Quad Core CPU's are slowly becoming like the Dual Core?

[VerticalDiscussions]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

-snip-

Alright thanks for the information.

[VerticalDiscussions]

2 hours ago, Bhav said:

-snip-

It must have something to do with how the Skylake architecture was designed. The 6800K vs 6700K when clocked similarly, has 2+ fps than the 6700K xd!

[Dash Lambda]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I would buy a 6700k if I was in the market for a cpu, since all I care about is gaming. I know a 5820k destroys a 6700k if you're a content creator or doing other very cpu intensive tasks, in which case the 5820k is still an amazing deal. And it might end up aging better too, though I'm not as confident about that with the new generation of consoles that drives AAA game development designed for pushing 4k instead of higher framerates. 

Eeeeeeeh...

No, the new generation of consoles isn't pushing 4K. They support 4K output, so they can send 4K to the TV, but that's only for video playback and stuff. The hardware they're packing isn't that impressive.

 

And, for the CPU debate, I don't really have much to say, but the 5820K doesn't just win out in content creation.

All in all, I'd personally never go for something like the 6700K when something like the 5820K exists. I can see where some might prefer it, but I just can't justify sacrificing all the 5820K's advantages for the few advantages the 6700K has.

 

Oh, and @Bhav, heavily multi-core games are like DX12/Vulkan.

-Does it make a difference? Absolutely, it makes a big difference where it's implemented.

-Does it matter right now? No. Games that implement it effectively are like unicorns, and their ubiquity will probably come around far enough into the future for it to be a non-issue right now.

[4960X]

There's no need for dual core cpus anymore. Quad-core cpus should be the norm.

[porina]

On 24/08/2016 at 6:11 PM, Bhav said:

Well its up to the user to pick an overclockable chipset and CPU if they want to do that.

You were suggesting i7's should be overclocked. My point was that not all i7s or i5s are overclockable. It is very possible to have a higher clocked i5 that would be faster in most things than a lower clocked i7. 

[Bhav]

24 minutes ago, porina said:

You were suggesting i7's should be overclocked. My point was that not all i7s or i5s are overclockable. It is very possible to have a higher clocked i5 that would be faster in most things than a lower clocked i7. 

Well if we take the reality of the situation which is comparing I5s and I7s clock for clock, an I5 is never going to be faster than an I7.

 

Clock speeds are a moot point for arguing this, as people looking for performance are going to be wanting to overclock anyway.

[porina]

53 minutes ago, Bhav said:

Well if we take the reality of the situation which is comparing I5s and I7s clock for clock, an I5 is never going to be faster than an I7.

 

Clock speeds are a moot point for arguing this, as people looking for performance are going to be wanting to overclock anyway.

In the original context of this thread, the claim was that "quad core" (meaning i5) was on the way out. Just, nope.

 

Actually, there are computation situations where an i7 will be slower than a same clock i5 unless you take extra software configuration steps where you can make them practically equal. In those cases I find it easier to turn off HT on my i7 CPUs so there is no risk of performance degradation from HT.

[Bhav]

Lol I5's ARE on the way out, they are already bottlenecking the latest GPUs. You're just digging up any excuse you can to try and ignore that.

 

Lets just put it this way - people trying to defend an I5 as being better than an I7, or an I7 quad being better than an I7 hex are just literally full of shit.

 

 

[porina]

1 hour ago, Bhav said:

Lol I5's ARE on the way out, they are already bottlenecking the latest GPUs. You're just digging up any excuse you can to try and ignore that.

 

Lets just put it this way - people trying to defend an I5 as being better than an I7, or an I7 quad being better than an I7 hex are just literally full of shit.

If they were the same price, sure. They're not. You still have to do the value for money calculation at some point, or just don't care about gaming bottlenecks, like everyone who doesn't game. There might be more than a few of them out there.

 

I personally can't get enough compute performance, but HT gains very little in my uses. If it were free, sure I'd take it, but it isn't. Maybe once Zen comes out it'll focus Intel to be a bit more generous on the core count, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Bhav]

25 minutes ago, porina said:

If they were the same price, sure. They're not. You still have to do the value for money calculation at some point, or just don't care about gaming bottlenecks, like everyone who doesn't game. There might be more than a few of them out there.

 

I personally can't get enough compute performance, but HT gains very little in my uses. If it were free, sure I'd take it, but it isn't. Maybe once Zen comes out it'll focus Intel to be a bit more generous on the core count, but I wouldn't count on it.

The entire point of this thread, as stated in the OP, is for gaming on the latest GPUs. Everyone who doesnt game doesnt even need an I5, they would be fine on a pentium. 

[porina]

15 minutes ago, Bhav said:

The entire point of this thread, as stated in the OP, is for gaming on the latest GPUs. Everyone who doesnt game doesnt even need an I5, they would be fine on a pentium. 

Doh, missed that, but my point about pricing still remains relevant.

