What's the sweetest spot for gaming the 6, 8, 12 or 16 cores??

[tronic]

What's the sweetest spot for gaming the 6, 8, 12 or 16 cores?? is the 5950x 16 cores futureproof for 5 years from now for gaming?? against 6 and 8 and 12 cores??

How many cores do generally ask for?

Can games play better at 8 and 12 cores than the six cores right now?

Do you think the eight cores from next year will be the standar in relation to the six cores?

Do you think the 8 and 12 and 16 cores from next year will be more demading and more recommended for new games? in relation to the 6 and 4 cores?

 

[dirtyferret]

cores don't make a CPU gaming future proof, performance does. See AMD Ryzen 1700x vs Ryzen 3300x or 5600x.


Speaking of gaming performance, you’re no doubt going to hear nonsense such as "the Ryzen 5 5600X is a poor choice for gamers as it only has 6 cores," and they’ll probably try and prove that by pointing to the new consoles which feature eight Zen 2 cores.

Some people also like to confuse how games and cores work. Making statements like games will require 8 cores or something to that effect. Games don’t require a certain number of cores, they never have and they never will. Games require a certain level of CPU performance, it’s really that simple.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review: 6-Core Gaming Beast

It's time we finally check out the Ryzen 5 5600X, the most affordable Ryzen 5000 series processor announced to date. Positioned as a mainstream part, it's coming...

www.techspot.com

 

[Durvelle27]

If you have the budget just get the best available

 

[Jetster]

I think most would agree 8, but its subjective because you didn't mention a game

 

[thebluebumblebee]

Welcome to TPU!

When you say sweet spot, are you talking performance wise or money wise? W1zzard's reviews give you both. For instance:

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Review

The Ryzen 9 5900X dominates Intel's Core i9-10900K in our testing because of AMD's massive IPC improvements. At $550, this processor is certainly not cheap, but it offers so much more performance, especially single-threaded, that AMD has a clear winner on their hands.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Bill_Bright]

Too many variables but the biggest is what Jetster said, depends on the game.

Also the CPU alone does not make a good (or bad) gaming machine.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Consoles 8 core potato.

 

[freeagent]

I wanted a 5000 series but couldn't get one so I got a 3600xt for the price of the vanilla. I hope they are available soon!

Because I am bored. I would be ok if I had a new GPU to play with but cant get those either!

I'm sure I would get bored of that too.. it would do everything this one can just faster and better

 

[cst1992]

Simple:
If you have too less cores, they'll run mostly at 100%, whereas if you have too many, they won't be utilized fully.

I disabled 3 of my 4 cores once, and even during boot time, my last remaining core was at 100% almost all of the time until the bootup was done.
Whereas on the other extreme, a 64-core Threadripper 3990x will rarely see saturation of all cores at once. In ordinary workloads, at most 3-6 of its cores will be at max utilization, otherwise not.
It's because any task(game or not) is characterized by how parallelizable the task is. If it's not parallelizable, it'll only use 1 core. If it is, it'll use 2, 4, 8, ... however many it needs.

To answer your question, when I built my PC in 2016, games usually required 4 cores. Now Intel's CPUs typically have 6. 6 may be enough for games for now, or you may want to get 8 going forward if you find a good CPU that has them.
The single-core performance argument is always valid though. If you have a lot of cores but each core is relatively weak, just having extra cores won't help much.

 

[jboydgolfer]

4c/4t works ,4c/8t works fine too, i just upgraded a 2c/2t i3 one of the kids was running & his gaming was fine. i still have a couple PC's in my house, being used for gaming every day by my kids at FHD, or UHD, with sandy bridge 4 core chips. unless you really skimp out on the CPU, you'll be hard pressed to be limited in any real sense. my 8600k does great, i never see more than 50%-60% usage , with a 2080ti. the sweet spot if that means price/performance is IMO 4-8 core

 

[repman244]

cores don't make a CPU gaming future proof, performance does.

I would say to some extent they do, but it really depends on the timing. My sb-e with 6 cores turned out way more future proof then a 4 core SB, and I can slot in a 8,10 or 12 core Xeon if I want to.

