games that use 6/8 cores

[Paddi01]

Are there actually any games that make real use of 6/8 cores?

I believe Battlefield 1 can use up to 6 cores but are there any more?

[BryceJonathan]

My favourite game cinebench uses it. Haha im funny.

Anyways now a serious answer, the vast vast majority wont utilize more than 4 cores and even if they did most of the time 4 faster clocked cores will be better for gaming than 8 slower cores which is why the 7700k is still the best for fps in games.

[Technomancer__]

3 minutes ago, BryceJonathan said:

My favourite game cinebench uses it. Haha im funny.

Anyways now a serious answer, the vast vast majority wont utilize more than 4 cores and even if they did most of the time 4 faster clocked cores will be better for gaming than 8 slower cores which is why the 7700k is still the best for fps in games.

the 8700k is a 7700k with more cores so it beats it

[BryceJonathan]

Just now, Technomancer__ said:

the 8700k is a 7700k with more cores so it beats it

The 7700k can more often than not get a higher overclock causing it to have a little higher single threaded performance

[Technomancer__]

@Paddi01i herd that r6s can use 6

[Stefan Payne]

47 minutes ago, Paddi01 said:

Are there actually any games that make real use of 6/8 cores?

I believe Battlefield 1 can use up to 6 cores but are there any more?

Most decent modern Games should be able to use more than 6 cores.

[IrshaadH]

Forza Horizon 3 relies heavily on more than 4 cores.  The Witcher 3, while largely GPU dependent, will benefit from an i7/Ryzen in population dense areas like Novigrad.  Aside from that, I can't think of any other specific examples.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

GTA V, Battlefield 1, Assassin's Creed...

There are many games that can use more than 4 cores; however many won't use more than 4 if those 4 are fast enough. For example, you can see benchmarks where a 7700K is almost never above 50% utilization, meaning it's using all the cores, but it's not taking advantage of HT, while something like an FX-8350 goes to 60-70%, meaning that it actually is using ~6 cores to some extent.

 

Basically, because of the way windows accounts for CPU utilization, if you see a 6C/6T going above 67%, or an 8C/8T or 4C/8T going above 50%, that game can benefit from more than 4 cores to some degree. Sometimes it won't be by much, and sometimes not running in as many cores as available will be optimal, but the game itself can use the additional cores if needed.

[Misanthrope]

Ghost Recon: Wildlands will also use 8

[Techicolors]

2 hours ago, IrshaadH said:

Forza Horizon 3 relies heavily on more than 4 cores.  The Witcher 3, while largely GPU dependent, will benefit from an i7/Ryzen in population dense areas like Novigrad.  Aside from that, I can't think of any other specific examples.

FH3 used to not do so well on CPUs with more than 4 cores, it was heavily single-threaded. now it's a bit more balanced

 

and i found my ryzen to perform as well as my 4690k in witcher 3

[Mira Yurizaki]

Ashes of the Singularity is the only game I know if that will scale to 12.

 

I think Civilization also uses multiple cores heavily.

[Guest]

Counter strike global offensive 

[Guest]

Its weird though.... You would think that if there's 4 core support multiple core support would work just as easily/ is integrated...

I haven't measured it but i guess total war warhammer and other war/simulation type of games use/would benefit from more cores... More calculations increased difficulty better a.i. values etc

I just upgraded from an old i7 920 2,66 ghz (4/8) to a slightly younger xeon x5650 2,66 ghz ( 6/12 )
All in all i have a much more fluent windows 10 pro... Multitasking is great ... 10 fps more performance in warhammer on high settings and i have the feeling the a.i. is more advanced but that might also have something to do with a new update. Mass effect Andromeda and nier automata did also improve but thats again a feeling based observation...

The industry should work on improving there software! its almost ludicrous to say that a processor can life up to its true potential ten years later

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, Christiaan21-03 said:

Its weird though.... You would think that if there's 4 core support multiple core support would work just as easily/ is integrated...

I haven't measured it but i guess total war warhammer and other war/simulation type of games use/would benefit from more cores... More calculations increased difficulty better a.i. values etc

I just upgraded from an old i7 920 2,66 ghz (4/8) to a slightly younger xeon x5650 2,66 ghz ( 6/12 )
All in all i have a much more fluent windows 10 pro... Multitasking is great ... 10 fps more performance in warhammer on high settings and i have the feeling the a.i. is more advanced but that might also have something to do with a new update. Mass effect Andromeda and nier automata did also improve but thats again a feeling based observation...

The industry should work on improving there software! its almost ludicrous to say that a processor can life up to its true potential ten years later

The problem with increasing the number of threads to split up the workload is that you need to find workload that can be split up. And workload that can be split up is subjected to something called Amdahl's law and Gustafon's law which basically states at some point, adding more threads impractically improves performance. Then there's the problem that safe multithreading is not exactly an easy thing to do. You have to think of threads like workers in a factory or something. Do you think adding 90 workers when you were doing just fine on 10 would increase your production tenfold, all other things equal?

