Is more than 8 cores still overkill for high end gaming for 1440P with RTX 4090

[Wolverine2349]

You should definitely match the 240 aio unless he was blasting 3000 RPM fans with it. Kinda depends what you plan on doing with it I guess and if you are ok removing the 100C Tjmax in bios. I almost want you to get one just to report back to us how hard you can push it. Maybe @ir_cow could test this not sure if he has a D15S though but maybe he has a similar cooler.

You may want to wait for the KS model if you plan on doing something like this it should be much better binned than the vanilla K model.

I was very close to pulling the trigger but my Local Micro Center just sold out. They had the price for the 13900K at $569 which was awesome compared to everywhere. They still have 25 in stock of 13700K which is $399 a great price compared to others.

To get 13900K which I would only want for better binning and extra L3 cache even though I will disable all e-cores. It is going in the $700 to $800 or even $800 plus more dollars by scalpers on ebay. Yuck.

Though also thinking of going with AMD.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I was very close to pulling the trigger but my Local Micro Center just sold out. They had the price for the 13900K at $569 which was awesome compared to everywhere. They still have 25 in stock of 13700K which is $399 a great price compared to others.

To get 13900K which I would only want for better binning and extra L3 cache even though I will disable all e-cores. It is going in the $700 to $800 by scalpers on ebay. Yuck.

Though also thinking of going with AMD.

Bottom line you can't really go wrong with any of the modern 8+ core chips and even the 6 core counterparts are really good. at 1440p with a 4090 there isn't going to be much different unless you like looking at RTSS more than gaming.

With a 4090 most games around medium settings TPU should have their 4090 results up soon but they used worse memory on Ryzen for the comparison although you'd probably need a 400+ board to run 6000 CL30 on AM5.


Future proofing really isn't a thing while everything from Ryzen 5000 and up will be fine for gaming for the next 3+ years there will be parts that will likely blow away the 13900k a generation or 2 from now.

 

[Vario]

I was very close to pulling the trigger but my Local Micro Center just sold out. They had the price for the 13900K at $569 which was awesome compared to everywhere. They still have 25 in stock of 13700K which is $399 a great price compared to others.

To get 13900K which I would only want for better binning and extra L3 cache even though I will disable all e-cores. It is going in the $700 to $800 by scalpers on ebay. Yuck.

Though also thinking of going with AMD.

$569 is stellar. I would go for that if it becomes available, it will be that price again if you are patient. I also think you should leave the e cores enabled.

 

[Wolverine2349]

$569 is stellar. I would go for that if it becomes available, it will be that price again if you are patient. I also think you should leave the e cores enabled.

Yeah its not like they flew off the shelfs within seconds. They had 25 in stock on launch day and yesterday afternoon they had one in stock. Then it was gone later in the day and not there today. Though they have a whole bunch of 13600Ks and 13700Ks 25+ in stock of each.

$569 is stellar. I would go for that if it becomes available, it will be that price again if you are patient. I also think you should leave the e cores enabled.

If I run WIN10 will it even know how to use the e-cores if they are left enabled??

 

[64K]

If you use your rig strictly for gaming then take a look at W1zzard's recent reviews on the i9 13900k and the i5 13600k. You will see that they generally perform identically. Sometimes the i9 13900k beats the i5 13600k and sometimes the i5 13600k beats the i9 13900k but in both cases it's usually only by 1 or 2 FPS.

The i9 13900k costs $270 more than the i5 13600k. That tells me that buying an i9 13900k is wasting your money.

 

[Vario]

Yeah its not like they flew off the shelfs within seconds. They had 25 in stock on launch day and yesterday afternoon they had one in stock. Then it was gone later in the day and not there today. Though they have a whole bunch of 13600Ks and 13700Ks 25+ in stock of each.




If I run WIN10 will it even know how to use the e-cores if they are left enabled??

