Idiotic CPU reviewers rant thread........

[opethdisciple]

snip

 

[Drollic]

There is literally no need for 8c/16t cpus for gaming as the player base that use them is so small relative to 4c, 4c8t and now 6c and 6c/12t. Consoles aren't helping the development situation either. Can you imagine the sales of a 'normal' game should it require 8c/16t for optimum performance. It's years away, and by the time it happens, current tech will be redundant and newer 6c/12t chips would outperform them even in multitasking. Similar to older i7s vs current gen i5. Nothing wrong with having one, not even close to being required for gaming though. 6c/12t will be the sweet spot for the next few years comfortably, just like 1440p high refresh gsync/freesync is over 4k 30-60fps. Hopefully the new ryzen 2600x will clock as well as the 2700x.

 

[iakhtar]

People used to say the same things during the e8400 vs q6600 days, raw clockspeed lost that battle in the end.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have yet to see evidence that logical threads makes any significant affect in games, logical threads help when you running a cpu bound application that has gaps in the cpu wait state (Cpu is waiting for i/o or ram access), hardly any game will generate that kind of load.

So core heavy games I mentioned would benefit from say 6 cores, 8 cores, 12 cores etc. But I would expect these games to work the same on a 4c/4t chip as a 4c/8t chip assuming equal per core performance and equal cache spec. I7s e.g. have a slightly larger cache than i5's so if they do run better in a game over an i5 at equal clock speed its probably due to that. Ryzen r7's actually have more real cores than a CL i7, so on games that love cores they will outperform an i7.

DF has made comparisons:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-review

Some games where the Core i7 and Core i5 are at the same clockspeeds,and the Core i7 is slightly ahead might be down to the cache,but in the other situations where its a much larger difference it isn't.

I doubt its always down to cache only as IIRC,in the past its been shown to not always really have as much of an impact in all games:

https://wccftech.com/intel-amd-l3-cache-gaming-benchmarks/

Look at the difference between 6MB and 8MB L3 cache. If you look at the thread utilisation of the games where the Core i7 is pushing ahead a great deal,ie,you see all 8 threads being used.

Another example is the Haswell based 2C/2T Pentium G3258 against the equivalent 2C/4T Haswell Core i3 CPUs running at lower clockspeed:

https://pclab.pl/art57691-3.html

The Core i3 4100 series had the same amount of L3 cache.Look at how a 4.7GHZ G3258 does against a 3.5GHZ Core i3 4150.

Remember,review systems are most likely clean OS installs,not like a normal gaming rig,which probably has a whole lot of other stuff like AV,etc running too.

The reason why those games are gaining with HT is probably more down to those games being probably developed partly with consoles in mind too,and those have 8 weak cores,so its probably more a balancing issue.

So HT does seem to help out in some games - sure actual cores will be more useful than HT in those games,where it does help,but I do think a CPU with 6 to 12 reasonably fast threads is what I would be targeting in a new system build if you want the CPU to last for the next few years,especially if you are getting a reasonably fast graphics card.

Sure,a 2C/4T or 4C/4T CPUs still have their place,but really for more budget systems IMHO. Considering 6C/6T and 6C/12T CPUs are now going as low as £140 to £150,its not really even the case you are saving much money going for a 4C/4T CPU now.

The main issue why less people bought Core i7 CPUs was because the Intel HT tax was ridiculous,and they even blocked the cheapo Xeon E3 CPUs on consumer motherboards from Skylake onwards where you could get a locked 4C/8T CPU for as little as £170ish.

However,thats the thing the 4C/4T Xeon E3 CPUs also had 8MB cache like their 4C/8T counterparts. I used a few.

