I am tired of everyone claiming "6 cores do nothing for games," and tired of hearing "you only need 8 gigs of ram."

[Dabombinable]

Fewer Intel cores  >  More AMD cores

The post was about people saying '6 cores don't do anything for games', not Red vs Blue as both AMD and Intel make cpus with 6+ cores.

[Metrize]

The post was about people saying '6 cores don't do anything for games', not Red vs Blue as both AMD and Intel make cpus with 6+ cores.

 

Fair enough.

However, the OP is wrong, you do not need more than 4 cores for gaming, this is shown by the 4790k outperforming the 8350, and most games are not even that multi-threaded

[zappian]

 

 

However, the OP is wrong, you do not need more than 4 cores for gaming, this is shown by the 4790k

That cpu has 8 threads. Did you mean the 4690k? That cpu outperforms the 8350 as well.

[Dabombinable]

Fair enough.

However, the OP is wrong, you do not need more than 4 cores for gaming, this is shown by the 4790k outperforming the 8350, and most games are not even that multi-threaded

Read carefully, nothing was said about not needing more than 4 cores. Its about those who say '6 cores don't do anything for games'. (repeating myself here).

 

 

 

That cpu has 8 threads. Did you mean the 4690k? That cpu outperforms the 8350 as well.

Per core an old lga775 core 2 E8xxx beats any FX cpu at the same frequencies.

[Metrize]

Read carefully, nothing was said about not needing more than 4 cores. Its about those who say '6 cores don't do anything for games'. (repeating myself here).

 

 

 

Per core an old lga775 core 2 E8xxx beats any FX cpu at the same frequencies.

 

well not more than 4 is really needed for games at the moment, however, more cores while gaming could be useful for multitasking whilst gaming.

[NumLock21]

Current games don't go beyond 4 cores. The reason why your seeing a improvment with your 6 cores is, 4 cores are used for games and the extra 2 cores for other task.

With a 4 core, games uses 4 cores and other task need to use the cores too, so it has to share.

[rtpb5642]

But you don't. You get better FPS because background tasks can be moved to the extra cores. 

So then yes more cores is better. Background tasks are moved so more fps for games.

 

Ultimately more fps.

 

And when i say more cores is better i am not refering to AMDin particular, intel or AMD CPUS with more cores will boost fps, maybe not a lot but it will.

[rtpb5642]

Seriously guys, shut up.

 

I popped in my x6, and immediately saw higher FPS in planetside 2, Garry's mod, CS:GO, and Crysis when compared to my x4 at the same clock speed. (both are @ 4Ghz)

 

As for ram? I dont know about you, but I was constantly getting low memory messages with 8 gigs, and I've since installed 4 more.

 

The point is, These things do help.

 

so quit your preaching that "You only need a 4 core, and 8 gigs is more than enough," until you try a 6 core, with more than 8 gigs of ram.

 

If I see any of these kinds of posts in this thread, I will personally bust in your home and strangle you.

 

thank you.

 

/rant.

Well said!

[rtpb5642]

how about you try an actual 4 core not an athlon?

It is an actual 4 core

[rtpb5642]

this rant is on the forum's behavior towards CPUs and Memory.

 

I'm just tired of people making general statements like they're absolute truth.

Preach.

[rtpb5642]

*does what your profile picture is*

 

ironic, aint it?

[AfroZenPizza]

There are not a significant number of games that utilize more than 4 cores that make having more than 4 cores for gaming a worthwhile investment. It is not that there are no games that will benefit from the addition of cores, it's that the performance per investment drops off a cliff beyond 4 cores.

I congratulate the OP on their upgrade to an X6 and really hope for the OPs continued enjoyment of 2010. The OP seems to play some of the games that can utilize more than 4 cores, and can see some minor performance increases from it. With the exception of CS:GO all of the games listed are known to use extra threads efficiently.

I was going to write more than this, but I really just give up. People turned this into AMD vs Intel.

