Is 4 cores and 8 threads enough for todays computer,gaming in 2023

[TheinsanegamerN]

Nonsense. It's way better to have a mega powerful CPU than to whine, "I'm CPU bound," and yeah, your 11600K is not enough for 6700 XT in 1080p already. Neither is i3-12100. You will notice some boost (in games like CS:GO, boost will be humongous), why is that not fine by you?

But when you end up having a mighty GPU, you will be sorry if your CPU is a cheeky i3-12100. 7800X3D is capable of any activity.

In what universe is the 11600k not enough for a 6700 xt? Short of pursuing 240hz gaming that is total nonsense.

Games want good CPUs, but they're not THAT demanding.

 

[gasolin]

I don't play cyberpunk

As i wrote i want to try a 12100 (f) or 13100(f), when 14 gen comes i think many would upgrade and there for have a 12 or 13gen for sale at a good price. Dont wanna go crazy, no more then a 13400 or 13500, 6 cores for gaming and what ever runs in the background 4 or 8 core (13500 has 14 cores), i don't wanna have a hot cpu

When i tried 4 cores with ht i had the samme fps gaming as i do with 6 cores

I have the space for a 360mm aio but i don't like a noisy aio

Won't go AM5 because have absolutely no will to buy new cooler

Shouldn't be a problem with a thermalright peerless assassins 120mm air cooler (super cheap and very good)

Amazon.com

Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE Review: Incredible, Affordable Air Cooling Performance

Shockingly cool and quiet, less than $40!

www.tomshardware.com

 

[Macro Device]

In what universe is the 11600k not enough for a 6700 xt?

At least Mirror's Edge: Catalyst proved for the fact you can max out all sliders and still be CPU bound with 11600K+6700XT. Yeah, of course, having 300 FPS in such a game is not very useful, yet...

Shouldn't be a problem with a thermalright peerless assassins 120mm air cooler (super cheap and very good)

$40 for a cooler is something extremely off for me. I have ALREADY got a cooler for LGA1700, I have ALREADY got DDR4 meeting my needs, that's why going AM5 is at least 130 dollars more expensive. I can invest them in a more powerful CPU, y'know.

 

[pressing on]

$40 for a cooler is something extremely off for me. I have ALREADY got a cooler for LGA1700, I have ALREADY got DDR4 meeting my needs, that's why going AM5 is at least 130 dollars more expensive. I can invest them in a more powerful CPU, y'know.

This is where Alder Lake and Raptor Lake have worked particularly well. If you have existing DDR4 then it's just a motherboard plus CPU upgrade. Yes, there is a transition to DDR5 going on and you can go that route with Intel 12th and 13th gen if you choose. But it's an option not a requirement.

 

[Lokiwoodplan]

Short answer is no.

I have tested it myself when playing The last of us. I have 9400f + rx 6600 before and in one area, my cpu load become 99% and gpu 50-75% with 45fps average. I tried to lower setting but no effect because the cpu is the bottleneck. When i change to 12100f, i tried the exact same area and the fps is better with 55fps average but still cannot achieve 60 fps (cpu still 99% and gpu 50-75% load). So its clear that i need to up 1 step to 12400f or ryzen 5600 to achieve that 60 fps...

So the conclusion is the minimum cpu for todays games needs 6c/12t

 

[Space Lynx]

The most sensible/smart user on this forum is gaming happily with a 12100F and a 3060Ti.

Every time my lizard brain starts thinking about the next upgrade, I think of this user and how ridiculous I'm being.

a 12100 or a 12400 is more than enough for gaming with anything but the highest tier GPU.

*unless you're some uber-competitive high FPS gamer that want 240+ FPS

I'm not competitive, but I do prefer the smoothness of high refresh, even in card games. That being said, I can still enjoy lot of games on my Steam Deck that are auto capped at 60 fps, or even 30 fps like Final Fantasy X, and for some reason they even look better on Steam Deck then on PC, no tearing and less issues in general.

Steam Deck for 60 fps or lower games + indie games in general, and the benefits of Steam OS is such a great compliment to a high refresh gaming PC. I am still considering upgrading to 8800x3d from my 5600x3d, I probably won't, but god of war has some fierce dips in FPS that ruins the immersion for me. i need more power!!!!!

 

[gasolin]

Short answer is no.

I have tested it myself when playing The last of us. I have 9400f + rx 6600 before and in one area, my cpu load become 99% and gpu 50-75% with 45fps average. I tried to lower setting but no effect because the cpu is the bottleneck. When i change to 12100f, i tried the exact same area and the fps is better with 55fps average but still cannot achieve 60 fps (cpu still 99% and gpu 50-75% load). So its clear that i need to up 1 step to 12400f or ryzen 5600 to achieve that 60 fps...

