These guys have no idea what they are talking about.

[humbug]

On the subject of playing games with a lot of background tasks and 8 core CPU's being better for that, or can be, not always but it can help.

These guys are so anti higher end components they will not even acknowledge the benefits of them, they are not even talking about 12 or 16 core parts, in which case i would agree that's probably not going to help, but they are talking about a Ryzen 5600 vs a Ryzen 5700X, its the tired old "you only need X number of cores" argument when all they do is test on clean installed Windows with nothing but the game running.

Before even making the argument that it makes no discernable difference they have to start, as these guys always do, by being pompous #### at the people posing this argument, like they are unreasonably hateful of it, they are... Suggesting they are only casual gamers who don't care about frame rates, which ironically contradicts their own argument, the fact that they want to keep up their frame rates while listening to Spotify and Youtube or having a stream running on a second monitor suggests their reasoning for having a CPU with that bit more resources is valid.

I am someone who will listen to Youtube while playing a game, i do it constantly, i was listening to them talk complete nonsense while playing Star Citizen, and boy am i glad i have an 8 core CPU.

I can't stand this type of tech journalism, a couple of talking heads poo pooing what the rest of the internet knows to be true from experience because "you only need 6 cores" like some ###### Marxist PC Leninism.

 

[humbug]

"chrome is not so much of an issue" - uhm, how much memory do you have, Tim? 64GB?

Steve is obviously biased against the argument for more cores (which he admitted himself), but he does acknowledge you might need 8 cores.

I suspect part of the reason for this, is that they just don't want to complicate their benchmarking processes. Steve has complained in the past about how much time it takes to do the benchmarking.

The "casual gamers" thing was obviously going to be an incendiary statement to make about a controversial topic, that Tim later said is a complex one, dependent on circumstances.

The "casual gamers" thing was obviously going to be an incendiary statement to make about a controversial topic, that Tim later said is a complex one, dependent on circumstances.

Maybe they need to get out less and try different types of games there is a vivid potpourri of games out there, if you look beyond EA or any of the other accountant run publishers, there is more to PC gaming than running round shooting at others running around shooting, you can do that on a console.

One of the beautiful things about the PC is that its not a console.

 

[humbug]

You can't stand this type of journalism, yet you're glad you spent more money on a better CPU to watch it while doing something i guess you do like a bit smoother?

I don't see the contradiction. To be clear i disagree with their premise. Hence why i have an 8 core, not a 6 core.

 

[humbug]

I don't think they are entirely wrong looking at it objectively, but as Tim is so fond of saying "it depends" and it always does really. I have systems with a 5900X and a 5800X, I'll admit I really don't need 12 cores in my main system but I like to have them ...why not, I'm an enthusiast so I do, but speaking totally objectively I cannot really tell a difference in my typical use profile between the 5800X and the 5900X ...I don't have a 6 core chip to play around with at the moment but the last one I did have was a 3600 and although it was a while back I do remember that yes I could tell when I upgraded from that but honestly that was more about the IPC and clockspeed than the core count.

I don't think those guys are poopooing higher end hardware I think they are just saying that for gaming and running a few light background tasks, no you really don't 'need' 8 cores, that's not to say 8 cores aren't just nicer to have though for various reasons, I would be interested to see if frame times rather than frame rates and instances of hitching or stuter aren't better with the higher core count parts though, I strongly suspect that will be the case actually but that's also going to depend on what it is you are playing realy. But, in a scenario where someone has a strict buget and not a large one and you are looking at how you should divide your budget on a gaming system ....going heavy on the GPU and a bit lighter on the cpu is generally good advice I would say, but again ...it depends. If holding back on a 6 core CPU instead of an 8 core gets you upto the next tier of graphics cards, it's probably worth it for most people ...again aslong as we are in relative balance, so if you can go from a 3060 to a 3060TI ...very much worth it I would say, you will have a better gaming system for it generally.

Personally I always buy more than I need, much more often times, I like having overpowered systems but I couldn't in good conscious advise others that is what they should do when they are trying to only spend what they need to, to get the experience they want. I would say people should overbuy a bit for sure, but it does depend on the budget and prevaling market conditions as much as what exactly their use case is.

You started out by saying you didn't think they were wrong but ended up agreeing with me.

