Grabbing a 5900X to run in 6 core for gaming and 12 core for video transcoding along with 32gb of 8 Pack Ram I can run at 4ghz as apparently that is the sweet spot for the new 5000 series, gonna stick my 3900x and 2080 Super in the younguns PC and then waiting on benches for the 6900XT and the 3080ti if it comes out in the next 4-5 months
-
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.
6 Core vs 8 Core in gaming?
- Thread starter zirebnd
- Start date
- Status
the 5600x is faster from ps5??
Right now 6 / 12 (with hyperthreading) cores is sufficient; 8 / 16 cores if you stream. Next year you're looking at 8 /16 cores because games will be optimised for the 8 / 16 core consoles. Add another 2 cores if you're streaming.
If you're mainly building for gaming I wouldn't put too much into CPU, RAM or motherboard as they're all on their last cycle before AM4 is retired next year. 6 cores is fine, 16GB of DDR4 and a cheap B550 motherboard. That way you can spend more on the GPU and hold back some cash for an AM5 build sooner, knowing you'll be able to move the GPU across.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,828
This is the main reason I'm going for 5600X when AM5 comes out I'll be wanting to upgrade anyway and the 5600X is more than enough until that time
Everyone keeps on saying this, but it's simply not true. Console game devs will only ever have 7 / 14 cores available at most, and given they will be catering to older gen consoles for at least the next few years, they won't be optimising their games for 7 / 14 if they are also developing for cross gen. Unfortunately, most mainstream games in the next few years won't see any significant benefits on a 5800X over a 5600X purely in gaming, unless the devs are willing to spend the extra time & money. Which is extremely unlikely.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,828
Hardware unboxed 5600X review at 19 minutes. Goes into a fair amount of detail about this subject.
Quad core no HT stopped being smooth in some more recent games awhile back - even a 4c8t i7 is a considerable improvement never mind a 5000 series Ryzen.
Yes, and like consoles, PCs will need an additional core for the OS. Also, 7 is 1 more than 6.
What happened last time?
you're not kidding but the difference is night and day!
Consoles use some CPU power to software assist some things that are done in hardware on the desktop. There is also a different approach to rendering CPU thread wise - consoles rarely translate directly to what happens in the PC space.
You generally get away with SMT doing a good bit of the work that real cores are needed for on console as well.
This is a huge misconception. Open your task manager whilst playing a game on your PC, now tell me which core Windows 10 is using?? It's not is it, once the OS is loaded with the kernel and all it's runtimes into memory, the CPU overhead is virtually non-existent. Whereas on a console, one of the cores is physically locked out to the developers. You're comparing apples to oranges, consoles and PC's are not the same and they never will be.
What happened last time, is that game devs have only been optimising for 6 cores, as that's all the old generation gave them. Look at all the benchmarks, there's a very good reason why the 6 core 5600X is running games virtually as good as its big brothers. This is not going to change anytime soon, as all the game devs I know will still be developing for old gen consoles. Ergo, 6 /12 cores on a PC is going to be fine for at least the next few years.
This is what I am doing, I have a nice B450 and a 3600, I will also be getting a 6800XT. All the games I play until this time next year my 3600 will be fine, the only game where there may be a issue is Cyberpunk 2077 but I don't think it will hamper performance that much in 1440p Ultrawide.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,348
- Location
- Planet Earth
I don't disagree, I'm really looking forward to what they do with the latest gen. Regarding stuff running in the background, that really isn't an issue nowadays if you have a decent AV and close Chrome when gaming. They only take up memory which isn't a real concern for most PC gamers. Remember, 4C/4T was the sweet spot back then because that's all most people had6C/12T CPU's weren't mainstream yet. Consoles started off way ahead of the game in terms of CPU count, which meant games were always going to run better on 6 core CPU's, because the optimisations were already in place. Brute forcing doesn't change the fundamental amount of cores a game is optimised for, it just means it can't do its workloads as efficiently. I really do think 6 cores will be more than enough for PC gaming for quite some time. It's just not economical for most game developers to optimise for higher than that.
The problem is you way too focused just on the here and now. People made the same arguments about consoles and why 4C/4T CPUs would be fine for years. Yet in such a short time we have moved to 6C/12T ones being the sweetspot. I think you are massively underestimating the impact of the move to true desktop class CPUs in the new consoles will bring over the next 5 years. The fact is you can't really promise 6C/12T will be perfectly fine for the next 5~6 years,because you have also forgotten another thing - both AMD and Intel will also most likely increase core counts from 2022 onwards past what you have now. So a 6C/12T CPU will be sort of low end now. We saw that with 4C/8T CPUs which went from £300+ to as low as £70 with the Core i3 10100F. There will also be an increasing push for PC devs to also use more cores,especially as consoles won't be so CPU limited now. We have just gotten used to 10 years of very poor CPUs in consoles. Not even the CPUs in the XBox360 were that great,as they had in-order cores which had weak performance. Also like I said consoles use a lot of custom silicon to offload stuff which the CPU needs to handle in a general purpose PC. Its a bit like phone SOCs which do the same thing,and people are surprised when they seem to be so quick - its the effect of custom silicon accelerating certain things.
If you are more budget limited or not budget limited are playing mostly a mix of older and newer games then a 6C/12T CPU is fine.
Personally I think for 2 maybe 3 years you will be OK with a 6C/12T CPU,but you will start to find more and more titles using extra threads and cores.So 6C/12T will be a safe bet,but might not be optimal after that especially if you tend to buy decent GPUs every few years.
Now if you don't,and getting something more budget,that might be another factor to consider also.
Considering most people I know will keep their system longer than that,if you really can afford a higher core count CPU,you should look at getting one now IMHO,especially if you can spend £500~£700 on a graphics card like some here.
So in my case even getting a 6C/12T Ryzen 5 5600X would be OK(but I think it is overpriced so probably won't),as I will be mostly like upgrading again within 2~3 years or so as it would be an upgrade to a 2018 era system.
It's also not like any of the 8C or 12C CPUs,are slower than their 6C counterparts,especially as they appear to binned better and are better quality silicon.
Now do I also think maybe waiting and seeing if prices get a bit more competitive is a good idea? Maybe - I think AMD is pricing its Zen3 CPUs a bit too high because they can and hence why we are having this debate.Rocketlake and Alderlake might help push prices down a bit hopefully. If there was a Ryzen 7 5700X for around £350 it wouldn't be such a premium for the extra cores.
Last edited:
Actually, no it isn't. You need the extra core to be there for the OS when the other cores get jammed.
I think you need to be a bit more specific when you say better, better for who and what exactly? For example, there is no difference between a 3600 and a 10900k when gaming at ultrawide or 4k as you are mostly GPU bound in those situations.
I genuinely hope you're right, I just don't think it's economically viable to fully optimise for more than 6C/12T, if the game devs have to also develop the engine to run well on old gen consoles. What they are theorising at present, is they will use those extra cores for things like in-game physics. You'll essentially have added features in next gen consoles and PC that can't be enabled on the previous gen. But the game engine itself, will still be optimised mainly to run well on its 6C/12T baby brothers. Having previous gen in the picture will always diminish any tangible benefits we're going to see from having more than 6 cores.
I do agree though, you should definitely get a 5800X over a 5600X if you can afford it. However, there is an echo chamber in here with people trying to convince themselves that getting an 8 core CPU will guarantee you are future proofing yourself in 1-3 years time. This is misguided until the game devs can prove they are willing to step up, and there's no evidence of that happening yet.
- Status