CPU Longevity?

cosmogenesis · 12 May 2017 at 15:47

Gonna build a new rig and when looking at the benchmarks for single and multi core CPU performance is it worth having 8 cores now albeit at lower Ghz or 4 core at high Ghz going forward. I can see that at 4K resolutions all games seem to level out whatever the CPU but at lower resolutions Intel have high FPS (albeit at levels you dont need - 150 etc).

So will future games in any way make greater use of more cores or still be primarily a single dominat thread just spawning a few more when needed. Can games and other things make use of 16T or is 8T enough going forward?

Opinions appreciated?

gavinh87 · 12 May 2017 at 15:52

Cry engine and frostbite engine and the unreal engine are showing gains from using 6 or more cores.
These game engines are used in a fair few games now. I think anyone buying a 4 core 8 thread now either change their CPU regularly or are stupid.
What brand of CPU is another arguement, AMD are doing very well with their new line up and for a good price. Intel are round the corner with their high core CPUs but no doubt will come with a hefty price tag.

cosmogenesis · 12 May 2017 at 15:57

so your suggesting presently if your considering getting a new rig you would be wise to go AMD presently as the price is better

gavinh87 · 12 May 2017 at 16:34

cosmogenesis said:
so your suggesting presently if your considering getting a new rig you would be wise to go AMD presently as the price is better

I'm not suggesting anything, not without knowing your usage and budget.

GAC · 12 May 2017 at 17:37

everything is pointing to more cores the better of late. be it amd or intel. just dont cheap out on things if you want it to last though.

Thekwango · 12 May 2017 at 17:55

cosmogenesis said:
so your suggesting presently if your considering getting a new rig you would be wise to go AMD presently as the price is better

gavinh87 said:
I'm not suggesting anything, not without knowing your usage and budget.

Stop being coy

If gavinh87 won't spit it out, I will. Almost certainly if you are building a new rig right now then yes AMD Ryzen is the route to go. Bang for buck, Ryzen is much better than intel right now.

gavinh87 · 12 May 2017 at 19:08

Thekwango said:
Stop being coy

If gavinh87 won't spit it out, I will. Almost certainly if you are building a new rig right now then yes AMD Ryzen is the route to go. Bang for buck, Ryzen is much better than intel right now.

Haha. Yeah ryzen represents great value for money and will only get better. Hard to recommend anything without knowing his usage though.

cosmogenesis · 12 May 2017 at 22:41

Got a original i7, 6GB ram, SATA SSD, ti980 zotac amp extreme. So as I game mostly I thought AMD 1700, hero 6 mobo, 16 go 3000 ram and a m.2 SSD. Would like a 3.9 ghz overclocked rig

gavinh87 · 12 May 2017 at 22:47

cosmogenesis said:
Got a original i7, 6GB ram, SATA SSD, ti980 zotac amp extreme. So as I game mostly I thought AMD 1700, hero 6 mobo, 16 go 3000 ram and a m.2 SSD. Would like a 3.9 ghz overclocked rig

Same system I have now. Except memory, once you find YOUR stable settings it handles everything with ease. 1700's seem to range from 3.8-4.0. Its all about the lottery, I have x2 1700's;
3.8 @ 1.37
3.9 @ 1.4

The difference is minimal and even down to margin or error in most tests. The best thing for this platform is memory as you have probably read. I would recommend 3200 CL14 ram.

bakes0310 · 13 May 2017 at 08:37

I know I was unwise building my 6700k pc in Jan. should have waited a couple months for ryzen. Won't make that mistake again.

icey_haj · 13 May 2017 at 10:43

bakes0310 said:
I know I was unwise building my 6700k pc in Jan. should have waited a couple months for ryzen. Won't make that mistake again.

I bet you could sell your mobo, cpu and still 'upgrade'

to Ryzen at little to no extra cost. :cool:

Dirk Diggler · 13 May 2017 at 11:13

Are there any actual figures to back up the Ryzen is better for gaming claim here, or is it all based on just-because-ery?

gavinh87 · 13 May 2017 at 11:29

String said:
Are there any actual figures to back up the Ryzen is better for gaming claim here, or is it all based on just-because-ery?

Just because we are all AMD fan boys.

The question is whats best for longevity. Look at these pics, 4c8t CPU's are maxed out. Which do you think is better for the future?

Ignore the framerate in tombraider. That games doesn't like nvidia and ryzen together for whatever reason.

Dirk Diggler · 13 May 2017 at 11:33

I've got a 6700k / 1080ti system here and would be happy to do a few benches v one of your Ryzen systems with a 1080ti?

Reason being is that I don't see the CPU struggle to cope with any game @ 3440*1440. The bottleneck is the GPU every time.

I'm no Intel fanboy and would be more than happy to be educated here.

gavinh87 · 13 May 2017 at 11:37

String said:
I've got a 6700k / 1080ti system here and would be happy to do a few benches v one of your Ryzen systems with a 1080ti?

Reason being is that I don't see the CPU struggle to cope with any game @ 3440*1440. The bottleneck is the GPU every time.

I'm no Intel fanboy and would be more than happy to be educated here.

At present yes the GPU is the bottleneck. When GPU's get faster this will change.
What happens when 4k is the norm like 1080 is now? Then you will want those extra cores. I'm not turning this into an AMD vs Intel thread but to buy a 4c8t is just silly.

cosmogenesis · 13 May 2017 at 11:43

yes Longevity. in 5 years time what will most gamer's have and will game designers and developers take a advantage of it. I know its a difficult question but I was just trying to rule out wether games don't or do require more cores and threads?

I know that presently PC Games take advantage of a minimal amount of cores and threads running at very high speeds. In principle the more threads could mean spreading the game over more of them if that is possible and/or desirable for a better gaming experience. I know that graphically games have got much better but except for online games I cant really see much difference in terms of actual game play in single player mode. The AI is not much if any better than 10 years ago etc.

I know its not a gaming thread either but in terms of where the gaming industry is heading is it all about FPS or is there more to it than that.

gavinh87 · 13 May 2017 at 11:46

cosmogenesis said:
yes Longevity. in 5 years time what will most gamer's have and will game designers and developers take a advantage of it. I know its a difficult question but I was just trying to rule out that games dont need more core and threads?

In 5 years time games WILL need more cores and threads. In 5 years from now 4 core cpu's will be a thing of the past.

mattyg · 13 May 2017 at 11:46

But would it be wise to try to hang on for the new Intel's

cosmogenesis · 13 May 2017 at 11:50

Mattyg, yes if you can afford them.

Holst1981 · 13 May 2017 at 12:21

There will always be something better in 6 months time.

If you look at how well old Intel systems have lasted over the last 5 years, I wouldn't be overly concerned by my cpu choice.
Fast 4 cores will likely still do the job in gaming for a long time to come.

In the vast majority of games gpu performance is still the driving factor. I don't expect this to change quickly.
Most games that are properly multithreaded are gpu limited anyway.

Even 6 cores with an overclock should be enough for a while.
Hopefully with the option to upgrade cpu in a few years if required without changing motherboard.