-
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 confirms Ryzen 7 5800X3D launches this spring, Zen4 Raphael in 2H 2022
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Glad to see HUD educating you on these topics. Not so long ago you was laughing at 6 cores yourself with 4K8K
It's all relative isn't it? If IPC is high enough then you need fewer cores to get the same work done. If IPC is low, you need more cores to do the same job.
Intel created a CPU which has a huge amount more IPC than previously, which has allowed lower core products to make a return to relevance
^ Or in other words, they can get away with scrimping on amount of cores - recalling their pathetic history with that, let alone in combo with current problems.
They came up something I consider decent for the times and as a stopgap of sorts with DDR4 still. When I move to DDR5 in a few years, I'll want 8-12 proper cores from whichever corporation offers the relatively best value. Intel is in my sights at the moment, but I'm not pulling the trigger as it's not very exciting or clear, as I'm really hoping for a robust chip that can last me many years against the consoles' performance, and that isn't available now for the price range I'm a scrooge for, hence my stop-gap view currently, tho I'm also casual enough currently that I might end up waiting for a DDR5 system a bit sooner...from my ancient 3770K/1070/16GB DDR3/1440p, har.
They came up something I consider decent for the times and as a stopgap of sorts with DDR4 still. When I move to DDR5 in a few years, I'll want 8-12 proper cores from whichever corporation offers the relatively best value. Intel is in my sights at the moment, but I'm not pulling the trigger as it's not very exciting or clear, as I'm really hoping for a robust chip that can last me many years against the consoles' performance, and that isn't available now for the price range I'm a scrooge for, hence my stop-gap view currently, tho I'm also casual enough currently that I might end up waiting for a DDR5 system a bit sooner...from my ancient 3770K/1070/16GB DDR3/1440p, har.
Soldato
What is it about "cores" that makes you think you need x amount? Is performance your goal, or do you just like "cores"?
Cores are just a means to an end. Performance should be that "end", but I guess cores work well as a marketing tool too.
The consoles use 8 Zen 2 cores which are only clocked to around 3.8ghz and are much worse than 6 zen 3 or ADL cores, even 4 ADL cores would outmatch the 8 core console CPUs.
There is some value in going above 8 cores if you intended to keep the CPU for a long time but often it's better and cheaper to just buy a 6 core CPU and change it every 3 years as even after just 2 and a half years a 6 core 12400F easily beats the 3900X in gaming.
There is some value in going above 8 cores if you intended to keep the CPU for a long time but often it's better and cheaper to just buy a 6 core CPU and change it every 3 years as even after just 2 and a half years a 6 core 12400F easily beats the 3900X in gaming.
Caporegime
Consoles aren't designed for 144+ Hz gaming, making comparisons between them and PC's is daft.
Soldato
The 8700k was also ahead by a fair margin over AMD chips in games with a 2+ year lead.
Don
If a program/game is written for 6 cores i.e. having 6 main threads, having less cores than that results in context switching (no matter how fast this happens these days), and the tiny delay from that can cause the microstutters that most people are keen to avoid.
Edit:
This is also another benefit of the "e cores", keeping background threads off the main cores helps reduce context switching/cache flushing etc there
Soldato
I would like to see a comparison of something like a 6-core Sandy Bridge-e vs a 4-core Alder-Lake. I suspect the number of cores will not determine which CPU provides the smoother experience.
If some games "require" 6 core cpu, but i bought newer generation cpu that is significant faster, but have 4 cores, would i get stuttering or bad experience? If each core of newer cpu is significant faster then there shouldn't be any problem. Ofcourse if games support more threads then 6 core newer generation will be better than 4, but 4 new cores will be better than 6 old.
Because so much difference between 120hz and 144hz right. I'd argue though that even PC's have a hard time at this, there are many games that just can't make use of 240hz or even 360hz screens no matter how fast the GPU is - and now a Chinese panel manufacturer says its going to start selling 500hz monitors this year, which again no one can really use. That 500hz has multiple issues, so apart from not having a PC that can drive it, its IPS technology which to my knowledge physically does not have the pixel response time required to refresh at 500hz (in fact all 360hz monitors on the market today already have this problem, so when using them at 360hz it introduces lots of overshoot, and smearing)
In theory, but so far reviews have shown that game performance goes down with E cores turned on and goes up with them off. So the software and apps we have on PC isn't as smart as we want them to be or thought they were.
Last edited:
exactly that, fast cores can do background task and gaming without sweat, and you also get less latency so it would be better for Intel to offer more performance cores than those crap e cores. I'm quite sure that big/little will be dead soon, Intel will migrate to MCM design, and AMD announced 3d stacking cores so even less reason to use big/little because with 3d and MCM design you can stack big cores and maintain good yield.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,420
You don’t need to go that far back. My 12600k setup with ecores disabled still kills my 9900k setup. Both tuned to 5.2 all core. Bdie tuned on both.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,007
Even in games alone the performance can vary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rutk9ErhKG4 . Look at the beginning where there isn't much happening and where the i3 can top the old AMD CPUs while it falls last when you're in the city and those (slower) cores can stretch their legs. Similar situation with Crysis 3 in areas with grass.
Personally I would go for something that has features from both sides - cores + performance.
Sorry for the late response.
I'm looking for 8-12 proper cores, based on current performance of chips and several things I'd want to do with a new system, while considering "future proofing" (yes, I know..) with DDR5 and what else such new "platforms" bring.
Intel is currently best for me, but it's not Sandy/Ivy-like domination at all, and while Intel's prices are acceptable with DDR4, they are not with DDR5, plus I'd like DDR5 to mature more. So I'm a bit torn. But again, currently I'm firmly on the fence, for gaming and partly with my job etc., and may just wait for DDR5 & board prices to go down a fair bit.
Last edited:
Associate
Video from RedGamingTech where he states that the 5800X3D is likely to be priced close to the 12900K:
Caporegime
That's fair as long as it beats it soundly, which it should. However, not exactly a gaming CPU for the masses at that price either.
This is what I predicted weeks ago, ya'll said I was crazy and the 5800x3d will be way cheaper
Soldato
You are putting your faith in a random YouTube video? I'm sure your are right though, I mean how could you be wrong?
thats close to 5950x monies. hope its performance is close to the 5950x too to justify the price.