Here's What It Will Cost New PC Owners To Play Watch Dogs

[Martini1991]

We can only wait and see.

Going balls deep 100%, there's about a 15% performance difference on the FX83's fully clocked over a fully clocked 4670K, in favour of the FX83.
At least on Cinebench.

 

[Sin_Chase]

4 Core Intel chips will be perfectly bloody fine. There will not be a mass migration to AMD because '8 Cores' are required. Even the AMD chips are not proper 8 Cores.

Stop the hyperbole.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Hmm looks like my upgrade to a 2500k could be short lived... Hope the extra per core power of the i5 will make up for the lack of FOUR cores!!!

Game making use of 8 threads isn't gonna turbo charge the FX8 CPUs overnight, it is more about recovering performance that should had been there at the first place but wasn't there. You are not gonna see a FX8 murder a i5...at most you would be like looking at a arm-wresting match with no winner.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Unless this will support Mantle, which should boost performance enough that it'll run on an Athlon 64 X2 and X1800 GPU or something like that I believe. Nvidia/Intel specs will be unaffected though.

 

[Azrael1]

4 Core Intel chips will be perfectly bloody fine. There will not be a mass migration to AMD because '8 Cores' are required. Even the AMD chips are not proper 8 Cores.

Stop the hyperbole.

TO be fair that depends on the new gen PC games. I like others when we upgrade will look at the best bang for bucks or faster platform and if in a years time 8 cores are better for games Im sure we will upgrade to 8 core. Its not much difference from AMD / NVIDIA race sometimes one generation is faster then the other.

 

[~>Dg<~]

I'm a little apprehensive about it actually needing 8 cores...

it wont amd microbabble

 

[Hyburnate]

it wont amd microbabble

Yeah, I reckon my i5 2500k & GTX 760 will be able to run it high to ultra. I like to keep my cards cool (under 60, mid 60's max).

 

[~>Dg<~]

well what can amd market about their cpus ?

strengths more cores = amd games need more cores

 

[Boomstick777]

4 Core Intel chips will be perfectly bloody fine. There will not be a mass migration to AMD because '8 Cores' are required. Even the AMD chips are not proper 8 Cores.

Stop the hyperbole.

Agreed, but it will likely allow the current FX chips to run to their full potential, it won't beat Intel's equivalent offerings but at least it will take advantage of all the cores etc.

Steamroller and a future of games using 8+ cores is where AMD could regain lost ground to Intel. I just hope they get the desktop chips out before Intel launch Haswell -E.. Rooting for the underdog.

 

[VincentHanna]

i7 might only be four physical cores, but as BF4 has proven that you get a big performance increase with Hyperthreading enabled as the game can effectively treat it as 8 cores.

 

[LtMatt]

Even Greg's best mate AMD Roy has mentioned it.

 

[Hades]

Personally I think quad cores will decline in use for gamers. The i5 is a great CPU but if games continue to move in the direction they are then they will be harder to recommend long term. When I bought my q9450 it was at a time when many people said dual core is fine for gaming. But now very free people would recommend one. I see 8 threads as being similar.

83x0 seems a better prospect long term. i7 is of course still king.

An 83x0 with motherboard, ram and cooler can be had for around £250 if you choose the cheaper components. That's cracking value for an octacore that can overclock well. Granted the single threaded performance isn't quite as good as it should be, but I think that will become less important.

 

[Hades]

Double post.

 

[bru]

There no way on earth that you are going to need 8 cores, if that was the case then this game is marketed at about 5% of the pc market

 

[Sin_Chase]

TO be fair that depends on the new gen PC games. I like others when we upgrade will look at the best bang for bucks or faster platform and if in a years time 8 cores are better for games Im sure we will upgrade to 8 core. Its not much difference from AMD / NVIDIA race sometimes one generation is faster then the other.

Assuming the current trends remain, you will be looking at sacrificing Single Core Performance for benefits on threaded applications.

Which leaves you in the position of possible benefits for games that utilise more cores and less performance in titles where single core or low threaded performance counts. Not a situation I would want to be in and would rather a 4 Core higher single thread performance Intel over the AMD counterpart.

I do not see titles in the foreseeable future saturating 4 Cores. It simply means that an 8 Core AMD chip will be able to punch at the same weight a 4 Core Intel chip does.

PS - Can someone shoot Roy in the face? What a pretentious little scrote!

 

[Martini1991]

i7 might only be four physical cores, but as BF4 has proven that you get a big performance increase with Hyperthreading enabled as the game can effectively treat it as 8 cores.

Isn't BF4 meant to be all over the place with it being an old build?
The current build shows more threads are better, that's for sure, but it's also crippling the 6 cores FX6300 (Whereas the i5 4 cores, while not having the best performance, are still a damn sight better, price excluding), which isn't good news, given the total performance of an FX6300 going 100% isn't bad at all.

 

[sand_dune]

The latest 4/6 core Intel CPU's will still beat the AMD FX chips, but AMD's CPU's will fair better than they have done in previous games.

AMD have a real chance of shaking up the market with 8 core Steamroller chips. With future games taking advantage of 8 cores. The opportunity is their, it all depends if AMD can execute while they have that opportunity. Intel's 8 core Haswell's will be out next year...

Don't forget new AMD cpus coming out late this year. They might be very different from current ones.

 

[LtMatt]

PS - Can someone shoot Roy in the face? What a pretentious little scrote!

Hey, wash your mouth out with soap and water Sin. Roy has reached Hero status around these parts. He's particularly popular amongst the Nvidia community.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Isn't BF4 meant to be all over the place with it being an old build?
The current build shows more threads are better, that's for sure, but it's also crippling the 6 cores FX6300 (Whereas the i5 4 cores, while not having the best performance, are still a damn sight better, price excluding), which isn't good news, given the total performance of an FX6300 going 100% isn't bad at all.

BF4 is putting 40-50% usage across all 4 Cores of my 2600k at 4.6GHz (HT enabled) and putting temps to places no other game ever has.

BF3 will put my CPU to between 55 and 65 Degrees TOPS. BF4 chucks it up to 72! It's certainly utilising dem cores.

 

[Marine-RX179]

TO be fair that depends on the new gen PC games. I like others when we upgrade will look at the best bang for bucks or faster platform and if in a years time 8 cores are better for games Im sure we will upgrade to 8 core.

Actually the FX8 is only on par with/slightly faster than the now dated Sandy i5 when both are on the same clock even in games that use up to 8 cores such as Crysis 3, but for ANY game that use less than 8 cores, it would be slower than the Sandy i5. The biggest problem with the current AMD 8 cores CPU is not that they don't have grunt on the total output, but more about in over 95% games only using half or less of 8 cores CPU's capability due to games using dated engines that are not written to use more than 2-4 threads for the sake of keeping cost down (for example, lots of games were using the Unreal engine 3).

Basically it's not just about the number of cores, but per core performance is also a very important factor as well.