Cores v hyperthreading for gaming

[eddyr]

We must be playing a diff game! As mentioned no problems running on an i3. Populated 64 player maps included.

Terrain is prob the biggest gameplay irritation in that some minor obstacles can stop you in your tracks when they shouldn't. Other than that.

 

[Klo]

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.

Yet Battlefield 1 has been much better received than 3/4 on the whole...

 

[r7slayer]

Where there's hate there's a train
BF1 has ran fine on my system however I only play it casually not like some who pop on everyday. It seems jusy like the same engine used for starwars to me and that ran fine and still does for me.

 

[Brazo]

Yup its the same engine which is at least in Star Wars very easy on the cpu

 

[DRSEire]

Enjoyed BF1,for 3 weeks.

 

[Rroff]

Yet Battlefield 1 has been much better received than 3/4 on the whole...

2 aspects to that - the initial hype (especially due to certain youtubers, etc.) built it up way more than 3/4 and like Battlefront it panders more to the casual crowd - as I've mentioned before I'd be kinder on it if it was the first major production of a relatively new studio but for someone with Dice's background its insipid tripe and full of underlying issues with the engine that in some cases even pre-date BF3 and no excuse for them not being fixed long ago.

Yup its the same engine which is at least in Star Wars very easy on the cpu

Atleast in the beta - BF1 is a ton heavier on the CPU than Battlefront - Battlefront was much more dependant on GPU performance.

 

[warren_1979]

Battlefield went down the toilet after BF2.

 

[Cooper]

I'm hoping AMD will release a 6 core, 12 thread Ryzen for a similar price to the 7700K.

If it's within 5-10% of the 7770K in terms of IPC and clocks to at least 4.2Ghz on air, then I think that will be just about the perfect CPU for the next few years TBH, and certainly one I'd think about replacing my i5 4690K with.

For gaming, I think 6 cores will be the sweet spot for some time to come.

 

[nashathedog]

I'm hoping AMD will release a 6 core, 12 thread Ryzen for a similar price to the 7700K.

If it's within 5-10% of the 7770K in terms of IPC and clocks to at least 4.2Ghz on air, then I think that will be just about the perfect CPU for the next few years TBH, and certainly one I'd think about replacing my i5 4690K with.

For gaming, I think 6 cores will be the sweet spot for some time to come.

I'm thinking the same and if Ryzen doesn't deliver I'll wait for the 6 core coffeelake i7 for my 4790k replacement.

 

[Brazo]

2 aspects to that - the initial hype (especially due to certain youtubers, etc.) built it up way more than 3/4 and like Battlefront it panders more to the casual crowd - as I've mentioned before I'd be kinder on it if it was the first major production of a relatively new studio but for someone with Dice's background its insipid tripe and full of underlying issues with the engine that in some cases even pre-date BF3 and no excuse for them not being fixed long ago.



Atleast in the beta - BF1 is a ton heavier on the CPU than Battlefront - Battlefront was much more dependant on GPU performance.

Your right and I know that, but why(?) Given its the same engine and BF4 too wasn't horrendous on the cpu on 64 player maps. My money is on a bug (bad code).

 

[greatash]

Battlefield 1 hammers my 2500k @ 4.6, almost always 100% usage and frame drops below 60.

It could be bad coding as Battlefield 4 ran pretty poorly for me on launch, Mantle temporarily solved the problem but now after all the patches I can go back and play at 100+fps.

Honestly in 2017 I dont think a 4c/4t CPU is optimal anymore. Many games run so much better with i7s just because of the hyperthreading. More is always better in my experience as long as its decent and no terrible IPC like fx series(Got E8400 instead of Q6600 because "no games use 4 cores", then I got the 2500k instead of the 2600k because "no games use hyperthreading") Has served me well for 6~ years so cant complain though, but with the 2600k I think I would be good for another 2-3 years.

I will be looking at a 6 core cpu in the new year, from Intel or AMD doesn't matter just the best price/performance around £300.

Its a shame DX12 is a flop otherwise I would keep the 2500k for a little longer.

 

[~>Dg<~]

as said i been testing a few other games not out yet and it is the time to be looking at more than the usual 4 cores.

bf4 showed benefit with i7s. bf1 is night and day difference in big games.the only thing is if you happy with your performance does it matter ?

now is actually a great time to offload the older sandybridge stuff.if zen is quick and cheap.will make most of that stuff almost pointless or hard to sell.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Quad is perfect gaming, i7 HT if you encode a lot or game and stream.

 

[Rroff]

Battlefield 1 hammers my 2500k @ 4.6, almost always 100% usage and frame drops below 60.

It could be bad coding as Battlefield 4 ran pretty poorly for me on launch, Mantle temporarily solved the problem but now after all the patches I can go back and play at 100+fps.

Honestly in 2017 I dont think a 4c/4t CPU is optimal anymore. Many games run so much better with i7s just because of the hyperthreading. More is always better in my experience as long as its decent and no terrible IPC like fx series(Got E8400 instead of Q6600 because "no games use 4 cores", then I got the 2500k instead of the 2600k because "no games use hyperthreading") Has served me well for 6~ years so cant complain though, but with the 2600k I think I would be good for another 2-3 years.

I will be looking at a 6 core cpu in the new year, from Intel or AMD doesn't matter just the best price/performance around £300.

Its a shame DX12 is a flop otherwise I would keep the 2500k for a little longer.

Games are increasingly starting to use a few worker threads, but still at their core fairly heavy on 1-2 cores - so extra cores doesn't hurt and at this point not so demanding that hyper-threading isn't a viable way of providing the functionality.

If you are a 60FPS/Hz V-Sync on kind of gamer then the i5s still cut it but above that the i7 can be more useful.

 

[greatash]

Games are increasingly starting to use a few worker threads, but still at their core fairly heavy on 1-2 cores - so extra cores doesn't hurt and at this point not so demanding that hyper-threading isn't a viable way of providing the functionality.

If you are a 60FPS/Hz V-Sync on kind of gamer then the i5s still cut it but above that the i7 can be more useful.

I'm using 120hz monitor for couple years but I just cap 60 because the i5 2500k stutters when pushing higher in some games i.e. bf, witcher 3 in novigrad, total warhammer

 

[pingu666]

think id go for 6core/12thread if I could afford it
but really its hard to tell what will be needed in future, or what would be a good investment long term vs something cheap now then upgrade in future.

but the rate of progress on per core speed has been very slow since sandybridge, assuming that remains the same pretty much anything you buy now shouldn't turn out to be super awful in x years time.