Games, how many cores do you need?

humbug · 25 Aug 2019 at 21:41

tyler_jrb said:
I’m not saying 3.5ghz vs 5ghz as that would be unreasonable.

I’m just simply saying a 5+ghz 6/8 core will be better performing in games than a 10/12+ core just because they are known to not clock as well due to size, tdp, thermals etc.

And anyway if those 4 cores are better performing that those 6 due to being able to clock faster and thus perform better in games that kind of answers the question.

Do they? Give me an example of a low core count CPU in the same generation that is better than a higher core count CPU because the lower core count CPU has higher clocks.

Brazo · 25 Aug 2019 at 22:09

humbug said:
Do they? Give me an example of a low core count CPU in the same generation that is better than a higher core count CPU because the lower core count CPU has higher clocks.

Surely it’s game dependent. If it’s designed to be run on single core max clocks then it’s irrelevant having a cpu with a huge number of cores at a lower clock speed as most cores will be sat on their backsides doing nothing whilst the four (did I say four

) that are in use will be running slower.

I’m just about to upgrade to a 3900x so that must tell you which side my breads buttered, fact is though Intel does have an edge and imo that’s down to clockspeed and not core count.

humbug · 25 Aug 2019 at 22:16

Brazo said:
Surely it’s game dependent. If it’s designed to be run on single core max clocks then it’s irrelevant having a cpu with a huge number of cores at a lower clock speed as most cores will be sat on their backsides doing nothing whilst the four (did I say four ) that are in use will be running slower.

I’m just about to upgrade to a 3900x so that must tell you which side my breads buttered, fact is though Intel does have an edge and imo that’s down to clockspeed and not core count.

I'm sorry i cannot resist...

Surely it’s game dependent. If it’s designed to be run on single core max clocks then it’s irrelevant having a cpu with a huge number of cores at a lower clock speed as most cores will be sat on their backsides doing nothing

True.

However.

fact is though Intel does have an edge and imo that’s down to clockspeed and not core count.

Surely it’s game dependent.

Right the first time ^^^^

Higher clock speed doesn't always = higher performance, there's IPC to take account of.

tyler_jrb · 25 Aug 2019 at 22:32

humbug said:
Do they? Give me an example of a low core count CPU in the same generation that is better than a higher core count CPU because the lower core count CPU has higher clocks.

Not that that has anything to do with what I was talking about.

Fact is higher clocks still makes the most amount of difference as both sides ipc/architectural performance wise are still pretty close. 9900k at 5/5.2ghz vs 3900x at what 4.3ghz?

The 9900k still wins. Even stock-stock. Still wins.

multithread performance sure, gaming we are talking about here though.

humbug · 25 Aug 2019 at 23:09

tyler_jrb said:
Not that that has anything to do with what I was talking about.

Fact is higher clocks still makes the most amount of difference as both sides ipc/architectural performance wise are still pretty close. 9900k at 5/5.2ghz vs 3900x at what 4.3ghz?

The 9900k still wins. Even stock-stock. Still wins.

multithread performance sure, gaming we are talking about here though.

You're using a metric that no one is arguing for, deliberately i suspect because even you know that a 5Ghz 8350K is not as fast as a 4.3Ghz Ryzen 3600.

Your whole argument is "it depends" well yes 8 core 16 threads vs 12 cores 24 threads is one of those dependencies which i have said my self, it doesn't make 6 cores being better than 4 any less true.

MartinPrince · 25 Aug 2019 at 23:25

4K8KW10 said:
Well, some leaks in December 2018 made us believe that a upcoming revolutionary 7nm product lineup was coming up.
What we received in July 2019 is a mediocre performance refresh, at best..

You're welcome to your opinion though based on my own experience the reality is the exact opposite to your statement.

For a particular task that I need to accomplish I need a system that basically is powerful enough to score 3000+ marks in Cinebench R15.

The cheapest way I could do that was to use second hand dual Xeon 2697 V2. Motherboard and CPUs cost me ~£800. R15 score 3100.
A 3900X and B450 Tomahawk cost me £564, R15 Score 3150.

The price to performance is anyting but mediocre.

Phil2008 · 26 Aug 2019 at 02:02

humbug said:
I'm sorry i cannot resist...

True.

However.

Right the first time ^^^^

Higher clock speed doesn't always = higher performance, there's IPC to take account of.

In the real world you wouldnt notice between intel or amd

humbug · 26 Aug 2019 at 02:04

Phil2008 said:
In the real world you wouldnt notice between intel or amd

No argument from me

tyler_jrb · 26 Aug 2019 at 07:41

humbug said:
You're using a metric that no one is arguing for, deliberately i suspect because even you know that a 5Ghz 8350K is not as fast as a 4.3Ghz Ryzen 3600.