I mean it just works for me. I haven't had any sign of problems that the e cores aren't functioning as intended. I am on Windows 10 21H1 LTSC (Enterprise).

 

[mechtech]

Spend your money however you want.

I got a 1700 almost 6 years ago now. I could have got a 5700x or whatever I wanted. Got a 5600 on sale. The $130(CAD) I saved on the 5700x I will put towards a better mobo, or more ram or more storage................still deciding.

So I would say no, a decent 6 core is still relevant.

 

[dirtyferret]

No one is really talking about a 1700x when they say 8 core.

today's "8 cores" are tomorrow's 1700x

The reason "8" core is the sweet spot is that current AMD and Intals top out at 8 P cores/ one CCD with 8 Zen 3 vcache or one 8 Zen 4 cores is the best performance you can get with the least downside in terms of scheduler issues.

there is no sweet spot, it's a meaningless term since each person's needs are unique. I can easily make an argument for $150, $250, or $350 CPUs (or any other price point) as the "sweet spot" and won't be wrong as long the CPU's performance meets the needs in the sweet spot example. Notice I talk about price and performance yet never mention cores.

Also # cores are generally tied to cache, which makes a big difference, and ability to process simultaneous threads which helps slightly in certain cases.

Not always. Typically more cores equal more chache and cache obviously has an impact on gaming performance but it's not always a rule more cores equal more cache (2700x vs 7600x as one example).

True, very true. However, if a game cannot utilize more than say 4 cores, your CPU's performance is limited to the 4 best cores (plus a bit as other things are not competing). If a game can use 128 threads, a threadripper 3990WX is a better choice than a 7950X despite having ~40% less single core performance.

You agree with your former statement and than give an "if" example on your latter that generally does not exist in games. Yes there will come a day that the 7950x simply can't give the multi core performance one may need to play modern games and the 3990WX may offer better benchmarks but at that point neither CPU would be offering what most people would consider a pleasant gaming experience. It would be somewhat similar to the people who purchased "eight core" bulldozer CPUs back in the day and waited 10+ years to finally brag about getting better gaming benchmarks than intel 2500k owners. Getting 24fps vs 21fps is hardly anything to brag about and the majority of 2500k (and even bulldozer) have moved on long ago to better performance.

I think what both of you miss in the techspot/hardware unboxed article is that it's not about six cores are "enough" or that they are "not enough" but that cores are meaningless without performance knowledge and CPUs should be judged as a whole and not based solely on cores. It somewhat reminds me 20 years ago when people were saying you need a 3ghz CPU in order to "game properly" without mentioning the fact 3ghz is different on a celeron vs athlon xp vs pentium 4 vs etc., etc., 20 years from now I don't see people saying you need "x" amount of cores for sweet spot gaming.

 

[phanbuey]

there is no sweet spot, it's a meaningless term since each person's needs are unique. I can easily make an argument for $150, $250, or $350 CPUs (or any other price point) as the "sweet spot" and won't be wrong as long the CPU's performance meets the needs in the sweet spot example. Notice I talk about price and performance yet never mention cores.

Most gamers that chase the "high end" FPS are not "unique". As such they don't have unique needs, per this OP he wants the best available gaming chip. This isn't some specialty build where you want to tailor the components - so a sweet spot does in fact exist for this type of build - really for high end the 13700kf, used 12900/12700s, 5800x3d, 7700x etc. - if you want a budget build then 5700/12400 with majority of $ thrown at the GPU.

In any case the shorthand way to talk about performance levels is through cores -- back in the day it was clockspeed and bus speed - is it accurate? eh... it's good enough for now until something better comes along.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The i9 13900k costs $270 more than the i5 13600k. That tells me that buying an i9 13900k is wasting your money.

Only for some games and that depends on the resolution. There are many situations where the 13900k was the clear winner.

So I would say no, a decent 6 core is still relevant.

True!

