Where is gaming going? More cores (FX-8350) or fewer stronger cores (i5-4670k)?

[Jaquavius]

I can't decide. Modern games are often a mixed bag I feel but single stronger cores still rule IMO. But with the new consoles having more cores will game developers be forced to optimize for more cores and will this transfer over to PC gaming? I think it might but will it still be a mixed bag. Will PC games, like Civilization or F2P games like Planetside 2 follow? Will half of games prefer fewer cores and the other half more cores?

 

Credit: I_build_nanosuits - for brining up the console argument. He also offered this article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

 

A question to think about: If you built a computer today, which would you get, i5-4670k or FX-8350?

[Rorgash]

its going towards more cores with DirectX12 and Mantle, but it will be a while still before the games will be there

[StingBull]

Adding more cores is not going to solve anything. You can have your 16 core CPU, nobody will use more than 4 of those cores and if they even use that much.

[Jaquavius]

Adding more cores is not going to solve anything. You can have your 16 core CPU, nobody will use more than 4 of those cores and if they even use that much.

 

But what about console games that port to PC. Consoles now have 8 cores and developers are desperately tying to make due with the console hardware. Won't that push for games needing more cores?

[Jaquavius]

its going towards more cores with DirectX12 and Mantle, but it will be a while still before the games will be there

 

If you were just about to build a computer, which CPU would you buy?

[JuztBe]

Adding more cores is not going to solve anything. You can have your 16 core CPU, nobody will use more than 4 of those cores and if they even use that much.

Deepends on what Dx12 will offer. I would go for i5 i guess. 

[StingBull]

But what about console games that port to PC. Consoles now have 8 cores and developers are desperately tying to make due with the console hardware. Won't that push for games needing more cores?

 

They may have 8 cores but not all of them will be used for games. Furthermore developers wanting to minimize their work load will not optimize a game to run on 5 or 6 cores because then they would have to recode it entirely for the PC release. Only the first party games will take advantage of the full power of the consoles.

 

Even if 6 core to 8 core CPUs become a thing that people buy it will take a lot of time for it to be mainstream. If majority of the PC gamers only have a 4 core CPU no company would commit financial suicide by releasing a game that can only be played by a small minority of people.

[Rorgash]

If you were just about to build a computer, which CPU would you buy?

 i bought my i5 4670k last week

[MEC-777]

It's neither. It doesn't work that way. Just because a game can use more cores doesn't mean it will run better on a CPU with more cores.

 

CPUs should not be compared by number of cores, but by architecture, IPC and other important factors. The number of cores is just one part of it.

 

Some games must use more cores by design. The IPC per core of the new consoles is such that the work must be spread over multiple [weaker] cores in order to deliver adequate performance. They also use a high core count for multi-tasking purposes (running the OS, a game and other apps at the same time). That's not to say a CPU with fewer cores couldn't handle the same work load. An i5, for example, with vastly higher IPC per core would absolutely blow the 8-core CPU in the consoles out of the water. 

 

When it comes to gaming, it depends on those other things I mentioned as well as how well the game was optimized in the first place (and not necessarily how many cores it can use). The future of gaming will be more dependent on the advancements of APIs (mantle, dx12 etc.) to further reduce CPU overhead - regardless of the number of cores it has.   

 

So I can't vote for either choice in this poll because, for gaming specifically, both CPUs deliver very similar performance. They just use two different methods to do so. The FX spreads the work out over multiple cores while the i5 just plows through via raw IPC. If you play some older games or some games that have poor optimization (bad ports etc.), then I would lean towards the i5. 

 

Bottom line, for future gaming, neither is going to become obsolete any quicker than the other. Both will remain relevant for a long time yet. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

They may have 8 cores but not all of them will be used for games. Furthermore developers wanting to minimize their work load will not optimize a game to run on 5 or 6 cores because then they would have to recode it entirely for the PC release. Only the first party games will take advantage of the full power of the consoles.

