Well sure, but my girlfriends PC already has a 3700x, so it would make kinda sense to opt for a 5900x instead of for example a 5800x. She doesn't care that much about gaming performance to go for the 12700k. I mean she wants her games to be playable, doesn't care if it's 60 or 200 fps, so the current pricing on the 5900x is a godsend. Ill hand her down my 3090 after the 4xxx series hits the shelves, so it would be a nice match for 1440p ultrawide.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
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Will any high end games meaningfully benefit from more than 8 cores anytime in the near future?
- Thread starter Wolverine2349
- Start date
Like it or not, outright single threaded performance is still king in gaming and will be for a long time yet.
Some games may be able to spread out over 8 cores but they are still bound by a single thread which pegs the overall performance. Most cores are hardly breaking a sweat in the real world.
I’d take 6 faster cores over 8 slower ones any day of the week (E.g. 5600X vs 3800X). Getting more cores now is not future proofing as they’ll not be keeping up with the single threaded performance needs of future games.
Some games may be able to spread out over 8 cores but they are still bound by a single thread which pegs the overall performance. Most cores are hardly breaking a sweat in the real world.
I’d take 6 faster cores over 8 slower ones any day of the week (E.g. 5600X vs 3800X). Getting more cores now is not future proofing as they’ll not be keeping up with the single threaded performance needs of future games.
Perfect case for sticking with AM4 and a good all-rounder. Definitely not worth buying a 5800X3D if FPS isn't important. A 5900X should drive that for some time to come.
Worth getting a 12900ks if somebody is looking to buy now and not wait? Wanting something to last abit and currently don’t have a pc. I ask for advice and as always it’s always wait for this wait for that coming out which I get peoples point
Tell the Ryzen 5800X3D that its 4.5Ghz cores are too slow for gaming.
Still amazes me that the cache makes up for a whole GHz of clock speed. Now imagine if we can have both
Still amazes me that the cache makes up for a whole GHz of clock speed. Now imagine if we can have both
We will
zen 4 will probably have both, 5+ghz and huge amount of cache + also ddr5 which can greatly increase performance, so you will have boost even in games that doesn't benefits from extra cache, but if it likes that extra cache then you will have high clock and ddr5 too.Still amazes me that the cache makes up for a whole GHz of clock speed. Now imagine if we can have both
The difference is 400mhz compared to the 12900k, and it makes sense, when your CPU sits there waiting for data, it doesn't make a difference how fast it can process anything, since it has nothing to process. That's when ram also start making a difference, since ram dictates how fast the cache gets the data it needs. Youll be amazed at how fast a 12900 with 7000c30 ram is.Still amazes me that the cache makes up for a whole GHz of clock speed. Now imagine if we can have both
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2022
- Posts
- 371
- Location
- United States
Yes true, though it seems there is a big dropoff in single thread perf when you go down form Zen 2 to Zen 2. Or go down from Golden Cove to Rocket Lake or below.
You think same will hold true in the future big time??
I'm testing to see if enabling hyperthreading might help, but need to undervolt first to get temps within acceptable levels...
CPU clock is 'only' 4.6ghz at the moment.
Aren't there less problems with Zen CPUs and driver overheads etc? I might be misremembering.
Last edited:
I'm not sure but I'd expect a 10700k to perform atleast as well as a ryzen 3600 even if only clocked at 4.6ghz.
I've found that even on Ultra performance DLSS mode, the framerate can fall to 61 with RT on Ultra.
Regardless of the CPU core utilization (it's noticeably lower with hyper-threading enabled, quite evenly balanced across the logical cores), there are some scenes that can dip to around 40 FPS even on RT medium (even when DLSS is used).
EDIT - I changed the texture setting from Ultra to High and seem to be getting better performance now. Maybe Ubisoft just never optimised the Ultra texture pack properly?
Piccadilly Circus seems to be a good spot to test performance (nice to look at too!).
Regardless of the CPU core utilization (it's noticeably lower with hyper-threading enabled, quite evenly balanced across the logical cores), there are some scenes that can dip to around 40 FPS even on RT medium (even when DLSS is used).
EDIT - I changed the texture setting from Ultra to High and seem to be getting better performance now. Maybe Ubisoft just never optimised the Ultra texture pack properly?
Piccadilly Circus seems to be a good spot to test performance (nice to look at too!).
Last edited:
It has changed my view about hyper-threading, generally I think it should be left enabled (due to reducing overall CPU utilization in many tasks), despite the higher power usage and heat. I'm unsure of it's usefulness with a 12 or 16 core CPU, though.
Before I undervolted by 100mv, my CPU in CPU benchmarks was thermal throttling (at 100 Celsius!) with HT enabled, reducing the clock rate and power usage. It's somewhat reassuring at least, that there is a mechanism in place to prevent even higher temperatures, which would be very concerning...
Before I undervolted by 100mv, my CPU in CPU benchmarks was thermal throttling (at 100 Celsius!) with HT enabled, reducing the clock rate and power usage. It's somewhat reassuring at least, that there is a mechanism in place to prevent even higher temperatures, which would be very concerning...
Last edited: