How many CPU cores do games need? bit-tech article

Marine-RX179 · 5 Jul 2010 at 16:44

I saw this article post over at the bit-tech today, and though it might provide something to think about when choosing CPU for gaming:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1

Do feel free to post you own opinion of what you make of it.

Redmint · 5 Jul 2010 at 16:55

*skips to the conclusion* nothing I didn't know already really.

but I guess it's nice for those who read reviews but don't ask on forums for advice.

Marine-RX179 · 5 Jul 2010 at 17:00

Redmint said:
*skips to the conclusion* nothing I didn't know already really. but I guess it's nice for those who read reviews but don't ask on forums for advice.

Well, many people are still buying 1055T instead of 955BE for a gaming rig, despite the 955BE is a) cheaper b) more likely to overclock to 4.0GHz with the unlocked multipler c) 1.5MB of shared L3 cache per core (6MB divide by 4 cores) instead of 1.0MB of shared L3 cache per core (6MB divide by 6 cores)

Redmint · 5 Jul 2010 at 17:06

True, I guess it's the good old "ooh it's new, must be better" thing.

arknor · 5 Jul 2010 at 17:06

stupid article...

look at the cpu they use you obviously need a lot less cores with that sucker.

stick a 930 or phenon 965 and the jump from 2-3 cores would have been bigger.

btw i bought 1055t because i dont really overclock much and i easily hit 3.6ghz and it will last me longer than a 965 would have i dont plan to upgrade for probably 2-3years

Muel · 5 Jul 2010 at 17:34

Stupid comment...

What the article proves is that the games don't see any advantage going above 3 cores, so it makes sense to have 3 highly clocked cores with a lot of cache, rather than 6 slower cores with less cache.

arknor · 5 Jul 2010 at 17:43

Muel said:
Stupid comment...

What the article proves is that the games don't see any advantage going above 3 cores, so it makes sense to have 3 highly clocked cores with a lot of cache, rather than 6 slower cores with less cache.

because they are old gamers that were programmed to worth with 2?
most games in development will use more

Marine-RX179 · 5 Jul 2010 at 17:54

arknor said:
because they are old gamers that were programmed to worth with 2?
most games in development will use more

I guess you must have miss this:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/5
BFBC2 is considered as one of the best multi-cores optimised game there is, but even that is only using the cores at 20-60% CPU usage (look at the line graphic!), which means the game really just need 3-4 cores.
No offense but I think by the time that 6-cores become a common standard or required for gaming (not going to be in the near future), I think the Phenom II K10 architecture, or even the i7 980X would be considered as too obsolete...

Dark_Angel · 5 Jul 2010 at 17:58

arknor said:
stupid article...

look at the cpu they use you obviously need a lot less cores with that sucker.

stick a 930 or phenon 965 and the jump from 2-3 cores would have been bigger.

btw i bought 1055t because i dont really overclock much and i easily hit 3.6ghz and it will last me longer than a 965 would have i dont plan to upgrade for probably 2-3years

You keep saying that - but it really won't.

It's like by the time 2x core games really came into it, the Athlon 64 x2's were dying out. Sure, before 1 or 2 games were about, but they didn't "need" it. It wasn't until Supreme Commander and the like it was really required.

CPU's die up in life pretty quickly, and AMD cpu's are a little slower than Intel's in games generally at the moment, I'd rather have an I5 / I3 overclocked most of the time for gaming. That isn't say the same thing if I were encoding though.

As I do a lot of photo editing, I'd plump for an I7 920 or something most likely, if I were upgrading now.

Troezar · 5 Jul 2010 at 18:43

Looking at this artlcle made me think my decision to buy into quads rather than hex cores is right. As I found with my Athlon 64 3500+ by the time 64bit OS's were worth using the cpu was obsolete. Even now W7 is still offered in 32bit. I can't see 6 core cpu's being worth it for the average user for more like 5yrs...

