6 or 8 cores for gaming ?

[TeaRoomMosh]

What are people’s thoughts on 6 or 8 cores for there CPU when it comes to gaming ? 
 

Will 8 cores soon be the norm with upcoming titles like the new teaser of the new elder scrolls game or cyberpunk 2077 ? 
 

or will 6 cores still be the sweet spot and power house for games to come for the next 3 years ? 
 

wanted peoples feedback or personal observations on the idea ! 

[SkilledRebuilds]

Both Recent Tomb raider games utilize 8 Real cores.

Some other titles get close using at least 6-8 threads fairly well.

 

With games programmed for both consoles and PC say the ones being built now...

I'd wager they are 6-8+ core aware for most of them and possibly outliers again for 12-16 truly thread aware titles.

 

Hard to tell as its likely openworld games in a sense will do it more so than other genres.

 

#Future

I'm guessing here obviously and I'm talking in 2-4 years of Game Engine development.

[TeaRoomMosh]

25 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

Both Recent Tomb raider games utilize 8 Real cores.

Some other titles get close using at least 6-8 threads fairly well.

 

With games programmed for both consoles and PC say the ones being built now...

I'd wager they are 6-8+ core aware for most of them and possibly outliers again for 12-16 truly thread aware titles.

 

Hard to tell as its likely openworld games in a sense will do it more so than other genres.

 

#Future

I'm guessing here obviously and I'm talking in 2-4 years of Game Engine development.

I completely agree and it’s similar to the 4 core years back now jumping to the 6 core being the sweet spot.. I’m just wondering wether it’s worth dropping to a 8 core 2000 series Ryzen or holing on to 6 cores 3000 series and accept there may be a good chance I’ll need to upgrade a couple years down the line or will it hold its own ? I understand 4 cores are still a big slice of gamers today but can the developers really keep making games to cater as wide as 2/4 cores to 8 cores ? 

[TeaRoomMosh]

3 minutes ago, Natasha22 said:

the devs of Shadow of the tomb raider recommend Intel Core i7 4770k

and according to steam 55 % of steam users are at 4 cores

so game devs will Not risk losing them just because new consoles are 8c/16t

Yeah it would be silly for them to cut them out, and I don’t think they will but now with the 3000 series and a potential 4000 series drop next year the devs will know what tech is around the corner and there limits.. they will want to make it beautiful and run amazing with special never seen before graphics and it’s a matter of time before they push the 4 cores out but that could be 3, 5 or even 6 years away, and now consoles are picking up on pc components, devs will make for all platforms and gain profit from other areas like console which they didn’t before which might quicken the process ? Just spit balling ideas and thoughts 

[TeaRoomMosh]

9 minutes ago, Natasha22 said:

according to you in 2 years they will move to 8 cores ?

when they still recommend i7 4770k 7 years old CPU for 2019 game ?

Obviously like you mentioned they won’t lose out on revenue of over 50% of steam users on 4 core processors .. but I can see the “future” games offering min/max requirements including the 8 cores being best ? But again this might not be the case for a long time. Just hard to judge and wether it’s best opting for more cores and being ready for the potential or sticking at 6 and riding it out while playing games and best performance ? 

[Eigenvektor]

Games may support 8 cores, but I think it'll take a while until they require it. I still have a quad-core (i5-3570K) and I could play all of the recent Tomb Raider titles just fine. I think the benchmark of Shadow said I was CPU bound in a small number of scenes, but overall it was the GPU that was holding me back.

[porina]

PC games have scaled up and down, and will continue to do so. The question then becomes more what you decide is a minimum performance level for you. I have no doubt that 6 good cores is "sufficient" for the next 3 years for modern titles.

 

9 minutes ago, TeaRoomMosh said:

I’m just wondering wether it’s worth dropping to a 8 core 2000 series Ryzen or holing on to 6 cores 3000 series and accept there may be a good chance I’ll need to upgrade a couple years down the line or will it hold its own ?

This raises a different point, not all cores are equal. If I had to choose between a 3600 or 2700X for gaming, I'd get the 3600 no hesitation. It really is that much better a CPU all round, except possibly for Cinebench. I'm using a 8086k in my gaming system, and I see no need to replace it performance-wise. A better GPU than either of my 2070 or 1080Ti would make a bigger difference. I actually have a 3700X in another system, but don't feel any need to switch to it. It will be replaced by 4000 series or newer by the time I might make that switch.

[Sir0Tek]

4c/4t will be the next absolute minimum-config I think, with 6c/6t or 4c/8t entry-level. I guess they'll go to utilize threads better the next 3 years as well so SMT/HT becomes more effective than it is today.

 

[TeaRoomMosh]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

PC games have scaled up and down, and will continue to do so. The question then becomes more what you decide is a minimum performance level for you. I have no doubt that 6 good cores is "sufficient" for the next 3 years for modern titles.

