I can't tell whether you're arguing against me or agreeing with me. I will just add though, in case it's not obvious, that AAA PC gaming titles doesn't constitute 'the bigger picture'. And that most game devs try to cater for as many hardware configurations as possible, including all us peasants that don't have bleeding edge gaming PC's.
-
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.
AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
I can't tell whether you're arguing against me or agreeing with me. I will just add though, in case it's not obvious, that AAA PC gaming titles doesn't constitute 'the bigger picture'. And that most game devs try to cater for as many hardware configurations as possible, including all us peasants that don't have bleeding edge gaming PC's.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,715
Well I was thinking of the i7-5960X but it was a bit extreme. So based on the Zen 1 in 2017, games only took 2 years to start using 8 cores. So I guess that means games could start using 12 cores perhaps 2 years after Zen 2? I think I'm trying to spot paterns that arent there.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 963
It depends on a number of things:
1. The relationship between the release cycles of the consoles and desktop CPUs.
2. The comparative performance levels of the consoles and desktop CPUs.
3. The relative performance requirements of the CPUs and GPUs at the typical resolutions that the consoles will aim for.
There are too many factors to easily guess how things will pan out.
Soldato
Consoles are only going to move to a Zen based 8C/16T in 2020~2021 AFAIK,and the launch games will still need to run on the previous generation too with their 8C/8T Jaguar based CPUs. So it will be a few years until the 8C/16T console CPUs get fully taxed IMHO,so a decent 6C/12T or 8C/16T CPU should be fine IMHO.
People also forget that for many years people didn't need to spend over £200 to £300 on a gaming CPU,and it was the GPU which people spent more on. Its only with the stagnation people are used to spending loads on a CPU for a gaming system. Hopefully things will move back to gamers not needing massively expensive CPUs,and with the way GPU prices are heading we need it too!!
People also forget that for many years people didn't need to spend over £200 to £300 on a gaming CPU,and it was the GPU which people spent more on. Its only with the stagnation people are used to spending loads on a CPU for a gaming system. Hopefully things will move back to gamers not needing massively expensive CPUs,and with the way GPU prices are heading we need it too!!
Associate
Personally wouldn't call 8c irrelevant, far from it as I currently still only rock a 4c 6700k and 6c 5820k (the best I could afford at the time of my last build(s).
I am terribly interested to see the 12c vs 16c comparisons, I want to know by how much the single threaded performance differs between them and what is a rock stable OC for both.
Since my upgrade/new build cycle is every 3 to 4 years I would prefer more cores and threads IF the performance gap between them isn't huge.
Of coarse the real bummer will be if AMD decides to hold back the release of the 16c by a month or more.
That would pretty much confirm my purchase of the 12c in June as I don't want to wait any longer.
I am terribly interested to see the 12c vs 16c comparisons, I want to know by how much the single threaded performance differs between them and what is a rock stable OC for both.
Since my upgrade/new build cycle is every 3 to 4 years I would prefer more cores and threads IF the performance gap between them isn't huge.
Of coarse the real bummer will be if AMD decides to hold back the release of the 16c by a month or more.
That would pretty much confirm my purchase of the 12c in June as I don't want to wait any longer.
What about the FX chips?
Soldato
Lol at 8c being irrelevant.
Anyhow.. moving on from this pointless discussion....
Anyhow.. moving on from this pointless discussion....
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 963
I took the context to mean high performance 8C chips rather than just any old iron.
Haha
Associate
I took the context to mean high performance 8C chips rather than just any old iron.
I do love a good old steptoe meme
Do games actually use 8 effectively? I'm not aware of any games that run significantly better clock for clock when you compare a 8700k and 9900k for instance. But I have seen a big difference between a 7700k and 8700k - which tells me games are using 6 cores, but I'm not aware of any major 8 core usage
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,715
Not fully effectively. We're on the cusp I think. I certainly wouldn't buy a 6 core CPU in 2019 if I planned to keep it for 5 years.