[SteveGrabowski0]

2 hours ago, Bhav said:

Lol I5's ARE on the way out, they are already bottlenecking the latest GPUs. You're just digging up any excuse you can to try and ignore that.

 

Lets just put it this way - people trying to defend an I5 as being better than an I7, or an I7 quad being better than an I7 hex are just literally full of shit.

 

 

Oh fuck off, I showed you video proof the 6700k beats the 5820k in gaming at the same clock and you're still stubbornly talking out of your ass.

[Bhav]

1 minute ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Oh fuck off, I showed you video proof the 6700k beats the 5820k in gaming at the same clock and you're still stubbornly talking out of your ass.

That still doesnt make the 6700k 'better' than a hex I7. It just means its 'slightly, insignificantly faster' in games that dont yet need more than 4 physical cores.

[FPS-Russia]

1 minute ago, Bhav said:

That still doesnt make the 6700k 'better' than a hex I7. It just means its 'slightly, insignificantly faster' in games that dont yet need more than 4 physical cores.

Ummm 8 threads you mean.

[Bhav]

Just now, FPS-Russia said:

Ummm 8 threads you mean.

That also depends on if the game has HT support. The complicated thing here is that a game that can use more than 4 'cores' might still not be able utilize 'hyperthreading' because its developers were lazy.

[Bhav]

This is an old game, but look at these Civ V CPU comparisons:

 

 

 

 

 

You can clearly see the performance scales with both more cores and more threads using HT.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, Bhav said:

That also depends on if the game has HT support. The complicated thing here is that a game that can use more than 4 'cores' might still not be able utilize 'hyperthreading' because its developers were lazy.

No, HT isn't something that the software has to exploit. It's invisible to games, only the OS must have an adequate scheduling to use it properly. There's nothing a game developer has to do to make a program "use hyperthreading", other than using multiple threads - but the same goes for physical cores. Programs will or will not benefit from HT depending on their nature. The whole developer laziness claim is just made up.

 

58 minutes ago, Bhav said:

This is an old game, but look at these Civ V CPU comparisons:

 

 

(...)

 

You can clearly see the performance scales with both more cores and more threads using HT.

Actually, there isn't a single HT on vs HT off in that comparison (nor core on - core off for that matter), it's just a cpu model comparison.

[Bhav]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

No, HT isn't something that the software has to exploit. It's invisible to games, only the OS must have an adequate scheduling to use it properly. There's nothing a game developer has to do to make a program "use hyperthreading", other than using multiple threads - but the same goes for physical cores. Programs will or will not benefit from HT depending on their nature. The whole developer laziness claim is just made up.

 

Actually, there isn't a single HT on vs HT off in that comparison (nor core on - core off for that matter), it's just a cpu model comparison.

2600k vs 2500k in both graphs, and 4770k vs 4670k.

 

And thanks for the info, I always thought that programs had to be coded speciically to use HT.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, Bhav said:

2600k vs 2500k in both graphs.

That's what I said, there are model to model comparisons.

 

What I was looking for was 2600k vs 2600k.

[Bhav]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That's what I said, there are model to model comparisons.

 

What I was looking for was 2600k vs 2600k.

Why does there need to be? An I5 is already literally an I7 without the HT.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

18 minutes ago, Bhav said:

Why does there need to be? An I5 is already literally an I7 without the HT.

 Except it isn't. Side by side, there are more differences in specs than that.

 

And because the proper way to test the effect of factor A is to keep everything constant but A.

That table is a comparison of CPU models, not features.

[Bhav]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 Except it isn't. Side by side, there are more differences in specs than that.

 

And because the proper way to test the effect of factor A is to keep everything constant but A.

That table is a comparison of CPU models, not features.

 

No theres literally no differences between an I5 and I7 of the same gen other than HT and clock speeds. The cores are otherwise identical.

 

E.G.

 

2500k- http://ark.intel.com/products/52210/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz

 

2600k - http://ark.intel.com/products/52214/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz

 

Only difference is HT, 100 mhz clock speed, and 250 Mhz iGPU frequency, which makes no difference if using a proper GPU. Oh, and 2 Mb more cache.

[SLAYR]

1 minute ago, Bhav said:

 

No theres literally no differences between an I5 and I7 of the same gen other than HT and clock speeds. The cores are otherwise identical.

I7s also usually tend to have more cache.

[Bhav]

Just now, SLAYR said:

I7s also usually tend to have more cache.

Is that really going to be enough on its own for the difference in performance figures in those graphs?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, Bhav said:

 

No theres literally no differences between an I5 and I7 of the same gen other than HT and clock speeds. The cores are otherwise identical.

Stating things with confidence doesn't make them more true:

 

i5-2500k

i7-2600k

 

I already made my point on what proper testing is, no point iterating there. I just don't see the need to spread misinformation like "HT is the only difference" (now is HT+clock speed, as if clock speeds didn't matter, but still not true), or "HT must be enabled by game developers" or similar.