Will any high end games meaningfully benefit from more than 8 cores anytime in the near future?

[Bencher]

You don't know it's "insanely expensive" that's the point, you are guessing. You have no idea what it costs and comparing Intel to AMD in that way is nonsensical. It was cheap enough that it didn't cost more than the 5800X and we have no idea of the profit margin of either so we can't calculate the cost.

What do you mean I'm guessing? We know it's price, it is 450$. And what do you mean it doesn't cost more than the 5800x? Of course it does ,50% more to be exact. The 5800x MSRP is 300$, and it is faster than the 3d in almost everything but games. Are you suggesting that AMD is price gouging and the actual cost is way lower?

 

[Wolverine2349]

Basically what I really would like is to future proof to the point that my system down the road will still have a good enough CPU to game with the latest graohics cards with still good performance even if not the best a few years down the road without having to part out more of system than just video card.

I really want a CPU with insanely good IPC and 10-12 P cores without the hybrid arch and 5GHz or higher all core clock.
Unfortunately as good as Intel P cores are, they have no more than 8 of them and if building new someone suggested go for 12 cores for lasting into future. And I hate the Intel e cores and hybrid arch.

SO Zen 3 is only other option with best IPC and more than 8 strong cores. But its IPC is behind Golden Cove which is Alder Lake P cores by 11-14% or so. And Golden Cove easily clocks higher. But darn your stuck at 8 of them. And Zen 3 unfortunately it is very hard to clock it manually higher than 4.6 to maybe 4.7GHz all core super stable and maybe 4.8GHz on a great chip. I could settle for 4.8GHz.

I want a box to last me with all core manual overclock with 10-12 cores with insane IPC I can build now for years to come. NOt that I cannot afford more upgrades, its just that building a new system and parting out takes time and effort and I would like to put it together now and not have to do that again for a while except for a video card or maybe RAM upgrade swaps.

Yes of course the latest CPUs will be better if not much better in a few years, but my idea of future proofing is an awesome CPU with great clocks and IPC today with more than 8 cores will still be viable and fine in 3-4 years with latest video cards and games, even if its performance lags way behind the newest CPUs and platforms. But still viable and solid then.

 

[Wolverine2349]

What do you mean I'm guessing? We know it's price, it is 450$. And what do you mean it doesn't cost more than the 5800x? Of course it does ,50% more to be exact. The 5800x MSRP is 300$, and it is faster than the 3d in almost everything but games. Are you suggesting that AMD is price gouging and the actual cost is way lower?

Is the 5800X faster than 5800X3D in almost everything at games because of higher clocks or even at same clock speed is the extra L3 cache a nuisance for other workloads but games even at identical clock speeds?

 

[Vulture]

Basically what I really would like is to future proof to the point that my system down the road will still have a good enough CPU to game with the latest graohics cards with still good performance even if not the best a few years down the road without having to part out more of system than just video card.

I really want a CPU with insanely good IPC and 10-12 P cores without the hybrid arch and 5GHz or higher all core clock.
Unfortunately as good as Intel P cores are, they have no more than 8 of them and if building new someone suggested go for 12 cores for lasting into future. And I hate the Intel e cores and hybrid arch.

SO Zen 3 is only other option with best IPC and more than 8 strong cores. But its IPC is behind Golden Cove which is Alder Lake P cores by 11-14% or so. And Golden Cove easily clocks higher. But darn your stuck at 8 of them. And Zen 3 unfortunately it is very hard to clock it manually higher than 4.6 to maybe 4.7GHz all core super stable and maybe 4.8GHz on a great chip. I could settle for 4.8GHz.

I want a box to last me with all core manual overclock with 10-12 cores with insane IPC I can build now for years to come. NOt that I cannot afford more upgrades, its just that building a new system and parting out takes time and effort and I would like to put it together now and not have to do that again for a while except for a video card or maybe RAM upgrade swaps.

Yes of course the latest CPUs will be better if not much better in a few years, but my idea of future proofing is an awesome CPU with great clocks and IPC today with more than 8 cores will still be viable and fine in 3-4 years with latest video cards and games, even if its performance lags way behind the newest CPUs and platforms. But still viable and solid then.

