CPU Longevity?

[mattyg]

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.

I'm still rocking a i7 920. Looking at upgrading because the MB and poss Memory is on its way out. Only just swapped my 8800GTX for a 1070..Thats how often I upgrade...lol

 

[GAC]

well i maybe on a very old 4 core i5 750 and have it clocked at 4.16ghz (stocks 2.67) but its still able to game ok on most things. but it is showing its age now. when i check how games are using it for the most part its getting near maxed out and its only going to get worse, of course older titles only use a core or sometimes all but only one gets maxed while the rest sit at 50-60%. personally im waiting for intels coffee lake stuff come august to see what the lay of the land is and price/performance.

as for people crying about how much they will cost, you dont know yet. no one does and until intel ships them and we have accurate comparisons its pointless throwing around any sort of advice saying otherwise. if intel come out and over charge i can see a lot of people buying amd as their platform AM4 is supposed to be lasting for 3-4 years so should have newer cpus to upgrade unlike what intel pulls all too often of changing its chipset.

but again for now, if you NEED it now go amd, if you can wait, wait for coffee lake and see whats what again depends if your looking at the sky lake X stuff which will be expensive but 20 cored cpu's if you need them for professional stuff will always be handy no matter the price i guess.

 

[triss]

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.

While yes i agree going forward more cores are a good idea, you cant post a screenshot showing lower CPU usage and then go ignore the FPS.
Making a rig for longevity is one thing but when your losing 60+ FPS like that in a current game it paints Ryzen in a worse position atm, which it doesnt deserve

 

[DONOHUE07]

If more cores is more is the answer for longevity in a cpu, does make the fx8350 worth holding onto? I ask because I keep reading the same 'more cores is better in the long run' yet my 8350 has been getting thrashed by the 4 core i5's for years and now the 4 and 6 core Ryzens beat it in all the game benchmarks I have seen. I fancy upgrading but I don't what to upgrade for purely gaming purposes, my fx8350 or 290

 

[Journey]

Pretty easy answer to be honest, if you want to ensure that your whole platform is going to last a long time, and get the best value for money, buy an AM4 based system.

AMD have committed to supporting the socket till 2020 at least, so a BIOS upgrade will allow you to drop in newer processors even if you chose to buy a cheaper one now, lets say an R5 1600, or an R5 1500X, also all of the CPU's are unlocked, so no matter which you chose, if you don't want to overclock now, you might in future to get a little more performance. If you wanted to do that with Intel right now, you'd have to buy a premium 'K' series CPU, and a premium Z170/Z270 series board, and then you'll be stuck with LGA 1151, for the next 5 years, meaning that you wouldn't be able to upgrade, sine Intel will dump it by 2018.

Not forgetting that due to the long life of the AM4 platfrom, there will always be a bigger second hand market, without silly premium prices you see with Intel constantly changing sockets, go buy a secondhand 4790K, it'll cost you the best part of £200-250, due to this very issue.

I cannot see any argument for buying anything other than AM4 presently, even if it is still very young, and has some growing up to do.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

This more cores patter is pure conjecture. It relies on the premise that future games will be coded for more than four cores. Core speed and IPC are still the king for gaming systems as far as I can see.

I would also consider 3-5 years as decent longevity.

 

[Thekwango]

I would also consider 3-5 years as decent longevity.

Which platform is giving 3-5 years life from now? Can't be 1151, is it not due for replacement 2018?

 

[Journey]

Which platform is giving 3-5 years life from now? Can't be 1151, is it not due for replacement 2018?

It's really hard to say what is going to last in performance terms for the next 3-5 years. People who bought in at the Sandy Bridge generation were spoiled with a huge IPC increase, optimum 4c/8t CPU's that could be overclocked really well, and an unknown factor that Intel wouldn't bother their arses to make significantly better CPU's for the next 5 years.

So I think he was getting at what is considered to be good longevity, not pointing at something that offers it.

 

[Doobedoo]

All platforms will give you 3-5 years of life with varying levels of performance, my 4670k will still last me another 5 years if I want it too but it will continue to struggle as games eventually begin to move over to multiple core support.

