Adding more cores doesnt improve performance-intel exec

[parthm]

source:

https://www.techquila.co.in/cores-doesnt-improve-performance-intel-executive-amd/

 

According to the article posted on Techquila, Ryan Shrout (Intels chief performance strategist) says on medium that adding cores doesnt improve performance before amds new launches. the article basically bashes his statements.he didn't even test an AMD CPU just tested gaming at different core counts.

according to ryan 8 cores is the seet spot and any more cores wont help in gaming.

the testing methodology is itself flawed.

is this really what independent journalism should be like? the core count opinion sounds dated.

he also said

Quote

“Adding core count just because you can,” he concludes, “without a corresponding increase in sustained frequency and architectural design decisions necessary to feed these cores (like low latency memory systems), doesn’t result in better performance. The software engines that power games across the PC ecosystem scale best with frequency and IPC, and Intel plans to lead in this space for years to come.”

while this is true intel itslef is increasing their own core counts so these statements seem idiotic.why would they make such stupid statements?

statements like these reduce intels rep.

there are articles on the same from 1 or 2 more sources.

[WereCatf]

I think the quote “For gaming, 8-cores is the optimal spot for performance scaling in modern PC gaming,” is the most telling and actually counters his own claims: it was still just last year that Intel was saying that 4 cores is enough for games and POOF -- a year later the sweet spot is double that? Yeah, it just goes to show that increases in core-count will be taken advantage of and rather quickly, too.

 

Sure, 8 cores could certainly be the sweet spot now, but take, say, 4-5 years from now? It could well be that there are games that can use all 16 cores. Pushing for more cores lets devs go wild, it adds headroom for them to play with.

[Levent]

lmao and this guy used to run pcper.

[parthm]

6 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

I think the quote “For gaming, 8-cores is the optimal spot for performance scaling in modern PC gaming,” is the most telling and actually counters his own claims: it was still just last year that Intel was saying that 4 cores is enough for games and POOF -- a year later the sweet spot is double that? Yeah, it just goes to show that increases in core-count will be taken advantage of and rather quickly, too.

 

Sure, 8 cores could certainly be the sweet spot now, but take, say, 4-5 years from now? It could well be that there are games that can use all 16 cores. Pushing for more cores lets devs go wild, it adds headroom for them to play with.

no wonder intels falling down if people there actually think like this.i obviously dont think its everyone but still what if you're streaming lol saying shit like this creates a bad rep for the company.

[Brehohn]

I guess they weren't in the meeting for when Modern Warfare announced that it was using DirectX12 in order to use more cores for better stability and performance. 

 

Oh yeah, core count TOTALLY doesnt matter at alllll. Surely nottttt.

[cj09beira]

 

1 hour ago, parthm said:

no wonder intels falling down if people there actually think like this.i obviously dont think its everyone but still what if you're streaming lol saying shit like this creates a bad rep for the company.

that is the guy from pcper, so its just marketing bs to save face while they try to get their act together, same with the 3B dollars of "marketing assistence" or whatever they call it 

[Commodus]

There is a degree of truth in that adding more cores doesn't necessarily translate to a faster chip (look at how Apple dominates mobile performance), but this is also clearly marketing -- puff up the areas you're strong and downplay your weaknesses.  He'd be singing a different tune if Intel really did have an unambiguous lead.

[Fasauceome]

1 hour ago, parthm said:

according to ryan 8 cores is the seet spot and any more cores wont help in gaming.

Why the fuck Intel gonna release a 10 core next generation then? If AMD was being excessive with 12 cores for gamers, then wth?

 

Also AMD's 12 and 16 core offerings, while addressed as "CPUs for gaming" are intended for much more than just playing battlefield.

[CTR640]

Who are they trying to fool? What they really meant to say:

'We have been fucked in every position by AMD and now we tryna gain back our crown and throne so we tryna talk shit as much as possible because we've lost our mind'

 

It was inevitable 4cores will come to an end and Intel can not stick on 4cores.

 

Really, thanks a lot for competition, AMD! Whenever I'll have upgrade my cpu, it will be either the 3600X or 3800.

[Froody129]

Just like 4 cores used to be more than enough... 

[SkilledRebuilds]

i7 9700k 8Cores 8Threads can be seen with 50-80% usages in BF5 SP with a RTX GPU.

Select titles are 8thread aware and 8cores+HT is likely the best scenario but he can't say the "Sweetspot" is a $500 processor.

^Just Gaming, now Include streaming...or light multitasking users...which will add their own needs and requests to the Ram pool and have more swapping than just Gaming.

