• 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.

Would a 6 core CPU be worth the investment?

Alex92

Alex92

Alex92

Associate
Joined
16 Feb 2012
Posts
8
Location
United Kingdom
Building a new PC soon which will be used for gaming and general use.

I was considering getting either a 2500k as I hear people say it's the best for gaming or going all out and 'future proofing' it with a 3930k.

Will any new game titles actually benefit from all 6 cores and is it worth it for future games, or should I save my money and stick with a 2500k or wait until Ivy Bridge?

Thanks! :)
 
A lot of games still do not use 4 cores properly... The general pattern seems to be that the standard number of processor cores increases a long time before any notable percentage of games take advantage of them. And by the time most games are using 6 cores, you can almost guarantee that the the 3930k will be 'old' technology. There is not really any such thing as real future proofing with computers unfortunately.

To sum up, if I were you I would get a 2500k and overclock it. It is a beast of a processor and will be plenty good enough for a long time to come, especially where gaming is concerned. (hell, I am still happy with my q6600 lol). Or if you can wait, get an ivy bridge processor along the same lines. The 3930k is a waste for gaming, and you only really need 6 cores for stuff like video editing / conversion and other processor heavy tasks etc at the moment. You could even put the money you save on the 3930k towards a new Graphics card :p
 
To sum up, if I were you I would get a 2500k and overclock it. It is a beast of a processor and will be plenty good enough for a long time to come, especially where gaming is concerned.
Click to expand...

This really. If its just gaming, an i5 2500K is ideal :)
 
Thank you for all the prompt replies, especially BluSky, going to go for the 2500k or wait for the Ivy Bridge equivelant and overclock it the the limit :)
 
We've just bought a six-core CPU in for a specific project here at work (i7 3930k).
It's for video analysing and the hardware/software will make use of all cores available to it.

As someone else said, for gaming wait until these software houses have started coping with quad core correctly before we start worrying about six cores.
 
Depends what you are doing tbh. For gaming even a quad core is overkill as few games will maximise the potential available. For Video editing, encoding etc or other multithreaded applications you will certainly see a benefit.
 
I went 3930K for a few reasons;

X79 has more PCIe bandwidth available (for my SLI plans)
X79 / 3930K supports PCIe 3.0 out of the box (2500k doesn't by ivy bridge will)
and by far the most important, I got a rediculously good price on the 3930K on christmas eve and no one else was bidding (BNIB)

I knew I was going to go X79 anyway as to me it has the better upgrade path, but with 3930K in the bag I am betting my own real money on it outlasting a 2500K by a good margin, plus the potential to switch it out for an 8-core Ivy-E when everyone else is having to buy new motherboards to support Haswell

6 core costs more now, but it should outlast 2500K and prove to be good value in the long run, plus it has better support for SLI

I did also buy a Q6600 at a time when 99% of people on forums were saying a fast dual core is better because games don't support 4 core - my Q went on to last 5 years where as all the duals were swapped out within 2 years

in the few games I've checked, they do seem to use all 6 cores, Skyrim and BF3 both use roughly equal use of all 6 cores, not like massively loading up core 1 and 2 and then neglecting the rest
 
Last edited:
For general use and gaming, SBE / 6 core is an utter waste. Unless you have specific specialised requirements then an i5 2500k is all you need. By the time you actually need 6 cores, SBE will be long since replaced with something better and cheaper.
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
I went 3930K for a few reasons;

X79 has more PCIe bandwidth available (for my SLI plans)
X79 / 3930K supports PCIe 3.0 out of the box (2500k doesn't by ivy bridge will)
and by far the most important, I got a rediculously good price on the 3930K on christmas eve and no one else was bidding (BNIB)

I knew I was going to go X79 anyway as to me it has the better upgrade path, but with 3930K in the bag I am betting my own real money on it outlasting a 2500K by a good margin, plus the potential to switch it out for an 8-core Ivy-E when everyone else is having to buy new motherboards to support Haswell

6 core costs more now, but it should outlast 2500K and prove to be good value in the long run, plus it has better support for SLI

I did also buy a Q6600 at a time when 99% of people on forums were saying a fast dual core is better because games don't support 4 core - my Q went on to last 5 years where as all the duals were swapped out within 2 years
Click to expand...

an i5 is better for gaming - but....
I agree with all the points above which is why I went for a 3930K and Im over the moon with my new build..
The key decider was the Ivybridge-E upgrade path as I didn't want to fork out now and then have to buy a new mobo for Haswell, this way, I know Im good for the next 3 years
 
I did the same as Andybird, I got a Q6600 when most were using dual cores. But I consider myself to be a power user as I use 3 screens.

I generally use 1 screen for gaming while the PC is processing compression and other intense tasks in the background on the other screens.

I also maintain Firefox on another screen as well and I have the TV connected as a 4th screen so I can be watching something from the PC.

I ended up upping my system memory to 8GB due to using about 4GB in this config most nights and my Q6600 at 3Ghz sees about 50% use on all core most of the time and I can max out all 4 cores a lot when I'm multi tasking.

I'm currently waiting on Ivy Bridge but I nearly cried when seeing 6 core on on EE chips :(
 
After buying a 3930K recently, I'd say that anyone buying one as a gaming PC is just throwing money away. It's just not needed.

However, if like me you will use it for games AND stuff like virtual machines, then yes it's worth considering if you are looking for greater than 16GB ram.
 
if i had a budget that could stretch to a 3930k but wanted a machine for gaming i'd be getting a 2500k and spending more on the gfx setup. I have a 3930k becaues i do 3d rendering, for games its overkill and i think you'd get a better gaming experience spending that money elsewhere.
 
Nah unless you need 6 cores 12 threads for something then i wouldnt bother.

The enthusiast platform is a bit lousy for future proofing anyways because its always nearly a generation behind:

- i7 980x is released just before sandy bridge comes out
- i7 3960x is released just before ivy bridge hits
- i7 hexcore based on ivy bridge (dont know what it will be called) will hit just before haswell is ready

I dont think its worth it unless you really need the cores/threads now. The future proofing may lead to a situation where your future proofed chip is outclassed in every way by a cheaper consumer oriented hexcore haswell. Stick with the mainstream :cool:
 
andybird123 said:
I did also buy a Q6600 at a time when 99% of people on forums were saying a fast dual core is better because games don't support 4 core - my Q went on to last 5 years where as all the duals were swapped out within 2 years
Click to expand...

I went dual core when the same Q6600 debate was happening and I only just replaced mine. In all games I had no problems until BF3 came out when I did start to notice processor limitations.

So just stating some balance to your argument. Not disagreeing entirely but just the sentiment that the Q6600 was the clear winner in that particular debate.

p.s. I would vote for 2500K now
 
4850's in crossfire and then a 6870. No never low settings. Highest in most games to be fair apart from AA except BF3 which as mentioned was a struggle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom