Do I need more cores for games

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Change the selection. You'll see that the roughly 20FPS difference is maintained across medium, high, and ultra.

 

Given that it's a 5775C, a moderate clocking quadcore running on stock DDR3, that shouldn't be possible if the assumption that ACO likes cores.

 

But that's not the case. Games don't care about your extra cores. Those are nigh worthless to the games. What they care about is cache, the ability to store more information in a faster storage medium to be able to bang out more computations in a serialized workload is king.

 

Your 9900K performs better because it has 16MB of L3 on tap and a significantly higher clockspeed. 8MB more than the 7700K.

On the other hand, the 9600K has a meager 9MB and a marginally higher clockspeed. They perform within margin of error.

And Zen's architecture renders it as effectively being 8+8MB of cache with a performance penalty that using more than 8MB of cache results in. That impacts gaming performance.

I trust it for comparison against his other benchmarks. Same with GPU check.

 

For what I could actually expect in the real world, I don't trust either.

Well if we can't trust the benchmarks then idk how this can be definitively resolved, but I'm quite interested to do so.  I thought I knew what was going on and that the evidence was clear, but I hadn't factored in cache, and now re-evaluating things with this new theory (I've not heard this before), it's looking quite plausible.  The issue is testing cache vs cores is hard if not impossible because they tend to go together, or if not, be separated across a huge architectural line which is its own problem.

 

Perhaps a "proof by contradiction" is necessary instead of the traditional straight forward approach.  If we can't say "the 8700k is better than the 7700k in some games due to <more cores or more cache>", then we have to say "the 8700k is the same as the 7700k in some games due to..."?  Under my assumption, it was because the games in question could only use 4 cores effectively.  With the cache theory, how would you explain it?  That they just aren't able to benefit from that much cache?  8 MB is enough?

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well if we can't trust the benchmarks then idk how this can be definitively resolved

We can trust benchmarks.

 

For relative results. But their benchmarks can be skewed from real life by press release drivers, non retail components, updates (JayzTwoCents did a video about how the Windows update dealing with Meltdown/Spectre invalidated some of his older benchmarks that he wanted to reuse for another video), and what software they do and don't run.

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

With the cache theory, how would you explain it?

There's some limiting factor, whether it be physics being tied to framerate (looking at you Bethesda), engine limitations, bottleneck (Ryzen's 8+8 cache or Intel's Mesh, cache latency, cache clock, stock DDR3 speed with the 5775C), or arbitrary limits (locked framerates).

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

now re-evaluating things with this new theory (I've not heard this before)

How are you not aware of the 5775C? It quickly became famous amongst enthusiasts because its 128MB eDRAM acted as L4 cache and allowed it to compete (and in some cases outshine) with the 6700K before DDR4 ram speeds increased to what we see out of box today. If it weren't for the eDRAM, it'd be a quadcore with a clockspeed deficit that the miniscule ~1% IPC increase (when comparing Haswell-E and Broadwell-E) didn't account for.

[vanished]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

There's some limiting factor, whether it be physics being tied to framerate (looking at you Bethesda), engine limitations, bottleneck (Ryzen's 8+8 cache or Intel's Mesh, cache latency, cache clock, stock DDR3 speed with the 5775C), or arbitrary limits (locked framerates).

I guess this is what would take looking at more games and more hardware to try and figure out.  I'll just have to keep this in mind going forward

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

How are you not aware of the 5775C? It quickly became famous amongst enthusiasts because its 128MB eDRAM acted as L4 cache and allowed it to compete (and in some cases outshine) with the 6700K before DDR4 ram speeds increased to what we see out of box today. If it weren't for the eDRAM, it'd be a quadcore with a clockspeed deficit that the miniscule ~1% IPC increase (when comparing Haswell-E and Broadwell-E) didn't account for.

I've heard of it, I just didn't think they were ever a big deal.  You don't see many people using them or talking about them, and sometimes you find people who actually don't know about that whole generation.

[KarathKasun]

35 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well if we can't trust the benchmarks then idk how this can be definitively resolved, but I'm quite interested to do so.  I thought I knew what was going on and that the evidence was clear, but I hadn't factored in cache, and now re-evaluating things with this new theory (I've not heard this before), it's looking quite plausible.  The issue is testing cache vs cores is hard if not impossible because they tend to go together, or if not, be separated across a huge architectural line which is its own problem.