 

[humbug]

No I really didn't, I feel that you oversimplified what was being said from your first post. Also I said that "I don't think they are entirely wrong" ....which implies I don't think you are either, you make a fair enough point, now I'm really not sure spotify or youtube is going to make enough difference to necessarily warrant spending an extra £100 on your CPU but I guess it will make 'some', I'd spend it but not for that reason, just because I can and I simply want more POWER! ..ahem.

What I did find myself agreeing with almost entirely from the video though was what Steve said about watching Youtube or doing other things while 'playing' games ...yea I think if the game is sufficently none-entertaining that you find you need other entertainment sources while you are playing it, it's probably not very good ....or it's an MMO and you are engaged in some reptative grind to get resources and I've been there and done that so much over the years, I have no time for it now and that type of game-play loop built into otherwise good games and will not engage in such activities because it wastes my time ...the game either fully enages me or it's really not worth my time. Having said that I can't listen to music and work though either, I have to focus on one thing at a time only I find it too distracting otherwise.

That's one perspective, i do a lot of things while playing games, doesn't mean i'm not a serious gamer, that's imprinting on to others, the idea that because they are different they are wrong, that's one reason i likened it to Marxism, the idea that everyone is the same and if they are not they should be, its why all socialists turn out to be bigoted dictators, its also why the hard left build walls to keep people in. Here is another, if an 8 core can make a difference, no matter how small, then it is worth that extra whatever $ to the people who can afford it, its not for him to decide that.

Obviously i'm not being completely serious about this, but i do find his derogatory options about the people who disagree with him quite telling.

 

[humbug]

Well that point we do agree on yea, it did come over as a bit deregotary and it's not the first time I've heard similiar things said, as if not being 'hard core' makes you less of a gamer or less important or your needs less relevent, I get what you mean and I can see that it did come accross a bit like that yea, I don't take them too seriously though they seem like a nice pair if guys and of all the hardware channels about now their's is probably my favourite, but then I do have a bit of a monitor fetish so me and Tim would probably have a lot of talk about I imagine

Perhaps i'm just getting old, i like tech journalists to be less opinionated, just give me the facts and i'll make up my own mind, i'm quite capable of that, i don't like being told what i should think, especially if its condescending, it feels like an attempt at manipulation, and that rubs me up the wrong way. Its always done with a smile and i too used to think of them as nice guys, until he started raging at people on twitter for something they had not said or done, like one of those lunatics constantly raging at people for not conforming to their world view.

 

[humbug]

No idea about that, I don't really use Twitter though. Interestingly the game I've played that pushed my system harder than any other and I think the only one I have played that has made proper use of my 32GB of ram is actually one you appear to be a fan of, Star Citizen, I'm more of an Elite Dangerous player still but I played SC a couple of times when they offered free weeks, I like it although not enough to take me away from ED still.

I bought ED Horizons and Odyssey. i like them both.

Star Citizen does eat resources, its unplayable on anything but an SSD and even then its only smooth on a fast Nvme + 32GB of ram, GPU wise i have a 2070S and that's fine with the highest settings 1440P, CPU 5800X, quite good for it, a higher core count CPU than that doesn't matter to it.

Despite ED and SC being a similar sort of game they are very different, SC is multiplayer in the sense that you have complete unrestricted freedom in your own or other peoples multi-crew ship, this may seem like an insignificant difference but from a technical stand point its fundamental, you can't have instance loading with that level of unrestricted freedom, so there isn't any, you may have noticed in ED sometimes there is a short hang as you're entering the planets atmosphere, that's the game loading from the space instance to the planet instance, if you have people running around in the back of your ship what happens to them when you load in to a new instance? Well it can't happen, that's why Odyssey didn't get ship interiors, not because its "boring" clearly it isn't, its because they couldn't do it, at least not for there to be any point in having ship interiors like SC does.
SC use client and server side object container streaming.

There are many other complications like moving gravity, that's your ship interior again, that means movable and deformable physics grinds, EVA, well that's physics grids with in physics grids, i could go on, and on...... Star Citizen is, it has to be said a technical mind #### clustered!

All of that requires a lot of IO horsepower, and a good amount of CPU horsepower.

 

[humbug]

If you're interested in all this technical stuff, Digital Foundry did a good series on it, they explain it all far better than i ever could.

They are quite onld now and the game has moved beyond most of this, but its still very relevant, its what makes it what it is, so far, and some way still to go.....

 

[humbug]

tell that to all the fools out there that think a phenom 2 x6 is faster than an alderlake i3 due to 6 cores vs 4

Who actually thinks that? i have never seen that comparison made.

