Are 4 Cores Still Enough?

[AlexTheGreatish]

AMD and Intel are trying super hard to get you to buy an 8+ core CPU, but if you're still rocking a quad-core is it worth upgrading?

 

Buy Ryzen 3 3300X CPU

On Amazon (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/kG09T

On Best Buy (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/NidA

On Newegg (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/cfoz

Purchases made through some store links may provide some compensation to Linus Media Group.

 

 

 

[WhitetailAni]

Depends on what you want to do.

If all you do is basic web browsing 2 cores is fine.

[Radium_Angel]

I think there are better questions to couple with this:

 

Will a 4 core CPU hold you back in gaming/CAD/rendering/etc if you have a modern GPU?

At what point does decreasing returns rear its head when climbing the core count?

 Is the cost benefit there to migrate from a four core CPU to a potentially entirely new platform?

[sub68]

I will say a 4 core CPU is still good.

Yes it does take sometime to render video, but for me its fine also I play older/less demanding games and I don't do competitively.

But if a part holds you back replace it.

[jay227ify]

24 minutes ago, AlexTheGreatish said:

AMD and Intel are trying super hard to get you to buy an 8+ core CPU, but if you're still rocking a quad-core is it worth upgrading?

 

Buy Ryzen 3 3300X CPU

On Amazon (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/kG09T

On Best Buy (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/NidA

On Newegg (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/cfoz

Purchases made through some store links may provide some compensation to Linus Media Group.

 

 

 

I was using a 9th gen 4 core i3 because I really thought it was enough to just run battlefield 1 and V. But I ended up having to upgrade anyways just because the CPU was at 100% and stuttering my game. Even on a fresh install of windows 10 with no tasks open in the background my 1070ti was sitting at 50-65% usage while my 4 core i3 stayed at 100% Temps were in the high 50s since my cooler was decent, and this was on a brand new SK Hynix SSD.
 

Warzone/Modern Warfare was especially terrible. Whole system lockup at 100% CPU usage on team deathmatch rounds.

 

After finally getting a second hand i7 9700k for cheap on eBay I loaded up BFV and was shocked at how smooth my rig was able to play it. Same with COD, maybe showing some games like that would have been a good example too. But hey, maybe it was just me who had problems with his CPU.

[Skiiwee29]

This video is a bit misleading... 4 cores, but all the CPUs are hyperthreaded so its a bit misleading.. you should test.. you know.. the actual 4c/4t CPU you guys showed in b roll, the 4690k. 

[pipnina]

My i7-6700k (4.5GHz) was still very good when I replaced it shortly after the Zen3 release. The only game it really choked on was Half Life Alyx, which by the sound of things is particularly CPU intensive.

A more modern 4-core, like zen3 or intel 11th gen, would therefore probably still be perfectly acceptable.

[PazonGamer]

i have a i5-7400 (4c, 4t) , gtx 1660 and 12 gb of ram (unknown speed since i run 2x4 gb hyperx sticks and trew in 1 unknown stick of 4 gb) I've noticed that with only 8gb ram the pc struggles with keeping the fps stable while gaming, ecspecially in cpu heavy games. and even after upgrading to 12gb ram it still drops frames, tho much less frequently. While gaming i have to exit all of my background programs to not lag like crazy and the cpu is almost at 100% just trying to do any type of gaming. idk if its something wrong with my system (might suspect my motherboard since speccy, speedfan and other monitoring softare says that the temprature of my motherboard is always at 126 degrees celcius) but i thought i might as well post this here

[pipnina]

59 minutes ago, PazonGamer said:

i have a i5-7400 (4c, 4t) , gtx 1660 and 12 gb of ram (unknown speed since i run 2x4 gb hyperx sticks and trew in 1 unknown stick of 4 gb) I've noticed that with only 8gb ram the pc struggles with keeping the fps stable while gaming, ecspecially in cpu heavy games. and even after upgrading to 12gb ram it still drops frames, tho much less frequently. While gaming i have to exit all of my background programs to not lag like crazy and the cpu is almost at 100% just trying to do any type of gaming. idk if its something wrong with my system (might suspect my motherboard since speccy, speedfan and other monitoring softare says that the temprature of my motherboard is always at 126 degrees celcius) but i thought i might as well post this here

Temperature sensors that show ridiculously high temps all the time like that, are usually unused (i.e. disconnected) probes that aren't actually measuring anything.