Right now I would say that 8 cores is the sweet spot but it's really difficult to predict what the requirements will be for future releases.

 

[blobster21]

Hi,
Consoles 8 core potato.

Hardly qualify as potato.

 

[cst1992]

Right now I would say that 8 cores is the sweet spot but it's really difficult to predict what the requirements will be for future releases

Right. What I do is look at benchmarks of actual released CPUs and then go for the best one for its price.
For example, if you compare the Ryzen 5 3600 vs 3600x, you'll realize that there is really no reason to go for the 3600X, the 3600 performs within a few percent of it in almost all games.
To quote the review: "The 3600x is a marketing gimmick designed to lure in unsuspecting gamers." It's also ~$50 more expensive. Obviously you should go for the 3600.

 

[dgianstefani]

Either 6 or 16. The 8 and 12 use sub par dies.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
I got a 10 core which you skipped the future proof one lol

 

[dirtyferret]

My sb-e with 6 cores turned out way more future proof then a 4 core SB,

You are proving my point, the 3930k is a higher performance CPU than an i5-2400. Just like the four core SB 2500k is a higher performance CPU than the six core Phenom II x 6. The 4c/8T 7700k is a higher performance CPU than the 6c/12t ryzen 1600. It's about the CPU as a whole.

 

[cst1992]

Older AMD CPUs like the Phenoms used to be way weaker than Intel's i3s/i5s/i7s in single core performance.

 

[Solid State Soul ( SSS )]

What's the sweetest spot for gaming the 6, 8, 12 or 16 cores?? is the 5950x 16 cores futureproof for 5 years from now for gaming?? against 6 and 8 and 12 cores??

Right now 6 cores is more than enough, however with new consoles having 8 cores, 16 threads ZEN 2 processors games will demand much more in the next years when cross gen releases are over and developers develope games from the ground up for PS5 and Xbox Series X

How many cores do generally ask for?

Right now 6 cores 12 threads CPUs are more than enough, most games right now even run well on 4 cores\ 8 threads

Can games play better at 8 and 12 cores than the six cores right now?

Unless you are paring them with the highest end GPUs and playing at 144hz high refresh rate gaming, then no...For now !

Do you think the eight cores from next year will be the standar in relation to the six cores?

maybe not next year, but maybe 2 years, again MOST games are developed for consoles first, then up scaled to PC, so with consoles having 8 cores 16 threads ZEN 2, PC ports will start to demand high core processors once the corss gen cycle is over and new consoles are wide spread in the market

Do you think the 8 and 12 and 16 cores from next year will be more demading and more recommended for new games? in relation to the 6 and 4 cores?

i think it will be recommended more after 2 years but i dont think games then need higher than 8 cores\16 threads for gaming

 

[evernessince]

cores don't make a CPU gaming future proof, performance does. See AMD Ryzen 1700x vs Ryzen 3300x or 5600x.


Speaking of gaming performance, you’re no doubt going to hear nonsense such as "the Ryzen 5 5600X is a poor choice for gamers as it only has 6 cores," and they’ll probably try and prove that by pointing to the new consoles which feature eight Zen 2 cores.

Some people also like to confuse how games and cores work. Making statements like games will require 8 cores or something to that effect. Games don’t require a certain number of cores, they never have and they never will. Games require a certain level of CPU performance, it’s really that simple.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review: 6-Core Gaming Beast

It's time we finally check out the Ryzen 5 5600X, the most affordable Ryzen 5000 series processor announced to date. Positioned as a mainstream part, it's coming...

www.techspot.com

I'd recommend the 3600 way before the 5600X. 7.7% at 1080p with a 3090 and 0% at 1440p and above isn't worth $100, assuming you are even have the system to take advantage of it and play eSports titles that would actually benefit.

At least then you can take that $100 you saved and just upgrade more frequently. AMD's pricing for the current 5000 series is poor.

Future-proofing is mostly guessing. Arguments from both the cores side and the IPC side of the aisle have valid arguments. That's why I'd suggest you simply buy the best bang for your buck now and take the money you saved and upgrade again when you need to.

The 3600's performance is excellent in all regards as well. It's a very small niche that will actually benefit from getting a 5600X over a 3600.