 

[humbug]

Humbug, could you just please stop watching this channel. You've had a huge chip on your shoulder for so long when it comes to their videos. Get over it.
Go and multitask with something else, rather than a HUB or GN video.

If it upsets you so much add me to your ignore list, you seem like someone whose going to get triggered by a lot of things i say and do.

 

[humbug]

I've never ignored anyone here, and won't ignore you. Certainly not triggered, look in the mirror for that. Just don't get why you keep watching HUB/GN stuff. You are frequently heated about these guys opinions though. Opinions being the key word.

If you have anything more to say about me personally send me a private message, this is not the place for it.

 

[humbug]

Game, set and match.

"But the buggy piece of alpha code that is Star Citizen doesn't run unless you have an nvme, 64GB or RAM and 32 cores".

codswallop i have 32GB and 8 cores

 

[humbug]

Star Citizen uses same business model as Scientology. There are aspects of the game that look cool. Wake me up when version 1 final is released. I also doubt I'll signing up for a subscription game.

Quake II used to lag a bit when on ISDN 64Kb and TeamSpeak and ZoneAlarm were running. All done on signal core

Windows should manage which cores are being used and not and act accordingly, that might be where the real problem lies.

Its not subscription based, i don't know where you would get that from.

Its no different to any other game, you buy a game package, costs about $45, that's it, anything else you might want beyond that you buy in game with money you earn in game, i own about 8 ship, countless armour sets, weapons, ship components...... a mountain of stuff, probably too much stuff its cluttering up my inventory.
The only thing i actually bought with real money is two of those ships, and i didn't need to do that.

My conclusion from his data is quite different to his, but then I suppose the question being answered is specifically framed as can you game while multitasking with YT and discord on 6 cores and without bother. Which seems like a pretty narrow question.
First thing that comes to mind is why not look at .1% lows.
I'd be interested to see the performance data gathered on a real 24+ month old OS install with all the junk that folk accumulate over time with all the apps that random tech products seem to either need or needlessly want you to install. I've seen some horrors. Personally I take care not to let things go out of hand like that but I don't have a perpetual freshly installed, minimal, clean OS. I certainly don't take steps such as shutting down whatever applications may or may not be running, or restart my system before a gaming session. It won't be game shattering either but I expect it's actually notable.

After making his assertions you're never going to see a video from him that proves himself wrong, of course his own videos are only ever going to agree with himself.

Like when he asserted the Ryzen 5600X was no faster than the Ryzen 3600, to prove he was right he evidenced his own video, job done everyone else is wrong.

I'll use @keyser van someone assertion as an example, Its not the first time i have seen that said, i see it quite a lot, it come from gaming magazines making assertions like this, among many others, those so called journalists, and some of them are from recognised gaming magazines, have never actually played the game, ever, they have not even looked in to how its funded, and yet they write as if they are experts on it, every word is complete and utter nonsense.
Over the years there have been hundreds of article written about Star Citizen, almost all of them are completely wrong, and they all say exactly the same things, because all they do is copy and paste eachothers articles, some of them might even rewrite them in their own words.
Most people see journalists as the voice of authority, so if that voice of authority doubles down on their assertions its seen as proof because the voice of authority has approved the voice of authority, with absolutely no sense of irony. A bit like Scientology.

So far there are only two that have got it right. Digital Foundry and Tech Linked, that's it, because they actually put the time in to study it.

 

[humbug]

What on earth are you on about now....

It's pretty clear in his video that a 5600 is much better than a 3600

The problem is with your posts trying to point out how "wrong these guys are" is that you are posting absolutely nothing to show/prove that meanwhile HU and many other tech press/reviewers are posting "evidence" to backup their claims....

The original Ryzen 5600X review his complaint was that it was far too expensive, that's fine i agreed with that to some extent, tho the 10700K was $80 more expensive and at best was only as good as the Ryzen 5600X, he completely failed to mention that.
Instead he cited the Ryzen 3600, as if AMD are only competing with themselves, he said the 5600X was only slightly better than the 3600 and therefore it had no right to be priced at $299, again the 1070K was at the time $379, and slower in games.

This is part of the evidence he used to prove those assertions, there were others and all pretty much the same as this, i'm using this one because Steve Burke made the same benchmark and it turned out very differently.

The one you just posted was made a few weeks ago, the price of the CPU has changed, so his view has change, with that the narrative he puts out has also changed. With no irony!