I'd take 4 fast cores over more slower cores for gaming - and I own a 6c/12t cpu. If you have high enough clockspeed / IPC then lack of cores doesn't matter much because each core is churning through such a lot that it can handle more of the load that would normally be spread across more cores. In fact all else being equal (cost, temps, power drain etc) I'd take a 8ghz tri-core or 12ghz dual-core over a 4ghz hex-core because the latter will be more of a bottleneck for games not optimised for lots of cores; you effectively get the best of both worlds. But of course it isn't feasible to get properly fast cores these days so we are just seeing minor gains per core with the manufacturers scaling out the number of cores.

I had an 3.8ghz 8core 16 thread CPU and more than half of it was sat idle whilst gaming. Give me a fast 5ghz 4 or 6 core over that any day.

Sure,sure,but if any of you really believed that then you would have bought a £100 Core i3 7350K and overclocked it to 4.5GHZ~5.0GHZ or even the recent Core i3 8350K. Intel had the Core i5 6600K and Core i5 7600K CPUs out for a while too.

But if you truely believe it,I am sure you can pick up a new Core i3 7350K/Core i3 8350K for peanuts now and sell your "slow" 6C CPUs. I also assume you won't be updating your new Core i3 7350K/Core i3 8350K systems for the next 5 years either,since games won't bother using more than 2 to 4 threads at all,so you are good to go,right??

People used to say the same things during the e8400 vs q6600 days, raw clockspeed lost that battle in the end.

Agreed.

 

[DragonQ]

It all comes down to game engines really. I can load up a (fairly modern) game that jacks up one core to 100% utilisation and leaves my GPU in the 70% range, whilst my other cores are being used but not that much. The game could be considered multithreaded since it is using 4 cores but that single core bottleneck still means a CPU with faster per-core performance would hugely improve the experience. On the other hand, you have games like Overwatch that utilise 6 cores pretty evenly throughout and my GPU can stretch its legs at 100% and give me as many frames as possible on my FreeSync monitor.

The thing is, most people don't really believe that "fewer cores with higher MHz" is better, otherwise they'd have balked at the idea of the 6 core Coffee Lake CPUs and continued touting 4c/8t Core i3s as the ultimate gaming CPUs. They only really had that opinion when Intel maxed out at 8 threads on the mainstream platform. The real world answer is you need a mix of both, leaning a particular way for each individual game, which is why the i7-8700K is king right now (and probably will be until AMD can get their per-core performance up enough) and the R5 2600(X) will probably be the bang-for-buck solution going forward.

 

[sideways14a]

As i have said before i wont be able to understand people wanting to go for the slightly faster single core (and slightly faster gaming) cpu in the 8700 when the 2700 will be doing almost as good but completely thrashing the 6 core in other areas.
Why limit yourself in the future? I just dont get it...
Do folk not run windows full of background software? Virus and malware checkers sapping threads, browser windows open, background apps and tasks a plenty?

The few gaming fps % is going to sound really stupid if these chips end up within 5 or so % of each other. Get the more powerful CPU, its the 8 core one obviously.

 

[Martini1991]

As i have said before i wont be able to understand people wanting to go for the slightly faster single core (and slightly faster gaming) cpu in the 8700 when the 2700 will be doing almost as good but completely thrashing the 6 core in other areas.
Why limit yourself in the future? I just dont get it...
Do folk not run windows full of background software? Virus and malware checkers sapping threads, browser windows open, background apps and tasks a plenty?

The few gaming fps % is going to sound really stupid if these chips end up within 5 or so % of each other. Get the more powerful CPU, its the 8 core one obviously.

We live in the present.

And the cores of the coffeelake are currently a decent chunk faster than those in current Ryzen, so it's not as simple to just say that the 6 core 12t coffeelakes will get creamed in the future, maybe it'll start to lag a little behind, but probably just as little as you believe it to be ahead now. Likely they both need upgrading at similar times.

 

[sideways14a]

We live in the present yes but i dont know about you, i plan for the future as well.

I recon 6 cores v 8 cores will age almost as fast as 4 cores v more have done. Especially the 8400 with its non hyperthreaded cores.