 

Perhaps a "proof by contradiction" is necessary instead of the traditional straight forward approach.  If we can't say "the 8700k is better than the 7700k in some games due to <more cores or more cache>", then we have to say "the 8700k is the same as the 7700k in some games due to..."?  Under my assumption, it was because the games in question could only use 4 cores effectively.  With the cache theory, how would you explain it?  That they just aren't able to benefit from that much cache?  8 MB is enough?

Its not cache.

 

You can test the impact of having more threads by setting thread affinity in task manager.

[vanished]

5 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Its not cache.

 

You can test the impact of having more threads by setting thread affinity in task manager.

Well, I can't because I just have a 4770k but maybe someone else can... 

[KarathKasun]

12 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well, I can't because I just have a 4770k but maybe someone else can... 

My R5 2600 desktop is mothballed currently, I only have an i5 7300HQ laptop at my disposal currently.

 

I can tell you that games like Elite Dangerous can definitely push 6 to 8 threads and Ashes of the Singularity can push N threads to good effect.  Triple A titles are just now pushing 8+ threads, and you do gain performance in many of them by going from 4c/8t to 8c/8t.  The problem is that the average FPS is usually the same, the difference comes with dynamic content loading in.  4c/8t results in more chop moving through levels at high speed due to the performance penalty of HT/SMT occasionally hitting the primary game thread when the threads for loading content bog down.

 

I think Digital Foundry has done side by side comparisons on this particular issue in some games.

[ThurraxKidd]

Obviously no one since I posted has read my reply to one of the initial commenters about what games I play and what years they are from. And the only reason I even need this upgrade is to get playable frames in dauntless rather than 15fps with frequent dips of as low as 3. It is also pointless at this point for me to go into the territory of insane fps such as above 60. Because I currently play on a 60hz smart tv

[ThurraxKidd]

How did my question devolve into such an elitist debate

[GoldenLag]

32 minutes ago, ThurraxKidd said:

How did my question devolve into such an elitist debate

mostly it got answered with you should probably go for a 2600 as cores very much matter on the scale of 1% lows. 

[Mark Kaine]

I had  a 2200G,  it's a good CPU for what it is.  Has no hyper threading though.  And it's pretty terrible for games,  I was actually very often CPU bound with my GTX 1060,  if anything it should be the other way around... 

 

I got a 3600 now and it's night and day,  in hindsight the 110 bucks I paid for the 2200G were wasted,  it wasn't really fun to be limited like that,  even a 1600 would have been a much better choice for gaming. 

 

 

It's OK if you're fine with 720p tho,  but it's also not really a meaningful upgrade to your current CPU. 

 

I'd get a 2600 or something at least tbh 

[steelo]

4 hours ago, ThurraxKidd said:

How did my question devolve into such an elitist debate

I'd go with a 2600...A 2200g probably will not bottleneck a modest card like a RX570 or a GTX1060 3 GB but a 6 core/6 thread CPU will be much more future proof.

 

A 2600 is around $30 more expensive than a 2200g so you need to determine if the cost is worth the added performance to you. Both use the same AM4 platform so you could always upgrade later.

[Drak3]

6 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

You can test the impact of having more threads by setting thread affinity in task manager.

Except that we've already seen that not all CPUs with better multicore performance actually perform better than the 7700K.

However, the chips that actually have a significant edge outside of margin of error all share this trait: better L3 cache arrangements.

 

And I've done what you said, that's a key reason I specifically use hexacores for gaming: to keep background processes on their own two cores and games on their own four.

But Windows does a good enough job that going through the effort isn't worth it either.

[Mark Kaine]

15 minutes ago, steelo said:

A 2200g probably will not bottleneck a modest card like a RX570 or a GTX1060 3 GB but a 6 core/6 thread CPU will be much more future proof.

See that's the problem with benchmarks and such. 

I had this exact CPU,  it was running at 100% a lot of times and very much bottlenecking my 1060 6GB in many games. 

 

It's not that it's totally useless but for example I can now finally play Resident Evil 2 without any stutters at 1080p nonetheless, which was completely unthinkable with the 4 core CPU.

 

Trust me I got 600 hours in that title, I know exactly at which parts it tends to struggle with the 2200...  None of those issues are present anymore and all I did was change out the CPU (to 3600) and I can even use higher settings,  it's still not struggling... 

 

You guys take benchmarks way too much as gospel, not even realizing how skewed they often are (using high end equipment that average user can never afford for one,  "average" framerates...  rather useless when most people want a locked framerate and not one that sometimes goes higher than the other,  etc, etc, driver issues - which these testers apparently never have,  and so on) 

 

Yes,  benchmarks /  reviews and such are still good for comparisons sake but you can't take them as being always applicable in real world situations... 