 

Even if 6 core to 8 core CPUs become a thing that people buy it will take a lot of time for it to be mainstream. If majority of the PC gamers only have a 4 core CPU no company would commit financial suicide by releasing a game that can only be played by a small minority of people.

It will still be playable on the quad core 4 thread CPU's, only on lower settings...

To max out next gen games (Games that will be coded to take advantage of all the available ressources from the 8th gen consoles) you will need a CPU that will be able to handle 6 to 8 sets of instructions

at a time...games that are being released as of today also have versions for the PS3/XB360, but the real next gen titles that are in production ATM (Most of them built on cryengine and frostbyte) will all make good use of multicore CPU's, that's a given.

[StingBull]

It will still be playable on the quad core 4 thread CPU's, only on lower settings...

To max out next gen games (Games that will be coded to take advantage of all the available ressources from the 8th gen consoles) you will need a CPU that will be able to handle 6 to 8 sets of instructions

at a time...games that are being released as of today also have versions for the PS3/XB360, but the real next gen titles that are in production ATM (Most of them built on cryengine and frostbyte) will all make good use of multicore CPU's, that's a given.

 

Even then I don't believe any of this will happen in the near future. In 10 years maybe. But right now only few AAA games will actually push the hardware and even fewer will require more than 4 cores.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Even then I don't believe any of this will happen in the near future. In 10 years maybe. But right now only few AAA games will actually push the hardware and even fewer will require more than 4 cores.

How do you explain that a core i5 is seing over 90 to 95% usage in modern games like BF4 multiplayer or crysis3?

How will this perform in real next gen games? Next gen is THIS YEAR, not it 10 years time!

New games coded for PS4 and XBone will hit the market THIS YEAR!! not in 10 years time...and they will all be well multi-threaded games with much more advanced physics and visual effects and

they will ALL make good use of 8 thread capable CPU's.

[MEC-777]

It will still be playable on the quad core 4 thread CPU's, only on lower settings...

To max out next gen games (Games that will be coded to take advantage of all the available ressources from the 8th gen consoles) you will need a CPU that will be able to handle 6 to 8 sets of instructions

at a time...games that are being released as of today also have versions for the PS3/XB360, but the real next gen titles that are in production ATM (Most of them built on cryengine and frostbyte) will all make good use of multicore CPU's, that's a given.

No, it won't need lower settings. Game settings are determined by the GPU, not CPU.

 

There's more to it than simply number of cores. A quad-core CPU with twice the IPC per core of an 8-core CPU with be able to handle the same 8 threads in the same amount of time. That is, more or less, what we see when we compare the multi-core gaming performance of the 8350 with an i5.

 

---

 

It seems like many people don't quite understand or are aware of all the factors that effect CPU performance. We've been trained to think in terms of GHz and number of cores, but those things really don't matter that much until you put it into context. Yeah a quad-core i5 will be faster than a dual-core i3 in almost every way. But a dual core i3 is faster than an Athlon X4 760K quad-core in almost every way and even on par with an 8350 8-core in some games and applications. The reason is because of IPC, cache, scheduling (i3 is hyper threaded), architecture, etc.

 

And this is my point; don't choose a CPU based on number of cores, or GHz or manufacturer. Choose the CPU that performs best for your specific needs within the price range that suits your budget - regardless of how many cores it has. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, the future of PC gaming is not going to focus on number of cores but rather optimizing and reducing CPU overhead via improving the APIs.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

No, it won't need lower settings. Game settings are determined by the GPU, not CPU.

 

There's more to it than simply number of cores. A quad-core CPU with twice the IPC per core of an 8-core CPU with be able to handle the same 8 threads in the same amount of time. That is, more or less, what we see when we compare the multi-core gaming performance of the 8350 with an i5.

 

---

 

It seems like many people don't quite understand or are aware of all the factors that effect CPU performance. We've been trained to think in terms of GHz and number of cores, but those things really don't matter that much until you put it into context. Yeah a quad-core i5 will be faster than a dual-core i3 in almost every way. But a dual core i3 is faster than an Athlon X4 760K quad-core in almost every way and even on par with an 8350 8-core in some games and applications. The reason is because of IPC, cache, scheduling (i3 is hyper threaded), architecture, etc.

