Cores for Gaming Q1 2015

[Razor512]

For far cry 4, the cracked copies include the dual core fix, and the game runs just fine with them, especially if they are overclocked. Then again when the game first came out, many paid users were moving to cracked copies because the cracked copy did not have the performance issues related to the DRM checks causing 1 of the cores to constantly be at 100% load, thus causing lower usage in every other core, and more CPU bottlenecks.

The fix that ubisoft kept removing, was essentially just the cracked exe file; basically half of the crack process, with just that fix, a paid copy would run with any core, but it was not quite enough to make a pirate copy run.

 

For processes sometimes failing to use more than 50% load, for reasons that I am not sure of (hopefully someone with a programming background can explain further) the scheduler will sometimes run a single threaded process on multiple cores, but due to the single threaded nature, it can only ever use 1 core at a time, thus the load will never really add up to more than the equivalent of 1 core running at 100% load.

 

Many games, while able to use multiple threads, will often have many single threaded components, e.g., the AI may be single threaded and thus if there is a lot going on that requires the use of AI, the GPU usage may even drop (in addition to a drop in CPU usage) while everything begins to wait on that 1 thread handling the AI.

[chopdok]

It's my understanding that DX12 isn't just using more cores to initiate draw calls, but is also using draw call bundles to reduce their number significantly which is the main performance benefit of DX12 (and the reason why DX12 isn't going to significantly improve performance on the Xbox One - It already implements draw call bundles in DX11.X). To me that means that lower end CPU's that would normally choke on a high draw call load are going to see the greatest benefit from DX12 adoption.

 

Anandtech did an article about DX12 performance scaling vs number of cores and the numbers seem to agree with me, at least for StarSwarm. If you compare those numbers to a later article detailing performance scaling across lower-end CPU's, you can see that under DX12, the low-end CPU's jump to essentially the same performance point as the first article's emulated Core i5 4670K (labeled 4 cores), assuming the GTX 680 roughly equates to a GTX 770. While a straight up dual core like the G3258 isn't going to match a 4670K, the i3 definitely appears to do so quite handily, and if the first article is any indication, even a dual core keeps up pretty well with a massive performance benefit, though 4 threads is still the sweet spot.

Agreed on all points except Dual-Cores keeping up. Dual-Cores will become irrelevant for gaming in 2 years at most, probably sooner for high end AAA games. If even today there are games that don't work, or work like crap, with dual-core CPUs - despite the fact that DX 11 makes it hard to leverage higher amount of cores (threads) - then with DX 12 and Vulkan which make it far easier, the writing is basically on the wall - get a proper quad-core, or at least dual-core with HT.

[Nighed]

I've talked about this before on this forum but as this video now has a topic in the forum I'll mention this again.

 

Cities: Skylines is not that simple of a benchmark tool to just look at the FPS. The game has separate threads from the graphics performance for the simulation of the game. And the simulation speed does go down when the population grows. So to properly judge the CPU performance you should use a city with 200k+ population and have some kind of way to tell the difference between the simulation speed using some kind of metric.

 

For GPU benchmarks it should be fine.

 

 

 

Also I'm still kind of disappointed that you still don't throw one or two AMD CPUs into the mix just to see how they hold up.

 This. 

 

I max out all 4 cores on my CPU at 100k pop+ and 3x speed, Even with as many background programs closed as I can.

It would be nice to see a benchmark of realtime taken against game time passed at 3x speed at high pop.

[NeoFrux]

Agreed on all points except Dual-Cores keeping up. Dual-Cores will become irrelevant for gaming in 2 years at most, probably sooner for high end AAA games. If even today there are games that don't work, or work like crap, with dual-core CPUs - despite the fact that DX 11 makes it hard to leverage higher amount of cores (threads) - then with DX 12 and Vulkan which make it far easier, the writing is basically on the wall - get a proper quad-core, or at least dual-core with HT.

 

I'm not so sure - At least, not as far as dual with HT like the i3's are concerned, and at least for now, with DX12, Intel's dual cores are still holding up based on the numbers. The current generation of consoles are where AAA titles will be hitting first for the most part, and both of them already have access to features that will be coming in DX12. Developers already have access to a much higher number of threads and draw call bundles, and they're having issues getting performance from those consoles; I think it will be a few years yet before AAA developers really grasp what to do with the extra horsepower that DX12 brings to the table.

