An honest understanding of thread count and utilization.

[Toothless]

So it shouldn't be too much of an issue to do the same for PC ports/PC exclusives which will benefit more from having higher clocked, higher IPC...

This thread confuses me, there seem to be some people who are genuinely butthurt that AMD has released a true 6c/12t-8c/16t desktop processor that isn't aimed or priced at the HEDT market BUT can compete with Intel as opposed to their previous architectures, one argument that comes up again and again is that 4c/4t is plenty, what about the i7 users over the last 8 years? the only reason more people haven't gone to 6+ cores on the intel camp is their monopoly over the last 10 years and the cost of such systems. I have 6c/12t Ryzen and don't feel I need to explain to anyone what I use my system for or justify why I need more than 4 threads... as mentioned this isn't a gaming forum, there are people who use their PC's for all sorts of things and affordable 6/8c - 12/16t chips will only open up this untapped requirement even more whilst pushing devs to support more cores, more threads and parallel computing. It's not a bad thing, I don't know why the hate from some people, Intel will be releasing HEDT chips at lower price points than they would have before Ryzen which you can see from recent releases so whether you're a die hard Intel or AMD fan it's good news, rainbows and unicorns all round, stop bloody complaining!!

Iunno man, the younger and dumber me would've slobbered all over them socket 2011 six cored chips when I got my 4790k.

 

[eidairaman1]

So it shouldn't be too much of an issue to do the same for PC ports/PC exclusives which will benefit more from having higher clocked, higher IPC...

This thread confuses me, there seem to be some people who are genuinely butthurt that AMD has released a true 6c/12t-8c/16t desktop processor that isn't aimed or priced at the HEDT market BUT can compete with Intel as opposed to their previous architectures, one argument that comes up again and again is that 4c/4t is plenty, what about the i7 users over the last 8 years? the only reason more people haven't gone to 6+ cores on the intel camp is their monopoly over the last 10 years and the cost of such systems. I have 6c/12t Ryzen and don't feel I need to explain to anyone what I use my system for or justify why I need more than 4 threads... as mentioned this isn't a gaming forum, there are people who use their PC's for all sorts of things and affordable 6/8c - 12/16t chips will only open up this untapped requirement even more whilst pushing devs to support more cores, more threads and parallel computing. It's not a bad thing, I don't know why the hate from some people, Intel will be releasing HEDT chips at lower price points than they would have before Ryzen which you can see from recent releases so whether you're a die hard Intel or AMD fan it's good news, rainbows and unicorns all round, stop bloody complaining!!



I rest my case, you are comparing yourself to the rest of the population and ASSUMING most people are like you, what do you care if everyone adopts 64c/128t chips when they don't need them? you are fine with your 4 core, don't preach to everyone else as to what you think they should do with their time, money and systems... maybe we shoud all still drive Austin allegros that can barely accelerate past 60-70mph as that's the speed limit in most countries, why would you want anything else?

AMD showed force finally with Ryzen, Intel is now trying to make a move to regain dominance. I like competition myself. Keeps things interesting. But its like this Intel sat for sometime and innovation slumped as most devs used intels compilers for "optimization".

 

[Kursah]

Hopefully more PC game devs will follow Stardock's core neutral game engine design that scales with the more cores available to use. Ashes of the Singularity Escalation uses this method and I believe GalCiv 3 does as well and was improved further with the recent Crusades update.

Between games like that and even games from several years ago that used more threads, VM management and even general multitasking can benefit from extra threads. I was able to perform a test around 8 years ago between a Q6600 and E8500, just in general use and swapping between a game running, minimizing it, and using Chrome, etc. The quad core was clearly better here, albeit it was slower at overall FPS in the game seeing it couldn't keep up clock-speed wise to the dual core.

Sure many games might only use 4 threads, but what else are you doing on your PC while gaming? What else do you have open? Are you streaming video or voice? Are you recording? Are you browsing? There's many reasons to have and use more threads...that being said, I'm still impressed by the 2C/4T i3's in my boys' PC's...but the extra smoothness and performance my 4790K has is noticeable as it should be, especially when I do all the things on their PC's I normally load up on mine. There's other factors too, less and slower RAM, slower platter-based storage versus solid state, etc. It all adds up.

Frankly I will likely go for a 6-8 core 12/16 thread CPU on my next build because of all the crap I end up doing at times and by then I'm sure if I want to keep my multitasking smooth I'll need more than 8 threads as games will be using them all.

 

[R-T-B]

Hopefully more PC game devs will follow Stardock's core neutral game engine design that scales with the more cores available to use. Ashes of the Singularity Escalation uses this method and I believe GalCiv 3 does as well and was improved further with the recent Crusades update.

Sadly, I doubt it. Brad Wardell is a multi-threading mastermind. He was doing it back on GalCiv 2 for OS/2, back when no one cared. His obsession with it is borderline insane (but in a good way).

 

[Melvis]

It really comes down to what you use your PC for. If your a person that just games 99% of the time, and have Chrome/Firefox open with a few tabs open, Skype running in the background, and you only use one monitor then an i5 or what you have now is plenty. But if your a guy that runs 2-3-4monitors, have 100 tabs open on your browser, Record your gaming as you play, run 2 games at once, Stream to twitch, convert Shows/movies etc all at the same time then you need a more multi cored CPU.

I jumped from a Phenom II 965 to the FX 8350 and at the time alot of people said your gaming performance will ether be no different or worse on the 8350. I did extensive testing at the time with both CPU's, same mobo, same GPU and the results went from no difference in FPS to almost double FPS on the 8350 over the 965. And today its even larger that the old PII's just cant keep up at all, or at least struggle.

Software is changing even in gaming to support and use more then 4cores, its alot slower then we would like I must admit, but it is happening.

 

[Toothless]

It really comes down to what you use your PC for. If your a person that just games 99% of the time, and have Chrome/Firefox open with a few tabs open, Skype running in the background, and you only use one monitor then an i5 or what you have now is plenty. But if your a guy that runs 2-3-4monitors, have 100 tabs open on your browser, Record your gaming as you play, run 2 games at once, Stream to twitch, convert Shows/movies etc all at the same time then you need a multi cored CPU.

I jumped from a Phenom II 965 to the FX 8350 and at the time alot of people said your gaming performance will ether be no different or worse on the 8350. I did extensive testing at the time with both CPU's, same mobo, same GPU and the results went from no difference in FPS to almost double FPS on the 8350 over the 965. And today its even larger that the old PII's just cant keep up at all, or at least struggle.

Software is changing even in gaming to support and use more then 4cores, its alot slower then we would like I must admit, but it is happening.

An i5 is multicored..

 

[Melvis]

An i5 is multicored..

Picky! gezzz lol, there fixed