 

[xtreemchaos]

i use 12c24t and its wonderful but i enjoy my 4c8t 7700k just as much .

 

[Deleted member 193596]

depends...
you can pin a 10700k to almost 100% utilization with games like Battlefield or even Rainbow Six Siege.

but i wouldn't go below 6 Cores with SMT/HT.
for the "Futureproofing" there is as usual nothing since the architecture and IPC is the important thing. but if you bought a 2600k instead of a 2500k you can see a massive difference in many games today.

if you have the money i'd rather buy a 10/12 Core CPU Instead of 6 or 8. especially since consoles run 8 Cores with SMT.

 

[dirtyferret]

Hi,
Consoles 8 core potato.

It's zen 2 based but running 1ghz slower than most ryzen at turbo and has 25% of their L2 cache so hardly the 3700x people were expecting (or wishing) to be in their consoles

I'd recommend the 3600 way before the 5600X. 7.7% at 1080p with a 3090 and 0% at 1440p and above isn't worth $100, assuming you are even have the system to take advantage of it and play eSports titles that would actually benefit.

At least then you can take that $100 you saved and just upgrade more frequently. AMD's pricing for the current 5000 series is poor.

Future-proofing is mostly guessing. Arguments from both the cores side and the IPC side of the aisle have valid arguments. That's why I'd suggest you simply buy the best bang for your buck now and take the money you saved and upgrade again when you need to.

The 3600's performance is excellent in all regards as well. It's a very small niche that will actually benefit from getting a 5600X over a 3600.

Not arguing one over the other or that the GPU is the dominant performer in gaming. All I said is 5600x is the better performing CPU and outperforms many octa cores from both AMD and Intel.

 

[phanbuey]

As games are able to distribute their load across more threads efficiently, they will start to use many-core CPUs to their full potential, so the definition of "powerful cpu" will start to shift away (very slowly) from the ST monsters we prefer now. It isn't a bad time to have a 10, 12 or 16 core cpu, as it will age nicely.

Processors like the 3900x for instance, are going to age very nicely as some cpu-heavy games already get excellent .1 and 1% lows (better than lower core count variants),

Futureproofing CPUs on cores is usually extremely pointless, but I think now with 8+ cores being so popular, new consoles and as @WarTherapy1195 mentioned there are more games pegging 8 core procs than before (Battlefield, R6, Warzone etc.) So I feel like now is the exception to this rule -- 10 core intels, and 8 core Zen 3 parts would be the minimum I would get brand new if you're going to keep the same setup for 3 years or so.

 

[Solid State Soul ( SSS )]

As games are able to distribute their load across more threads efficiently, they will start to use many-core CPUs to their full potential, so the definition of "powerful cpu" will start to shift away (very slowly) from the ST monsters we prefer now. It isn't a bad time to have a 10, 12 or 16 core cpu, as it will age nicely.

Prior to this you wanted an extremely fast set of ST cores (still do) but processors like the 3900x for instance, are going to age very nicely as some cpu-heavy games already get excellent .1 and 1% lows (better than lower core count variants),

Futureproofing CPUs on cores is usually extremely pointless, but I think now with 8+ cores being so popular, new consoles and as @WarTherapy1195 mentioned there are more games pegging 8 core procs than before (Battlefield, R6, Warzone etc.) So I feel like now is the exception to this rule -- 10 core intels, and 8 core Zen 3 parts would be the minimum I would get brand new if you're going to keep the same setup for 3 years

I agree with what you said, however to your last point i think 6 cores with hyper threading can still game for an additional 2 years, i think once games stop releasing on both current and old consoles and are developed fully utilize new consoles capability ( which might happen 2 years from now after the adoption rate of new consoles has increased ) then we will see games recommending higher core counts

 

[elghinnarisa]

My OC'd 8700k is a bottleneck more often than not. Either because the game doesn't make use of multiple cores or because it hammers the whole CPU at 100%.
But I also aim for 120+ FPS for my high refresh rate monitor, of course. If I was fine witn 30/60fps, then there wouldnt be an issue at all. And thats really nothing new. I been able to find plenty of games over the years since I got my 8700k (which I got at release) that hade no trouble loading it to 90%+ usage.