 

[Bazzards]

I keep my cpu/motherboard platforms for about 2 years before moving on. No need for more that 6 core/12 threads as I do not use it for productivity. By the time more cores are required I will have upgraded anyway so future proofing is mute. I buy for the here and now.

 

[Martini1991]

When the future comes why wouldn't you buy in the future and have better stuff anyway?
It's a logic fallacy to me

 

[sideways14a]

I have had my 5820 setup for ... i dunno 18 months to 2 years, it wont be getting changed until at least this time next year if not summer..

The logic of buying a slightly faster processor now and then having to buy again in a couple of years when its struggling fails me - i suspect 16 thread chips will be doing better than 12 thread chips in 12 or so months time just like how 6 core or 12 thread chips are doing better than quads are now.

Ok if the difference is 25% or something then yes you have a point but if the 2700x is really only sub 10% of an 8700k in gaming then... well... nope dont get it.

 

[eddiew]

I keep my cpu/motherboard platforms for about 2 years before moving on. No need for more that 6 core/12 threads as I do not use it for productivity. By the time more cores are required I will have upgraded anyway so future proofing is mute. I buy for the here and now.

Tbh I'm starting to think like this too. I bought into AM4 because of the 'upgrade path' and if I'm honest, what I've had is 8 months running my CPU-bound games at 75-80% as fast as an 8700k, and an annoying realisation that this particular MB is a dog's egg and needs replacing anyway.

8700k would last me for at least 3 years (I don't really pick up new games often, I just want the ones I've got to be at the peak of their... game) at the end of which I'd likely need a new board whatever I was running. That said, the whole TIM and delidding fiasco... I don't want to fund Intel for that BS. They straight up do not deserve my pounds while they treat their customers with that level of contempt.

 

[chrcoluk]

People used to say the same things during the e8400 vs q6600 days, raw clockspeed lost that battle in the end.

Didnt q6600 have comparable clockspeed to an e8400 anyway? my dual core 6420 was only about 2.x ghz anyway. Clock speeds were low in that era across the board I think.

We had the AMD FX quad core chips vs dual core i3 chips, the i3 chips proved faster in majority of games. That is an extreme example as the per core performance for FX chips is hideous.

Now with ryzen vs i3/i5/i7 its much closer as ryzen per core performance has skyrocketed vs FX, this per core performance is the "prime" reason ryzen is competitive, not extra cores or logical threads, but per core performance. How well do you think ryzen would be doing if it had FX per core performance?

I agree with the above comments in that I with the choice will pick less cores but more performance per core over more cores, because faster cores can substitute for extra slower cores, however it doesnt work the other way round, if you using software that wont use all the cores, then the extra cores sit idle. Of course if I can have extra cores without losing performance per core, then I will pick that, as thats just a free win with no cost except extra power and heat. Which is what I did with e.g. the 8600k vs my 4670k.

I buy for now not "possibly the future". If the situation changes in say 5 years time and suddenly we have software that runs like a dog when you got less than say 8 cores regardless of core performance and suddenly logical cores become useful than nearly useless like they are now, then yes I will switch hardware. But I cant see that happening in the short term future.

Intel switching the chipset for every new cpu or every 2 cpus, kind of sucks but there is also the realisation that if you upgrading the cpu say every 3-5 years, you probably going to want a new board anyway for the newer features, and especially if you pass down the hardware to another role which if you do that then the old board stays with the old cpu.

In my case I would need a new board anyway for ddr4 (old was ddr3), new board also gives m.2 slots (I dont use but for sure nice to have in case), proper nvme support (If I buy a nvme type drive I probably would get a pci-e one), faster DMI bus, pci-e 3 slots not just gpu pcie3 and usb typc, plus ethernet now directly hooked to the cpu pci express lanes not the DMI.

 

[DragonQ]

Didnt q6600 have comparable clockspeed to an e8400 anyway? my dual core 6420 was only about 2.x ghz anyway. Clock speeds were low in that era across the board I think.