 

This raises a different point, not all cores are equal. If I had to choose between a 3600 or 2700X for gaming, I'd get the 3600 no hesitation. It really is that much better a CPU all round, except possibly for Cinebench. I'm using a 8086k in my gaming system, and I see no need to replace it performance-wise. A better GPU than either of my 2070 or 1080Ti would make a bigger difference. I actually have a 3700X in another system, but don't feel any need to switch to it. It will be replaced by 4000 series or newer by the time I might make that switch.

Yeah that’s a good point, I think I will opt for 6 core especially being a 3000 series and ride it out, like you say games vary and are not dependant on 4,6 or 8 cores. it’s more user defined when it comes that. And I’m sure 6 cores while teamed with a good gpu (I was looking at a 2070 super) will still produce brilliant graphics and frames in years to come, maybe looking at it from a wider perspective, unless your a big enthusiast and require the best of best at all times it will be in there interest to go 8 cores to squeeze all they can out of the game.

[porina]

1 minute ago, Sir0Tek said:

4c/4t will be the next absolute minimum-config I think, with 6c/6t or 4c/8t entry-level. I guess they'll go to utilize threads better the next 3 years as well so SMT/HT becomes more effective than it is today.

Thread counts and SMT are somewhat over-valued. I see it as more a hardware limitation than a software one. Relative to a real core, the additional performance it gives is variable depending on the workload. Very roughly, you might see between 0 to 50% more CPU throughput from having SMT in widely used software, most leaning towards the lower end of that. Cinebench scales well and is around the 30% mark. I had seen the original Ryzen Blender bench show 50% but I don't know if that is representative of Blender usage in general. This is harder to quantify in gaming due to the big influence the GPU has in it also. So back to the above, on average, the 6c6t CPU would generally outperform, or perform more consistently than a 4c8t one. I have to wonder, if the "more cores" thinking continues, if SMT might be eliminated in the longer future. There are arguments either way for having or not having it, but as core counts increase there may come a point where instead of making cores ever more complex, then trying to extract the performance from that complex core, it might be simpler just to make a more streamlined core and have more of them.

[Eigenvektor]

12 minutes ago, TeaRoomMosh said:

Yeah that’s a good point, I think I will opt for 6 core especially being a 3000 series and ride it out, like you say games vary and are not dependant on 4,6 or 8 cores. it’s more user defined when it comes that. And I’m sure 6 cores while teamed with a good gpu (I was looking at a 2070 super) will still produce brilliant graphics and frames in years to come, maybe looking at it from a wider perspective, unless your a big enthusiast and require the best of best at all times it will be in there interest to go 8 cores to squeeze all they can out of the game.

I'm kind of in the same boat. I think right now, I'd also get a 3600. A 3700x might be worth it, given I'm also doing software development and could sometime use more cores, but that's a fair bit of premium to pay. Overall, I think I'll hold out until Zen 3 or maybe even Zen 4. For some reason buying Zen 3 isn't that appealing, given that it'll probably be the last one to use AM4. I'd rather get AM5 and the option to upgrade down the line.

[TeaRoomMosh]

2 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

I'm kind of in the same boat. I think right now, I'd also get a 3600. A 3700x might be worth it, given I'm also doing software development and could sometime use more cores, but that's a fair bit of premium to pay. Overall, I think I'll hold out until Zen 3 or maybe even Zen 4. For some reason buying Zen 3 isn't that appealing, given that it'll probably be the last one to use AM4. I'd rather get AM5 and the option to upgrade down the line.

Yeah that’s fair enough, especially as they are aiming to release the 4000 series in a years time, if you can, it almost seems worth it holding out where as I am in the market for a cpu right now and was torn between an old 8 core or new 6 core, but now I’m settled to go with a 6 core, it’s £15 difference between 3600 and the X version, I’m not looking to OC anytime soon so maybe the X is worth it and the extra benefit from the added stock cooler being better too. Also Ryzen seem to be good at making things backwards compatible so maybe they will run Am4 one more time then upgrade later along with potential for DDR5 memory ? 

[Sir0Tek]

SMT/HT is there to stay, for now, until they find better ways to improve processing utilization. I can imagine that they'll implement some sort of very fluent SMT soon, where a thread isn't bound to a specific unit or processing path. In that case they'll probably stop telling how many cores/threads a processor has but name the count of parallel processing pipelines.

[Mark Kaine]

8 core should be minimum (wish I wouldn't have cheaped out on that myself) more is better depending on how often you want to upgrade of course. 