Your whole argument is "it depends" well yes 8 core 16 threads vs 12 cores 24 threads is one of those dependencies which i have said my self, it doesn't make 6 cores being better than 4 any less true.

Not really no.

I was using 4 vs 6 as an explanation/example and wasn't to be taken literally. Of course 6 cores+ will likely outperform 4 in any game as they are now starting to struggle.

I was simply talking about the 6/8 cores vs say 12/16+ where the 6/8 high speed cores are still the better performers (in games).

paulmapp8306 · 26 Aug 2019 at 15:05

Zeed said:
Side by side 3800x that is not fully stable is slower by around 5% from what You say than Intel. Where is contradiction You know best I got more time than You and can spend 10 hours and drop about 30 reviews that wont contradict anyrthing just will prove that 9900k is faster than 3800x but costs more. So tell me where I am wrong >?? That intel is 5% faster that it costs More or that [email protected] is gaming only stable. Please tell me.

There pretty identical. I've seen side by side of 3700x and 9900 where the 3790 gives more fps, and the same setup on a different game gives the opposite.

50/50 depending what your running....and both will run AAA games at 4k around 60fps, or qhd at over 100.

At that point cost and ug paths are the only thing worth looking at. AMD have Intel beat on both fronts.

sgoaty · 20 Sep 2020 at 08:11

Hello old thread

Do you think the 2700x will become a better value proposition in the future vs the 3600 as games start to utilise more cores or will the IPC gain always win?

Minstadave · 20 Sep 2020 at 08:17

sgoaty said:
Hello old thread

Do you think the 2700x will become a better value proposition in the future vs the 3600 as games start to utilise more cores or will the IPC gain always win?

Probably not, there's still many games that need strong single thread performance.

4K8KW10 · 20 Sep 2020 at 08:22

sgoaty said:
Hello old thread

Do you think the 2700x will become a better value proposition in the future vs the 3600 as games start to utilise more cores or will the IPC gain always win?

Hellow fellow member,

It's about cores' utilisation. As you can see in the following video, more cores means less stress on the CPU and ultimately more free space for additional threads/processes/tasks/jobs:

I would never take a 6-core today - it's worth it 100% to think about investment in higher core-count CPUs.

sgoaty · 20 Sep 2020 at 17:48

So it was a whitewash in gaming in the first video but starting to creep back up in the second?

Minstadave · 20 Sep 2020 at 18:01

The 3600 wins soundly in both videos doesnt it? I just flicked through but I couldn't see anything compelling in favour of the 2700X.

Jim Jervis · 20 Sep 2020 at 23:20

was thinking 8c/16t would be the safest bet for next gen gaming, is reason why i just slapped in a 9900k replacing the 8700k, just makes me feel more future proof as new consoles are packed with 8 cores. 30 card installing soon.

jigger · 21 Sep 2020 at 11:36

It depends what way you come at it from. I suppose the correct answer is as many as you can afford.

onedice · 21 Sep 2020 at 12:48

I have a ryzen 2600 - waiting for the next lot to release then hopefully get a 3700x on the cheap :-D

(although really the 2600 is still running perfectly for me and has been an amazing buy)

SurfXombie · 21 Sep 2020 at 12:54

onedice said:
I have a ryzen 2600 - waiting for the next lot to release then hopefully get a 3700x on the cheap (although really the 2600 is still running perfectly for me and has been an amazing buy)

A 2600x here and same experience (linked with a 1070 Ti), and I have chat and youtube going on other monitors while I play at 3440x1440p. Really my upgrade path is GPU then maybe slot a 3700x (maybe a 3900x for laughs) in the same motherboard or make the jump to the next Ryzen release. I do think I should get 8 rather than 6 cores next though.

onedice · 21 Sep 2020 at 14:29

SurfXombie said:
A 2600x here and same experience (linked with a 1070 Ti), and I have chat and youtube going on other monitors while I play at 3440x1440p. Really my upgrade path is GPU then maybe slot a 3700x (maybe a 3900x for laughs) in the same motherboard or make the jump to the next Ryzen release. I do think I should get 8 rather than 6 cores next though.

I am running the Vega 56 and its pretty good when its running but I have had so many issue with it it's become a total pain the arse so I will be going for probably the next AMD cards before I upgrade the CPU, and yeah if a 3900x goes much cheaper once the next lot come out it would be rude not to :-D