I think the answer is quite obvious where it is heading when you take in that console games are utilizing 8 ore processors and then being ported to pc's, Intel's next mainstream platform will now offer 6 cores and AMD who pretty much own console gaming are pushing 6 and 8 core cpu's into the mainsteam at an affordable price.

Horses for courses but I know my next cpu will have more than 4 cores.

 

[Thekwango]

So I think he was getting at what is considered to be good longevity, not pointing at something that offers it.

Ahh that makes more sense. I thought he was suggesting that skt 1151 would offer a 3-5 year life span!

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Which platform is giving 3-5 years life from now? Can't be 1151, is it not due for replacement 2018?

It'll still work after 2018.

Edit: just seen your post above, yes I'm meaning it'll still be relevant.

 

[gavinh87]

If more cores is more is the answer for longevity in a cpu, does make the fx8350 worth holding onto? I ask because I keep reading the same 'more cores is better in the long run' yet my 8350 has been getting thrashed by the 4 core i5's for years and now the 4 and 6 core Ryzens beat it in all the game benchmarks I have seen. I fancy upgrading but I don't what to upgrade for purely gaming purposes, my fx8350 or 290

The difference here is that the fx chips had a poor IPC to begin with. Now the ryzen IPC is just behind the Intel's but with more cores. Intel are going the "more core" route also. Engines are already benefiting from 6 cores and this will only increase.

 

[Thekwango]

It'll still work after 2018.

Edit: just seen your post above, yes I'm meaning it'll still be relevant.

Yea sorry was misinterpreting what you were saying.

 

[gavinh87]

While yes i agree going forward more cores are a good idea, you cant post a screenshot showing lower CPU usage and then go ignore the FPS.
Making a rig for longevity is one thing but when your losing 60+ FPS like that in a current game it paints Ryzen in a worse position atm, which it doesnt deserve

It is a known issue with this game using ryzen and nvidia. When used with a radeon card the difference is negligible. There is quite a comprehensive video about this on YouTube.
The point of these screens were to show CPU usage and how this will become an issue in the future. Not to show FPS differences.

 

[Quartz]

Cry engine and frostbite engine and the unreal engine are showing gains from using 6 or more cores.

Can you elaborate? Is there a point where extra cores no longer increase performance? I've read that Ashes of the Singularity stops at 12 cores, for instance, and Galciv 3 can use more

 

[gavinh87]

Can you elaborate? Is there a point where extra cores no longer increase performance? I've read that Ashes of the Singularity stops at 12 cores, for instance, and Galciv 3 can use more

Its different for each engine. Ashes of the singularity does show an increase when using 8c16t over a 6c12t.
Fallout 4 uses 8. Doom and the division I have seen use 32 threads on dual xeons.

My point here is for longevity I would buy the CPU with as many cores as you can.

For those asking about 4k and if the CPU matters, look at this video

Here a pair of xeon e5-2670 from 2013 is beating the 5ghz kaby lake in 4k doom.
In rise of the tomb raider 4k the 4.0 1700 beats the 5ghz kaby lake despite it loosing to it at 720p.

IMO this is a sign of things to come, when GPUs get faster and 4k is the norm then threads will mattter.

 

[Quartz]

Excellent. I'm sensing an expensive year next year.

 

[gavinh87]

Excellent. I'm sensing an expensive year next year.

What are you looking at getting ?

 

[Holst1981]

Can you elaborate? Is there a point where extra cores no longer increase performance? I've read that Ashes of the Singularity stops at 12 cores, for instance, and Galciv 3 can use more

Absolutely.

Most older games are dependent on a single core for almost all of the work.
Even many new games load one or two cores more than the rest.

Games are developing towards using more cores efficiency but there are few that require 8 cores, until that happens 4 cores is likely to suffice for most people.

 

[voidshatter]

Most console ports would still rely heavily on 1-2 cores. And because most developers would focus on console first and port to PC (without proper optimisation) after they are no longer afraid of piracy, those low frequency CPUs are likely to suffer in this kind of games.