Possible Misconception Gaming about # cores

[Freezoide]

So basically the current CPU marketflow is mostly inviting the idea of "more cores = better"
To avoid myself in getting tempted to buy the i9 the question I want to put up here is:

Who is gonna benefit from more than 6 cores on a CPU?
And very interesting would be some valid data where it shows that most games only optimize 4 cores/8 threads.

Thy opinion plus data please!

(I could turn this into a poll if I got a nice selection of answers)

[Snipeon]

Hmm... to keep it short, video editors, programmers, video streamers... basically people who would work with stuff that requires lots of data to be transferred and crunched in a short amount of time.

[Technomancer__]

more cores = better for rendering, big calculations this kina shit

if you get an r5 1600 you will be fine. i9 will probably much more expensive than threadripper for only a small gain if any

 

it's hard to optimize games for a shit ton of cores because it's hard to parallelize the work. some calculations depend on one another so they have to be done first in order for others to be done

[WWicket]

What you really need is for someone with an octocore ryzen or i7 to do some game benchmarks, disable a core, and repeat for 4 - 8 active cores.

[Kevo05s]

I would still say that 4 cores is all that you need, still in this day (where we're doing a core count race). If you look at those benchmark, they don't show the X99 platform, true, but they show all the ryzen options, from 4 cores to 8 cores, and the difference is marginal, and this is in heavy CPU bound benchmark. So no, you would not benefit for GAMING by having more than 4 cores.

[Brennan Price]

As @Snipeon said, it isn't so much gamers that benefit from more cores it is the people that actually need them for work and are usually used in work environments. Some people however will just buy them because they have money without realising that they will never utilise all of the cores efficiently.

[Technomancer__]

Just now, Ethocreeper said:

more cores = better for rendering, big calculations this kina shit

if you get an r5 1600 you will be fine. i9 will probably much more expensive than threadripper for only a small gain if any

 

it's hard to optimize games for a shit ton of cores because it's hard to parallelize the work. some calculations depend on one another so they have to be done first in order for others to be done

for example 65346 + 543555 +345245 + 4357. one core can do 65346 + 543555 while the other does 345245 + 4357 and then one of the cores combines the answers.

or this which can't be worked in parallel (4566+52452) * 2 first you will have to add them up and then multiply the answer by 2

[KenjiUmino]

in my opinion, most people get the whole "more cores = better" thing completely wrong because the only question they are asking is how more cores can improve ONE thing at a time. 

 

how can more cores improve gaming ?

how can more cores improve video recording / streaming ?

how can more cores improve webbrowsing ?

 

i think if you have 4 cores you will have no problem doing either of the above and moving up to more  cores might not greatly improve any of them on its own.

 

prallel computing is a great thing but many tasks can only be parallelized to a certain degree and don't scale linear when the number of available cores increases.

 

adding more cores and threads does improve multitasking though.

 

if you have 6+ multithreaded cores you can game, record or stream the game, talk to your teammates over a messenger and listen to your favorite youtube music playlist at the same time without one thing compromising the performance of the other.

 

 

[LUUD18]

I hope games will use more cores in the future but the fact is that most games are still quite badly coded and only run on 1 core. I think games with a lot of IA will utilize the more cores since you could create a seperate thread for every NPC. 

[KuJoe]

1 hour ago, Freezoide said:

And very interesting would be some valid data where it shows that most games only optimize 4 cores/8 threads.

There are plenty of videos on YouTube that test this and have proven than there are no gains above 4 cores with any current game out there and there are still plenty of games that won't even take advantage of 4 cores. I did a lot of research before I ordered a Ryzen 1500X to replace my Ryzen 1700 in my gaming PC (the 1700 is going in my streaming PC where the cores can actually be utilized).

[yian88]

3 hours ago, Freezoide said:

So basically the current CPU marketflow is mostly inviting the idea of "more cores = better"
To avoid myself in getting tempted to buy the i9 the question I want to put up here is:

Who is gonna benefit from more than 6 cores on a CPU?
And very interesting would be some valid data where it shows that most games only optimize 4 cores/8 threads.

Thy opinion plus data please!

(I could turn this into a poll if I got a nice selection of answers)

I think you are mistaking something.

More cores = better multitasking not just gameplay.

Do you do streaming browsing the web and play games at the same time, well a 4ghz 8-18 core cpu is going to rock, with 16-32gb RAM.

Also if games use Vulkan properly you get extremely good scaling but having more than 6-8 cores has diminishing returns because the game didnt need that much processing power in the first place it was just bottlenecking on 1-4 render threads to begin with.

The core i9 Cpu's are made for multitasking not for pure gamers. If you dont work on your pc and gain money with it, i9 with more than 8-10 cores is bragging rights nothing more, same for ryzen max 8 cores is plenty, threadripper 10-16 core is for work machines, no matter what game you throw at it, it wont benefit you.

