Cores vs Threads vs Speed

[KhaderKh]

Hi,

 

After AMD launched their new CPUs its becoming more confusing on which is better for gaming? more cores? threads, speed? the 5600x destroyed all theories that more cores is better or more clock speed is better, having a CPU like the 5600x with 6 cores and 12 threads @4.6ghz beating 8 cores 16 threads intel CPU like the 9900K or 10900K @5.ghz?  

 

does buying 5600x future proof? I mean only 6 cores and 12 threads @4.6ghz!

 

what games really want? cores or more speed, do game fully utilize the threads or not?

[minibois]

Don't compare Ghz between CPU's, especially not between Intel/AMD nor inbetween different generations of CPU's. There is an important piece missing, which is the "IPC", instructions per clock, what the CPU can do per Ghz.

 

Games generally don't need 16 threads or whatever, which in my mind makes 6c12t a good option, especially since the money you save on your CPU can be used on a graphics card.

In most games, the graphics card is much more important than the CPU, which is why I mention that.

But of course, not all games are created equally, some games do prefer more CPU cores, so it will always depend.

 

I think the 5600X or Intel equivalent are a good starting point to look at, from which you can look at the best CPU/GPU pairing.

[Sauron]

Quote

Cores vs Threads vs Speed

That's not how this works. Name a budget and the games you want to play and someone will recommend the best option for you.

[Tristerin]

4 minutes ago, minibois said:

Don't compare Ghz between CPU's

Bruh AMD was first to 5.0ghz and that chip was super HOTT.  Slow AF but super HOTT!

[Downkey]

More cores doesn't equal speed. For example the FX 9590 had 8 cores, while the 5600x has 6 cores. The 5600x has a significantly better IPC, which is one of the reasons why the 5600x dominates the 9590 in almost everything. (I know this is an extreme example, and the 8 "cores" in the 9590 aren't really cores, but still gets my point across)

[Ydfhlx]

53 minutes ago, KhaderKh said:

Hi,

 

After AMD launched their new CPUs its becoming more confusing on which is better for gaming? more cores? threads, speed? the 5600x destroyed all theories that more cores is better or more clock speed is better, having a CPU like the 5600x with 6 cores and 12 threads @4.6ghz beating 8 cores 16 threads intel CPU like the 9900K or 10900K @5.ghz?  

 

does buying 5600x future proof? I mean only 6 cores and 12 threads @4.6ghz!

 

what games really want? cores or more speed, do game fully utilize the threads or not?

Gamers want performance.

 

Comparing just the hard specifications like cores/clock speed is like judging the car by displacement of the engine or number of wheels. Displacement doesn't equal horsepower because different engines are better or worse. Same thing goes for clock speeds, for instance Ryzen 5 5600X boosts only 0.1 GHz higher than its predecessor, but its instructions per clock are 19% higher, so it performs much better. (only exception to this is comparing different chips of same manufacturer and generation, because their IPC and other specs should be same).

 

Comparing (generally everything moder not-cheapest supports 2 threads per core, so don't worry about them), is as I said like judging car by number of wheels. 1 or 2 cores will not be enough for anything other than word/internet browsing, but having 16 of them won't help you in games compared to having 4 or 6. It's a bit more complicated than that, but you should get what I mean. Games don't really need above 4 cores, another 2 for background stuff and it's really enough, vast majority of games (if not all) won't utilise even the 8 threads evenly.

 

A small exception is the fact that more expensive CPUs get, apart from more cores, the higher single-core performance is - although not by much, it is worth mentioning. But whether will that matter or not depends on the GPU and monitor it will be coupled with.

 

So how do you compare CPUs between each other? it's best to look at their relative performance in games you play.

 

Future-proofness is a hard topic. In my opinion 6 cores is futureproof, because still over 40% of gamers have only 4 cores (and ~30% have 6 cores, while only 12% - 8 cores), so developers making games for 8-10 cores would be shooting in their knee. In terms of speed? No different that other CPUs. Another aspect of this is motherborad however, AMD will be probably switching to new socket with their next CPU generation, so you wouldn't be able to reuse the mobo you get for the 5600x.

 

Generally, if you want best help, specify your a) usage - the games you play, other apps you use b) budget (or target FPS) c) other components you have or have to be included in budget (GPU, RAM, monitor).

[Eigenvektor]

27 minutes ago, KhaderKh said:

what games really want? cores or more speed, do game fully utilize the threads or not?

Depends on the game(s).

 

If a game only uses a single thread or one of its threads is responsible for most of its operations, you will benefit the most from a faster core. On the other hand, If a game can make (efficient) use of multiple threads, more cores may be beneficial (up to a certain point). Even then, a faster quad-core may perform better than a slower eight-core.

 

Ideally have a look at some benchmarks for the games you intent to play that focus on how performance scales with number of cores and/or processor speed.

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to CPUs, Motherboards and Memory