Will the 5960X be the best CPU for future games, once DirectX 12 is released?

[AmirMC]

I've been looking online, but there is so much misinformation surrounding DirextX 12 that i couldn't find an answer.

I want to know if my CPU will get better with games that support hyperthreading, when DirectX 12 is released. Or if it will only perform incrementally better. I've heard things about CPUs with multiple cores being unable to communicate properly with DirectX 11, but that these issues will be resolved with DX12.

Can anyone shed some light, or correct my misunderstanding?

[Samfisher]

DX12 solves one thing = draw-call bottlenecks.  If your CPU isn't draw-call bottlenecked in the games you play, it's not gonna improve performance at all.

[blu4]

DX12 solves one thing = draw-call bottlenecks.  If your CPU isn't draw-call bottlenecked in the games you play, it's not gonna improve performance at all.

This. Although having more than 4 physical cores did improve draw-call performance. Below is a graph which shows that more cores = better. Take this with a grain of salt though, those are still early performance tests.

 

[ForsakenLive]

First of all, the 5960X isn't really the best gaming CPU. A nicely OC'd 4970K outperforms it, as even the latest titles prefer single core power. DirectX 12 may change things a little with better load balancing among cores and increased draw call count. However, by how much?

Even as of today there aren't many games that can cap off a CPU like you'd expect. Once the CPU is good enough the GPUs are the sluggers at gaming. Sure there is always that ONE title that isn't optimized (remember early Arma 3) or it simply loves CPU muscle (like Civ beyond earth, and MMOs); but we should look at the bigger picture and consider an average between the games released the last couple of years.

IMO a ton of games will keep using DirectX11, as it's NOT being replaced by DX12. DX12 is a parallel project to DX11, which will have its next version, 11.1 released sooner or later (said by Microsoft). This is because DX12 is much more difficult to implement from a technical standpoint (you need more people working harder on the project), so expect it to be used by big companies who want the feature, or small devs that really know what they are doing.

It's going to be long before DX12 covers most of the recently released games, a good couple of years tbh... considering we have games considered modern that still use DX9 only. By then, maybe, getting a 12 core consumer CPU shouldn't be much of a problem.

So in conclusion, I don't think it matters if you get that CPU for gaming, even if you want to be on extreme, the 5820k should be overkill already. And if you already have the 5960X there is pretty much nothing to worry about for the next 5 years.

[AmirMC]

Thanks! I wish i could mark them all as answered. Because you all offered valuable info.

[Opcode]

If you already own it you're fine, if you plan on buying it, don't. DirectX 12 seems to only scale up to six cores and clock frequencies play a big roll in reducing frame times. I could write a paragraph explaining the pros and cons of the 5960X and DirectX 12 in detail but I'm le' tired.

[AmirMC]

If you already own it you're fine, if you plan on buying it, don't. DirectX 12 seems to only scale up to six cores and clock frequencies play a big roll in reducing frame times. I could write a paragraph explaining the pros and cons of the 5960X and DirectX 12 in detail but I'm le' tired.

Do you have a source for this?

 

I don't understand. How am i fine if i already own it, but shouldn't buy it if i don't?

Why would the CPU be so expensive in the first place if it didn't already sit at the top tier?

I do own it, but i'm still in return period.

[Zheka]

First of all, the 5960X isn't really the best gaming CPU. A nicely OC'd 4970K outperforms it, as even the latest titles prefer single core power. DirectX 12 may change things a little with better load balancing among cores and increased draw call count. However, by how much?

Even as of today there aren't many games that can cap off a CPU like you'd expect. Once the CPU is good enough the GPUs are the sluggers at gaming. Sure there is always that ONE title that isn't optimized (remember early Arma 3) or it simply loves CPU muscle (like Civ beyond earth, and MMOs); but we should look at the bigger picture and consider an average between the games released the last couple of years.

IMO a ton of games will keep using DirectX11, as it's NOT being replaced by DX12. DX12 is a parallel project to DX11, which will have its next version, 11.1 released sooner or later (said by Microsoft). This is because DX12 is much more difficult to implement from a technical standpoint (you need more people working harder on the project), so expect it to be used by big companies who want the feature, or small devs that really know what they are doing.

It's going to be long before DX12 covers most of the recently released games, a good couple of years tbh... considering we have games considered modern that still use DX9 only. By then, maybe, getting a 12 core consumer CPU shouldn't be much of a problem.

So in conclusion, I don't think it matters if you get that CPU for gaming, even if you want to be on extreme, the 5820k should be overkill already. And if you already have the 5960X there is pretty much nothing to worry about for the next 5 years.

11.2 already exists... Maybe it will be 11.3?

[Opcode]

Do you have a source for this?

 

I don't understand. How am i fine if i already own it, but shouldn't buy it if i don't?

Why would the CPU be so expensive in the first place if it didn't already sit at the top tier?

I do own it, but i'm still in return period.

If you already own it there's no escaping it, if you don't I would say it's not worth the cost as you can get out with an i7-4790k that will perform better out of the box due to reference clocks for easily 1/3 the price.