So the conclusion is the minimum cpu for todays games needs 6c/12t

i'll bet it's only 1080p, in 1440p the cpu wouldn't be used as much

 

[Od1sseas]

All you need is just one game to stutter to be able to declare it's not enough. so just get an (i3-) 14100 6/12 but it could be a 6/6 who knows. HT should always be disabled Imho
That's the bare minimum as Intel is redefining the PC landscape in 2023Q4

Personally Im stuck with xeons, 14/28 Xeon 2690V4 35MB 3.2Ghz all core and it costs $33 lol.

HT should always be enabled

 

[Macro Device]

HT should always be enabled

Yes. Unless it malfunctions, like in my case.

 

[Ruru]

Yes. Unless it malfunctions, like in my case.

I remember people disabling HT back in the day on their 2600Ks because "it generates too much heat". Why the hell people then went for 2600K instead of 2500K and disabled the i7's main feature...

 

[Macro Device]

Why the hell people

People, usually, are the opposite of smart.

 

[Ruru]

People, usually, are the opposite of smart.

I guess you can't be more right than that

 

[Sithaer]

Short answer is no.

I have tested it myself when playing The last of us. I have 9400f + rx 6600 before and in one area, my cpu load become 99% and gpu 50-75% with 45fps average. I tried to lower setting but no effect because the cpu is the bottleneck. When i change to 12100f, i tried the exact same area and the fps is better with 55fps average but still cannot achieve 60 fps (cpu still 99% and gpu 50-75% load). So its clear that i need to up 1 step to 12400f or ryzen 5600 to achieve that 60 fps...

So the conclusion is the minimum cpu for todays games needs 6c/12t

Question is, do you actually notice that 5 fps difference w/o a fps overlay if its not reaching that 'magical' 60 so much that its suddenly not enough?

Personally I don't and I don't play with an overlay constantly enabled cause its a distraction to me/bothers my immersion so after I'm done tweaking my settings I turn off the statistics overlay and let it run in the background while I focus on the game instead.
I'm yet to run into any game where my 12100F couldn't offer me an enjoyable experience and still most of the time its my 3060 Ti thats a limiting factor when I crank up the settings in newer games.

Ofc part of that is entirely subjective cause anything over 50 fps average is totally fine with me especially in single player games.

 

[Ruru]

Question is, do you actually notice that 5 fps difference w/o a fps overlay if its not reaching that 'magical' 60 so much that its suddenly not enough?

Personally I don't and I don't play with an overlay constantly enabled cause its a distraction to me/bothers my immersion so after I'm done tweaking my settings I turn off the statistics overlay and let it run in the background while I focus on the game instead.
I'm yet to run into any game where my 12100F couldn't offer me an enjoyable experience and still most of the time its my 3060 Ti thats a limiting factor when I crank up the settings in newer games.

Ofc part of that is entirely subjective cause anything over 50 fps average is totally fine with me especially in single player games.

Ah, finally someone shares my thoughts. On my current Windows install, I don't use an overlay, and with the help of Freesync, I actually can't say that is it 50, 55 or 60fps. Feels pretty much the same.

And like I've said before, I play at 4K with 6700 XT but I adjust the settings to get a game to run smoothly.

 

[Sithaer]

Ah, finally someone shares my thoughts. On my current Windows install, I don't use an overlay, and with the help of Freesync, I actually can't say that is it 50, 55 or 60fps. Feels pretty much the same.

And like I've said before, I play at 4K with 6700 XT but I adjust the settings to get a game to run smoothly.

Yeah I miss having Freesync, liked it a lot with my old RX 570 but sadly my monitor doesn't play well with the Nvidia adaptive/freesync thing so I'm not using anything currently just a simple fps cap in the driver.

I also adjust settings to my preference and as long as it feels smooth to me its all good, finished Cyberpunk with rather heavy settings and maybe 50 fps on average and it never bothered me during my playthrough.

 

[Ruru]

Yeah I miss having Freesync, liked it a lot with my old RX 570 but sadly my monitor doesn't play well with the Nvidia adaptive/freesync thing so I'm not using anything currently just a simple fps cap in the driver.

I also adjust settings to my preference and as long as it feels smooth to me its all good, finished Cyberpunk with rather heavy settings and maybe 50 fps on average and it never bothered me during my playthrough.

I was going to get a waaaaaay crappier monitor, but luckily one dude on discord recommended this which I bought. That one which I was looking was just a crappy VA one but I bought a IPS monitor and I love this.

And yeah, depends hella lot of the game which is playable. I'd say that even 45fps is playable in slower paced games without any problems.

 

[AusWolf]

I remember people disabling HT back in the day on their 2600Ks because "it generates too much heat". Why the hell people then went for 2600K instead of 2500K and disabled the i7's main feature...