 

This 2200G  got way too good reviews,  even if they maybe didn't lie per say,  the conclusions drawn were rather misleading "you can just buy a dedicated gpu and it will be fine..."

 

Yeah, no, its still not capable of 60fps straight at *medium* settings in a lot of modern games, which was a rather frustrating experience to say the least  

 

What this CPU is really good for is PS3/360 gen ports or newer games at 720p. Which is why I'm saying it's not a bad CPU but it's been marketed very misleading. 

 

 

And yes,  I get it some people don't care about fps as much (and it's fine for them)  most do however. 

 

Btw core count is also way more important than many self proclaimed experts seem to think. 

 

 

It does make sense from a marketing perspective however,  why sell a 8 core now when you can sell a 6 core instead and next year the 8 core then,  because "well,  tech advanced,  no one could see this coming lol"

 

 

Yeah,  I get it.  It's disingenuous though. 

 

[steelo]

The 2200g was never advertised to be a high-end 1080 CPU. What it was designed to be was a cost-effective quad core that vastly outperforms its Intel counterparts (as far as integrated graphics go) My brother in law has a 2200g and is using its integrated graphics - it is more than sufficient for light gaming at 720p with acceptable frame rates. With a dedicated graphics card like a RX570 or 580 one should be able to play most modern titles (at reasonable settings)

 

With that said, I do recommend for the OP to spend the extra money on a 2600 or a 3600. However, a 2200g will get him by and offer better performance than his dual core CPU.

[Mark Kaine]

2 minutes ago, steelo said:

The 2200g was never advertised to be a high-end 1080 CPU. What it was designed to be was a cost-effective quad core that vastly outperforms its Intel counterparts (as far as integrated graphics go)

I think you completely misunderstood my post.  Where did I say anything about "high end"?

 

6 minutes ago, steelo said:

What it was designed to be

Yes, that's kinda my point though,  it wasn't marketed as such by reviewers in general.

 

This CPU was very much marketed as "just buy a dedicated GPU later and it will play anything (at medium settings)"

 

Not mentioning that it'll struggle even at medium settings to hold a stable framerate. 

 

The thing that it's stronger than a comparable Intel was always just another marketing gimmick.

 

 

Saying in hindsight "nah it was never meant to be that" is exactly what I'm talking about... 

 

[steelo]

"The thing that it's stronger than a comparable Intel was always just another marketing gimmick."

 

Please show me a benchmark test which shows an Intel igpu outperforming a Ryzen.

 

For the record, I'm not trying to argue with you...I do understand your points. I'm just trying to provide a cost-effective alternative on a budget. Although a 2200g has its limitations on a few AAA titles that really need more than 4 cores - it should more than get him by, especially if he pairs it with a RX570.

 

Heck, he could also probably save a little money now and get something like a R5 2400/3400g with a more powerful Vega 11 igpu and comfortably play 720p and some 1080 games. Once he has the money for something like a Radeon 5700, he'll have a really solid system for gaming (and won't have to replace his CPU) The Ryzen 'g' series were mainly marketed during the mining boom as a viable alternative while dedicated graphics prices were through the roof.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, steelo said:

Please show me a benchmark test which shows an Intel igpu outperforming a Ryzen.

No, I'm saying no one cares about that (much) what people care about is "will this play my games at the desired framerates / effects? "   

Hence it was and still is a "gimmick" that sounds good for marketing purposes. 

 

1 hour ago, steelo said:

mining boom as a viable alternative while dedicated graphics prices were through the roof.

That had surely something to do with it, yeah (even though it came a bit too late) 

 

1 hour ago, steelo said:

3400g

At least that's a 4c/8t (just looked it up) but I still don't think it's a good choice looking forward,  I'd wager most people who buy something like this will get a better CPU next year,  latest in 2 years... 

 

I'd agree it's probably good for 720p/ some 1080p,  but that's not really what the OP wants I think?  

 

A 2600 or even 2700 would be a much better choice unarguably,  and they're so cheap - think about how cheap they are really,  and much more future proof,  probably good for 4+ years or so (at 1080p)

 

 

 

[steelo]

It all comes down to how much the OP wishes to spend today. A 3400g would be a night and day difference compared to what he's using right now, even with integrated graphics. Yes, a 2600 is more 'future proof' but a 4c/8t CPU (with a dedicated graphics card) is plenty powerful for gaming for the next few years. I use a 2400g paired with a RX570 and have yet to experience a AAA title it struggles to play at 1080p high settings @ ~60 fps (Resident Evil 2, GOW 5, Skylines, Assassins Creed Unity, Middle Earth, The Division 2) I even use this very same system for VR gaming. 