Cryengine 3 games love 8 cores, especially Kingdom Come Deliverance
Really? 1fps difference is "loving 8 core"
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/kingdom_come_deliverance_performance_review/12
Associate
The Enfusion engine is Bohemia Interactive's new game engine that DayZ Standalone is currently running on (DayZ still isnt fully optimised btw).
Heres my 2700X CPU usage while running the game with nothing else running in the background.. apart from Windows 10 of course
Heres my 2700X CPU usage while running the game with nothing else running in the background.. apart from Windows 10 of course
It may be silly, but considering the gaming side of the situation: as many still playing at full HD or 2k, the adoption to 4k by PC gamers is slow, as many desirable resources are often limited or restricted to really expensive monitors. The TVs are cheaper, but the main appeal for most is the price and the bigger screens, but content still very limited.Just like 5GHz with crap IPC was irrelevant 8c will likely lose relevance very quickly too with the current core arms race. As the core counts rapidly increase over the next couple of years, programmers are actually going to use that power, in turn 8c will die out pretty quickly especially with the better core densities of Zen3 and Zen4 in the coming years.
Just looking at the bigger picture rather than focusing on 2019
Assuming people gradually speed up the migration to 4k or even 8k... now back to the CPU situation, in 4k, all setting to max, a good 6c or 8c will bottleneck the top GPU available? Not for a while, as I don't believe any GPU will handle 4k full blast at 144, any time soon, and midrange GPUs, even longer.
At the moment, even the 2080ti can't do that much on 4k, and let's not forget the push to 8k displays.
To be honest, it's very complicated and almost impossible to tell for sure, but for the user of basic systems, will be ages before 6 or 8 cores to be standard. Just think about how long is taking for the SSD adoption, and the performance gain is brutal. But going 8 or 16 cores for web browsing and basic software usage, I can't see the gain.
As I'm aware, always will be people around happy to build rigs able to run games like Crysis or Metro, during their release, on ultra, at absurd resolutions, but those less than 1% won't dictate what any other developer will expect from minimum or recommended requirements.
Always will be those benchmarks disguised as games, but generally, consoles will hold back.
In general use, since Windows Vista, the OS doesn't put that much strain on the CPU. The bottleneck in 9 of 10 modern pcs is the HDD, and the rest possibly memory.
But for those who really need or want that extra power, always will be or the very top end, or server hardware as always has been.
Most games still only use 2 threads heavily (game logic and rendering) then a bunch of worker/utility threads for things like file streaming, audio, additional rendering features that might not be frame dependant, AI, physics, etc. a game with more advanced physics might put another 1-2 cores worth of work over several cores - a lot of this stuff will happily run just as effectively on 2 real cores as a mix of real and HT/SMT. There aren't many games that benefit from more than 8 threads/cores whether that is 4 core / 8 thread or 8 real cores or 6 real cores and a bunch of threads - not many, if any, games require 8 or above real cores to run at their best though there might be some exceptions to that.
It isn't just about framerate though - generally due to things like thread creation and freeing, communication, etc. and other misc threads that come and go for background processes, etc. a smaller number of cores/threads might put out the same framerate as a system with more cores but not feel as smooth and responsive to play - especially in the 100+ FPS without V-Sync territory versus 60FPS V-Sync.
Something that can have a bit of an impact here though is the environment the game is running in - if people have a lot of background clutter running or use a lot of additional programs when gaming for chat and so on then you can require an extra couple of cores or more to get the best results - personally using an optimised Windows 7 and having little in the background when gaming I'm rarely struggling even with an ageing i7 4820K when it comes to gaming.
Associate
LOL so many people still looking down. Last time I saw anything like this in the CPU industry was when AMD went Athlon64 and the dual core race became quads within a year or two and dual cores were rendered useless in a very very short time span.
Looking to the next 5 years of tech, 8 is going to be the minimum, not the avg requirement. Just like quad was for the last decade.
Looking to the next 5 years of tech, 8 is going to be the minimum, not the avg requirement. Just like quad was for the last decade.
Most game devs can't write code for more than 4 cores even if their life depended on it. Don't expect 8core+ minimum requirements for games for another decade