I bet it's the same people buying 13900K's and disabling the e-cores instead of going for a 12500 or something.

I was going to get a waaaaaay crappier monitor, but luckily one dude on discord recommended this which I bought. That one which I was looking was just a crappy VA one but I bought a IPS monitor and I love this.

And yeah, depends hella lot of the game which is playable. I'd say that even 45fps is playable in slower paced games without any problems.

I tried Kingdom Come: Deliverance on my HTPC with a 1050 Ti in it the other day. Whenever it reached or exceeded 30 FPS, the game actually felt smooth (the dips to 23-25 FPS in busier areas were hard, though).

There's a reason why many console games are locked to 30 FPS and no one is complaining about it.

 

[Macro Device]

maybe 50 fps on average

45fps is playable

This is where mighty CPUs come to the rescue. They limit the stuttering, they get rid of freezing, they also allow for "cyber sport" 100+ FPS easier than lesser cored siblings.

As an high FPS count addict I totally disapprove of skimping on the CPU. Snailness of your GPU hurts experience less than that of the CPU.

Cyberpunk, though, despite being not precisely fast paced and not multiplayer, is way more nice at triple digit framerates than at 60. 144 FPS is a sweet spot as you will most likely fail to distinguish 240 from 180 but 144 VS 100 is huge. I left it vsynced at 80 FPS and adjusted settings (going 1080p included) the way it never drops below north of 70. Significantly sweeter than 50 to 60 FPS at 4K.

 

[Hyderz]

I guess really older 4c/8t is not enough for today standard but the newer 4c/8t seems a lot more adequate but certain titles of games will take advantage of extra cores

 

[Sithaer]

This is where mighty CPUs come to the rescue. They limit the stuttering, they get rid of freezing, they also allow for "cyber sport" 100+ FPS easier than lesser cored siblings.

As an high FPS count addict I totally disapprove of skimping on the CPU. Snailness of your GPU hurts experience less than that of the CPU.

A better CPU in my case wouldn't help anything when I'm already GPU bound in most newer games and Cyberpunk was GPU limited too since I was playing at Ultra settings+Ultra RT with DLSS on Quality and thats how I had around 50 fps average.
There is no noticeable sutter in any game I'm playing due to my CPU, it only has to push ~75 fps anyway since thats my monitor's refresh rate and where I have my fps capped on a driver level. '73 actually to be exact'
Personally I've never cared about high refresh rate gaming and I don't play competitive games so there is that but thats just MY personal taste/interest.

 

[Macro Device]

Cyberpunk was GPU limited too since I was playing at Ultra settings+Ultra RT with DLSS on Quality and thats how I had around 50 fps average.

With i9-12900K (e.g.) you'd get a minor average FPS improvement, yes. But you will notice WAY less cases of going below 50 than with an i3. The most crowded areas of the Night City are heavy hitters, and their target is CPU, not GPU. I genuinely don't know why these bystanders with their below primitive AI torture CPUs so much but my gender is male and not judge so whatever...

 

[Sithaer]

With i9-12900K (e.g.) you'd get a minor average FPS improvement, yes. But you will notice WAY less cases of going below 50 than with an i3. The most crowded areas of the Night City are heavy hitters, and their target is CPU, not GPU. I genuinely don't know why these bystanders with their below primitive AI torture CPUs so much but my gender is male and not judge so whatever...

Droped the crowd density to medium 'can't tell the diff between high' and after that my GPU was at 99% all the time even at that performance hog round about in mid city so no it wouldn't make any difference in my case and like I said I don't play with an overlay constantly enabled so I would never notice it.

 

[amit_talkin]

If You playing at FHD, You might see difference between 4c vs higher cores.
On 4K Its all about GPU.

 

[Ruru]

This is where mighty CPUs come to the rescue. They limit the stuttering, they get rid of freezing, they also allow for "cyber sport" 100+ FPS easier than lesser cored siblings.

As an high FPS count addict I totally disapprove of skimping on the CPU. Snailness of your GPU hurts experience less than that of the CPU.

Cyberpunk, though, despite being not precisely fast paced and not multiplayer, is way more nice at triple digit framerates than at 60. 144 FPS is a sweet spot as you will most likely fail to distinguish 240 from 180 but 144 VS 100 is huge. I left it vsynced at 80 FPS and adjusted settings (going 1080p included) the way it never drops below north of 70. Significantly sweeter than 50 to 60 FPS at 4K.

Like I said, depends on the game. For a slow-paced single player I can live with that

 

[AusWolf]

Like I said, depends on the game. For a slow-paced single player I can live with that

I guess I'm lucky that slow-paced single player is the only thing I'm interested in. (with a few exceptions)