To sum up:
Games that use more than a couple cores are rare, and from a performance per investment standpoint 4 cores is the best offering.
Intel beats AMD in the majority of games, that is why it is considered the current winner in gaming. There are select cases that AMD wins. (This is a fact, until you can prove otherwise, please shutup)
There are games that can use more than 8GB RAM for whatever reason. They aren't common. Most games don't even use 2GB RAM.
Even games that use more than 4 cores generally don't see large performance increases after 4 cores, and are often perfectly playable with just 4 cores.

People generalize a little too much, do research and build what works best for a given situation. If you frequently play games that can utilize high thread counts to gain in game performance, invest the processor that gives you the results you're looking for.

Why are people arguing so much here? The OP stated that there was a gain in those games, and that problems were fixed with more RAM. While it may not be overly common that this is the fix, and it may not fix all game performance issues, it can sometimes be a fix. It was in this case.

[sgloux3470]

They're not absolute truth, but the fact of the matter is that 8GB of RAM and an Intel quad-core are enough for most peoples' gaming needs. Exceptions apply, but that's dependent on the user.

 

Most people's need are satiated with very middling hardware.  (Such as the budget build guides with both AMD and Intel LTT has posted recently.)  

 

If you're running a high end CPU with high end GPU's... why not spend $80 for another 8gb of RAM?  

 

That said I would never recommend anyone spend $1000 on a CPU if they're not using it as a workstation for something they make money off.  I don't care if you double your framerate.

[Bensemus]

i love how they give me a warnign for ''spam'' when i had nothing that really classified as spam but i see standard ''fewer intel cores are better than more amd cores''' kinda posts.....

T^T yeah thats fair....

To be fair you seemed to be having fun trying to defuse tension while not adding much to the current debate. I personally found your comments funny and enjoyable though.

 

Also to anyone who knows what is Foobar 2000? A lot of people in this thread seemed to run it constantly yet I'v never heard of it till now.

[BurgerBum]

To be fair you seemed to be having fun trying to defuse tension while not adding much to the current debate. I personally found your comments funny and enjoyable though.

 

Also to anyone who knows what is Foobar 2000? A lot of people in this thread seemed to run it constantly yet I'v never heard of it till now.

awe. tankz. :'3 

 

 

 

 

 

i believe its a music player, pretty damn good. prefer it over itunes however itunes already has all my **** on it so i dont feel like moving over.

[TheQuadSquad]

 

If I see any of these kinds of posts in this thread, I will personally bust in your home and strangle you.

 

 

 

 

Bit rude don't you think, lol?

[Hieb]

I was telling the people who mindlessly preach the 4core8gigs to shut up.

 

not every case is the same.

 

I could benifit from 24 cores with what I do.

 

but had I asked for advice on my build CPU wise, all i'd have gotten was i5 reccomendations.

 

Number of cores depends on the architecture. FX 6300 is better than an FX 4300 for sure... but no amount of multitasking is gonna make an FX 6300 better for anything than a modern (Ivy/Has) i5 simply because those 4 cores are strong enough that they provide both better single and multi-threaded performance.

 

More cores considering same architecture and similar clock speeds is always better to have... but more cores doesn't always mean better multitasking performance and can even be worse should the aforementioned things not be accounted for.

[Bensemus]

Just to add further fuel to this thread an i7 will offer no benefit over an i5 unless you are like rendering in the background. The only time I've used all 8GB of ram is when I play planet side 2 or have fun and open up chrome tabs till it maxes out

 

Just now for me to get my my ram almost maxed (7.5GB) I had to open 17 YouTube tabs in chrome, Steam downloading an update for a game (don't know if taht adds to ram usage but if it does it was happening), BioShock 2, Age of Empires, Civ V, vanilla Skyrem, Curse, LoL, and HWMonitor (I know it has little impact I just wanted to include all). That seems like a lot so 8GB recommended for most people still seems valid. My i7 was at ~50% load maxing at ~60% with core 3 at around 90% at 4.2Ghz as I think it was starting to throttle as I only have the stock cooler on it

 

In this forum I haven't seen anyone recommend an AMD quad core for gaming, its always the 6 core or 8 cores that get recommended as they provide a benefit worth the extra money. For Intel their quad cores are still all most people need with gamers maybe needing the 5930k if they want 3-way sli as I believe that needs more pcie lines than the consumer chips offer. 

