"Real World Gaming Benchmark" - i.e., Gaming + Other Stuff

[mikegray]

I've been getting some weird behavior from my current setup recently, and I think it's connected to my MB/RAM/CPU. So I'm looking at a new setup.

 

Since I'm AMD fan, I'm VERY interested in one of the new 3xxx CPUs. The question is, which one?

 

I use my PC for

- office productivity (Word, Powerpoint, some Excel),

- surfing, 

- gaming  (with an OC'd 1080 ti on AAA single-player games running a 5120 x 1440 screen)

 

Note: I don't stream, I don't run VMs, I don't render code, I don't edit gigantic excel files - and I don't do any of the other things that would really tax a CPU. (BTW, I do edit videos now and again, but my needs are so elementary that I could use my laptop.)

 

My gaming experience is GPU bound - and given this use case scenario, I think a 3600 would currently be all the CPU my games need - though I MIGHT spring for a 3700x just in case the next generation of consoles lead to games that can actually use an 8-core CPU. 

 

HOWEVER: There's one sort of "benchmark" I'd like to see. When I game I don't stop all the other processes. So, alongside, say, AC Odyssey, I'll also have 20 open tabs in Chrome, 3 open Word docs and an open PowerPoint presentation. And I'll alt-tab pretty consistently between the game and the other stuff. That's just how I roll, and I've been kind of working and gaming at the same time for years now.

 

Has anyone ever had a look at how CPU performance differs in this kind of "parallel use" scenario? And if so, are there CPU characteristics that are worth taking into account? Or is stuff like Chrome tabs and Office apps so undemanding that it simply doesn't make any difference?

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, mikegray said:

20 open tabs in Chrome, 3 open Word docs and an open PowerPoint presentation.

None of these are cpu intensive enough to make a difference.

 

Get a 3600/x.

[mikegray]

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

None of these are cpu intensive enough to make a difference.

 

Get a 3600/x.

Sigh. Pretty much what I was expecting.

 

(Even when Chome goes into buhahaha mode?)

 

BTW, this isn't related to my specific mixed-use case, but I AM thinking that an 8 core CPU might be worth at least a little extra cash for future-proofing. The next generation of consoles are 8 core Ryzens, which leads me to assume that games will, AT SOME POINT, actually start making use of that many cores. 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mikegray said:

future-proofing.

No. Future proofing is not a thing and especially on AM4 you shouldn't worry about it - if and when more cores are necessary you'll be able to easily upgrade and by then the higher end chips will be a lot cheaper, especially used.

5 minutes ago, mikegray said:

AT SOME POINT

By that logic why not buy a 12 core or the upcoming 16 core? Why not go for TR4 and a 2990wx? Surely, at some point, games will use that many cores...

[mikegray]

21 minutes ago, Sauron said:

By that logic why not buy a 12 core or the upcoming 16 core? Why not go for TR4 and a 2990wx? Surely, at some point, games will use that many cores...

Heh, nah ... my logic isn't quite that whacky.

 

It's only the prospect of 8-core consoles that I find interesting. Presumably Sony and MS want that many cores in their next gen consoles because the game publishers said they want them. And if console games want that many cores, PC ports will too.

 

OTOH, I agree about the time frame. IIRC the next gens consoles won't be out until late 2020, and as you say: By that time there's guaranteed to be something newer and better out there.

 

Aaaanyhoo: I've drifted away from the original topic. Thanks for you input in either case!

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, mikegray said:

Heh, nah ... my logic isn't quite that whacky.

 

It's only the prospect of 8-core consoles that I find interesting. Presumably Sony and MS want that many cores in their next gen consoles because the game publishers said they want them. And if console games want that many cores, PC ports will too.

Current consoles have 8 cores too. I remember hearing the same argument 6 years ago. For all we know it could be another 6 years or 100 before it's actually valid.

[mikegray]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Current consoles have 8 cores too. I remember hearing the same argument 6 years ago. For all we know it could be another 6 years or 100 before it's actually valid.

Huh! I wasn't aware of that. Since I've never owned a console, my knowledge can be pretty sketchy. 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mikegray said:

Huh! I wasn't aware of that. Since I've never owned a console, my knowledge can be pretty sketchy. 

In fact even the PS3 technically had 8 cores.