 

If he can afford it, yes I agree 2600/2600X offers a bit more performance (and the 2600 is cheap these days) However, it is not a 'must have' to be able to enjoy AAA games.

[ThurraxKidd]

3 hours ago, steelo said:

I'd go with a 2600...A 2200g probably will not bottleneck a modest card like a RX570 or a GTX1060 3 GB but a 6 core/6 thread CPU will be much more future proof.

 

A 2600 is around $30 more expensive than a 2200g so you need to determine if the cost is worth the added performance to you. Both use the same AM4 platform so you could always upgrade later.

Honestly this was the most reasonable sounding response to this post. Thank you very much. The reason I was intending to get the 2200g was tto save money now so I can upgrade to a r5 at some point in the future when my gaming needs really make it a necessity. And I think even just getting the 2200g and a newer graphics card will drastically change my performance in games. Seeing as I'm running the cpu I mentioned previously and a gtx 660 oc'd to the limit and somehow it's getting double the performance that it would at stock speeds

[steelo]

26 minutes ago, ThurraxKidd said:

Honestly this was the most reasonable sounding response to this post. Thank you very much. The reason I was intending to get the 2200g was tto save money now so I can upgrade to a r5 at some point in the future when my gaming needs really make it a necessity. And I think even just getting the 2200g and a newer graphics card will drastically change my performance in games. Seeing as I'm running the cpu I mentioned previously and a gtx 660 oc'd to the limit and somehow it's getting double the performance that it would at stock speeds

 

26 minutes ago, ThurraxKidd said:

Honestly this was the most reasonable sounding response to this post. Thank you very much. The reason I was intending to get the 2200g was tto save money now so I can upgrade to a r5 at some point in the future when my gaming needs really make it a necessity. And I think even just getting the 2200g and a newer graphics card will drastically change my performance in games. Seeing as I'm running the cpu I mentioned previously and a gtx 660 oc'd to the limit and somehow it's getting double the performance that it would at stock speeds

Exactly. In a few years when you feel the 2200g too slow,  you will still have the AM4 platform to upgrade to a 2600. I really don't think you'll have any issues gaming with a 2200g paired with a RX570 for a few years. Intel's mid grade i5 CPU's are mainly quad core, if that tells you anything...

[ThurraxKidd]

5 minutes ago, steelo said:

 

Exactly. In a few years when you feel the 2200g is obsolete,  you still have the AM4 platform to upgrade to a 2600. I really don't think you'll have any issues gaming with a 2200g paired with a RX570 for a few years. Intel's mid grade i5 CPU's are mainly quad core, if that tells you anything...

Then I should be fine lol I love how everyone really pushes to go for the 100fps area. I'm just trying to get 60 in games I'm getting 30 and lower in lmao

[steelo]

14 minutes ago, ThurraxKidd said:

Then I should be fine lol I love how everyone really pushes to go for the 100fps area. I'm just trying to get 60 in games I'm getting 30 and lower in lmao

LOL...It drives me crazy too. I have a 1080 monitor @ 60hz, so anything over that means little to me. If you do find a special deal on a 2600 where it is not much more than a 2200g, you should go for it...but, it should serve you well for gaming, paired with a mid grade GPU like a RX570/RX580. Ryzen CPU's also respond very well to overclocking

 

The only game I know of that you (may) experience issues is Battlefield 5...the game does a lousy job of CPU optimization and unless you have 8c/12t, it will probably stutter a bit.

[ThurraxKidd]

11 minutes ago, steelo said:

LOL...It drives me crazy too. I have a 1080 monitor @ 60hz, so anything over that means little to me. If you do find a special deal on a 2600 where it is not much more than a 2200g, you should go for it...but, it should serve you well for gaming, paired with a mid grade GPU like a RX570/RX580. Ryzen CPU's also respond very well to overclocking

 

The only game I know of that you (may) experience issues is Battlefield 5...the game does a lousy job of CPU optimization and unless you have 8c/12t, it will probably stutter a bit.

Well then I have little to worry about. I dont play battlefield lol. I play very little of EAs library because of morals, but I will keep my eye out for the 2600 discounted. I'm hoping to hold out till the rx 5500 and 5500 xt launches because I want the navi performance 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, steelo said:

 

It all comes down to how much the OP wishes to spend to

 

Yeah, well that's true... I didn't really see that info until now tho (might have missed it) and when I'm planning a system in my head I'll always go for what's future proof as much as possible without breaking the bank... 