[Egg-Roll]

Linus: "crappy quad-core pc that you already have"

Me watching the video with a 8 core Ryzen: "Uh..."

 

Quote

This video is a bit misleading... 4 cores, but all the CPUs are hyperthreaded so its a bit misleading.. you should test.. you know.. the actual 4c/4t CPU you guys showed in b roll, the 4690k. 

Name one LTT video recently that should have been useful that wasn't misleading/mistaken in some way?

[YoungBlade]

2 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

Depends on what you want to do.

If all you do is basic web browsing 2 cores is fine.

It really depends on the 2 core CPU. I had to give up on using my old laptop with a Pentium Dual-Core T3200 because it couldn't handle basic web browsing anymore (RIP Gateway T-6330U). It would take a full minute to load GMail or any other site with heavy JS (which is a lot of popular sites, unfortunately), or sometimes the site would just fail to load completely. Even at just 720p YouTube would stutter if something happened in the background.

 

Then there was a computer with a Core 2 Duo E4500 that couldn't even handle Windows 10. It kept failing to perform updates and slowing to a crawl if anything at all happened in the background. Even a fresh install couldn't help it - the thing just couldn't handle the OS.

 

The 2c/4t CPUs seem to do fine - they have just enough power - but 2c/2t is rough. Maybe a modern Celeron can do okay, but anything older is just asking for a bad time. You notice that those things are sold with Chromebooks, not Windows 10. Even with modern cores, I don't think there's enough compute power there.

[whm1974]

I'm using the i5-4670 I built my Rig back in 2013 around. With 16GB of RAM it runs my games quite well actually. However if I was building a new System later this year, I would use a six core CPU instead.

[whm1974]

2 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

It really depends on the 2 core CPU. I had to give up on using my old laptop with a Pentium Dual-Core T3200 because it couldn't handle basic web browsing anymore (RIP Gateway T-6330U). It would take a full minute to load GMail or any other site with heavy JS (which is a lot of popular sites, unfortunately), or sometimes the site would just fail to load completely. Even at just 720p YouTube would stutter if something happened in the background.

 

Then there was a computer with a Core 2 Duo E4500 that couldn't even handle Windows 10. It kept failing to perform updates and slowing to a crawl if anything at all happened in the background. Even a fresh install couldn't help it - the thing just couldn't handle the OS.

 

The 2c/4t CPUs seem to do fine - they have just enough power - but 2c/2t is rough. Maybe a modern Celeron can do okay, but anything older is just asking for a bad time. You notice that those things are sold with Chromebooks, not Windows 10. Even with modern cores, I don't think there's enough compute power there.

I'm not sure if I would advise anyone to use anything less then four cores moving forward.

[WhitetailAni]

13 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

It really depends on the 2 core CPU. I had to give up on using my old laptop with a Pentium Dual-Core T3200 because it couldn't handle basic web browsing anymore (RIP Gateway T-6330U). It would take a full minute to load GMail or any other site with heavy JS (which is a lot of popular sites, unfortunately), or sometimes the site would just fail to load completely. Even at just 720p YouTube would stutter if something happened in the background.

 

Then there was a computer with a Core 2 Duo E4500 that couldn't even handle Windows 10. It kept failing to perform updates and slowing to a crawl if anything at all happened in the background. Even a fresh install couldn't help it - the thing just couldn't handle the OS.

