Adding more cores doesnt improve performance-intel exec

[Man]

Cherry picking fanboys at it again!

 

Almost everyone is taking his statement out of context:

 

Quote

“8-cores is the optimal spot for performance scaling in modern PC gaming”

 

Notice he said "modern", not "future" PC gaming. In future, game developers will most definitely optimize games for 8+ cores. But right now, 8 cores are plenty.

 

Heck, even a quad-core CPU can handle itself fairly well. An i5-2500K, a quad-core CPU from ancient times, can easily keep-up with the likes of 1070Ti and 2060 Super so...

 

His statement is mostly correct. 

[PlayStation 2]

In context of Source engine games and emulators, he's right; they vastly prefer single-core performance over having an assload of cores. But most modern games weren't built on an engine hailing from a Quake engine relative or can only really run on two or three cores, so the argument really doesn't hold too much water in that regard.

[Man]

5 minutes ago, Gegger said:

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

Ever heard of Xeon, mate?

 

Apparently not!

 

Intel has been selling hexa and octa-core hyper-threaded Xeons since 2010. 

 

Makes sense, eh?

[Gegger]

1 minute ago, Man said:

Ever heard of Xeon, mate?

 

Apparently not!

 

Intel has been selling hexa and octa-core hyper-threaded Xeons since 2010. 

 

Makes sense, eh?

i have indeed heard of xeon, except xeons aren't what intel meant to be used for gaming

[SkilledRebuilds]

I'd LOVE to compare AVG CPU usages across the Intel AMD Lineup...in Games that are THREAD AWARE.

Then...Open Discord,..Unlock FPS, maybe alt tab and load a browser search and go back to playing...
Suss CPU usages again..

https://youtu.be/y1V4zFL_W9w?t=74

^8Cores 8Threads at 80%+.....Not even a 2080Ti!!!

But,.. they probably do not want to tell you the Sweetspot is probably actually....their $500 Processor...

8Thread Aware Titles going the standard game engine requirement soon within 2-4 years.. some games already, Frostbite, UE4 are already 8Thread aware, just to start us off...

[Tristerin]

9 minutes ago, Gegger said:

i have indeed heard of xeon, except xeons aren't what intel meant to be used for gaming

 

14 minutes ago, Man said:

Ever heard of Xeon, mate?

 

Apparently not!

 

Intel has been selling hexa and octa-core hyper-threaded Xeons since 2010. 

 

Makes sense, eh?

@Gegger this guy lol

 

@Man consumer PCs it was 2014.  The i7 5960X from my own knowledge.

 

But we all know AMD beat them to 8 core with the FX lineup, amirite?

 

no

[Man]

8 minutes ago, Gegger said:

i have indeed heard of xeon, except xeons aren't what intel meant to be used for gaming

Because until recently, Intel firmly believed that average consumers don't need more than 4 cores to play video games... or check the mail! 

 

It makes sense when you consider the fact that the 2500K can handle modern games pretty darn well, even in late 2019.

 

3 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

But we all know AMD beat them to 8 core with the FX lineup, amirite?

More like AMD FauX lineup.

 

 

#FakeCores!

[pas008]

Well resolutions are raising

Cpus seem to matter less

[Tristerin]

1 minute ago, Man said:

Because until recently, Intel firmly believed that average consumers don't need more than 4 cores to play video games... or check the mail! 

 

It makes sense when you consider the fact that the 2500K can handle modern games pretty darn well, even in late 2019.

 

More like AMD FauX lineup.

 

 

#FakeCores!

 

Eh, depends on the task in reality.  As long as it doesn't share the FPU than it can octacore.  And in gaming that isn't an issue I have ever come across.  Its the very slow IPC of that chip that sucks (and I have one at home driving a 4k monitor to game on for fun)

 

I have quite a few CPU's I test and my i5 3470, 5% slower than a 2500k, does not do good in 2019 titles worth shaking a stick at.  Hell, if you mean indie titles its worse because the optimization that is typically lacking.

 

[laminutederire]

43 minutes ago, Man said:

Cherry picking fanboys at it again!

 

Almost everyone is taking his statement out of context:

 

 

Notice he said "modern", not "future" PC gaming. In future, game developers will most definitely optimize games for 8+ cores. But right now, 8 cores are plenty.