Now if next 2-3 years after threadripper/i9 devs start releasing games that make use of even more cores than 8 with vulkan/dx12, like a Total War strategy game where unit sizes are like 1000 soldiers per unit and you need strong cpu to simulate battles then it might make sense to get more cores but i doubt it.

Devs have to release games for affordable PC's aswell, currently ryzen 5/7, core i5/i7 are the only barel affordable cpu's for gaming, we really need cheap 6-8 cores from both amd and intel next year so that devs start releasing games with high cpu core count requirements, otherwise they dont make enough sales, many people still game on  dual-core laptops and such. 

 

 

Everytime i play online games or even offline i sometimes browse for topics, game tips or have a news channel on my other monitor, and 4 cores are not enough, ofcourse my amd cpu is very old phenom ii, going to get a used fx 8300 series and next year if zen+ comes out with am4+ i wil get at least a 6 core ryzen+ and 16gb ram.

[Freezoide]

On 2017-6-13 at 4:55 PM, yian88 said:

I think you are mistaking something.

More cores = better multitasking not just gameplay.

I'm pretty aware of that but tbh, didn't AMD with the launch of Ryzen on "consumer" pc's invited this by putting them out on stands with games on them (altogether with and without streaming aside)?

Tbh, it's just now that I might think that Ryzen became the budget multitask/light work cpu seeing the results of the just released i9 benchmarks are definitely outperforming them (for quite some extra costs).

[Phate.exe]

On 6/13/2017 at 8:41 AM, KenjiUmino said:

i think if you have 4 cores you will have no problem doing either of the above and moving up to more  cores might not greatly improve any of them on its own.

 

4 threads isn't really enough anymore.  Look at the minimum framerates between an i5-7600k and an i7-7700k (or the i5 vs a Ryzen 1600/1600X).  Your computer is doing stuff in the background, and if your game is hitting all of your processing threads hard, as soon as something needs to happen in the background you're probably going to see framerate dips/stuttering.

[yian88]

4 hours ago, Freezoide said:

I'm pretty aware of that but tbh, didn't AMD with the launch of Ryzen on "consumer" pc's invited this by putting them out on stands with games on them (altogether with and without streaming aside)?

Tbh, it's just now that I might think that Ryzen became the budget multitask/light work cpu seeing the results of the just released i9 benchmarks are definitely outperforming them (for quite some extra costs).

You are mistaken sir.

Ryzen 7 8-core doesnt compete with i9, only with i7 4/6/8 core from previous gen's.

Threadripper 16c/32t will compete with i9 platform, and they have very good performance.

[jjohnthedon1]

For me personally I run 3 screens

and at night I game, with nextflix skype and a few other tabs open at the same time plus there's all the stuff that the pc usually runs anyway anti virus etc 

and its not that my 4790k couldn't handle it but more the 1600 and 1700 I have do it better with a lot more head room 

 

and yes I talk to my gf on Skype whilst watching a film with her and play overwatch all at the same time haha

 

not to mention my 1700 gets higher fps better minimums and practically no frame drops compared to my old i7

 

[Ordinarily_Greater]

5 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

 

4 threads isn't really enough anymore.  Look at the minimum framerates between an i5-7600k and an i7-7700k (or the i5 vs a Ryzen 1600/1600X).  Your computer is doing stuff in the background, and if your game is hitting all of your processing threads hard, as soon as something needs to happen in the background you're probably going to see framerate dips/stuttering.

Yeah, and more cores and threads is just making CPU usage more efficient. Like 50% on Ryzen 5 1600 compared 80% in i5-7600K in 4.7GHz while gaming witcher 3

[Freezoide]

8 hours ago, yian88 said:

You are mistaken sir.

Ryzen 7 8-core doesnt compete with i9, only with i7 4/6/8 core from previous gen's.

Threadripper 16c/32t will compete with i9 platform, and they have very good performance.

Tbh, if I am deciding to look at an "8-core" cpu; I can check out the Ryzen one, the older Broadwell-E version and the new i9. Am I mistaken to prioritize the need of multiple cores at first? That's the factor that decides how much you can multitask right?

Threadripper probably will be getting rekt by the 7980XE and 7960X. Perhaps even the 14core one from Intel. There is no doubt that AMD offers a magnificent value compared to Intel but what AMD showed me until now is that there is a reason why their CPU's are way more costfriendly. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for threadripper and the pressure it puts on Intel's pricing; but I doubt AMD is the correct adress if you prioritize performance over cost. It's like a sturdy German high-class car vs an Asian 1/3 of the price alternative (Man, the amount of plastic and weaker materials used once you open them up for repair) .

[Freezoide]

7 hours ago, Ordinarily_Greater said:

Yeah, and more cores and threads is just making CPU usage more efficient. Like 50% on Ryzen 5 1600 compared 80% in i5-7600K in 4.7GHz while gaming witcher 3

Full implemented Vulkan and DX12 in future games should make the Ryzen's more compatible though. But that's way ahead still.