[runit3]

Do you have a source for this?

 

I don't understand. How am i fine if i already own it, but shouldn't buy it if i don't?

Why would the CPU be so expensive in the first place if it didn't already sit at the top tier?

I do own it, but i'm still in return period.

If you bought it only for gaming, it was a poor choice. 4790K & 5820K much better options, with DX12 in consideration.

 

If you got it to beast productivity and game on the side, welcome to the club

[AmirMC]

If you already own it there's no escaping it, if you don't I would say it's not worth the cost as you can get out with an i7-4790k that will perform better out of the box due to reference clocks for easily 1/3 the price.

That CPU won't fit in my motherboard? I got it for vids and gaming. But no-one has answered as to whether 8 cores or 6 cores of hyper threading will be better for gaming, once directx 12 is released. I can't understand, theoretically why it wouldn't be the complete best CPU, once DX12 makes use of hyperthreaded cores.

Do you have a reference for that claim about hyper threading not exceeding 6 cores? Because all the 2011-3 CPUs have 2 hyperthreads per core.

[incarnate]

the problem with high core counts for gaming has always been that there just isn't enough work for the cpu. having more cores for a workload that can be done equally well by a fast quad core isn't going to yield a major performance increase. will it see an increase in performance in dx 12 titles, yes. will that increase be larger than a quad core? maybe but not by much. in fact the only performance increase will be in the amount of draw calls that can be processed. so... the only performance lead in gaming you'd get is if a fast quad core would bottleneck your graphics card due to draw calls. say at low resolution gaming.

 

2011-v3 is not a gaming platform. it is a productivity platform. it is so expensive because of the ridiculous capability it has as a work station processor, not because it gives a better gaming experience than an i7 or even an i5.

[Hieb]

Well it will be better with DX12, although with DX12 an i3 will also be better than it is now since it's gonna mean that draw calls can be spread out over multiple threads so one core doesn't get all the load.

[AmirMC]

the problem with high core counts for gaming has always been that there just isn't enough work for the cpu. having more cores for a workload that can be done equally well by a fast quad core isn't going to yield a major performance increase. will it see an increase in performance in dx 12 titles, yes. will that increase be larger than a quad core? maybe but not by much. in fact the only performance increase will be in the amount of draw calls that can be processed. so... the only performance lead in gaming you'd get is if a fast quad core would bottleneck your graphics card due to draw calls. say at low resolution gaming.

 

2011-v3 is not a gaming platform. it is a productivity platform. it is so expensive because of the ridiculous capability it has as a work station processor, not because it gives a better gaming experience than an i7 or even an i5.

 

Yeah, i agree. That's why i asked in terms of future gaming. My concern everytime i build is to future proof the rig as much as possible. Considering that the CPUs for the 2011-3 motherboards don't come in 4 core varients, this is only a discussion between the 8 core and the two 6 core versions. I'm running 2 Gen 3.0 cards in SLI over X16 slots, and although current games don't fully saturate the PICe lanes at X16 speed, i still feel as thought the 40 PCIe laned 5930K is a better future proofing option in the long run, because i can imagine alot more communication being achieved with DirectX 12 and 28 lanes just doesn't seem like it will cut it. (Albeit, the increase from X8 to X16 is almost unnoticable, it's still valid to want your rig to be able to perform in the highest possible scenario. Even if that doesn't exist yet).

That being out of the way, my issue comes back to the capabilities of future games with 8 cores over 6. I think the 5930K is a great CPU, but i'm just not sure if the core count would make it the BEST available for 2011-3 motherboards, once DX12 is released. Because of the added Hyperthreading support.

Do you think future games will produce a work load that might justifiy the use of more cores? I know right now, it's basically one core doing (most of) all the work in DX11. It's hard to explain why i feel so drawn to the higher end/costing products when building. It's just more psychologically appealing knowing that your system is made of the best consumer grade stuff available, even if you have no intention of actually utilising it's power. (Although i will be with my work load, i guess people like me have access to more funds, then sense).

[incarnate]

Yeah, i agree. That's why i asked in terms of future gaming. My concern everytime i build is to future proof the rig as much as possible. Considering that the CPUs for the 2011-3 motherboards don't come in 4 core varients, this is only a discussion between the 8 core and the two 6 core versions. I'm running 2 Gen 3.0 cards in SLI over X16 slots, and although current games don't fully saturate the PICe lanes at X16 speed, i still feel as thought the 40 PCIe laned 5930K is a better future proofing option in the long run, because i can imagine alot more communication being achieved with DirectX 12 and 28 lanes just doesn't seem like it will cut it. (Albeit, the increase from X8 to X16 is almost unnoticable, it's still valid to want your rig to be able to perform in the highest possible scenario. Even if that doesn't exist yet).

That being out of the way, my issue comes back to the capabilities of future games with 8 cores over 6. I think the 5930K is a great CPU, but i'm just not sure if the core count would make it the BEST available for 2011-3 motherboards, once DX12 is released. Because of the added Hyperthreading support.