 

And this is my point; don't choose a CPU based on number of cores, or GHz or manufacturer. Choose the CPU that performs best for your specific needs within the price range that suits your budget - regardless of how many cores it has. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, the future of PC gaming is not going to focus on number of cores but rather optimizing and reducing CPU overhead via improving the APIs.

We are all very aware of all that but thanks for remembering it if some people where not aware that IPC is better on intel chip and that with applications that require 1 or 2 heavy threads a core i3 outperform anything AMD has to offer...this is all true, but the future of gaming is in multi-threaded games and this is a given and in mutlithreaded task you need a core i7 to perform on the same level as an 8 core FX chip.

[StingBull]

How do you explain that a core i5 is seing over 90 to 95% usage in modern games like BF4 multiplayer or crysis3?

How will this perform in real next gen games? Next gen is THIS YEAR, not it 10 years time!

New games coded for PS4 and XBone will hit the market THIS YEAR!! not in 10 years time...and they will all be well multi-threaded games with much more advanced physics and visual effects and

they will ALL make good use of 8 thread capable CPU's.

 

i5 is not the highest end CPU of our time. Tell me when games are pushing the latest i7 to its limits. What's more is the games that you gave example of are some of the few games that are actually CPU dependent. As @MEC-777 put it most games are GPU dependent.

 

Again console games will not use all 8 cores, at least 1 core is dedicated to background tasks.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i5 is not the highest end CPU of our time. Tell me when games are pushing the latest i7 to its limits. What's more is the games that you gave example of are some of the few games that are actually CPU dependent. As @MEC-777 put it most games are GPU dependent.

 

Again console games will not use all 8 cores, at least 1 core is dedicated to background tasks.

This is ALL very true, there is noting to disagree with in those sentences.

Hence the reason to pick a cheaper 8 thread capable CPU and pairing it with the highest performing GPU possible.

[MEC-777]

How do you explain that a core i5 is seing over 90 to 95% usage in modern games like BF4 multiplayer or crysis3?

How will this perform in real next gen games? Next gen is THIS YEAR, not it 10 years time!

New games coded for PS4 and XBone will hit the market THIS YEAR!! not in 10 years time...and they will all be well multi-threaded games with much more advanced physics and visual effects and

they will ALL make good use of 8 thread capable CPU's.

BF4 is not very well optimized to begin with and the fact that a 4-core i5 can handle it just as well as an 8-core 8350 shows that number of cores is not the most important factor within a certain price point. 

 

Crysis 3 (and previous Crysis games) are known to push hardware to it's limits, even years later. Again, both the i5 and 8350 perform nearly the same in this case showing, once again, that it's not all about the number of cores.

 

How will they perform in the future? Just fine. Mantle is making great progress in reducing CPU overhead. Much of it is on the shoulders of the devs working on the games and these new APIs, really. 

 

I can tell you this with regards to the consoles having "much more advanced physics and visual effects"; That's not going to happen. Ever. As it stands, the hardware of the new consoles are approximately equivalent to mid-range gaming PC specs. The PS4 is a little stronger while the Xbox one is a little behind. With PC gaming optimizations constantly improving, there is/will be very little optimization advantage for the consoles in this generation. It's really quite sad that they can't even get the Xbox One to run current games at full 1080p (and those that do, only run at 30fps, with the odd exception). PCs are and will always remain the superior platform for harboring the "more advance physics and visual effects" and always will. Both the i5 and 8350 are vastly more capable CPUs compared to the 8-core units in the consoles. 

 

BTW, physics is processed typically by the CPU (which PC have far more capable parts available) and visuals are processed by the GPU (again, which PC have far more capable parts available). I'm not trying to start a PC vs. Console war here. I'm just stating the facts in relation to your claims. PC will always hold the advantage over consoles for both CPU and GPU bleeding edge performance.