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

You agree with your former statement and than give an "if" example on your latter that generally does not exist in games. Yes there will come a day that the 7950x simply can't give the multi core performance one may need to play modern games and the 3990WX may offer better benchmarks but at that point neither CPU would be offering what most people would consider a pleasant gaming experience. It would be somewhat similar to the people who purchased "eight core" bulldozer CPUs back in the day and waited 10+ years to finally brag about getting better gaming benchmarks than intel 2500k owners. Getting 24fps vs 21fps is hardly anything to brag about and the majority of 2500k (and even bulldozer) have moved on long ago to better performance.

I think what both of you miss in the techspot/hardware unboxed article is that it's not about six cores are "enough" or that they are "not enough" but that cores are meaningless without performance knowledge and CPUs should be judged as a whole and not based solely on cores. It somewhat reminds me 20 years ago when people were saying you need a 3ghz CPU in order to "game properly" without mentioning the fact 3ghz is different on a celeron vs athlon xp vs pentium 4 vs etc., etc., 20 years from now I don't see people saying you need "x" amount of cores for sweet spot gaming.

It was a theoretical example - the point was that while a game does need a "minimum performance" to run, there are more aspects than that. If you want a real-world example, use BattleTech. It is limited to 1-2 cores for the main part, so an i3-12100 should beat a 3950X*. Path of Exile, on the other hand, can use up to 8 cores (with SMT) and should* run better on a 3950X than an i3-12100.

* I have neither of these processors, so I cannot test this. However, you can search it for yourself.

 

[dgianstefani]

Nothing comes close to the 5800X3D or Intel 12/13th gen.

Intel brute forces with high IPC and high clocks.

X3D makes do with huge cache.

PassMark CPU Benchmarks - Single Thread Performance

Benchmarks of the single thread performance of CPUs. This chart comparing CPUs single thread performance is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily.

www.cpubenchmark.net

Zen 4 not worth for gaming until X3D.

Also bear in mind Intel has better IMC for high speed DDR5 at the moment (compared to Zen 4) and uses a monolithic design, for lower, consistent latency.

 

[dirtyferret]

* I have neither of these processors, so I cannot test this. However, you can search it for yourself.

no offense but if you are not sure of it why mention it as proof....I think you completely missed my point as well

 

[The red spirit]

Not always. Typically more cores equal more chache and cache obviously has an impact on gaming performance but it's not always a rule more cores equal more cache (2700x vs 7600x as one example).

Not all cache can be used by other cores, but by buying higher core count chip, you get cores that can also deal with light background tasks, perhaps with less demanding gaming workloads, if game's engine can spread workload, but only highly load several cores and a lot of cores only lightly. Also something like SMT can help cram more workload to each cores, also higher end SKUs tend to have either higher base clock or boost for less cores. Also today, you can get a chip with P and E cores... There are many variables, sky's the limit, but OP only has money for locked i5 it seems and it's totally adequate for gaming.

 

[dirtyferret]

if game's engine can spread workload

once again someone fails to understand the article using imaginary situations they created to justify their false opinion. You are confusing the terms "utilization" which is real and proven with the term "spread" which is not not in any significant form for gaming, hence why a higher performance CPU can outperform a lower performance CPU even if said lower has more "cores".

At some point you may have heard someone say that for gaming you need X amount of cores. Typical examples include "6 is more than enough cores," or "you need a minimum of 8 cores for gaming," due to some misguided notion that consoles have 8 cores and therefore that's what PC gamers will require moving forward.We've addressed these "core" misconceptions before, explaining that overall CPU performance is all that matters, rather than how many cores a CPU has. And while that should be a fairly easy concept to understand, there's a surprising amount of pushback.

 

[The red spirit]

once again someone fails to understand the article using imaginary situations they created to justify their false opinion. You are confusing the terms "utilization" which is real and proven with the term "spread" which is not not in any significant form for gaming, hence why a higher performance CPU can outperform a lower performance CPU even if said lower has more "cores".

