• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

New API's favouring more than 4 cores?

jcoe85

jcoe85

jcoe85

Associate
Joined
22 Oct 2015
Posts
6
I'm wanting to build a new predominantly gaming system within 12 months or so, it was going to be much sooner but the more I research the more it feels like I should hold off for now. I won't go deep into details until I am nearing making the plunge. Pardon the digression but I was set on the 6700K, but I have just watched a review of the new Vulkan API on Doom.
Apparently it is designed to utilise more cores which now begs the question/s; with today's tech would that mean x99 would be a better platform when thinking of the future? Should I expect Skylake to have more cores in the near future? Should I not pay that much attention to this issue and just stick to quad core?
Just some general info and advice on this topic would be nice from you fine and wise fellows :) Every time I settle on something a spanner gets thrown in the works!
 

joeyjojo

joeyjojo

joeyjojo

Soldato
Joined
2 Dec 2005
Posts
5,515
Location
Herts
More efficient threading is not the same as more CPU intensive. I think the new APIs will require less exotic CPUs, not more.

For most gamers I've never seen the point in spending more than about £200 on the CPU. The 2500K (£170) and 4670K (£190) for example both managed it (even considering inflation).

The current crop of i5s are now at old i7 prices, and the i7 prices are just silly IMO. So you can probably guess my thoughts on X99 and 6+ core CPU for gaming.

If you've money to burn just get the model you desire. But for value for money, even an i5k is pushing it tbh.
 

jcoe85

jcoe85

jcoe85

Associate
OP
Joined
22 Oct 2015
Posts
6
Ok thanks for the tips. I have quite a high budget for my system as I am soon going to try to get a mortgage, so I feel I should get a beast that can last years before I have that burden. This has made me worry probably a bit too much about future proofing, but it is an issue. So value for money in the here and now is less of a concern than longevity....not to say I want to throw money away of course!
To be honest although new tech is always around the corner, it seems now really isn't a good time if I want to feel top-end for a good while. What with 4k@60+fps and crisp VR not quite here and/or reasonably affordable yet, I get the feeling if I be impatient I will regret it in the near future. Damn you progress!
 

D123D

D123D

D123D

Associate
Joined
11 Jan 2009
Posts
52
Location
Scotland
jcoe85 said:
I'm wanting to build a new predominantly gaming system within 12 months or so, it was going to be much sooner but the more I research the more it feels like I should hold off for now. I won't go deep into details until I am nearing making the plunge. Pardon the digression but I was set on the 6700K, but I have just watched a review of the new Vulkan API on Doom.
Apparently it is designed to utilise more cores which now begs the question/s; with today's tech would that mean x99 would be a better platform when thinking of the future? Should I expect Skylake to have more cores in the near future? Should I not pay that much attention to this issue and just stick to quad core?
Just some general info and advice on this topic would be nice from you fine and wise fellows :) Every time I settle on something a spanner gets thrown in the works!
Click to expand...

Some YouTube channel did a review on the recent i7 6950X, and compared it along side the i7 6700k. From the benchmarks the 6700k came slightly above Intel's Broadwell-E level lineup. Which is impressive considering the price difference, and how Intel are marketing Broadwell-E.

The X99 is deceiving in a sense, because while many of the brands are marketing it towards 'enthusiast' level gamers, the Z170 chipset and i7 6700k are almost the maximum tier of technology needed for games today - and possibly the coming years. However, on a technical level the X99 is beautiful.

While few games are primarily made with PC in mind, most industry firms put consoles first because that's where the money is, and last time I checked there was no console with a ****ing 10 core hyper-threading behemoth.
 

DragonQ

DragonQ

DragonQ

Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
D123D said:
Some YouTube channel did a review on the recent i7 6950X, and compared it along side the i7 6700k. From the benchmarks the 6700k came slightly above Intel's Broadwell-E level lineup. Which is impressive considering the price difference, and how Intel are marketing Broadwell-E.

The X99 is deceiving in a sense, because while many of the brands are marketing it towards 'enthusiast' level gamers, the Z170 chipset and i7 6700k are almost the maximum tier of technology needed for games today - and possibly the coming years. However, on a technical level the X99 is beautiful.

While few games are primarily made with PC in mind, most industry firms put consoles first because that's where the money is, and last time I checked there was no console with a ****ing 10 core hyper-threading behemoth.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with the enthusiast platform being a generation behind the mainstream platforms at every step. There's always a decision to make as to whether more cores or slightly more powerful cores is more desirable for each use case. Even that isn't clear cut - some games might perform better on 6 cores, others max out at 4, so no single platform is the be-all and end-all. I'd say in general that the roughly 5% drop in IPC is worth the hit for X99 but then again, it's generally more expensive too.
 

treacle

treacle

treacle

Associate
Joined
19 Jun 2013
Posts
183
D123D said:
Some YouTube channel did a review on the recent i7 6950X, and compared it along side the i7 6700k. From the benchmarks the 6700k came slightly above Intel's Broadwell-E level lineup. Which is impressive considering the price difference, and how Intel are marketing Broadwell-E.

The X99 is deceiving in a sense, because while many of the brands are marketing it towards 'enthusiast' level gamers, the Z170 chipset and i7 6700k are almost the maximum tier of technology needed for games today - and possibly the coming years. However, on a technical level the X99 is beautiful.

While few games are primarily made with PC in mind, most industry firms put consoles first because that's where the money is, and last time I checked there was no console with a ****ing 10 core hyper-threading behemoth.
Click to expand...

looks good value, but jumped up in price.
 

z10m

z10m

z10m

Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2008
Posts
2,284
New APIs definitely can use CPUs more efficiently.
Official minimum CPU requirement for Doom is i5 2400 and I'm running it on i3 4330 in my HTPC and its running at constant locked 60fps maxed out under vulkan.
 

puppetworx

puppetworx

puppetworx

Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2008
Posts
189
Location
UK
DirectX 12 and Vulkan make use of more cores, however they also have less CPU overhead. So the speed and number of cores is less important altogether.

71454.png


Effectively the game engine becomes more of a bottleneck (CPU side) than the graphics API. Fast four core CPUs will probably still be faster than slower 8+ core CPUs because of this, as game engines tend not to be highly multi-threaded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom