The age of highly threaded games has arrived

Jacky60 · 18 Jul 2020 at 18:36

pc-guy said:
I got a feeling intel’s 8big 8small or whatever combination they have for their future line up might edge things out from the current ryzen arch.

Just a feeling about it. From pure theoretical point of view it should be more efficient and less power hungry thus better thermals and greater headroom. Therefore better sustained performance but all depends on implantation.

May well be but for games most 8 core/16 thread CPUs are fine even at 4K. The weakest link is and has been forever the grossly overpriced pi$$ weak GPU. Put simply Nvidia are and have been taking the P for a very long time due to AMD's utter lack of a competitive product. Maybe that will change soon..who knows but I dearly hope a Chinese company similar to Huawei comes in and knocks the living crap out of Nvidia in the GPU space because Raja Craptastick and Intel certainly aren't going to do anything useful. Here's hoping.

MissChief · 18 Jul 2020 at 19:00

Jacky60 said:
May well be but for games most 8 core/16 thread CPUs are fine even at 4K. The weakest link is and has been forever the grossly overpriced pi$$ weak GPU. Put simply Nvidia are and have been taking the P for a very long time due to AMD's utter lack of a competitive product. Maybe that will change soon..who knows but I dearly hope a Chinese company similar to Huawei comes in and knocks the living crap out of Nvidia in the GPU space because Raja Craptastick and Intel certainly aren't going to do anything useful. Here's hoping.

The sheer amount of investment and R&D required to enter the market precludes anyone entering the market. Intel are managing it because they’re already invested in Silicon, anyone else won’t even look at it. You’re talking billions of investment that likely won’t be earned back for a decade or more. Would you buy a Huawei graphics card on its first release?

keyser · 18 Jul 2020 at 19:08

I'm interested in Death Stranding, added it to wishlist a while ago, I watched a review yesterday. Then went on Steam and saw the price and burst out laughing. That game is worth £10, not nearly £60. But the engine, yes looks great, scales.. better than others.

Star Citizen will need to be good at scaling because by the time its is out of beta and v1.0 we will be using 256 thread CPUs.

Jacky60 · 18 Jul 2020 at 21:14

MissChief said:
The sheer amount of investment and R&D required to enter the market precludes anyone entering the market. Intel are managing it because they’re already invested in Silicon, anyone else won’t even look at it. You’re talking billions of investment that likely won’t be earned back for a decade or more. Would you buy a Huawei graphics card on its first release?

If it worked as well as their phones yes without question. I couldn't give a fig what the name is as long as it performs and I have no less reason to trust a Chinese company than a US one. They'll both happily screw me and my data for money or their own 'national security' interests.

MissChief · 18 Jul 2020 at 21:51

Jacky60 said:
If it worked as well as their phones yes without question. I couldn't give a fig what the name is as long as it performs and I have no less reason to trust a Chinese company than a US one. They'll both happily screw me and my data for money or their own 'national security' interests.

I was thinking more about Performance and driver stability but your point is a valid one too.

Tee Hee Johnson · 18 Jul 2020 at 23:18

Didn't the age of highly threaded games happen years ago, but developers seldom got on board.

We are going to keep seeing the occasional well threaded game and that's about it.

MissChief · 18 Jul 2020 at 23:35

Tee Hee Johnson said:
Didn't the age of highly threaded games happen years ago, but developers seldom got on board.

We are going to keep seeing the occasional well threaded game and that's about it.

I agree, most games benefit from high clock speed and single thread performance. Still.

Troezar · 19 Jul 2020 at 07:29

MissChief said:
I agree, most games benefit from high clock speed and single thread performance. Still.

It's chicken and egg. The hardware is now widely available. AAA games are always likely to lag the hardware by 5+ years as there's no point developing a have that can run on hardware no-one owns.

I had a 64 bit CPU years before software was really making use of it but now it's standard. Multithreaded gaming is coming is just a matter for how soon. Given the success of Ryzen and Intel having to up core count and reduce price too I think it will be here sooner rather than later.

TNA · 19 Jul 2020 at 08:56

Cooper said:
It'll take more than a Ponzi scheme of a game, funding Chris Roberts millionaire lifestlye, for me to worry about it just yet...

The thing is gaming at 4K, one will be GPU bottlenecked way before CPU even with a 6 core Ryzen 3600. So makes no difference to me personally. By the time I need more cores I will be on a 4900X anyway in a couple of years time. Will pick one up as people are selling to move on to a 5900X or some intel equivalent

Participant · 19 Jul 2020 at 08:58

8 core will be more than required for years, especially for 4k.

TNA · 19 Jul 2020 at 09:06

Participant said:
8 core will be more than required for years, especially for 4k.

I am thinking if I go 12 core then I am set for 5 years at least, so if I grab it in 2 years time that is the next 7 years sorted for me. Will pass this cpu to my partners pc which is running a dual core haswell at 4.5ghz. That will then last her like 10 years. Lol

Grim5 · 19 Jul 2020 at 09:20

MissChief said:
I agree, most games benefit from high clock speed and single thread performance. Still.

