Any point using an i7 for a 860m? it's not like an i5-4200m can bottleneck it or anything from this report

Pentium G3258 Processor Review and Athlon X4 750K Comparison

As you can see, the i3-4330(20% stronger than the 4200m. 1680 vs 2000 single thread performance, 4100 vs 5000 passmark performance) is not even considered a bottleneck for a freakin gtx titan.

The 860m at best will be on par with a 750ti which is only like 60-70% as powerful as the titan.

Even on a game like battlefield 4 that likes multicores/threads the difference is laughable. It would appear as though I might get the exact FPS playing games on a 4200m compared to a 4710mq if I'm just using a measly 860m.

True the A10- 5750m will bottleneck an m290x, but the AMD cpu has 35% less single thread performance and like 20% worse overall performance than the intel and it's using a significantly more powerful GPU to boot.

I'd rather not spend like 100 euros over something that won't benefit my gaming.

 

I have tested both the i5 and i7 in an alienware 14 with 765m. A lot of games play just as well on the i5 as the i7 but I did notice some serious differences in BF4, Titanfall, Shogun 2 to name a few.
I found BF4 and Titanfall much smoother with the quad, they seemed to play ok on the i5, but there were regular frame drops and a much lower average fps.
If I had a choice between a decent gpu and dual core or a quad a mediocre gpu then I would always pick the better gpu, if it is only 100 euros I would definitely invest in the quad.

 

Games are becoming much more CPU dependent these days due to poor optimization. It seems all of the latest and greatest titles literally suck (performance wise) at release because companies have to get it out of development to begin devoting resources towards other projects.

Bottom line: No, you don't need to. But if you're a gamer, I highly recommend going with a quad-core CPU to enjoy the game at its best.

 

Confirmation bias, strengthened by tests using a bunch of last-gen's console games.

You'll have a rude awakening when something like The Witcher 3 comes out, next year.

 

Ha, no doubt. +1 Kevin.

 

You have to be careful with bf4. Multiplayer uses a lot more resources and threads than single player. And metro last light and grid 2 were hampered by slower cpus. But interesting article nevertheless.

Beamed from my G2 Tricorder

 

On notebookcheck you can find several notebooks with a I5 that perform almost just as good as notebook with a I7 in it with the same GPU.
Also check this site below for good comparison between I5 and I7. So I'd say stick with the I5 because if you're going to experience lag on a future game it most probably be because of the GPU first then the CPU.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...m-review-using-sager-np7330-clevo-w230st.html

 

I'm planning on doing this same comparison with the i7-4810MQ and i5-4200m with the 860m with some of the latest games and benchmarks.

 

>You'll have a rude awakening when something like The Witcher 3 comes out, next year.

something tells me it's the 860m will cause the bottleneck long before the cpu goes near 100% usage.

 

That's probably holds true with the 860M. I'd say it's not necessary, but it won't hurt to upgrade.

 

At whatever settings the 860M can handle TW3, a dual core CPU will bottleneck its potential.

Keep in mind that CPU can become more of a factor at lower resolutions.