Do you think future games will produce a work load that might justifiy the use of more cores? I know right now, it's basically one core doing (most of) all the work in DX11. It's hard to explain why i feel so drawn to the higher end/costing products when building. It's just more psychologically appealing knowing that your system is made of the best consumer grade stuff available, even if you have no intention of actually utilising it's power. (Although i will be with my work load, i guess people like me have access to more funds, then sense).

 

again 2011-3 is not a gaming platform. but the cpu's job in gaming is to process the logical code (ai and such which isn't much work to be honest) and feed the graphics card. an i7 or i5 could feed any sli setup and game just as well as the 5930k. it is a great cpu, but it wasn't intended for gaming. with dx 12 it will see an improvement over the amount of draw calls it can process. but the thing is that the only time you'll see an improvement over an i5 or i7 is when the graphics cards are capable of producing super high framerates, meaning there will be more draw calls. this would only happen at lower resolutions. so the whole point is moot. everything needs context and you're taking the performance increases out of context here. the only improvement will come from draw call processing and that depends on how often the gpu needs to draw a new frame.

[AmirMC]

again 2011-3 is not a gaming platform. but the cpu's job in gaming is to process the logical code (ai and such which isn't much work to be honest) and feed the graphics card. an i7 or i5 could feed any sli setup and game just as well as the 5930k. it is a great cpu, but it wasn't intended for gaming. with dx 12 it will see an improvement over the amount of draw calls it can process. but the thing is that the only time you'll see an improvement over an i5 or i7 is when the graphics cards are capable of producing super high framerates, meaning there will be more draw calls. this would only happen at lower resolutions. so the whole point is moot. everything needs context and you're taking the performance increases out of context here. the only improvement will come from draw call processing and that depends on how often the gpu needs to draw a new frame.

 

My monitor is 2560X1440. How come it only happens at Low res?

Thanks by the way, i understand what you're saying now.

[incarnate]

My monitor is 2560X1440. How come it only happens at Low res?

Thanks by the way, i understand what you're saying now.

 

no problem. the reason that it would only happen at low resolution is because when a graphics card is bottlenecked, it is because a cpu can't keep up with the draw calls for the next frame. think of it like this, the higher the res, and the higher the settings, the longer the graphics card has to work on a given frame, which means that it would take longer for the next draw call to happen. now power cpus can easily keep up with draw calls right now for 1080p and higher resolutions, but when you start going down to say 720p, the graphics card finishes a frame quickly and a draw call happens, the next frame is done and a draw call happens again. the draw calls come much quicker, meaning more draw calls, at lower resolutions.

 

this isn't exactly how it works mind you, but it is close enough to get the relationship between draw calls, frame rate and resolution across. a titan x sli setup could probably put out over 500 fps at low resolutions like 800x600, but a cpu would have to work the draw calls for it, which i doubt any could under direct x 11. I hope that clears it up

 

and again, i'm not saying your cpu isn't great for gaming, it is. it is just that at 1440p, the draw calls wouldn't get high enough to notice a difference between an i5 and your cpu.

[Opcode]

That CPU won't fit in my motherboard? I got it for vids and gaming. But no-one has answered as to whether 8 cores or 6 cores of hyper threading will be better for gaming, once directx 12 is released. I can't understand, theoretically why it wouldn't be the complete best CPU, once DX12 makes use of hyperthreaded cores.

Do you have a reference for that claim about hyper threading not exceeding 6 cores? Because all the 2011-3 CPUs have 2 hyperthreads per core.

The 5960X is pretty much the best CPU you can buy right now. Although clock frequencies are also a factor in terms of CPU performance. This is why there are theoretically better gaming CPU's with lesser cores right now (with a serialized graphics stack). With DirectX 12 allowing each core to communicate directly with the GPU things will certainly get better for higher core counts. Although you still have to figure that a 3 GHz core is still going to be marginally slower than a 4 GHz core on the same architecture. Will four faster cores beat out eight strong cores? That's something we'll have to wait and see. You would figure even four fast cores will be better due to frame times being influenced directly by how long it takes for the CPU to push it through the stack. The faster the CPU (even in MHz) the faster it can be done and hence a lower frame time. I say there's better CPUs out there for gaming simply because the 5960X is just too damn expensive for what it's worth as just a gaming CPU. You'd be better off buying a 4790k and investing the rest into another GTX 980 for SLI. This is why no one recommends them for gaming but more as a workstation CPU. I'm not saying sell it and get another CPU as it's just as fast as the cheaper offerings. It's just lacking in them migglehurtz. Although it certainly crushes the mainstream platform in heavy threaded workloads like video recording and editing. For it being the best gaming CPU ehhh, if DirectX 12 only scales up to six cores then the i7-5820k would be a better option simply for the one fact that it's cheaper. Although like said if you're recording your gaming all the time and doing edits to videos all the time them two extra cores will help. Especially if games start scaling out across six cores.

 

Hyper-Threading is an architectural design (SMT) I stated DirectX 12 doesn't seem to scale beyond six cores (graph above hints at that as well).