Buy a CPU and you can have some Haribo.
-
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.
Games, how many cores do you need?
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
Buy a CPU and you can have some Haribo.
6/12 over an 8/8?
I have a 32 thread CPU... Didnt get Haribo! did buy a Sata cable, got haribo!
lol... figures.
Probably about the same.
Ok, what is the actual performance difference in real numbers between 6 cores with SMT enabled and 12 cores with SMT disabled?
What is the difference between 8 cores with SMT disabled and 4 cores with SMT enabled?
If it was nothing, your whole thread makes no sense.
Depends on what sense you think my thread is.
A 4 core 8 thread CPU is not an 8 core CPU, there is a huge performance difference between an SMT thread and a real core, i explained this in the OP.
Edit: beyond 6 core 12 thread right now the GPU is not bottlenecked, so a higher core count CPU makes no difference.
Yeah.
physics doesn't change when it comes to cpu's. more cores on amd side = better performance. On intel side more cores and more clock speed = better peformnance0 in optimial real world conditions.
but its not down to the cpu's anymore its down to programing and not fully using the hardware you have.
at the moment games dont scale very well cores if im honest they never have done. intel used to keep everything at 4 cores or verations of it i3 2.4 threads i5 4 cores and i7 4/8 threads. Amd changed that and brought 6/12 and 8/16 cous intel responded buy matching them But whilst games have started to use more cores and threads again they still dont scale as well as we all would like exp people on amd side.
On intel side the 9700k can match the 9900k a lot of the time IN opetimal conditions and even the i5 isn't that far behind all 9th generation there and the 9700k which is 6/12 thread cpu isnt that far behind either even being a generration older with lesser ipc
amd side its even stranger since the main stream 3000 ryzen cpus start at 6/12 cpu and finssh at 12/24 thread cpu for pure gaming my 3900x over a 3600x both clocked the same is no real differnce in optimal conditions for pure gaming. Now the basis for the cpu is sound a 9900k sould destory a 9700k in gaming a 3900x sould destroy a 3600x in gaming but they dont games just dont scal well Atm.
no as for 4 cores for gaming it has started to stuggle game engines and devolpement have started to out pace 4 cores and 4/8 thread cpu's was never that much stonger then 4 core cpu really (in gaming here) so ofc a 8 core cou is a lot stonger
but since clock speed has kinda hit a wall on both amd and intel Ipc gains has been impressive on amd but i cant see that gaining at the same rate anymore more cores is the easiest way for game devs to ekkk free peroformance out of games now and i belibve as of to day
I’m going to change my answer. If your after maintaining max frames and also reducing micro stutter i.e maxing those 0.1% frame times then I can only recommend a 9900k, yes the 3700x is decent but the ‘edge’ the intel has will really help in this ‘top end’ scenarioIt is game dependant but that doesn't necessarily mean the type of game you think it does.
I play a lot of older games and Indy games, with friend they are just much more fun than Battlefield.
i'll give you an example, Insurgency, 2014, built on Source Engine, same Engine as CS:GO but this game is more graphically involved, still a very high FPS game and my 4.5Ghz 4690K couldn't get on with it when using the GPU you see in my signature, hugely powerful GPU for that game.
As a result even at 4K it would lock the CPU to 100% whenever the draw distance was anything more than 50 feet, resulting in horrible micro-stutter, at 1440P or 1080P that was so bad it was unplayable, the Ryzen 1600 made that go away completely.
I made a recording of the problem here, as difficult as micro-stutter is to see, but you can see the CPU jump to 100% in places, watch the gun when loading, see it stutter.... that the most obvious visual thing of it.
And some times the difference is so high its not even funny.
I see why you said "nothing" - because you assume that the games won't scale further up to 24 threads, and because the FPS scaling from 6 cores to 12 cores is not very high in absolute numbers.
However, you assume that SMT on 4 cores doesn't scale.
Look, everything depends on the particular game coding - if it is optimised for 6 cores or 8 cores, or in the future for more than those.
This graph shows how in two titles the sweet spot is 8 cores, and in one title it's 6 cores:
But one should also look at the Cores load and how much freedom you have to run additional apps during that gaming.
I am sure no one is happy when the slightest "alien" process appearance causes immediate stutter.
I’m going to change my answer. If your after maintaining max frames and also reducing micro stutter i.e maxing those 0.1% frame times then I can only recommend a 9900k, yes the 3700x is decent but the ‘edge’ the intel has will really help in this ‘top end’ scenario
I don't know why you would quote what you did and say that but i'm not going to argue with you, a 9900K is till the absolute best, tho ironically not in CS:GO and the margins overall are so low it can only be described as "margins of error".
The choice is yours and i'm not going to tell you the 9900K is the wrong chip.
I’m going to change my answer. If your after maintaining max frames and also reducing micro stutter i.e maxing those 0.1% frame times then I can only recommend a 9900k, yes the 3700x is decent but the ‘edge’ the intel has will really help in this ‘top end’ scenario
That edge comes with huge penalties. The difference is barley noticeable past looking at benchmarking data presented in pie charts and even then in very specific scenarios.