 

Heck, even a quad-core CPU can handle itself fairly well. An i5-2500K, a quad-core CPU from ancient times, can easily keep-up with the likes of 1070Ti and 2060 Super so...

 

His statement is mostly correct. 

 It depends on the game a lot. I'm saved by radeon chill on AC odyssey, because my 6600k is certainly struggling with it. Reducing the  cpu load greatly helped crashes and stuttering. And that game is a year old only.

It's been 6 months I've noticed my 6600k struggling in demanding games. It's still spitting out frames in CS GO like crazy, but that's it.

[Man]

51 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

I have quite a few CPU's I test and my i5 3470, 5% slower than a 2500k, does not do good in 2019 titles worth shaking a stick at.  Hell, if you mean indie titles its worse because the optimization that is typically lacking.

Then you should send it to me ASAP!

[Tristerin]

24 minutes ago, Man said:

Then you should send it to me ASAP!

Not sure how this correlates to me sending you hardware - Im refuting your statements with personal experience based on hardware I can physically test. 

 

Maybe its the enthusiast in me, but I literally couldn't make myself by a new CPU with only 4 cores (even if it offered HT/SMT).  There is no use for this CPU in my use case, be it workstation or gaming.  Unless its a 6.0ghz quad core, then you have piqued my interest. 

 

For my use case, a quad core is good enough to drive my living room entertainment.  I know my i3 6100t (2c/4t) struggles compared to my i5 3470 (4c/4t) on integrated graphics just to produce 4k images and drive around the desktop to navigate Netflix, Hulu, etc.  There is noticeable latency.

 

Of course if all you do is read email, and web browse than a 2c chip with an SSD should do that user just fine.  I only know a few of those users and they are a dying breed (literally, its all the old people )

[SkilledRebuilds]

I've seen more than 4 different 9700K videos at 100% CPU in some games just today while looking at CPU usages in Modern titles.

Other typical games its 30-80%

 

Not even always using a 2080Ti, seeing BF5 80-90% on CPU,.. ACO hits 100% spiked as well.

Not Future Games, Today's Games without Streaming or Discord/Alternative apps...

[RejZoR]

7 hours ago, parthm said:

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

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.

Gee, why is that? Intel's popularity and stubborn insisting on low core counts is the reason why so few games utilize more cores even today. But thanks to Ryzen success, games are increasing that. If it was for Intel, we'd still be stuck with quad cores. Also Ryan Shrout, I had some respect for this guy, but I god this is some next tier Intel shilling coz he's now on their payroll. What kind of garbage "performance strategist" are you if you're so delusional that you don't feel threatened by competitor's design benefits which AMD's insane core counts clearly is one. It's this exact same delusional behavior that lead Intel into this fuckup they are today. And he keeps propagating that. It's just funny.

[Tristerin]

Or they need to fail just a little bit, in order to not be called a Monopoly, that's what my Tinfoil hat is telling me this last 2 refreshes.  Let AMD win a little, in reality its only a little (all around market share).  Its a huge loss to Intel if they ever get called a Monopoly.

[jagdtigger]

6 hours ago, CTR640 said:

Who are they trying to fool?

The average Joe, its scary how ppl still think up ntil this day intel is still a king and amd is the poor man's choice.... (i run into this weekly, if not daily)

[parthm]

3 hours ago, Man said:

Cherry picking fanboys at it again!

 

Almost everyone is taking his statement out of context:

 

 

Notice he said "modern", not "future" PC gaming. In future, game developers will most definitely optimize games for 8+ cores. But right now, 8 cores are plenty.

 

Heck, even a quad-core CPU can handle itself fairly well. An i5-2500K, a quad-core CPU from ancient times, can easily keep-up with the likes of 1070Ti and 2060 Super so...

 

His statement is mostly correct. 

i dont think if people are investing in a proper gaming rig they just want to play modern games on it.future proofing your rig is also quite important.

i bought a phone recently and i dont think id wanna change it for at least 2 to 3 years unless something breaks.not everyone likes to or wants to upgrade every so often and as games are already being optimized for more cores having a few more would be beneficial for future games which a consumer buying now might consider! not only that i would like my browser, music and discord running while im gaming and situations like these could use some extra cores.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Guess what guys. He's right.

 

No seriously.