If you want more than 8 cores, good IPC, and extra good gaming performance then wait for Zen 4-3d, it will be released this year and 8+ cores models should also have 3dcache so you will have best of both world, gaming performance and amount of threads for content creation workload, also AM5 will have longevity so you will get support for at least Zen 5 and Zen 6, maybe even more if Intel pushes them.

 

[Bencher]

Basically what I really would like is to future proof to the point that my system down the road will still have a good enough CPU to game with the latest graohics cards with still good performance even if not the best a few years down the road without having to part out more of system than just video card.

I really want a CPU with insanely good IPC and 10-12 P cores without the hybrid arch and 5GHz or higher all core clock.
Unfortunately as good as Intel P cores are, they have no more than 8 of them and if building new someone suggested go for 12 cores for lasting into future. And I hate the Intel e cores and hybrid arch.

SO Zen 3 is only other option with best IPC and more than 8 strong cores. But its IPC is behind Golden Cove which is Alder Lake P cores by 11-14% or so. And Golden Cove easily clocks higher. But darn your stuck at 8 of them. And Zen 3 unfortunately it is very hard to clock it manually higher than 4.6 to maybe 4.7GHz all core super stable and maybe 4.8GHz on a great chip. I could settle for 4.8GHz.

I want a box to last me with all core manual overclock with 10-12 cores with insane IPC I can build now for years to come. NOt that I cannot afford more upgrades, its just that building a new system and parting out takes time and effort and I would like to put it together now and not have to do that again for a while except for a video card or maybe RAM upgrade swaps.

Yes of course the latest CPUs will be better if not much better in a few years, but my idea of future proofing is an awesome CPU with great clocks and IPC today with more than 8 cores will still be viable and fine in 3-4 years with latest video cards and games, even if its performance lags way behind the newest CPUs and platforms. But still viable and solid then.

Get a 12700 / maybe an f. 8 GC cores are enough, and some games utilize those extra ecores. It offers the best longevity for the money, anything else hits diminishing returns rather quickly imo.

 

[Wolverine2349]

If you want more than 8 cores, good IPC, and extra good gaming performance then wait for Zen 4-3d, it will be released this year and 8+ cores models should also have 3dcache so you will have best of both world, gaming performance and amount of threads for content creation workload, also AM5 will have longevity so you will get support for at least Zen 5 and Zen 6, maybe even more if Intel pushes them.

Yes I have thought of that, but really want to build now. If only they would release Zen 4 like now. I could build clock it so high probably (maybe????) and call it a day.

Do you think Zen 4 non 3D will have excellent IPC or will it need 3D to catch Alder Lake. And jhow will Zen 4 non-3D IPC be compared to Zen 3 IPC. DO you believe the rumors that it can clock above 5GHz?? And will a manual static all core all the time overclock work at above 5GHz on it do you think? Or is TSMC 5nm just ot good at that stuff and meant to always be dynamic and will be even more so on newer nodes like 5nm as opposed to 7nm.

I have even thought of Intel Sapphire Rapids Alder Lake-X, but unfortunately that was supposed to be out by now, but delayed yet again. It sucks. And will they even have less than 16 core variants. I do not want 16 cores I want 10-12 or maybe 14 is ok.

 

[Troezar]

What do you mean I'm guessing? We know it's price, it is 450$. And what do you mean it doesn't cost more than the 5800x? Of course it does ,50% more to be exact. The 5800x MSRP is 300$, and it is faster than the 3d in almost everything but games. Are you suggesting that AMD is price gouging and the actual cost is way lower?

I think what you are missing is AMD launched a new CPU with new tech and knew that at some gaming workloads it would beat the fastest existing CPU at 1GHz less clock speed. Surprise, surprise they sold it at more than the 5800X, which had dropped in price as it has been out a while. Anyone that has the workloads that it excelled at was quite obviously happy to buy at the price. Because they sold at a good but niche product at a higher price does not in any way mean it was "insanely expensive" to make. Made more but how much we have no idea. Isn't this tech from the server side anyway? The costs of development would have been paid for many times over....

 

[Journey]

NOt that I cannot afford more upgrades, its just that building a new system and parting out takes time and effort

I am at a loss, how long does this really take? I mean I build systems all of the time, so for me I can build and cable a high end system (tidily) in less than 2 hours, that includes unpacking all the stuff. It takes a bit longer when you get people wanting 15 fans with several RGB/fan hubs. Getting the base Windows install and drivers take an hour, that is if you are re-installing, and then however long it takes you to get it back to how you want it.