[i_build_nanosuits]

compare the PS3 specs (that can run crysis 3) and compare them to the specs of the new gen consoles...they are at least twice as powerful, don't you think that the game developpers will code some AWESOME advanced high detail 3d games for them?! they sure will...the consoles cant be compared to PC in any way because they are much more efficient and the coding of the games is optimised to run much better on them...i'm telling you the real next gen games for the new consoles will be quite something and you will need a PC on steroid to take full advantage of them...

The PS3 as a 7800GT GPU and run this game, how do you explain that you need at least a GTX 460 for the minimum settings?! :

Also, not being mean but look at my profile, you aint gonna teach me anything about games, consoles or PC i've been working in the business for well over 7 years...i know everything there is to know about tech and games...i've been building computers for well over 15 years now and i've been playing and working around them since i'm 5...

 

The day AMD won the bet and signed contract to put 8 core jaguar chips in every XBone and PS4 that where going to be sold world wide, the gaming industry knew they we're in for quite a ride and quite a challenge. Those CPU while considered ''weak'' when compared to current PC CPU's, should be considered ''Extremely competent'' when compared with last generation consoles...the 3 core CPU in the PS3 and XB360 is about 35% as fast as a jaguar computing unit.

 

I know this for a fact i worked on games that where going to be released both on PS3, PS4 and PC and let me tell you that the programmers had a really hard time to get black flag running properly on old gen consoles even when using an old tech game engine. I saw the early stage of developpment for the game watch dogs at ubisoft studio in montréal and i can tell you this game is going to be a monster...it's just a first step toward 8th gen games, but it's quite a step ! ...this game will torture a core i5 i can guarantee you that!
 

[MEC-777]

We are all very aware of all that but thanks for remembering it if some people where not aware that IPC is better on intel chip and that with applications that require 1 or 2 heavy threads a core i3 outperform anything AMD has to offer...this is all true, but the future of gaming is in multi-threaded games and this is a given and in mutlithreaded task you need a core i7 to perform on the same level as an 8 core FX chip.

Future games may be able to use more threads/cores, but that doesn't mean more cores will be required nor necessary, especially if the per-core performance is such that it can process the same amount of data in the same amount of time. 

 

compare the PS3 specs (that can run crysis 3) and compare them to the specs of the new gen consoles...they are at least twice as powerful, don't you think that the game developpers will code some AWESOME advanced high detail 3d games for them?! they sure will...the consoles cant be compared to PC in any way because they are much more efficient and the coding of the games is optimised to run much better on them...i'm telling you the real next gen games for the new consoles will be quite something and you will need a PC on steroid to take full advantage of them...

The PS3 as a 7800GT GPU and run this game, how do you explain that you need at least a GTX 460 for the minimum settings?! :

Also, not being mean but look at my profile, you aint gonna teach me anything about games, consoles or PC i've been working in the business for well over 7 years...i know everything there is to know about tech and games...i've been building computers for well over 15 years now and i've been playing and working around them since i'm 5...

 

The day AMD won the bet and signed contract to put 8 core jaguar chips in every XBone and PS4 that where going to be sold world wide, the gaming industry knew they we're in for quite a ride and quite a challenge. Those CPU while considered ''weak'' when compared to current PC CPU's, should be considered ''Extremely competent'' when compared with last generation consoles...the 3 core CPU in the PS3 and XB360 is about 35% as fast as a jaguar computing unit.

 

I know this for a fact i worked on games that where going to be released both on PS3, PS4 and PC and let me tell you that the programmers had a really hard time to get black flag running properly on old gen consoles even when using an old tech game engine. I saw the early stage of developpment for the game watch dogs at ubisoft studio in montréal and i can tell you this game is going to be a monster...it's just a first step toward 8th gen games, but it's quite a step ! ...this game will torture a core i5 i can guarantee you that!

