Soldato
Yeah but the price will be insane. The 5800x3d is basically slower than a 12600k (280€ CPU) in everything but games. Imagine how much a high end CPU with 3d cache would cost, since the 3d is already 450 on it's own.
-
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
Truth is we don't know. Good job I bought one for gaming
Unless your gaming at 1080p on a high end GPU though you're not really gaining anything over a 160 quid 5600 in the vast majority of titles.Truth is we don't know. Good job I bought one for gaming
Well with much faster GPU's about to land I think we're going to find that moving up to 1440p. It also translates to MMO's and games like Star Citizen and others with very healthy FPS increases. Niche admittedly but they are the kind of games I play. As with most things it pays to research and match what you buy to your needs.
Game dev in general is moving more towards data-oriented design (well a lot of it already has in AAA engineering teams). If larger caches become a staple feature you'll see more and more takeup of that design pattern.
UnrealEngine 5 has finally introduced a framework for cache-efficient processing (called Mass), the old core architecture of Unreal is pretty awful for even multi-threading, let alone cache efficiency. It'll take some time for it to be used widely, but I'm certain it will. I'm using Mass heavily on a title I'm working on at the moment.
Some titles like MSFS it's easier to write cache efficient code....in a simulation like that you have lots pretty well predefined chunks of processing that you need to do every frame (i.e. there's not much conditional logic, it's mostly straight number crunching), so it's very easy to write in a way that maximises your cache utilization.
UnrealEngine 5 has finally introduced a framework for cache-efficient processing (called Mass), the old core architecture of Unreal is pretty awful for even multi-threading, let alone cache efficiency. It'll take some time for it to be used widely, but I'm certain it will. I'm using Mass heavily on a title I'm working on at the moment.
Some titles like MSFS it's easier to write cache efficient code....in a simulation like that you have lots pretty well predefined chunks of processing that you need to do every frame (i.e. there's not much conditional logic, it's mostly straight number crunching), so it's very easy to write in a way that maximises your cache utilization.
Is it incredibly expensive though? The 5800X3D was sold at the same price as the 5800X. It only looks more expensive because the 5800X is relatively old and the 5800X3D is much higher performing in games.
yea for the performance it gives it's totally not worth the price.
who builds a high end pc with a £400 cpu to game at 1080? may as well get a 12700k for that money anyway or a 12400k and a better monitor......
I keep hearing that but for the games (it was sold as a gaming cpu) that it really benefits it performs better than a much more expensive 12900K. As for 1080p, people are buying £1000+ GPU's for that so it takes all sorts. If the new gen GPU performance increase it right many may well be looking for faster CPU's for certain use cases. If you're just a casual gamer and play a bit of this and that I agree get a 12400k or lower and a 3060 and be done.
Soldato
Yes, it is incredibly expensive. The 5800x 3d costs 50% more than a 12700f and loses by a LOT in the vast majority of workloads. So its a lot slower and costs a lot more.
Excellent, you have the bill of materials, do you mind sharing them for us? So massively more expensive yet sold to me for £409, no more than the 5800X at release and beats the 12900K in lots of the games I would like to play. Seems like a bargain to me and to many others, selling out as fast as they can make them.
Would you also say that to the case in gaming as well? And is that the case if you shut off the e cores on the 12700K or 12700KF?? Or wait you are talking about non-K 12700 which cannot be overclocked though neither can the 5800X3D at least not traditionally manual way by setting multiplier in the BIOS.
Soldato
Ah you are the person who bought the single RTX 3090 Ti that sold.
In all seriousness though, if you can afford to throw around sill money on 3-4% extra performance then just get a 5800X3D and be done for a while, by the time you need 12 cores the 3090 Ti will be worth as much as a GT 710, and you'll be using it as a door stop or something.
Soldato
I don't have the bill of materials, I see the pricing. In order to beat a 12700f by an average of 5-10% in gaming it needs to cost 50% more and lose drastically in the majority of other workloads. I don't understand why you are even contesting the point, it's really straightforward. The 3d performs like a 250€ CPU in the majority of workloads yet it costs 450€ (actually, 500 is the street price) to get a few wins here and there in gaming.
Soldato
The 3d is faster than any variation of the 12700 in games out of the box, for sure. It doesn't need any tinkering or such. I don't know about the 12700k but I'm pretty certain a 12900k beats the 3d in games - albeit with memory tuning. I mean nowadays you can get ddr5 to 7000c30 on 2 dim board, so yeah, the 3d can't contest with that in terms of performance.
Personally I would either go for the value option, which is the 12700f with a b660 (both cost as much as the 3d on it's own, lol), or go balls to the wall and get a 12900k with good ddr5 on 2dim mobo (which I did). I don't personally see the point of a 500€ mediocre CPU at everything but a handful of games. But that's just me, ymmv
That's a daft comparison. You need to compare with 5800X pricing as it's that + the extra cache. As I've already said it is for gaming, it was sold as that and works fine. No-one that has other workloads would buy it, they'd get a 5900X and be done. I contest it as you are making false comparisons, just be honest and admit some CPUs are better at some tasks than others. I'm getting back into Star Citizen and MMO's, tell me which other "gaming" CPU would have been better for £409? If I wanted productivity I would have spent more on a 12900K or 5950X. If I wanted an all rounder then I would have gone for a 12700K or a 5800X. As already stated know your workload and pick the best tool for the job, I have done just that
Soldato
And it's slower than the 5800x in most workloads, 15% faster on average in games, yet it costs 50% more. So what exactly are we talking about? Adding cache is apparently insanely expensive.
Soldato
Who said anything about your choice? I don't care what you bought, I'm just stating that adding cache is insanely expensive, and you seem to contest that claim.I'm getting back into Star Citizen and MMO's, tell me which other "gaming" CPU would have been better for £409? If I wanted productivity I would have spent more on a 12900K or 5950X. If I wanted an all rounder then I would have gone for a 12700K or a 5800X. As already stated know your workload and pick the best tool for the job, I have done just that
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.