[NineEyeRon]

Still a long way to go apart from some edge cases to justify a minimum of more than 4c/4t

 

6c/6t will be fine for most for a good few years to come, if you need more then don’t buy minimum! If you play games that can use 8 then buy 8, if you can’t then you can still play for sure as it’s not minimum.

 

A standard gaming PC should not be playing AAA titles on max settings and is fine to be pushing the CPU hard. A budget gaming PC will meet minimum specs of AAA its year of release or the year before.

 

Anyone with 6c/6t DO NOT WORRY! Well not until your experience gaming drops below what you are comfortable with.

 

I strongly dislike the scaremongering that sometimes goes on with enthusiast that forget that 90% of gamers are not on the bleeding edge tech but often about 4 years behind.

[Tan3l6]

Ryzen 5 3500X is imo unbeatable for a value 6c/6t gaming CPU @ 110€ in Aliexpress

+2 two cores pay much more and are not worth it.

 

9400F from Intel is good too.

[Mick Naughty]

Get as many as you can afford. 

[MadAnt250]

5 hours ago, NineEyeRon said:

I strongly dislike the scaremongering that sometimes goes on with enthusiast that forget that 90% of gamers are not on the bleeding edge tech but often about 4 years behind.

True, there are still plenty of gamers using 8 year old CPUs and are still able to play modern-ish games.

[TeaRoomMosh]

8 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

True, there are still plenty of gamers using 8 year old CPUs and are still able to play modern-ish games.

Exactly ! You often see people say stick with 6 saying 6c/12t is best for gaming and other saying more cores is better, or more cores if you can afford them ! But at the end of the day most people want 60+ frames to beat the console and they can do this more than often with 4c/5+ year old cpus  ... I was hung up on wether to go 3600x or 2700x and all I kept seeing was 6 is best, 8 is waste or not as good or more cores the better, “future” is round the corner and you will need 8 but talking strictly high end/enthusiast level squeezing every frame they can ! Still none the wiser ! 

[MadAnt250]

6 hours ago, TeaRoomMosh said:

You often see people say stick with 6 saying 6c/12t is best for gaming and other saying more cores is better, or more cores if you can afford them ! But at the end of the day most people want 60+ frames to beat the console and they can do this more than often with 4c/5+ year old cpus

Yep, it all depends on what the user wants in relation to their budget. As of right now for gaming, go for what works best for you and your wallet.

Also there are some gaming youtubers and streamers that are still using 4 core CPUs, for example: Super_Noodle AKA Sliphantom, CallMeCarson and Terroriser.

[TeaRoomMosh]

2 hours ago, MadAnt250 said:

Yep, it all depends on what the user wants in relation to their budget. As of right now for gaming, go for what works best for you and your wallet.

Also there are some gaming youtubers and streamers that are still using 4 core CPUs, for example: Super_Noodle AKA Sliphantom, CallMeCarson and Terroriser.

Yeah considering the 3600x is the same price as a 2700x, I think the 6 cores will be more than enough for a while, plus all the new architecture on the new chip compared to the old 2000 series and less watts..

[Falkentyne]

19 hours ago, TeaRoomMosh said:

What are people’s thoughts on 6 or 8 cores for there CPU when it comes to gaming ? 
 

Will 8 cores soon be the norm with upcoming titles like the new teaser of the new elder scrolls game or cyberpunk 2077 ? 
 

or will 6 cores still be the sweet spot and power house for games to come for the next 3 years ? 
 

wanted peoples feedback or personal observations on the idea ! 

8 cores will have much longer legs than 6 cores.  The upcoming consoles will be 8 cores so that's something you want to match, since many games will get ported.

Also Microsoft is pushing their xbox game pass service HARD now, so the hardware is going to matter big time next fall.  They've had two deals now with one month of Game pass for $1 and now another one for 3 months for $1.  And then they were giving out $5 gift cards to people on their mailing list also.

 

That's how you do business.

[Otto_iii]

yes 8 cores will become the norm

[DobertRownySr]

I have the 3950x and the vast majority of games that I've played use 4-8 cores. However, if the 6 core has hyper-threading it will be fine.
Obviously, if you can afford it, go for the 8 core, unless it's an older gen, ie. 3600x is better than 2700x.

[TeaRoomMosh]

4 hours ago, Falkentyne said:

8 cores will have much longer legs than 6 cores.  The upcoming consoles will be 8 cores so that's something you want to match, since many games will get ported.

Also Microsoft is pushing their xbox game pass service HARD now, so the hardware is going to matter big time next fall.  They've had two deals now with one month of Game pass for $1 and now another one for 3 months for $1.  And then they were giving out $5 gift cards to people on their mailing list also.

 

That's how you do business.

Would you choose a 2700x over a 3600x due to core count or just go for the 3600x due to clock speed And new architecture and wait until 8 core really takes over in gaming or a newer series 8 core is released ?