As for parting something out, that probably takes longer due to procrastination and such that getting the stuff delivered. Split those hours over 2 years and even if it was a 10 hour total that is less than 1 minute per day... its hardly worth worrying about.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I am at a loss, how long does this really take? I mean I build systems all of the time, so for me I can build and cable a high end system (tidily) in less than 2 hours, that includes unpacking all the stuff. It takes a bit longer when you get people wanting 15 fans with several RGB/fan hubs. Getting the base Windows install and drivers take an hour, that is if you are re-installing, and then however long it takes you to get it back to how you want it.

As for parting something out, that probably takes longer due to procrastination and such that getting the stuff delivered. Split those hours over 2 years and even if it was a 10 hour total that is less than 1 minute per day... its hardly worth worrying about.

I am very careful when I build my systems and make sure to be delicate with parts to not ruin anything. I had bent pins on a CPU on PGA before so very careful. Also, I always test them for stability to make sure the overclock I have is how I want it which takes a lot of time as well. I also have custom Windows install with blat removed and do manual install of drivers and Windows updates and tweak it to remove the spyware and Big Brother crap.
Its not like putting together a custom PC they way I want it and the testing is some easy chore.

Sure throwing together a basic run of the mill PC with all default settings and a basic small air cooler and no big large case and large dual tower air cooler is much easier and less time consuming.

I always do a clean install of Windows when switching to new chipset. Using existing install is asking for trouble and BSODs down the road when switching to a new platform.

 

[Journey]

I always do a clean install of Windows when switching to new chipset. Using existing install is asking for trouble and BSODs down the road when switching to a new platform.

I allowed 10 hours over 2 years, like I said less than 1 minute per day. Tell me how many hours it will take you 24, 48, 100+?

I am very careful when I build my systems and make sure to be delicate with parts to not ruin anything.

I just throw it all and hope it lands in the right place, and if it breaks, screw it and buy new parts.

 

[arknor]

I think what you are missing is AMD launched a new CPU with new tech and knew that at some gaming workloads it would beat the fastest existing CPU at 1GHz less clock speed. Surprise, surprise they sold it at more than the 5800X, which had dropped in price as it has been out a while. Anyone that has the workloads that it excelled at was quite obviously happy to buy at the price. Because they sold at a good but niche product at a higher price does not in any way mean it was "insanely expensive" to make. Made more but how much we have no idea. Isn't this tech from the server side anyway? The costs of development would have been paid for many times over....

what does that matter? what they sell it for is all that counts.

How much it costs them to produce is irrelevant it's an incredibly expensive cpu for what you get

 

[Troezar]

what does that matter? what they sell it for is all that counts.

How much it costs them to produce is irrelevant it's an incredibly expensive cpu for what you get

It really isn't if it's the fastest CPU for the job you want it to do. The 12900K would be really expensive if it's bought that for Star Citizen, paid more than a 5800X3D and it was slower. Bear in mind not long ago Intel were charging £1,000+ for the top end mainstream CPU's. Now that is expensive. The point being why would I buy a more expensive CPU that is slower for the job I want it to do? The 12900K is £578.99, I paid £409.00. Seems like a bargain for the fastest CPU available for the job.

 

[humbug]

I am thinking of going with a Ryzen 9 5900X simply because it has 12 cores. Unfortunately Intel is stuck at 8 good cores and I am not fond of the hybrid arch.

Though Intel Golden Cove are the best P cores there are. Though how much better really are they than Zen 3 cores.

Cause I could purchase a 12900K or 12700K and just use it as an 8 core part by disabling the e-cores and run WIN10 normally without worry over games using the e cores or other scheduling issues and slower ringbus.

Also my plan would be to shut off HT/SMT if I have more than 8 cores. With 8 cores a tossup and less leave it on.

Does HT/SMT help much for gaming if at all or even hurt it if core count is high??

Like how would 8 cores 16 threads be compared to 12 cores and 12 threads for gaming now and into the future with video card upgrades down the road.

Is more physical real cores going to matter anytime soon?

