Cores v hyperthreading for gaming

DONOHUE07 · 21 Dec 2016 at 01:03

I'm going to start saving for a new rig in on the new year and I want a CPU that's going to last me years, what's going to be best for gaming in the long run ,the amount of cores like a 8 core Ryzen, 6 core 5320k, or a 4 core with hyperthreading like a 6700k? I really would like my CPU and motherboard to last as long and hold it's own as possible

Cheers

Akagi · 21 Dec 2016 at 01:08

All of those CPU's have two threads per core, so the 5820K and Ryzen (hopefully!) will always be better anyway.

Whether or not you notice that difference will depend on how well a game makes use of the available cores/threads.

What sort of games will you be playing, and what GPU(s) are you thinking about..?

Undesirable · 21 Dec 2016 at 01:12

In the long run more cores are better, but I would still only buy Ryzen if the IPC is almost as good as Intel's offerings. If Intel still have a large IPC advantage, I would buy 6800k on the x99 platform for some sort of middle ground in future-proofing, which also has the benefit of quad-channel configuration for memory, which is a bonus.

IvanDobskey · 21 Dec 2016 at 07:16

This is what I'm wondering too.

I think for the next year or two a highly clocked 7700k will be best for gaming.

But there's no doubt games are starting to use extra cores. Probably due to the current consoles being multi core.

I think for the long term the more cores the better. I'm not convinced zen will quite match intel in gaming, so I'm still eying up a 6800k. Zen may well be competitive though and at least have an impact on prices.

Uriel · 21 Dec 2016 at 07:59

If Ryzen is competitive where AMD has been weak, I see AM4 as a potentially very attractive platform. It sounds like it should last until after AMD's next die shrink. That will hopefully mean decent performance in the short term, with a high chance of a decent CPU upgrade with minimal fuss in future.

pinki104 · 21 Dec 2016 at 08:05

I have recently upgraded from a 2600k to 5960x and i can see the difference in loading times on BF1 unless that is just the ram as im still using the same GPU and SSD i always had.

DONOHUE07 · 21 Dec 2016 at 09:29

Acme said:
All of those CPU's have two threads per core, so the 5820K and Ryzen (hopefully!) will always be better anyway.

Whether or not you notice that difference will depend on how well a game makes use of the available cores/threads.

What sort of games will you be playing, and what GPU(s) are you thinking about..?

I'm looking for long term use, with no particular games in mind. When I see people's sig with a 2nd gen i5/i7, it really hammers home that a good CPU will last years if your primarily gaming, I bought a FX4100 and later the FX8350 as an easy upgrade path as I was pretty much tied to the AM3+ platform (now before I get slated, I was new to PC gaming and more importantly PC components and I just wanted to play games on a budget!) And i do not want to make the same mistake again
As for the GPU, my r9 290 is still going strong at 1080p so I don't have any plans to get a new one as yet and if I was going to see any real gains I would have to shell out for a 1070/1080, and to be honest i can't see my self ever spending over £300 on a GPU

DONOHUE07 · 21 Dec 2016 at 09:29

Thanks for all your replies guys, much appreciated

Mauller · 21 Dec 2016 at 11:49

pinki104 said:
I have recently upgraded from a 2600k to 5960x and i can see the difference in loading times on BF1 unless that is just the ram as im still using the same GPU and SSD i always had.

Some of that can be down to a better SATA controller allowing faster and lower latency access to your SSD.

~>Dg<~ · 21 Dec 2016 at 14:11

honestly any recent i7 as in 6700k or x99 platform will be fine for a few years.more cores are finally coming into gaming but the little extra clock speed can help to balance what the i6700k/7700k lose out to for having less cores.

the difference is the smoothness and knowing you have the extra cores for other things also.like editing or whatever.

zen or whatever they want to call it needs to be priced well. if its priced well and matches a ocd 5820k or 6800k then id take that over a i6700k set up.

i dont think they will or if they do they going to be more expensive than people think.

battlefield 1 definitley shows better performance of x99 platform over normal i7s.benchmarked and played on them side by side.

