.

Not everyone can afford a GC to run with everything at max at high framerate.

Your CPU has very little to do with what settings you can run a game at. Moving up to higher resolutions and textures stresses your GPU not your CPU. Things that stress your CPU are things that require calculations, Particle effects IIRC can put more stress on your CPU since there are now more things that the CPU needs to calculate the position of same with reflections I believe (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) but simply turning resolutions up from low to high doesn't have any real effect on your CPU. For the most part if a CPU can run a game on low with 60fps it can run the game on high with around 60fps if the GPU can run the game at 60fps

[rogoth]

I’m gonna try not to be mean but after 16 years you should have been able to save enough to replace your cpu with something a bit newer

i love comments like this, because your asinine assumption makes you look like an ass, a PC and it's component parts are luxury items, and you have no idea what the personal circumstances of the OP are, where they live meaning what their earning power is like, that goes for parts availability, it may be very difficult to get the parts they need because of heavy tax rates on such items etc, so while i understand your point, it's a moronic viewpoint to take.

[Baneto]

i love comments like this, because your asinine assumption makes you look like an ass, a PC and it's component parts are luxury items, and you have no idea what the personal circumstances of the OP are, where they live meaning what their earning power is like, that goes for parts availability, it may be very difficult to get the parts they need because of heavy tax rates on such items etc, so while i understand your point, it's a moronic viewpoint to take.

Sixteen years.... If you havent been able to upgrade or build a computer by that time, you have some serious issues with money and life.

And maybe you should prioritize something else than WoW.

[Zephire]

SL’s minimum (not “recommended” but “minimum”) requirement is an i5 processor. I have an i3 that runs GW2 (avoid game vs. game discussion) just fine but can’t run this ancient beast that is WoW? What a ripoff!

What is "WoW: Most needlessly graphic-intensive game?" for you? You state the minimum requirement but not really why you feel it's "needlessly". I don't feel your post answers your headline :P

[CrawlFromThePit]

Did you mean that i3's are perfectly serviceable CPU's for many sole gaming related tasks? cause if so saying that an i3 isn't the right tool for gaming is pretty silly.

Here's a review of an i3 10100 the lesser of the 10th gen i3's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAPq9Lthhnc&t=876s

Battlefield V ultra 140fps
Far Cry New Dawn Ultra 90 fps
Shadow of the Tomb raider Ultra 80 fps
RDR2 High 80 fps

Can we stop pretending that an i3 isn't a perfectly reasonable budget gaming CPU. Is an i5 10600k better? yes. Is a Ryzen 3600 better? yes but those chips are also more expensive and people have budgets. Comments like i3's are not gaming CPUs or that people are idiots for putting a i3 in a gaming CPU drive people away from PC gaming. Budget PCs can be very serviceable in most game.

- - - Updated - - -



Your CPU has very little to do with what settings you can run a game at. Moving up to higher resolutions and textures stresses your GPU not your CPU. Things that stress your CPU are things that require calculations, Particle effects IIRC can put more stress on your CPU since there are now more things that the CPU needs to calculate the position of same with reflections I believe (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) but simply turning resolutions up from low to high doesn't have any real effect on your CPU. For the most part if a CPU can run a game on low with 60fps it can run the game on high with around 60fps if the GPU can run the game at 60fps

No I didn't mean serviceable. I can hammer a nail with a rock.
I said gamers, people who have a passion for it, not those who build a PC with the pocket change that fell in the couch and are fine doing their 1 hour per day of gaming with their single monitor and nothing else but the game running. Sure that's serviceable, but that's not what gamers look for just like a construction worker or anyone with a passion like woodworking will not be satisfied with a rock even if that rock can hammer that nail. I'm talking about people who want the most out of it.

BTW your own video shows there's a difference when increasing the resolution, about 10% drop when going from 1080p to 1440, so I could expect at least another 15% drop when going to 2k which is pretty common. Also that CPU has some hard drops, the min FPS is always far from what they call the "average", this causes a visual problem known as FPS drop, where going from 130 to 80 is more annoying than staying at 80 all the time because the difference is noticeable, on top of only happening when there's a lot of action which is even more annoying. No real gamer seriously cares if the game runs at 250 fps while doing nothing.

But yes, it's serviceable for casuals, just not great for gamers.