 

I have no doubt developers will do all they can to try and make games look as good as possible given the limited hardware on the new consoles. I also have no doubt such games will still look better and run smoother on PC hardware. The down side for the consoles is in order to provide adequate frame rates, they must resort to running strange resolutions (Titanfall at 792p I believe? and Tomb Raider at 900p?). "Next gen" shouldn't be anything less than 1080p and 40fps+. Sure, they can optimize all they want for these new consoles, but at the end of the day, PCs can still run the same game looking better and playing smoother. Look at Skyrim, a late comer to the last gen consoles, stuck at 720p and 30fps on the console. On PC it can be heavily modded to look WAY better and run at a butter-smooth 60fps. Skyrim has well known optimization issues, but it's still not a problem for moderately powerful gaming PCs. 

 

Again, I'm not trying to start a console vs. PC argument, but it doesn't matter how well you optimize a game for the new consoles, they will never surpass the capabilities of PC hardware.

 

Let's not mix things up here. The capability of the new consoles in terms of visuals is not restricted because of it's CPU but because of it's GPU. Visual quality and frame rates are dependent on the capabilities of the GPU. Given that the Xbox One GPU is about equivalent to an HD 7790 and the PS4 is closer to a 7850/7870 (and has faster DDR4 ram), I'm not surprised games are limited to sub 1080p resolutions and 30fps on the Xbox One. The PS4 I can see being capable of some very good looking games and running them at decent frame rates, but the reasons for this is because of their GPU capabilities (and partially memory bandwidth), not the number of cores in the CPU. 

 

So, optimize as they may, the major limitation in the consoles will remain in their GPU, not CPU. Running an i7 or 8350 with a low/mid-range GPU will yield no advantage over running a 760K or Pentium G3420 with that same low/mid-range GPU. 

 

I think we're starting to get a little off-topic here. The original topic was; Will future gaming require more less powerful cores or more powerful but fewer cores? The answer is both and the reasons for which I've already explained. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

I agree with everything that you've said MAC-777, you seem like a well informed and trusty person, good job and keep up your good work.

[Jaquavius]

Future games may be able to use more threads/cores, but that doesn't mean more cores will be required nor necessary, especially if the per-core performance is such that it can process the same amount of data in the same amount of time. 

 

I have no doubt developers will do all they can to try and make games look as good as possible given the limited hardware on the new consoles. I also have no doubt such games will still look better and run smoother on PC hardware. The down side for the consoles is in order to provide adequate frame rates, they must resort to running strange resolutions (Titanfall at 792p I believe? and Tomb Raider at 900p?). "Next gen" shouldn't be anything less than 1080p and 40fps+. Sure, they can optimize all they want for these new consoles, but at the end of the day, PCs can still run the same game looking better and playing smoother. Look at Skyrim, a late comer to the last gen consoles, stuck at 720p and 30fps on the console. On PC it can be heavily modded to look WAY better and run at a butter-smooth 60fps. Skyrim has well known optimization issues, but it's still not a problem for moderately powerful gaming PCs. 

 

Again, I'm not trying to start a console vs. PC argument, but it doesn't matter how well you optimize a game for the new consoles, they will never surpass the capabilities of PC hardware.

 

Let's not mix things up here. The capability of the new consoles in terms of visuals is not restricted because of it's CPU but because of it's GPU. Visual quality and frame rates are dependent on the capabilities of the GPU. Given that the Xbox One GPU is about equivalent to an HD 7790 and the PS4 is closer to a 7850/7870 (and has faster DDR4 ram), I'm not surprised games are limited to sub 1080p resolutions and 30fps on the Xbox One. The PS4 I can see being capable of some very good looking games and running them at decent frame rates, but the reasons for this is because of their GPU capabilities (and partially memory bandwidth), not the number of cores in the CPU. 

 

So, optimize as they may, the major limitation in the consoles will remain in their GPU, not CPU. Running an i7 or 8350 with a low/mid-range GPU will yield no advantage over running a 760K or Pentium G3420 with that same low/mid-range GPU. 

 

I think we're starting to get a little off-topic here. The original topic was; Will future gaming require more less powerful cores or more powerful but fewer cores? The answer is both and the reasons for which I've already explained. 