Rroff · 21 Dec 2016 at 14:19

Most games out now work optimally on a 4 core 8 thread Intel CPU - combining the high performance for where high serial instruction throughput is required and the ability to power lots of low performance threads where needed - future games might move towards where 8 actual cores (less dependant on clock speeds) is an advantage but we aren't there yet. 6 actual cores can be a benefit in some cases i.e. nVidia's drivers tend to be relatively CPU intensive especially with newer features where they might be doing some scheduling, etc. in software rather than hardware or certain DX11 functions where they are hooking some API functions before they hit the drivers and optimising the data before it gets to the driver.

4 core i.e. i5 CPUs still do well with most games but going forward the extra threads/cores will be more of an advantage and/or if you have a multi-GPU or 120+Hz setup where they can help to keep things smoother even when not necessarily providing faster framerates.

opethdisciple · 21 Dec 2016 at 14:24

We are not in the DX12 era yet. It's here but games are not being built from the ground up in DX12. More over it's simply some features which they are bring over to the engine.

In almost all the DX12 enabled games I've played it has been better to switch to DX11 for a performance gain than stick with DX12.

In light of this, the traditional 4 core high ipc/clock speed cpus will still deliver better excellent gaming performance when compared to their more multi-threaded brethren.

RavenXXX2 · 21 Dec 2016 at 14:26

**** BF1 the game is casual trash, ohh I need an octacore cpu to get the best out of BF1 or I won't sleep at night, yeah no.

IvanDobskey · 21 Dec 2016 at 14:28

Well i just decided to get an i7 6700k in the end

Couldn't be bothered waiting for an overpriced and underwhelming kaby lake.

Rroff · 21 Dec 2016 at 14:30

RavenXXX2 said:
**** BF1 the game is casual trash, ohh I need an octacore cpu to get the best out of BF1 or I won't sleep at night, yeah no.

I'm glad Dice made BF1 - shows them up for what they really are - a graphic design studio with some fail game design/programmers tagged on.

eddyr · 21 Dec 2016 at 14:43

I've had no real issue with BF1 on an i3. Aside from the occasional crash, is there anything in particular you guys refer to?

I only bought it about 3 weeks back so I am sure I skipped much of the launch day horror, but it has been a pleasant experience. Looks good, plays smoothly (DX11 only) and well on a 2c4t paired with an 7870XT. Bit of a drip feed of features (HC mode and related oddities) I suppose.

RavenXXX2 · 21 Dec 2016 at 14:43

Plenty of prevouse examples of the ineptitude of them.

Brazo · 21 Dec 2016 at 16:00

RavenXXX2 said:
**** BF1 the game is casual trash, ohh I need an octacore cpu to get the best out of BF1 or I won't sleep at night, yeah no.

I just think the game isn't coded efficiently, if bf4 64 player maps can cope with an i3 then what gives. Bugged that's all.

IvanDobskey · 21 Dec 2016 at 16:16

I haven't played battlefield since bf3.

Really didn't like 4 much.

It's same old same old with every iteration.

Rroff · 21 Dec 2016 at 16:25

IvanDobskey said:
I haven't played battlefield since bf3.

Really didn't like 4 much.

4 got a lot better after Dice LA stepped in a few months after release (though end of the day they've basically done the best they can of a bad job papering over the cracks). One of the things that annoys me most about BF1 is how much regression there is in regards to the nuts and bolts compared to things that finally got fixed/polished in BF4, etc. Dice Stockholm do really nice graphics but they are utterly incompetent at gameplay mechanics and making sure everything under the hood is robust and working nicely - even today approx. 1 in 19 TV missiles in BF4 for instance will kill the person who fired it instead of the target it hits due to sloppy "it sort of works - lets move on" attitude towards the utility code that ties everything together.

Brazo said:
I just think the game isn't coded efficiently, if bf4 64 player maps can cope with an i3 then what gives. Bugged that's all.

It is one of the reasons the i7 is king and the 4 and 6 core i7s will continue to be king for awhile as they can just power through buggy/poor coding efficiency in regard to performance as much as is possible while other CPUs like the 8 core AMDs struggle much more in those scenarios.