 

Software is also apparently slow to catch up because the rest of the world is slow to catch up on hardware too. Imagine if you released a game that only runs on the latest and greatest hardware. You're shrinking your market pool to like less than 0.01% at best of the total market.

[Paddi01]

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The problem with increasing the number of threads to split up the workload is that you need to find workload that can be split up. And workload that can be split up is subjected to something called Amdahl's law and Gustafon's law which basically states at some point, adding more threads impractically improves performance. Then there's the problem that safe multithreading is not exactly an easy thing to do. You have to think of threads like workers in a factory or something. Do you think adding 90 workers when you were doing just fine on 10 would increase your production tenfold, all other things equal?

 

Software is also apparently slow to catch up because the rest of the world is slow to catch up on hardware too. Imagine if you released a game that only runs on the latest and greatest hardware. You're shrinking your market pool to like less than 0.01% at best of the total market.

The modern consoles have 8 cores but how is it not an issue for them? Is it the low clock speed?

I know they probably use 6-7 but nevertheless.

[Mira Yurizaki]

16 minutes ago, Paddi01 said:

The modern consoles have 8 cores but how is it not an issue for them? Is it the low clock speed?

I know they probably use 6-7 but nevertheless.

Per core performance is another factor, which is why PS4 and XB1 games on PC don't require an 8-core CPU. Per-core performance is simply much higher on a desktop CPU.

Edited August 6, 2018 by M.Yurizaki

[Stefan Payne]

On 20.4.2018 at 9:09 PM, Paddi01 said:

Are there actually any games that make real use of 6/8 cores?

I believe Battlefield 1 can use up to 6 cores but are there any more?

Yes, most releases of the last year or so.

 

Just look at gamegpu.ru for benchmarks. Or whatever other site you might (or might not) trust that bench newly released games (that's basically what gamegpu does. Its more like a grinding site for the ones doing that. They just bench new games and write something about that. You don't need no russian to understand them I think).

 

Out of my head:
BF1 Multiplayer

Newer Ubisoft Open World games

 

And a bit other stuff as well...

 

As said elsewhere, you need the new lower level APIs like Vulkan and DX12 for that to really benefit you.

But for that you need new Engine that are made from scratch with DX12/Vulkan in mind. A normal Wrapper (like its done in the first DX12 Games) doesn't give you much benefits...

 

So in short:
IT (sadly) takes a bit of time for it to really show...

But its starting to get more multicore optimized in recent months...

[Paddi01]

11 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Just look at gamegpu.ru for benchmarks. Or whatever other site you might (or might not) trust that bench newly released games (that's basically what gamegpu does. Its more like a grinding site for the ones doing that. They just bench new games and write something about that. You don't need no russian to understand them I think).

I've used this site for a while https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/yakuza-0-pc-performance-analysis/2/

What do you think about it?

[Stefan Payne]

6 hours ago, Paddi01 said:

I've used this site for a while https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/yakuza-0-pc-performance-analysis/2/

What do you think about it?

Well, after I look at the GameGPU Review of that:

https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/yakuza-0-test-gpu-cpu

 

I think they do more work than those people do. Especially the Core Load Analysis is interesting.

 

Well, what are you going at?
That the Core Scaling isn't there?

Yeah, the GameGPU Review gives you more infos why that is -> Framelimiter and even lower spec CPUs peak out at the upper range...

[Guest]

On 8/6/2018 at 11:04 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

The problem with increasing the number of threads to split up the workload is that you need to find workload that can be split up. And workload that can be split up is subjected to something called Amdahl's law and Gustafon's law which basically states at some point, adding more threads impractically improves performance. Then there's the problem that safe multithreading is not exactly an easy thing to do. You have to think of threads like workers in a factory or something. Do you think adding 90 workers when you were doing just fine on 10 would increase your production tenfold, all other things equal?

 

Software is also apparently slow to catch up because the rest of the world is slow to catch up on hardware too. Imagine if you released a game that only runs on the latest and greatest hardware. You're shrinking your market pool to like less than 0.01% at best of the total market.

Well, thank for this explanation. In a certain way it sounds a bit silly because of the abundance of i7's sold.
What i was aiming at is also explained in the yakuza article. A 980Ti faster then a amd vega mainly because of the refinement of the nvidia drivers which you nicely descibe in the follow up... Still if wargaming for example is a niche mainly filled with elder white rich male types your good to go i guess  

[Mira Yurizaki]

15 minutes ago, Christiaan21-03 said:

What i was aiming at is also explained in the yakuza article. A 980Ti faster then a amd vega mainly because of the refinement of the nvidia drivers which you nicely descibe in the follow up... Still if wargaming for example is a niche mainly filled with elder white rich male types your good to go i guess  

NVIDIA implemented an optional feature of DX11. Said feature is explained very well at https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/6950-vs-gtx-460-768mb-why-does-nvidia-beat-the-radeon-in-civ5.2155665/page-2#post-31520674. It wasn't implemented in AMD's drivers though for some reason (https://www.overclock.net/forum/70-ati-drivers-overclocking-software/1573982-amd-gpu-drivers-real-truth.html)