I intend to continue gaming at 1440p maxing out all settings in games with an RTX 3090 Ti.

In the near future probably not.

I'm sure others have said it already but if it was a toss-up between the 5900X and the 12700K i would go for the 12700K, it is a better gaming CPU even if 4 of its 12 cores are crap cores, the good cores are still faster, individually than the cores in the 5900X and IMO it will take some years before the 5900X all good cores off-set that, by that time you will be looking for another CPU so unless you already have an AMD motherboard get the 12700K.

Some here will be shocked i said that. But those are the facts.

 

[humbug]

Now i regret saying all of that ^^^^ Come on Intel give me something to work with i want to pretend to be unbiased

It really isn't if it's the fastest CPU for the job you want it to do. The 12900K would be really expensive if it's bought that for Star Citizen, paid more than a 5800X3D and it was slower. Bear in mind not long ago Intel were charging £1,000+ for the top end mainstream CPU's. Now that is expensive. The point being why would I buy a more expensive CPU that is slower for the job I want it to do? The 12900K is £578.99, I paid £409.00. Seems like a bargain for the fastest CPU available for the job.

 

[Troezar]

Now i regret saying all of that ^^^^ Come on Intel give me something to work with i want to pretend to be unbiased

I think we agree on the principle Humbug. Buy the best for the job you want to do. I would also agree, if you want an all-rounder building from scratch, right now go for a 12700K.

 

[humbug]

I think we agree on the principle Humbug. Buy the best for the job you want to do. I would also agree, if you want an all-rounder building from scratch, right now go for a 12700K.

Yeah i can agree with that.

 

[arknor]

It really isn't if it's the fastest CPU for the job you want it to do. The 12900K would be really expensive if it's bought that for Star Citizen, paid more than a 5800X3D and it was slower. Bear in mind not long ago Intel were charging £1,000+ for the top end mainstream CPU's. Now that is expensive. The point being why would I buy a more expensive CPU that is slower for the job I want it to do? The 12900K is £578.99, I paid £409.00. Seems like a bargain for the fastest CPU available for the job.

whats the difference between a 12600k or 12700k and a 5800x3d in star citizen above 1080? I'm guessing not a lot

 

[Bencher]

whats the difference between a 12600k or 12700k and a 5800x3d in star citizen above 1080? I'm guessing not a lot

There are games (I don't know about star citizen) that even in 1440p or 4k the difference is big, cause they are not GPU bound games. For example, some MMO's might fall in this category. The thing is, it's a handful of games. If you specifically play these games, it may be worth it. Of course, on the same note, there are games that the 12700k is much faster. On average, if you test like 50-100 games, the 5800x 3d is faster by 5-10%, depending on what ram you use on the 12700k. Of course the price on 3d is absolutely ludicrous. If it was an Intel CPU it wouldn't cost more than 250€. I mean it's a locked cpu with no igpu, it couldn't cost more than the 12600k or the 12700, since it loses by a LOT in the majority of workloads by both.

It really reminds me of the 7700k. Good in games, horrible in everything else. Well at least the 7700k was cheaper though (and it was the absolute king in gaming, beating the competition by a mile), but remember how much bashing that CPU got? AMD just gets away with it.

 

[Bencher]

In the near future probably not.

I'm sure others have said it already but if it was a toss-up between the 5900X and the 12700K i would go for the 12700K, it is a better gaming CPU even if 4 of its 12 cores are crap cores, the good cores are still faster, individually than the cores in the 5900X and IMO it will take some years before the 5900X all good cores off-set that, by that time you will be looking for another CPU so unless you already have an AMD motherboard get the 12700K.

Some here will be shocked i said that. But those are the facts.

I think it's the first time I agree with you, although the current pricing on the 5900x makes it very enticing, since you can get away with an el cheapo motherboard on the zen platform.

 

[Troezar]

I think it's the first time I agree with you, although the current pricing on the 5900x makes it very enticing, since you can get away with an el cheapo motherboard on the zen platform.

Only enticing if you can make use of those extra cores. I'd take the 12700K as an all rounder. Most users don't have workloads that need 12+ cores and those that do probably go for 16 instead. I think too many buyers get seduced by high benchmarks that don't actually do anything for their personal usage. I think we've all bought into that at one time or another