??? Modern F1 games can utilize all cores on Opteron chips, so 16 cores. But it's still slow, because only 4 cores are fully loaded and other treated as supplemental cores for only sometimes executing code. Still game performance depends on those 4 main cores. That's one example I'm aware of. Outside of games you can have different phenomena. Sometimes you can load CPU 100%, however, you start another program at the same time and they both perform and execute without any significant slow down, because utilization report is only so good and it cannot describe how full core's pipeline is of instructions and what instructions aren't used by one program.

 

[dirtyferret]

??? Modern F1 games can utilize all cores on Opteron chips, so 16 cores. But it's still slow, because only 4 cores are fully loaded and other treated as supplemental cores for only sometimes executing code. Still game performance depends on those 4 main cores

yes! you are proving my point when I said utilize, not spread

Outside of games you can have different phenomena

yes, I understand this but I'm only talking just gaming. You can create any type of situation to justify a specific build which is why I stated above there is no such thing as a sweet spot (in general terms) as each person has individual needs. The OP opening question is "Are there any games that actually meaningfully benefit from more than 8 cores?" but the reality is games benefit from more performance not cores as proven in the linked articles by techspot/hardware unboxed.

 

[The red spirit]

yes, I understand this but I'm only talking just gaming. You can create any type of situation to justify a specific build which is why I stated above there is no such thing as a sweet spot (in general terms) as each person has individual needs. The OP opening question is "Are there any games that actually meaningfully benefit from more than 8 cores?" but the reality is games benefit from more performance not cores as proven in the linked articles by techspot/hardware unboxed.

Then you understood everything wrong, no two ways about that. You have to have enough cores and each core has to be fast enough. If you theoretically could get performance of 6 core CPU in single core, it wouldn't perform identically as 6 core CPU and it is the way it is due to how code works and due to internal CPU architecture, about which I won't get into details. Also performance isn't just one metric, which you can condense into one number.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Console proves time and time again you can game using a potato

 

[dirtyferret]

about which I won't get into details.

because you don't understand what you are talking about. you are just making stuff up to justify your purchase

. You have to have enough cores and each core has to be fast enough.

once again you fail the most basic understanding of the article, as per techspot/unboxed you fail to understand an easy concept they went through

And while that should be a fairly easy concept to understand, there's a surprising amount of pushback.

If you theoretically could get performance of 6 core CPU in single core

I'm posting facts from professional hardware reviewers and you are posting theories

 

[ThrashZone]

This is my hobby I enjoy playing with computer hardware

I can't play games for more than an hour, possibly because I may have a short attention span. I get bored.

And I like details, sorry

Hi,
Yep have to limit the blood soaking violence otherwise we might just flip out

 

[dirtyferret]

You just explained what you do here, now go and read something about CPU architecture

I linked two articles about CPU architecture and gaming, you posted nothing but your opinion as if it's fact even though each opinion is proven wrong by those articles.

 

[The red spirit]

I linked two articles about CPU architecture and gaming, you posted nothing but your opinion as if it's fact even though each opinion is proven wrong by those articles.

"Having said that, most modern and demanding games don't run well on quad-cores, even if they support SMT" Your own, damn quoted article. Do you even read what you link?

 

[dirtyferret]

Your own, damn quoted article. Do you even read what you link?

I have not said one thing about cores, only performance. You also failed to post the very next line by the article

It's also easier to dump down system requirements to core count, because it's a quick way to dismiss a wide range of CPUs. For example, games no longer run properly, or at all, on dual-core CPUs, so in that sense you require at minimum a quad-core to game. Having said that, most modern and demanding games don't run well on quad-cores, even if they support SMT (simultaneous multi-threading). That sounds like I'm contradicting my own argument right off the bat, but once again, it's first and foremost about overall CPU performance.

 

[cvaldes]

Hi,
Yep have to limit the blood soaking violence otherwise we might just flip out

Uh, not all games are violent. They don't all have to be like Among Us where people are regularly dying.