But we are seeing some games now where an AMD 12/16 core can beat Intel's best where as last year we didn't really see any.

It feels like the tide is changing,

smogsy · 19 Jul 2020 at 10:06

in new news it only uses 10 cores but all the threads are being used for bitcoin fps

MartinPrince · 19 Jul 2020 at 10:29

Did anybody else notice this? Oh for some level playing field benchmarks. Intel pulls off this crap all too often by tipping the scales in their favour - actually they full on rig the scales, so I shouldn't be too surprised to see this (from Ryzen folks).

I've done a fair bit of memory overclocking but you have to be more than golden to get 3800C14 at 1T on Ryzen. To get that 1T C14 is not just binned luck, it is some top overclocking. The 4.5Ghz all core clock on a 3900X is almost as good.

There is some major effort gone into that 3900X overclock so why not do the same for the Intel CPU's? Or also show the 3900X at stock with the same memory speed or maybe standard 3200Mhz. Any memory that can do 3800Mhz C14 1T on Ryzen can easily do C15 4000Mhz+ on a Z490/Z390 and probably nearer to C15 4200Mhz. This alone can account for the 4% difference. Then also drop an all core clock on the Intel CPU's and boom, there goes the 2nd graph showing the 3900X as faster.

I'm fairly confident it will be a matter of time before Rzyen CPU's are faster in gaming than Intel across the board but this is not that, not even close.

Terminal_Boy · 19 Jul 2020 at 10:55

Justintime said:
Wow didn't realise it was so many at 1080p still. I played 4k since i got my 1080ti in 2017 on a tv, since my 21 month old took care of my TV screen a few months back i've been playing mainly on my 120hz 1440p 27" and actually enjoying gaming more, 60hz really sucked and a keyboard and mouse really is better than a ds4 controller. When i close on a house in a few months i'll get at least 100hz 4k TV though.

Well, money not withstanding, when the forum is full of “why are 1440p monitors all rubbish?” threads; it makes people think about whether going 1440p is going to deliver the imagined experience. Personally, I’d have to upgrade CPU, RAM, MB and monitor to play at 1440p which is money I don’t have right now.

Justintime · 19 Jul 2020 at 11:25

Well i had some comparison, don't miss much from 4k 60Hz, had a 1080p 27" 60hz and 1440p 60hz 27" laying about and then got the 120hz one, its definetly better than both monitors and the 60hz extra over the tv makes it so much smoother, using a 2080ti for main gaming and 1080ti on htpc for when i want to game on TV, when i get a TV again lol, using the 1440p 27" as main 'tv' temporarily.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Jul 2020 at 11:41

The Russian website GameGPU also tested the game.

AFAIK,the RAM is being run at 2666MHZ.

Edit!!

@Grim5 This might be relevant to the OP too.

ExRayTed · 19 Jul 2020 at 15:23

MartinPrince said:
Did anybody else notice this? Oh for some level playing field benchmarks. Intel pulls off this crap all too often by tipping the scales in their favour - actually they full on rig the scales, so I shouldn't be too surprised to see this........

I don't pretend to understand CPU architecture to anywhere near the same level as some people here but I watched a LTT video (I know some don't like him but he explains things in a way I understand) which explained that Intel are intentionally limiting ram speeds at a BIOS level - I wonder is this is the reason why the benchmarks are the way they are? I find it fascinating and can't help but wonder if in some way they have to limit the memory speeds in some way in order to get the cpu clock speeds they achieve. Isn't the memory controller on the cpu? Could that fact be limiting the ram speeds possible in some way?

Here's the video, what do you think?

Curlyriff · 19 Jul 2020 at 15:43

MissChief said:
I was thinking more about Performance and driver stability but your point is a valid one too.

If it had the performance to cost ratio I was looking for then I would. And driver is another consideration as you mention. Yeah that is harder as needs longer term but they have the resources and knowhow with regards to driver updates and ecosystem for their mobile etc so yeah I wouldn't issue there either. I mean don't think would ever happen as you say but wouldn't have issue if a third or fourth option came to table.

MartinPrince · 19 Jul 2020 at 17:14

ExRayTed said:
I don't pretend to understand CPU architecture to anywhere near the same level as some people here but I watched a LTT video (I know some don't like him but he explains things in a way I understand) which explained that Intel are intentionally limiting ram speeds at a BIOS level - I wonder is this is the reason why the benchmarks are the way they are? I find it fascinating and can't help but wonder if in some way they have to limit the memory speeds in some way in order to get the cpu clock speeds they achieve. Isn't the memory controller on the cpu? Could that fact be limiting the ram speeds possible in some way?

Here's the video, what do you think?

I'd seen part of that earlier and from my understanding Intel are limiting this on all boards below Z490. So if you have a Z490 you'll still be able to run memory at much higher speeds though it is a bit of bummer for those with lower spec boards and that have faster memory.

The 2nd chart in the first post has nothing to do with this and is either just shoddy benchmarking or wilful deceit.