AWPC · 5 Jul 2010 at 19:11

That article is so stupid its just not true :eek:

Why do they not use games which do make use of multicore CPU's like:

GTA4
Lost Planet Extreme Colonies Edition
Resident Evil 5

Then why do they mislead people as clearly if you have SLI/Crossfire setups you need the fastest CPU money can buy to avoid wasting the extra GPU performance :rolleyes:

Or finally how about having the fastest CPU with plenty of cores means your PC can do many other things whilst also gaming at the same time like, encoding/ripping or both

AMD most likely sponsored the article when you see the conclusion drawn

gareth170 · 5 Jul 2010 at 19:56

Marine-RX179 said:
Well, many people are still buying 1055T instead of 955BE for a gaming rig, despite the 955BE is a) cheaper b) more likely to overclock to 4.0GHz with the unlocked multipler c) 1.5MB of shared L3 cache per core (6MB divide by 4 cores) instead of 1.0MB of shared L3 cache per core (6MB divide by 6 cores)

i don't think L3 cache works like that..

i think the cores thats be used gets more of the L3 cache.... example if core 0 and 1 is underload they get more of the access to the L3 cache

HighlandeR · 5 Jul 2010 at 19:59

The articles bit odd, but its always interesting too see some game benchmarks where theres a 3ghz core2duo outpacing a 2.6-2.8ghz quadcore and the price tag being a lot less.

I guess people dont bother too much just spend the extra money on a quad to play it safe

Marine-RX179 · 5 Jul 2010 at 21:56

gareth170 said:
i don't think L3 cache works like that..

i think the cores thats be used gets more of the L3 cache.... example if core 0 and 1 is underload they get more of the access to the L3 cache

Well, I only said what I said base on what bit-tech mentioned in their review for 1090TBE:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-black-edition/2
"The X6 1090T BE has the same 6MB of shared Level 3 cache as the X4 965 BE, a significant 33 per cent reduction per core. Each of the core's Level 1 and Level 2 caches remain the same size though; 128KB and 512KB respectively."

Tikkabhuna · 5 Jul 2010 at 22:07

Even though games really only needs 2 cores that is just for the game. I often have iTunes open and maybe some other things in the background while playing.

thingemajib · 5 Jul 2010 at 22:16

AWPC said:
AMD most likely sponsored the article when you see the conclusion drawn

In my opinion (and several opinions of commenters on their cpu reviews), bit-tech are blatently biased towards Intel. never mind the fact an Intel cpu was used in the test, and that the article claimed that 3 cores was the sweet spot, but then said dont go buy a triple core (which only AMD make) as other thing such as clock speed/IPC/background procsses may mean more/less cores are needed (subtle hint to go intel)

PhoenixUK · 6 Jul 2010 at 23:42

arknor said:
because they are old gamers that were programmed to worth with 2?
most games in development will use more

That's what they been saying for the last 3yrs since Q6600 came out.
Doesn't change the fact that for pretty much nearly all games even dual core, not to mention 3core is still more than enough and will be for at least next year or so.

FrankJH · 7 Jul 2010 at 13:00

I dont game that much so Im not too bothered, but what I would say is :

If game "x" is optimised for 3 cores (even if it only uses 40% or so of each core, you never know what future patches might cause this to increase), I personally would choose a CPU with AT LEAST 4 cores so the 4th can cater for OS, and other background tasks like AV, networking etc etc.

If you also want to do something productive at the same time, even more cores are required (depending on how optimally you want to game of course)

Dark_Angel · 7 Jul 2010 at 13:35

FrankJH said:
I dont game that much so Im not too bothered, but what I would say is :

If game "x" is optimised for 3 cores (even if it only uses 40% or so of each core, you never know what future patches might cause this to increase), I personally would choose a CPU with AT LEAST 4 cores so the 4th can cater for OS, and other background tasks like AV, networking etc etc.

If you also want to do something productive at the same time, even more cores are required (depending on how optimally you want to game of course)

Then again, it depends on what you expect. If you want a cheap gaming machine, an overclocked I3 or a cheap AMD system is more than enough CPU grunt for now, in fact, if I were only interested in building a cheap rig for someone (if they were gaming) because of the new CPU's coming out and the current unstable CPU climate, I'd go for a budget I3 or once again, a cheap AMD. Couple that with a cheap but decent-ish board, and 4GB of DDR3 (which is the one thing we know for certain will work on the new Intel sockets when they're released).

lurkio · 7 Jul 2010 at 14:13

Wow , 7 WHOLE games tested
The conclusions must be right with such a massive amounts of testing!