12 cores for gaming.

[kiwibacon]

12 cores useless for gaming? 

Just thinking if 3800x and 3900x land with similar single core performance.

 

Would u spend the extra money for those 4 more cores for a gaming only machine??? 50% more cores seems like a bargain. But would any game utilize it???

[Mister Woof]

3600 or 3700x max imo.

 

12 cores for gaming is like....overkill. 16 is even worse.

[Jurrunio]

Depends on the game. I mean 12 core is probably what you'd want to host a medium sized (50 player) Minecraft server with yourself also playing it in the same machine.

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

Depends on the game. I mean 12 core is probably what you'd want to host a medium sized (50 player) Minecraft server with yourself also playing it in the same machine.

i wouldn't really consider that use as "gaming", that's more like serving.

[mariushm]

16 minutes ago, kiwibacon said:

12 cores useless for gaming? 

Just thinking if 3800x and 3900x land with similar single core performance.

 

Would u spend the extra money for those 4 more cores for a gaming only machine??? 50% more cores seems like a bargain. But would any game utilize it???

People used to say the same thing about 6 core and 8 core Ryzens and why not get the 5 ghz 4 core Intel processors...

 

Look at the current games and how they're much better optimized to use multiple cores. It also helps if you want to use software video encoding (x264) for better streaming quality

 

 

[kiwibacon]

5 minutes ago, mariushm said:

People used to say the same thing about 6 core and 8 core Ryzens and why not get the 5 ghz 4 core Intel processors...

 

Look at the current games and how they're much better optimized to use multiple cores. It also helps if you want to use software video encoding (x264) for better streaming quality

 

 

I watched this video 2 hours ago which is whi I'm leaning towards 3900x

[Mister Woof]

7 minutes ago, mariushm said:

People used to say the same thing about 6 core and 8 core Ryzens and why not get the 5 ghz 4 core Intel processors...

 

Look at the current games and how they're much better optimized to use multiple cores. It also helps if you want to use software video encoding (x264) for better streaming quality

 

 

You're comparing results with a 4/4.....none of the new offerings are even close to that limited.

 

A 6/12 or 8/16 is going to last a very long time. These offer 3x or 4x the number of threads of the i5-7600k. 12/24? overkill. By the time the amount of threads are useful, it will be too slow anyway. Same goes for 16/32.

[Princess Luna]

High end gaming the R7 3800X is probably going to be the way to go... I'm waiting to see how it'll fair against the i7 9700K

[Tristerin]

4 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

You're comparing results with a 4/4.....none of the new offerings are even close to that limited.

 

A 6/12 or 8/16 is going to last a very long time. These offer 3x or 4x the number of threads of the i5-7600k. 12/24? overkill. By the time the amount of threads are useful, it will be too slow anyway. Same goes for 16/32.

Agree, Im very comfortable with my 2 1700's and their serving my purposes for a few years very well.

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, Tristerin said:

Agree, Im very comfortable with my 2 1700's and their serving my purposes for a few years very well.

Not to even mention, that despite the 7600k not performing great....it didn't perform "bad". Nothing was unplayable. 

 

If we are at that point now, versus a technology that has been over a decade as the standard...how long will it take for 6/12 or 8/16 to become obsolete?

 

I'm not holding my breath.

[Windows95]

im going to buy 3900x because for 100 more bucks 4 more cores its a steal

[Turtle Rig]

Games barely use 4 cores and 8 threads... 16c 32 threads is for project work, DAW, animation, 3D CAD, autodesk Maya, 3D Studio Max and finally video editing and rendering.

 

Your fine with 6 core 12 thread 8700k without a bottleneck at all for some time to come at that.

[Windows95]

14 minutes ago, Turtle Rig said:

Games barely use 4 cores and 8 threads... 16c 32 threads is for project work, DAW, animation, 3D CAD, autodesk Maya, 3D Studio Max and finally video editing and rendering.

 

Your fine with 6 core 12 thread 8700k without a bottleneck at all for some time to come at that.

I do DAW work. How many instances of demanding VSTs like reaktor will I be able to open and use in real time without lag with 3900x? that is what interests me, I hate my current old cpu.

[Turtle Rig]

42 minutes ago, Windows95 said:

I do DAW work. How many instances of demanding VSTs like reaktor will I be able to open and use in real time without lag with 3900x? that is what interests me, I hate my current old cpu.

I use Cakewalk and I open 75 VSTi's and worked on a project and my CPU usage was 60 percent  So 100 tracks would be 30 or 40 percent, along with  40 VST's All in real time and what not.

[wolfsbane3083]

Im in the same boat wondering which one to choose. I'm just concerned about the I/O die causing some fps loss on the 3900x as AMD has stated Windows will try and prioritise 1 CCX when possible.

[Windows95]

33 minutes ago, Turtle Rig said:

I use Cakewalk and I open 75 VSTi's and worked on a project and my CPU usage was 60 percent  So 100 tracks would be 30 or 40 percent, along with  40 VST's All in real time and what not.

it depends on the vsts

 

i doubt you can open 40 reaktor 5 instances... would be shocked if even 3900x can do it

[Leanora]

If you only game then for now it is useless. 

If you do other things while gaming it's a different story

You also do not know what the future brings 

If you upgrade every 1 or 2 years or if you upgrade the cpu once every 5 years.

 

The longer the pc needs to last the more cores you want.

 

[xg32]

i'd stick with 8core until reviews show that multiple chiplets don't have an adverse effect on gaming, it'll be good for 3-5 years either way. You don't need more cores even if you are doing light work in the background as theres SMT.

[hookuy]

13 hours ago, Windows95 said:

im going to buy 3900x because for 100 more bucks 4 more cores its a steal

Same here. Mainly since I work with my pc.

[mdizzle3]

Check your fav game, does this utilise 6, 8 or 12 cores?

 

I think 8 will be the sweet spot for a while as it'll closely match the consoles hardware.

 

Personally going for 12 as gaming is secondary for me

[Anomnomnomaly]

I built a new rig on a B450 & 2600X with 32GB ram at the start of this year. By Jan next eyar I need to upgrade my mediaserver which is running Windows 7... Sure I could just upgrade to W10, but it's on an FX8350 and a lowish spec AM3+ board. I've got another 32GB of 3200Mhz DDR4 in the drawer, so upgrading my gaming rig and transferring this system into the mediaserver kinda makes sense.

 

So I'll be really interested in performance/pricing of the new line... But performance/price needs to be sufficient enough. Getting another 6/12 core CPU seems like a sideways move. My gaming system is always the far more powerful one. the mediaserver just needs to transcode a of of media.. But getting an 8/16 core doesn't seem like a big enough step up.

 

So depending on real world numbers/performance/pricing here in the UK.... I'm leaning towards the 12/24 core... I can't see why a system like that on a decent X570 board can't see me through the next 4-5yrs. Games are using more and more cores as they're released, so I'm thinking of future proofing my rig. Maybe by Jan 2020, prices will have dropped a little over initial release... By the time my next major rebuild comes around, I'll be needing a whole new platform (probably AM4+) any way.

[Gut_storm_II]

With ever increasing background activity in windows 10 more cores should logically stop random slow downs, which are especially bad for VR immersion. I've seen videos of comparisons between 4 6 8 and 12 cores and in general  there is about an 8% increase in performance between 4 and 12 cores.