2.4 GHz v 3.0 GHz and I believe the dual cores overclocked better.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The thing is, most people don't really believe that "fewer cores with higher MHz" is better, otherwise they'd have balked at the idea of the 6 core Coffee Lake CPUs and continued touting 4c/8t Core i3s as the ultimate gaming CPUs. They only really had that opinion when Intel maxed out at 8 threads on the mainstream platform. The real world answer is you need a mix of both, leaning a particular way for each individual game, which is why the i7-8700K is king right now (and probably will be until AMD can get their per-core performance up enough) and the R5 2600(X) will probably be the bang-for-buck solution going forward.

Fixed that for you!

But agreed,all the people shouting the most for 4C/4T and 2C/4T CPUs don't have a 4C CPU now,they all have 6C/6T,6C/12T and 8C/16T CPUs.

 

[gavinh87]

Fixed that for you!

But agreed,all the people shouting the most for 4C/4T and 2C/4T CPUs don't have a 4C CPU now,they all have 6C/6T,6C/12T and 8C/16T CPUs.

I've been saying for a long time now that quads are not enough. Not that I'm saying an 8 core is better. There needs to be a balance, 4+ cores and a min 4.5ghz is what I'd recommend to anyone that wants a system to last a few years.

 

[Panos]

I had a 1090T, what a nice CPU that was......

1090T was a monster CPU, which had achieved 4Ghz
Those years I had it, the only maintenance to the system was cleaning the AIO radiator.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I've been saying for a long time now that quads are not enough. Not that I'm saying an 8 core is better. There needs to be a balance, 4+ cores and a min 4.5ghz is what I'd recommend to anyone that wants a system to last a few years.

The issue,is your old Core i7 4770K with an overclock would have been OK for a bit longer. Despite people saying HT does not do anything for gaming,sites like DF showed it does help out in certain games(plus I had equal cache amount 4C/4T and 4C/8T Xeon E3 CPUs),and its no wonder when so many engines are being developed with consoles in mind now.Thats the thing - most of this is going to be constrained by consoles,and even if they have 8 cores,only 6 to 7 are probably used.

So,like I said before I would argue 6 to 12 strong threads is what I would recommend for any gaming build with a reasonable budget.

The whole concept of silly high overclocked 4C/4T and 2C/4T CPUs are an utter waste of time,as any normal gamer buying a PC now is going to keep it for 3 to 5 years looking at the dozens of PC gamers I have met. Also,the consoles are moving to shorter lifespans,so the next gen is probably going to be here by 2020,and probably sporting even more threads,since its most likely an AMD or Intel desktop class core with SMT in them.

Also,as shown by me previously Intel is pushing for games to be more multi-threaded since they want to sell MOAR cores now!

 

[gavinh87]

The issue,is your old Core i7 4770K with an overclock would have been OK for a bit longer. Despite people saying HT does not do anything for gaming,sites like DF showed it does help out in certain games(plus I had equal cache amount 4C/4T and 4C/8T Xeon E3 CPUs),and its no wonder when so many engines are being developed with consoles in mind now.Thats the thing - most of this is going to be constrained by consoles,and even if they have 8 cores,only 6 to 7 are probably used.

So,like I said before I would argue 6 to 12 strong threads is what I would recommend for any gaming build with a reasonable budget.

The whole concept of silly high overclocked 4C/4T and 2C/4T CPUs are an utter waste of time,as any normal gamer buying a PC now is going to keep it for 3 to 5 years looking at the dozens of PC games I have met. Also,the consoles are moving to shorter lifespans,so the next gen is probably going to be here by 2020,and probably sporting even more threads,since its most likely an AMD or Intel desktop class core with SMT in them.

Also,as shown by me previously Intel is pushing for games to be more multi-threaded since they want to sell MOAR cores now!

It was a non K that is why I swapped it.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It was a non K that is why I swapped it.

You still probably have been fine TBH - you could probably have run all cores Turbo on it!!

I have mates who have Core i7 4770K CPUs still running at stock still perfectly chugging along!!