 

[humbug]

You complain about their stats/games/testing + usage scenarios or whatever to suit their narrative yet you are doing exactly that.... taking one snippet or/and one area/benchmark and ignoring everything else they have shown/said to backup your agenda.... Watch the full video and look at the range of games they showcase, it's pretty clear to see where a 5600x is better than a 3600, Steve is not trying to hide anything..... In the "final thoughts" sections, that is their "own" thoughts, Steve did say for value, you are better of with a 3600, if you want pure performance then go for the 5600x, in 2020, this was a good enough summary as you didn't have as many games showing the bigger benefit like we do now in 2022 and you said yourself, price per performance is a big factor... They offer plenty of content to let people see a range of scenarios and base their own thoughts on the "comparisons" alone.

You're comparing different systems in terms of the benchmarks here..... HU are using a 3090 and gamersnexus are using a 3080..... Also, different graphical settings too? High VS Ultra high?

He also used a midrange GPU, if i remember rightly it was a 6700XT.

Its a contrived narrative, His argument was the 5600X had no right being more expensive than the 3600, what he wanted to see was the 5600X at the same price as the 3600, or perhaps slightly more expensive.
Ok, that's fine, however what he did was set up the review in such a way that the 5600X was strangled down to the same performance as the 3600 and present it as proof that the 5600X is little better than the 3600.
That is quite cynical, and manipulative, he has no respect for his audience in this regard, its an agenda to him.

I'll give you another example of this mentality, in an interview with a bunch of industry people, one of whom was Lisa Sue, one commented on the price of consoles, to which Lisa joked "you just don't want to buy one" at this point they had already been poking fun at eachother, that break the ice stage of a conversation, it was very clearly and very obviously a joke.
Steve Walton, on twitter, ranting like some sociopath accused Lisa Sue of snubbing the whole world for not buying her products at inflated prices, not only was that taken completely out of context he then also conflated it to its most extreme. Like one of these mental pink haired activists.

 

[humbug]

With the mining mess, shortages, scalpers and cost of living crisis PC gaming has been looking worse than ever in terms of value.

So I'm really glad someone is pointing out how dumb it is to spend lots of money on the CPU. Expensive motherboards are even worse don't get me started on them.

I'll agree with that but it should be done in a less contrived way, if they really wanted AMD to lower the price they should have pointed at the 10700K for being so over priced, it gave AMD a gap $100 above the previous gen while still being $80 cheaper.
With that its no good ignoring Intel and pointing "AMD bad" they sold the 5600X in massive numbers at $299 because Steve was barking up the wrong tree. AMD are not competing with them selves.

 

[humbug]

It was a brand new CPU much cheaper than its competitor.

That's all there is too it.

 

[humbug]

I think he is referring to Zen3. Which is was rather steep tbh.

However this is where competition should win out. Vote with your wallet.

People did, it was cheaper than the alternative.

IMO it was too expensive, and yet clearly the alternative was less attractive as so many people bought it instead of the 10700K, if you were to ask AMD, if a was AMD i would say why? Its already better value than our competitor, so don't look at me, i've done my bit.

 

[humbug]

Yes. And conveniently when the shoe was on the other foot, the Intel cohort would say similar, basically what we have seen now is due to the success of Ryzen it has spread that mindshare. Now gamers can be guilty of assuming its the best CPU for the job without critically analysing spec.

I think AMD pushed too far when they applied the 'not a budget brand' across the GPU segment with the CPU success. Where they could have softened that blow is like they used to throw in game bundles or discounts. They have started doing it again now but prices of components got ridiculous across the board so not just AMD at fault there.

Again, they were cheaper than Intel equivalents, that didn't matter, they had to be "cheap" full stop. Its like its ok for Intel to be overpriced, AMD's only reason for existing is to be cheap.

That's not a business model, that's how you go bust, either there is competition or there isn't, we would all like cheap stuff but AMD have realised playing that game doesn't win you any favours, people just expect you to be the proverbial female dog so they can buy from their competitors a bit cheaper that they other wise would have been..

AMD had a period where they did not make good CPU's, but they weren't that bad and they were cheap, really cheap, and you know what people like Hardware Unboxed told their audience, under no circumstance buy anything from AMD, they are cheap for a reason, so you can see why AMD are trying to get away from the "Cheap" label.

 

[humbug]

Frankly IMO the fact that AMD aren't willing to play that game anymore is what's ##### him off, best not upset Intel, Bully AMD in to metering prices, they are a soft touch.

No.