 

The 2c/4t CPUs seem to do fine - they have just enough power - but 2c/2t is rough. Maybe a modern Celeron can do okay, but anything older is just asking for a bad time. You notice that those things are sold with Chromebooks, not Windows 10. Even with modern cores, I don't think there's enough compute power there.

I mean, I wouldn’t go out and buy a Core 2 Duo for W10, but I suspect part of your C2D woes were being SSDless. I’ve run W10 with an 850 EVO 250GB and a Core 2 Duo and it was fine for me.

[YoungBlade]

8 minutes ago, FakeKGB said:

I mean, I wouldn’t go out and buy a Core 2 Duo for W10, but I suspect part of your C2D woes were being SSDless. I’ve run W10 with an 850 EVO 250GB and a Core 2 Duo and it was fine for me.

Nope, I tried that and even the SSD didn't save it. In the end, I upgraded it to a Core 2 Quad Q9400 and that fixed it. I'm guessing your Core 2 Duo was not an E4000 series one.

 

The laptop was running Ubuntu. Without that, it wouldn't have made it over 10 years as my primary laptop. Windows is brutal on system resources for old computers.

 

18 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

I'm not sure if I would advise anyone to use anything less then four cores moving forward.

For cheap computers, I've been recommending old Xeon 6-core workstations. You can find them for $100-200 and for general computing they're amazing.

[KaitouX]

2 hours ago, jay227ify said:

I was using a 9th gen 4 core i3 because I really thought it was enough to just run battlefield 1 and V. But I ended up having to upgrade anyways just because the CPU was at 100% and stuttering my game. Even on a fresh install of windows 10 with no tasks open in the background my 1070ti was sitting at 50-65% usage while my 4 core i3 stayed at 100% Temps were in the high 50s since my cooler was decent, and this was on a brand new SK Hynix SSD.
 

Warzone/Modern Warfare was especially terrible. Whole system lockup at 100% CPU usage on team deathmatch rounds.

 

After finally getting a second hand i7 9700k for cheap on eBay I loaded up BFV and was shocked at how smooth my rig was able to play it. Same with COD, maybe showing some games like that would have been a good example too. But hey, maybe it was just me who had problems with his CPU.

4c/4t CPUs have been extremely bad for gaming for quite some time. The extra 4 threads are absolutely necessary to avoid huge performance drops in many games.

 

On the video: Why recommend a 4770K for $100 over the i3 10100F? The 10100F is slightly slower than the 3300X and have the issue with being limited to DDR4 2666 on the cheaper platform, but I would still call it a better deal than the 4770K. Old motherboards and DDR3 memory aren't significantly cheaper than buying a cheap H410/510 or B460/B560 and DDR4 and the new parts have advantages like support for better CPUs in the same socket and warranty, so I don't see the point in getting the 4770K for that price.

[BondiBlue]

21 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

For cheap computers, I've been recommending old Xeon 6-core workstations. You can find them for $100-200 and for general computing they're amazing.

That's one area where X58 and similar systems really hold up. I got my Precision T3500 for $10, and upgraded it with a 6 core Xeon for $25. It's far more than powerful enough to do basically any web browsing, and it still handles gaming tasks alright as well. Even the quad core Sandy Bridge systems are still doing alright. 

[da na]

Yes. Hell, quadcores are fine for gaming if hyperthreaded. Non-HT quadcores aren't holding up well in more CPU heavy titles but 8 threads is still def enough for 90% of gamers.

[Shyth]

Ya'll got multiple cores? ive got a pc with a single core amd sempron in it and im running windows 7. it can do win 8 but i dont like win 8. win 10 doesnt work. I can run many emulators, and youtube without issue. it can even run portal, portal 2 pretty dang well. it stuggles with tf2 but it does still run. ill reply in a bit with a photo of my pc's full specs. (yes i'm shocked as well at how my pc is even running windows 7. i really do need a better/newer one. but im sooo broke...)

