None of that follows, if the advice was to copy console core counts (as it was), should have been 8 since 2013. Anyway, I agree with the advice, because we see evidence that games are now utilising 8 cores and 8 core CPUs are now cost-effective, rather than basing it console core counts (which have been 8 since 2013).
-
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 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
None of that follows, if the advice was to copy console core counts (as it was), should have been 8 since 2013. Anyway, I agree with the advice, because we see evidence that games are now utilising 8 cores and 8 core CPUs are now cost-effective, rather than basing it console core counts (which have been 8 since 2013).
To match a console CPU on the PC we probably want something like a 3800XT. People seem to forget the consoles will make better use of the hardware and the move to a full fat desktop Ryzen 2 chip, along with increase thread count and cache size will show a massive performance jump.
For gaming I would buy whichever has the fastest single core performance.
I have no doubt that games will use more cores but they are often held back by peak single core performance. They be hitting all 8 cores but it’s highly likely only one to two of them will have significantly more load than the rest.
It’s ultimately the reason why Intel is still better at gaming because they have faster single core performance through their raw clock speed despite being behind in IPC and overall multi core performance.
TLDR: if you are interested in game performance, buy the processor with the best single core performance for the highest FPS in games. It doesn’t really matter if that is 6, 8 or 12 core.
Despite what people say, raw single core performance still matters.
I have no doubt that games will use more cores but they are often held back by peak single core performance. They be hitting all 8 cores but it’s highly likely only one to two of them will have significantly more load than the rest.
It’s ultimately the reason why Intel is still better at gaming because they have faster single core performance through their raw clock speed despite being behind in IPC and overall multi core performance.
TLDR: if you are interested in game performance, buy the processor with the best single core performance for the highest FPS in games. It doesn’t really matter if that is 6, 8 or 12 core.
Despite what people say, raw single core performance still matters.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,152
- Location
- South Wales
That might be the 8 core chip that turns out to have the lowest latency, but we find out soon enough
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
When I meant to "copy" the console cores, I meant as it was the same architecture (zen2) as what most PC builds have these days. So if consoles have 8 zen2 cores, then PC would need 8 zen2 cores as the base level as well.
If it were the ps4 that were just getting released, saying PC's need 8 cores (zen2) because consoles had 8 cores (jaguar) would have been silly because they are miles apart.
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
Aren't the console variants of Zen2 lower clock speed though?
I still think the PC's having a 3700x for example (8c16t) will be more powerful than the 8c16t zen2 chip in the consoles
No, it wasn't, if you really want to nitpick, look at the comment again:
Where does it mention PS4? Where does it mention Jaguar? It doesn't, it quite clearly says "both new consoles", it was you who brought up 2013 which is utterly irrelevant to the comment and the advice at hand.
But it's entirely an exercise in nitpicking because ultimately you concur with the sentiment. Unfortunately my brain space today is one of minute precision amongst idiots, which is triggering my argumentative side and OCD, so apologies for not being able to let this one go.
They are but the consoles have hardware units for compression/decompression to speed up the SSD transfer rates which is a consideration since that will take up CPU cycles on the PC.
Yes, and far more advanced I/O (PS5) that can only be replicated for now using the CPU to compensate. So to last through next gen, I would go with a 12-core Ryzen not 8.
I think the 4900x will be my next purchase to last me the next few years. As games and applications get more multi-threaded the additional cores should be of value.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 11,118
- Location
- Crowmarsh
Yeah, I think 8 core will be the sweet spot for a long while. I'll probably rarely ever use my extra 4 cores to be honest.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 379
unless the the PC has to use generic CPU cores to the asset decompression provided in the PS5 as bespokes DSP's to enable the live-streaming of game assets - as per the Unreal demo.
8 Cores is enough but far from the best in the newest total war. 4 and 6 cores is scrapping the barrel
This is is why I dumped my 6 core cpu earlier this year, writing has been on the wall for some time
You can always want (and pay for) more 
I think 8c/16t will do me for the 4000 series on release.
Then next year (on 5000 release), can maybe swap for a 12c/24t 4000 series, or..
..on the 6000 release, make the jump to 5000 series/AM5 12c/24t.
But frankly the 12c/24t on release is silly money to pay for a gaming rig.
I think 8c/16t will do me for the 4000 series on release.
Then next year (on 5000 release), can maybe swap for a 12c/24t 4000 series, or..
..on the 6000 release, make the jump to 5000 series/AM5 12c/24t.
But frankly the 12c/24t on release is silly money to pay for a gaming rig.
8 Cores is enough but far from the best in the newest total war. 4 and 6 cores is scrapping the barrel
This is is why I dumped my 6 core cpu earlier this year, writing has been on the wall for some time
That's AI, you see a similar thing in games like Hitman when there are a lot of NPC's on screen, tho to a lesser extent.
No high clocked single core will help you with this sort of thing....
You can always want (and pay for) more
I think 8c/16t will do me for the 4000 series on release.
Then next year (on 5000 release), can maybe swap for a 12c/24t 4000 series, or..
..on the 6000 release, make the jump to 5000 series/AM5 12c/24t.
But frankly the 12c/24t on release is silly money to pay for a gaming rig.
This is what I am looking at let people test the new 5000 and pick up a second/Third gen 5000 once all the bug are ironed out and memory is cheaper and faster.
I will get a 8c/16 this year or early next year and then get a 12c/24t, 1 or 2 years after launch and look at 5000 series a year or 2 after that, depends on performance.
Maybe miss 5000 series and go 6000 not sure I will see what happens.?
Worse than that. If it was AI I would applaud them. Its a weird Grass Extreme setting that puts all that multithread load on CPU. Reduce that single setting and even 4 cores is enough
Physics? Soft Body Phisics is why the Crysis 3 Sweat Box level murders' quad core CPU's, the Grass, its Soft Body Physics, like cloth and hair Physics, a lot of it.
So it's dynamic foliage physics - well known for hiting CPUs hard. Expect this to get worse for next gen games, many developers are targeting additional physics in next gen titles for real time foliage, water and weather simulations.
Soon we'll wish we had physx add on cards again.
Im all for it, for quite some time now the CPu has taken a back step to the GPU in gaming and that's just because so many people had quad cores or legacy consoles and developers had to push everything to the GPU. Now developers can be free of such boundaries and implement proper physics simulations - these will thrive on high core count CPUs from AMD. I'm glad the developer for Total War gives the option to reduce image quality for people with low core count CPUs and keeps the best graphics for high core count CPUs
I haven't yet seen anyone benchmark it, but I suspect the just released new AAA Flight Simulator game is hitting CPUs hard due to its real time weather physics simulation and probably it also loves high core count CPUs more than clockspeed. This is the future, the future of gaming is here
Last edited:
- Status