 

So if you were building a computer today and you wanted to get an i5-4670k or FX-8350 which one would you get? Just curious .

[i_build_nanosuits]

just my guess on his answer according to what he just said : the cheapest solution that will get the job done allowing you to put more money toward the best GPU you can afford.

 

i totaly agree with him that the weakest link in new gen consoles will most likely be the GPU...same goes for PC, a good intel i5 or an FX-6300 will play games on highest settings for a while...the GPU is the most important purchased. i would go with the 8320 just to be safe and it's not much more expensive than the FX-6300, but if you're on a tight budget the FX-6300 will do just as well.

[MEC-777]

So if you were building a computer today and you wanted to get an i5-4670k or FX-8350 which one would you get? Just curious .

 

just my guess on his answer according to what he just said : the cheapest solution that will get the job done allowing you to put more money toward the best GPU you can afford.

 

It's not an easy decision, that's for sure. Both deliver similar gaming performance at each of their respective price points. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. What I would choose is actually in my sig, which is neither. My reasoning is as follows, but keep in mind, this is based on my own needs and preferences.

 

To overclock Haswell you need a better CPU cooler (extra $30 at least), a Z87 motherboard ($20+ over H87 boards) and a K Processor ($40+ over the 4570). That's a grand total of at least $90+ spent, just for the ability to properly overclock a Haswell i5 CPU. From what I've seen and read, the improvements in gaming specifically resulting from spending all that extra money yields maybe 2-5% (a few fps) at most. The 4570 performs almost the same as the 4670K at stock clocks. All this considered, it made far more sense IMO, to redirect that $90+ towards the GPU. You all already know that an extra $90 goes a long way in terms of GPU performance, especially for someone on a budget. FAR more than what you gain from overclocking the CPU. After monitoring the 4570 in a variety of demanding games, I've never seen it reach 100% on all four cores (or any cores) and I have actually seen it dynamically overclock itself to 3.8GHz on all four cores at one point. It's not the fastest i5, but it offers the best [gaming] performance per dollar value of the i5's IMO. 

 

The 8350 offers a very compelling alternative, IMO, mainly because of it's price to performance and it's ability to more easily overclock with significant tangible results. Part of the reason I decided against the 8350 was because I'd have to buy a more expensive motherboard with the adequate power phase design to handle the 8-core FX. Again, precious $ that could be spent on a better GPU.

 

So, i_build_nanosiuts, to an extent, you are correct. However I wouldn't recommend you skimp on the CPU to the extent that it becomes the bottleneck in gaming. Building a balance system is key. Don't go with a Pentium G3420 or 760K and super-cheap motherboard just so you can afford a GTX 780/R9-290. Instead, go with an i3 or FX-6300 and a GTX 760/R9-270X. You'll get better gaming performance from the latter and have a better performing system as a whole.

 

 

Notice in all this, I've said nothing about the number of cores, because that doesn't really matter.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Part of the reason I decided against the 8350 was because I'd have to buy a more expensive motherboard with the adequate power phase design to handle the 8-core FX. Again, precious $ that could be spent on a better GPU.

This motherboard (Gigabyte 970A-UD3p) has an 8+2 gidital power phase design with high quality heatsinked VRM's and mosfets...it's perfect to overclock the hell out of an FX chip...84$, what do you think.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128651

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4717#ov

[MEC-777]

This motherboard (Gigabyte 970A-UD3p) has an 8+2 gidital power phase design with high quality heatsinked VRM's and mosfets...it's perfect to overclock the hell out of an FX chip...84$, what do you think.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128651

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4717#ov

At the time I was building my system, the available parts with the features I needed and [Canadian] prices weren't very enticing on the FX/AM3+ front. That and I also really wanted to build a mini-ITX rig (there are no AM3+ ITX motherboards, unfortunately).  

 

But yeah, that looks like a good buy. If it suits your needs and fits your budget, then by all means! I would just urge caution and do some research first to see how other people found that board performed with overclocking.