[Luscious]

Pretty sure this comparison would have been WAY more one-sided using Intel's first quad core part (Q6600) versus their later 2500K offering and comparing those to their first 8 core part (5960X). Not all quad cores are the same and the REALLY old ones just don't have the muscle any more. The bigger elephant in the room here is that X99 can work with both quad, six and 8 core CPU's and since these have been upgraded for a while now by many they can be found for cheap used. Quad cores may still be enough in 2021 if you have the RIGHT one, but the other question to ask here would be is X99 as a platform still relevant???

 

It's been 7 years since it's initial launch (2014), and while many are dumping their dated hardware, quite a few are still hanging onto their Rampage V Extreme's and 5960X's because it still has what it takes to game, especially if your GPU is a 1080Ti or faster/newer. I have no plans to upgrade my 5960X or water-cooled 980Ti's for the short term, and that's just down to current supply issues and lack of stock of new gear I would need. For the long term I would most likely upgrade my GPU first before I even touch the CPU or do a motherboard swap. There probably will come a point where a newer/faster GPU would be bottle-necked by a 5960X, and a CPU/mobo upgrade would be a requirement, except I have yet to see any evidence of that. Buying used hardware for cheap is always good, but I'm also happy my $1000 investment is still rocking 7 years down the road and is showing no signs of quitting.

[Tamesh16]

Windows 11 might not like that old cheap cpu option

[StephanTW]

My  i7-5930K disagrees with the video, atleast whenever I am streaming, frames take a dip and taskmanager is around the 100% mark.
But this might also be due to it basicly have been on for almost 7 years...
In moral I do have to agree 4 cores will be enough for most people 99% of the time.
 

[plurus]

9 minutes ago, StephanTW said:

My  i7-5930K disagrees with the video, atleast whenever I am streaming, frames take a dip and taskmanager is around the 100% mark.
But this might also be due to it basicly have been on for almost 7 years...
In moral I do have to agree 4 cores will be enough for most people 99% of the time.
 

Get a Nvidia GPU with Shadowplay, and free up the load from the CPU.

[StephanTW]

2 minutes ago, plurus said:

Get a Nvidia GPU with Shadowplay, and free up the load from the CPU.

I may one day when GPU prices drop again, but for the time being my 2 r9 290's will do and hold the fort

[Moraisu]

My personal experience has actually been quite different from what the video suggested, I had a 4790k with a 1070 and later jumped to a 10400F, in such jump I noticed very drastic improvements in several games, the most noticeable one was the micro-stuttering (or the lack of with the 10400F), however some of that can also be attributed to another important factor that the video just glanced over, going from DDR3 to DDR4, something that also improved the overall smoothness of the system.

 

Your missed a very important game engine that just can not run properly in a 4 core system, frosbite, that game engine will use 100% of your 4C/8T CPU and it will just stutter all over the place, ah heck, how could I (or, for that matter, you) forget about a very recent and very demanding game? Cyberpunk 2077, it will just not run above 40 frames per second, even with a 3070 on a 4C/8T, regardless of the resolution, that is.. until you lower crowd density, and even then you are still heavily limited by the 4C/8T CPU.

 

While I understand some of the points in that video I do feel that you are giving the wrong message, 4C/8T will heavily limit you gaming experience, even more so if you pair it with slow DDR3, regardless of pairing it with a older GPU such as a 1070 or a something newer like the 3070.. 

 

For some extra detail, both systems ran at 1080p, the 4790k ran with DDR3 1600Mhz CL9 and the 10400F with DDR4 3466Mhz CL16, some other games that had a profund impact in performance from shifting from 4C/8T to 6C/12T were Remnant: From the Ashes, Yakuza Kiami 2, Metro Last Light Redux, Flight Simulator 2020, 7 Days 2 Die and oh.. this one, this one had a massive jump in performance, Monster Hunter World, we are talking about going from 40 frames per second in some areas up to 80 frames per second, both on a 3070..