cpu core question

[lilsynaster]

meh that's like a 2 hour shot from my hometown but close enough 

 

[Ravendarat]

32 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

What are you talking about?

More cores is almost always welcome - games currently use 8-16 threads/cores quite easily. 4 cores is currently the absolute minimum for most modern games and 6-8 cores are highly recommended. Hell, even Intel's 6-core i5s are starting to struggle in 2019 AAA games due to a lack of SMT.

Which games are using 8 cores currently? Im not doubting you, im just genuinely interested as I didn't think anything really was. Same thing with most modern games are needing 4 cores minimum, I thought many GPU intensive games were still mostly performing well with high clock single core

[5x5]

Just now, Senzelian said:

You went from "struggle" to bottleneck. Bottlenecks always depend on multiple factors - not the CPU alone.

I want to see that benchmark in which a 5775C bottlenecks a GTX 1660Ti at Full HD to the point that the game becomes not enjoyable anymore.

A 5775C is a 4/8 CPU with extreme L4 cache - very odd choice. And in any case, if all you needed were 4 cores, Intel would still be selling everyone quad-core i7s.

[5x5]

Just now, Ravendarat said:

Which games are using 8 cores currently? Im not doubting you, im just genuinely interested as I didn't think anything really was. Same thing with most modern games are needing 4 cores minimum, I thought many GPU intensive games were still mostly performing well with high clock single core

Any Frostbite engine game. That engine handles a maximum of 16 threads. Battlefront 2 and Battlefield 5 are very good examples. You also have Vulkan titles like Doom - it scales great beyond 4 cores but also isn't that demanding so even an FX8 processor runs it flawlessly.

[Dedayog]

Just now, lilsynaster said:

meh that's like a 2 hour shot from my hometown but close enough 

 

Completely worth it.  Since you're on fixed income, I would recommend the Ryzen 5 1600, B450 motherboard, and 8 or 16GB of RAM, whichever you can afford.

 

Maybe when the others get thru arguing like schoolgirls, they'll actually help you out too.

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, Ravendarat said:

Which games are using 8 cores currently? Im not doubting you, im just genuinely interested as I didn't think anything really was. Same thing with most modern games are needing 4 cores minimum, I thought many GPU intensive games were still mostly performing well with high clock single core

Sniper Elite 4 and the engine behind that also scales well. I've been able to record usage across 12 threads on it consistently.

[Senzelian]

1 minute ago, 5x5 said:

A 5775C is a 4/8 CPU with extreme L4 cache - very odd choice. And in any case, if all you needed were 4 cores, Intel would still be selling everyone quad-core i7s.

The only reason Intel doesn't sell 4 core i7s anymore is because of AMD's Ryzen chips. 

[5x5]

Just now, Senzelian said:

The only reason Intel doesn't sell 4 core i7s anymore is because of AMD's Ryzen chips. 

Yes - and because the 6-core Ryzen parts in the face of the 2600(X) and later are now comfortably outpacing 4/8 i7s from Skylake and Kabylake.

[SPARTAN VI]

2 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Already pointed you to a video from a reputable source. Not much else I can do for you.

We responded at the same time and your reply was to someone else about the R5 3600. 

 

If you're refering to this review, I see the i7-7700K and i5-7600K, both quad cores, are consistently in the middle of the pack, which further supports my point that quad cores are fine... 

[lilsynaster]

LMAO thanks man is the 1600 still good? ik in 2017 they where the top of the line almost

 

[5x5]

Just now, SPARTAN VI said:

We responded at the same time and your reply was to someone else about the R5 3600. 

 

If you're refering to this review, I see the i7-7700K and i5-7600K, both quad cores, are consistently in the middle of the pack, which further supports my point that quad cores are fine... 

 

Notice how low the 1% and 0.1% lows are on the 7700K? It can't even stay above 60fps all the time. The 7600K is at rock bottom as well.

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, SPARTAN VI said:

We responded at the same time and your reply was to someone else about the R5 3600. 

 

If you're refering to this review, I see the i7-7700K and i5-7600K, both quad cores, are consistently in the middle of the pack, which further supports my point that quad cores are fine... 

Hitman 2 - the 7600K spiking to as low as 19fps and 35fps. The 0.1%s are a trend with the game but 1% lows are much better on the 2600 and up with modern CPUs more than doubling that. It's core count, not just clockspeed.

[SPARTAN VI]

@5x5 That's fair, as a "bare minimum" would these 1% and 0.1% lows make these 2 games jarringly unplayable with an i5-7600K? 

[Senzelian]

6 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Yes - and because the 6-core Ryzen parts in the face of the 2600(X) and later are now comfortably outpacing 4/8 i7s from Skylake and Kabylake.

 

10 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

 

Notice how low the 1% and 0.1% lows are on the 7700K? It can't even stay above 60fps all the time. The 7600K is at rock bottom as well.

Which is fine. I'm glad that we made that clear.

4-Core CPUs aren't useless! Hooooraaay!

[5x5]

1 minute ago, SPARTAN VI said:

@5x5 That's fair, as a "bare minimum" would these 1% and 0.1% lows make these 2 games jarringly unplayable with an i5-7600K? 

It means you'd experience stuttering - like I said initially. Generally, any drop under 30 will definitely feel like a hiccup. So while quad-cores CAN run games, they don't really run that well anymore as the CPU is reaching it's limit. Keep in mind, this is a 7600K - aka the best 4/4 CPU available. Older ones such as a Sandy/Ivy/Haswell i5 will have a much worse time due to the lack of many cache, latency and core optimizations. Not to mention that the security patches impact those parts more (at least on mine I noticed a good 5%-10% drop in gaming performance on an i5 4460)

[5x5]

3 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

 

Which is fine. I'm glad that we made that clear.

4-Core CPUs aren't useless! Hooooraaay!

I never said they were - I said they're the absolute minimum and judging by the numbers from the best 4/4 CPU on the market, they'll probably soon go from minimum to lackluster in 2020 games.

[Dedayog]

2 hours ago, lilsynaster said:

LMAO thanks man is the 1600 still good? ik in 2017 they where the top of the line almost

 

For the Microcenter price of basically $50?   Yeah, it is.  The 2600 is a bit more for a bit more.  The 3600 would be that I would say you SHOULD get if you had $200 for it.  If so, grab it, that's the goods.