 

Take the same power bracket, the same interlink, and you get to a point where eventually adding more cores is WORSE, as it forces less power to actually get to the cores (interconnect power scaling) and forces you to distribute power amongst more core (thus hurting per core as well).

 

 

In fact we've already seen this. Numerous games or numerous less-than-infinitely-scalable workloads, the ryzen 1900x beat most threadripper chips at isofrequency. Because access latency is actually a problem. If Ryan wasn't right, AMD's game mode wouldn't have been a thing. Pretending this is a intel shill statement or even an intel primary issue is insane.

 

Hell we've seen it going from a 8700k to a Skylake-X chip as well, where the slower/more complicated mesh bus has slightly lower performance on average at the same frequency.

 

As the core race continues, companies need to improve their interconnect throughput, while also reducing the latency between them. Heck that was one of the biggest improvements between Zen 2 and Zen+.

 

 

Building wider and wider cpus (in terms of total theoretical throughput from increased core counts beyond say >twelve logical threads) is not, for almost all workloads (very specialized exceptions which generally run on GPUs or FPGAs not withstanding), actually better for performance, and certainly not automatically, particularly if per core frequency suffers as a result.

 

As core counts increase, interconnect technology is more and more important for both intel and AMD to keep latency down and their cores fed.

 

 

EDIT: I say this as someone who has been true hex-core (not bulldozer shit) since before it was mainstream. Someone who actually does MC coding and other workflows that are almost infinitely paralellizable.

[FloRolf]

Thanks for telling me how many Cores I am supposed to use, Intel, but I'd rather go with AMD's approach here. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

7 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

Thanks for telling me how many Cores I am supposed to use, Intel, but I'd rather go with AMD's approach here. 

Which honestly is what? Give you 8? Maybe 12 cores? Not like AMD is actually thinking anything different right now. Hell, almost every tech journalist, including tech jesus, would recommend the Ryzen 3700X (8 core) over the 3900X (12 Core) for gaming.

 

The 16core on x370 has serious issues, and lets not even pretend like threadripper was a viable gaming solution for a non-techie (knowing when or if to use game mode and the numa settings).

[mr moose]

I don't see the problem with his statement.  For the vast majority of users, 4 cores is still ample.   Claiming 8 is the sweet spot might be an exaggeration for gaming in general.   But he is talking to everyone, not just specific end users.

 

8 hours 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.

 

 

They were right back then like they are right now.  As technology changes the they are allowed to update their stance on how many cores are necessary.   

 

If people think this is wrong then they need to show evidence as to why it is far out.    People can't just point at a 12 core processor doing well and claim that is evidence the majority of users will not be more than happy with 8 cores.   Besides all that,  he works for Intel,  he is obliged to find where their product is the best, so hold him to any lies rather than crucify him on assumptions.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

Thanks for telling me how many Cores I am supposed to use, Intel, but I'd rather go with AMD's approach here. 

AMD's approach has been to tell you how many cores you need since they first developed the FX line.

[Curufinwe_wins]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't see the problem with his statement.  For the vast majority of users, 4 cores is still ample.   Claiming 8 is the sweet spot might be an exaggeration for gaming in general.   But he is talking to everyone, not just specific end users.

 

 

 

They were right back then like they are right now.  As technology changes the they are allowed to update their stance on how many cores are necessary.   

 

If people think this is wrong then they need to show evidence as to why it is far out.    People can't just point at a 12 core processor doing well and claim that is evidence the majority of users will be more than happy with 8 cores.   Besides all that he works for Intel,  he is obliged to find where their product is the best, so hold him to any lies rather than crucify him on assumptions.

Even more than this. I personally think it is worth mentioning that 8 core is definitively the gaming sweet spot (of performance efficiency) of current processors on both sides right now.

 

Moving past 8 cores with Zen 2 means adding a second CPU die which means now you have threadrippers NUMA issues if the OS or program doesn't handle it perfectly (and increased core to core latency even if it does). Moving past 8 cores from KabyLake to Skylake-X (or even Cascade Lake-X) means moving from a ring bus to a mesh interconnect, which has notable latency and peak frequency penalties in the current intel uArchs.

 

 

[Nowak]

Intel's mad that they're not the technology leader anymore, it seems

[krakkpott]

He's being paid by Intel to say pro-Intel stuff...