 

 

1 hour ago, steelo said:

~60 fps (Resident Evil 2)

That's an excellent example of how reviews / benchmarks are deceiving - and I don't mean this directed at you - just how benchmarks / reviews work... 

 

 

I'm sure you can run RE2 at 60 fps with that CPU *on average* even on the 2200...... paired with something like a 1060, etc (that's a fact I know, I had this CPU as mentioned) 

The problem is that will look good in a review chart "60fps" 

But that doesn't tell you that there are massive framedrops,  sometimes over a prolonged time in certain situations / levels / etc,  which to me makes a game like this nearly unplayable...  And as such the money spent for this "gaming CPU" was indeed wasted. 

(I checked this specifically for RE2R and other games , each of these drops easily visible in afterburner with CPU usage at 99/100% without fail) 

 

For the record,  it runs at about 110 fps maximum in some sections, in others it can go as low a 40, even if just for a short time (1-2 seconds)  very annoying,  very frustrating and I sure wish reviewers would point these things out more (but that's not their job obviously,  their job is to sell,  while still somewhat appearing "neutral"...)

 

One of the worst fail buys I did in my life,  and I did my research, "yes this CPU will run games at 60fps when paired with a mid range GPU"

 

 

Well, it does,  on average, and possibly on very low settings...

 

 

44 minutes ago, steelo said:

Exactly. In a few years when you feel the 2200g is obsolete

For 1080/60 it *is* already obsolete in my opinion, and own experience, you'd be much better off with pretty much any other Ryzen, but you gotta know what you want (you won't get 1080/60 in most modern titles with this CPU, only "probably maybe sometimes 60fps...")  If frame drops don't bother you or you only play indies,  then go for it for all I care though!

 

 

Edit: here's some food for thought regarding expectations VS reality 

 

MONSTER HUNTER WORLD 

 

• OS: WINDOWS® 7, 8, 8.1, 10 (64-bit required)
• Processor: Intel® Core™ i7 3770 3.4GHz or Intel® Core™ i3 8350 4GHz or AMD Ryzen™ 5 1500X
• Memory: 8 GB RAM
• Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1060 (VRAM 3GB) or AMD Radeon™ RX 570X (VRAM 4GB)
• DirectX: Version 11
• Network: Broadband Internet connection
• Storage: 20 GB available space
• Sound Card: DirectSound (DirectX® 9.0c or better)
• Additional Notes: 1080p/30fps when graphics settings are set to “High”

 

 

 

30 FPS 

 

 

And there are literally tons of games with similar requirements... 

 

So in the end it really depends what you want,  but you won't get great performance with the cheapest entry CPU, that's just the reality of things. 

[ThurraxKidd]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yeah, well that's true... I didn't really see that info until now tho (might have missed it) and when I'm planning a system in my head I'll always go for what's future proof as much as possible without breaking the bank... 

 

 

That's an excellent example of how reviews / benchmarks are deceiving - and I don't mean this directed at you - just how benchmarks / reviews work... 

 

 

I'm sure you can run RE2 at 60 fps with that CPU *on average* even on the 2200...... paired with something like a 1060, etc (that's a fact I know, I had this CPU as mentioned) 

The problem is that will look good in a review chart "60fps" 

But that doesn't tell you that there are massive framedrops,  sometimes over a prolonged time in certain situations / levels / etc,  which to me makes a game like this nearly unplayable...  And as such the money spent for this "gaming CPU" was indeed wasted. 

(I checked this specifically for RE2R and other games , each of these drops easily visible in afterburner with CPU usage at 99/100% without fail) 

 

For the record,  it runs at about 110 fps maximum in some sections, in others it can go as low a 40, even if just for a short time (1-2 seconds)  very annoying,  very frustrating and I sure wish reviewers would point these things out more (but that's not their job obviously,  their job is to sell,  while still somewhat appearing "neutral"...)

 

One of the worst fail buys I did in my life,  and I did my research, "yes this CPU will run games at 60fps when paired with a mid range GPU"

 

 

Well, it does,  on average, and possibly on very low settings...

 

 

For 1080/60 it *is* already obsolete in my opinion, and own experience, you'd be much better off with pretty much any other Ryzen, but you gotta know what you want (you won't get 1080/60 in most modern titles with this CPU, only "probably maybe sometimes 60fps...")  If frame drops don't bother you or you only play indies,  then go for it for all I care though!

 

 

 

 

Lmao I'm fine I mostly play games from 2016 and before on pc. I get newer AAAs on ps4 just because as of right now that is my only thing that will run them