Ryan,.. I'll buy more cores and so will others,.. because some people do need more than JUST the game running..

[S w a t s o n]

Damn, I hope Ryan Shrout is making lots of money for being reduced to this....then again he dropped pcper in a heartbeat so he probably is.

[bcredeur97]

he's not 100% wrong in that more IPC is really nice to have.

But cramming more cores in pretty much always gives you better multi-threading performance. Just doesn't affect single.

[Master Disaster]

Intel are just salty because they're still stuck on 14nm.

 

They'll need some of that salt down the line when they eat humble pie.

[Drak3]

53 minutes ago, Commodus said:

look at how Apple dominates mobile performance

Anything running the A11 Bionic or newer (so iPhone 8 and up) has more active cores than a stock Snapdragon phone...

6 vs 4.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

I don't even care at this point, i've had intel my whole life, still rocking 4790k but i've started to recommend AMD to people since 2 years now, my next build will probably be AMD. intel has taken its user base for granted. i really hope AMD beats all of Intel's benchmarks in a year or two's new gen processors. then we'd have a competition where we get both a faster processor and a cheaper one.

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, WereCatf said:

Sure, 8 cores could certainly be the sweet spot now, but take, say, 4-5 years from now?

The "sweet spot" is 6 or even 4 with ht, they're just saying 8 because they want to sell you their top tier chips but in every comparison the 8700k performs almost identically when you adjust for clock speed. If all you want is to play games then buying a top tier cpu is a waste of money, plain and simple. If and when that becomes a limiting factor upgrades will be cheap and easy on either platform.

24 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Intel are just salty because they're still stuck on 14nm.

And more importantly they're stuck with monolithic chips.

1 hour ago, Fasauceome said:

Why the fuck Intel gonna release a 10 core next generation then?

Because it turns out only a small niche of people buys a 500$ cpu just to play games on it. All of this is completely irrelevant really, it's just a weak excuse for being unable to match AMD on workstation loads.

2 hours ago, Brehohn said:

I guess they weren't in the meeting for when Modern Warfare announced that it was using DirectX12 in order to use more cores for better stability and performance. 

 

Oh yeah, core count TOTALLY doesnt matter at alllll. Surely nottttt.

To be fair I don't believe a word Activision says about CoD optimizations - they've never been technically impressive despite being regularly marketed as such. The two year development cycle with restrictions on what changes they make to the engine (to avoid problems with the other development teams) prevents them from ever being that.

[Fasauceome]

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

they've never been technically impressive despite being regularly marketed as such

FISH AI

[Commodus]

35 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Anything running the A11 Bionic or newer (so iPhone 8 and up) has more active cores than a stock Snapdragon phone...

6 vs 4.

Maybe so, but Qualcomm touts eight cores, four of them 'full power' (versus Apple's two), so in the more-cores-are-always-better world the Snapdragon series is supposed to be superior.  The truth, of course, is that there's a balance to be struck between the number of cores and the performance from those cores you do have.

[Drak3]

Just now, Commodus said:

Maybe so, but Qualcomm touts eight cores, four of them 'full power' (versus Apple's two), so in the more-cores-are-always-better world the Snapdragon series is supposed to be superior. 

They tout those 8 cores in a big.LITTLE arrangement, and Qualcomm isn't really advertising to anyone other than OEMs, so who they tout to is irrelevant.

[porina]

Ryan isn't an exec. The job title has chief in it, but he's not C-level management.

 

The testing was somewhat limited, in that it was at fixed clock, HT off. It would have been interesting to see HT on (where supported) as well as normal turbo enabled. More cores generally help with overall throughput, but if it hinders your critical path, you can still get lower performance. That might have been a more interesting route to tackle.

[Animal901]

If only you all could accept i3's with 2cores 4threads play minecraft just fine.  Csgo is fine. People still play original Doom, bf1942, duke nukem 3d, and whatever.... The processors are plenty fast... more cores are great for servers. Streaming games for money will always be lame. I7 4790k still goes for more than 1st gen ryzen used. All the amd fanboys can't keep amd used value up. Ray tracing is the future and we've been tricked since about as far back as half life 2. Its a scam and if yall would quit throwing away good stuff we would have far better junk to use right now.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Animal901 said:

All the amd fanboys can't keep amd used value up

Which is good for the used market. People that can't afford decent new stuff have accessibility to great stuff that's only a generation or two old.

[spartaman64]

yep who would ever use their cpus for things other than gaming amirite 

[Gegger]

hey intel! don't be an idiot and think your customers are idiots!

 

seriously, people need more than 8 cores for things, why do you even have things like extreme edition processors then