[RockiLocky]

Just to add further fuel to this thread an i7 will offer no benefit over an i5 unless you are like rendering in the background. The only time I've used all 8GB of ram is when I play planet side 2 or have fun and open up chrome tabs till it maxes out

Just now for me to get my my ram almost maxed (7.5GB) I had to open 17 YouTube tabs in chrome, Steam downloading an update for a game (don't know if taht adds to ram usage but if it does it was happening), BioShock 2, Age of Empires, Civ V, vanilla Skyrem, Curse, LoL, and HWMonitor (I know it has little impact I just wanted to include all). That seems like a lot so 8GB recommended for most people still seems valid. My i7 was at ~50% load maxing at ~60% with core 3 at around 90% at 4.2Ghz as I think it was starting to throttle as I only have the stock cooler on it

In this forum I haven't seen anyone recommend an AMD quad core for gaming, its always the 6 core or 8 cores that get recommended as they provide a benefit worth the extra money. For Intel their quad cores are still all most people need with gamers maybe needing the 5930k if they want 3-way sli as I believe that needs more pcie lines than the consumer chips offer.

You can even 3-way SLI with the i7-5820K so no need to spend 200$ almost more. So if people wsnt to step up and do not need alot of PCIE-Lanes or do not have the money they should go for the i7-5820K.

Thats my opinion on your posts last part.

[soaringchicken]

In terms of price/performance its very bad value.... But if you were talking about unlimited budget, those things show benefit

[DaRk0]

Or you can try 4 core Intel CPU and you'd see 4 cores are indeed enough.

[CDHoward]

I've not read the thread. But all I'll say is this:

DirectX12 is going to make MASSIVE use of multiple cores for games, processes and productivity.

The rebirth of the FX 8350 (and even the FX 6 cores) is upon us

*Looks Around At Fellow FX Brothers And Sisters And Roars A Skin-Tingling Battle Cry With Fire In Mah Eyes And Heart*

[Fate]

I've not read the thread. But all I'll say is this:

DirectX12 is going to make MASSIVE use of multiple cores for games, processes and productivity.

The rebirth of the FX 8350 (and even the FX 6 cores) is upon us

*Looks Around At Fellow FX Brothers And Sisters And Roars A Skin-Tingling Battle Cry With Fire In Mah Eyes And Heart*

1. Intel processors will get stronger as well (because of DX12 and raw performance).

2. By the time DX12 is mainstream, FX will be obsolete compared to other CPU's (Zen, Skylake, etc). 

 

Skylake i5's will likely be better than 8350's in every program, because they're already getting pretty close, even in things like rendering (which I think is within <10% regarding 4690k). 

Hopefully Zen will bring AMD back into the CPU world because i3's/i5's are getting stronger and FX is just sitting there.

 

Obviously this is all speculation and things I've heard on the forum though, so I could be wrong.

[cooperb21]

If your low on memory on 8g your using some bloat ware like google chrome. 

[flibberdipper]

Let me step in.

 

I have a cute little G3258 OC'd pretty well (4.6GHz). I see surprisingly little performance impact due to only having two cores. Only some of the "heavier" titles that are more graphically demanding (Far Cry 3 and sometimes Bioshock Infinite) bring my G3258 down, and even then, it's from 50-60 (like with Battlefield 3) to 45-55. Which is still totally playable.

 

RAM... I can see the need for more than 8GB. Vegas loves it some good RAM. But normally, I never go past 5GB of use (with 2-3GB of the 8GB swap filled up).