 

On the other hand, PC-centric devs like Valve, Bohemia Interactive, Tripwire, and CD Projekt RED might jump on it sooner. But even so, there are plenty of gaming PC's out right now that are a few years old in terms of tech (including those built with "quad core" AMD FX or APU chips), and support for those will remain important in the next few years. Given the performance boost that DX12 is expected to bring to the table, it's likely that there will be an expectation that the performance will rise while graphical fidelity will remain on pace, which means older hardware is still going to have legs for a while. Far Cry 4 is a bad example; Ubisoft artificially locked the game out for dual threaded machines, and with a patch, the game works fine.

 

Absolutely not saying it's a good idea to build a dual core gaming machine today and expect it to last a long time; It's obvious quad core is the current sweet spot in either case. But what I am saying is I don't think it's going to be as irrelevant as quickly as you think. I'm pretty sure that DX12, at least for the first couple years, is going to actually extend the life of those dual core CPU's rather than helping to more quickly obsolete them.

[Le Lion de Barreras]

I'll provide some feedback for everyone here.
I've had a Pentium G3220 before I upgraded to an i5 4460 and here are some things I've noticed and as well a few things I want to point out.

This is just my opinion. I'm not going to start any argument or flame war.

In the past and even today most games could run just fine with a dual core just fine as many of you saw with the Tomb Raider benchmark and that was because the games then were usually a bit more GPU bound than some games out now. However, the games today that cannot run on traditional dual cores are due to companies and possibly devs who don't care for their customers who are stuck with budget rigs which in my opinion is a bit inexcusable considering you need to download a patch online from pirates in order to run the game on dual cores and it's not just Ubisoft with Far Cry 4, Dragon Age Inquisition cannot run on traditional dual cores too. The reason why I say traditional dual cores is because HT dual cores like the i3 could run Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age because those games think they're quad cores due to the HT.

However, there are benefits when upgrading to a quad core. One of the things I've noticed is that the minimum FPS increases in Shadow of Mordor and some other games, they were little to no fps drops with a quad core compared to when I was gaming with a Pentium when the fps drops sometimes then climbs back up and when the FPS drops it would cause a bit of a stutter. Some games also in my opinion feel smoother. Whereas other games felt no different. So, in my opinion it depends on the game. You could game on a dual core just fine just fine especially if the game you're playing is GPU bound which means it mostly depends on the GPU rather than needing both the CPU and GPU or rather mostly the CPU. But in my opinion I'd upgrade to a quad core or dual core + HT incase most companies/devs decide to follow suite and do what Ubisoft and Bioware did with their games.

[Shadow-R]

Terve!

I haven't read too many things in the topic. But I would be very interested in a benchmark with an FX4300 in it.

Yes that thing is super old and has more TDP than almost everything from Intel, but I as an AMD Fanboy would be very happy to have some other numbers on AMD chips than just Tek Syndicates weired ones.

If anyone has numbers on that, I would apprechiate it to know. Thanks

Sayonara!

[Access All Areas]

Based on some articles I've read (one was on PC Per I think) it looks like DirectX 12 games will result in better CPU utilisation. I would be very interested in seeing these tests redone with DirectX 12 games.

[KathyTheGreat]

Can you do a video where you like get an 8 core AMD! cpu and in some tests disable a few cores, in other you don't and make a comparison how well it behaves under new games? Hmm?

Keep up the good work!

[Tech N Gamer]

Here's a thing that I think you overlooked (idk if it's nick name is hyperthreading but,) what about core virtualization. My laptop I am using has a dual core yet I play games that don't like dual core. Also could some explain to me if core virtualization is a good thing or not?

[tsk]

Here's a thing that I think you overlooked (idk if it's nick name is hyperthreading but,) what about core virtualization. My laptop I am using has a dual core yet I play games that don't like dual core. Also could some explain to me if core virtualization is a good thing or not?

I could write pages about what you just asked. But since I'm on my phone I encourage you to Google 'hyperthreading' and you'll find some nice articles on the subject.

[NateGSR117]

Like I thought dual core are good but quad cores are the best

[907rider]

What about say the cache sizes of the CPU's and such? Since those very from CPU to CPU couldn't you not technically simulate another CPU by disabling cores unless said CPU has the same cache levels? 

 

Interesting video though! I am proud of Luke for finally wearing a LTT t-shirt 

[Pawn]

If we are just talking about cores, AMD would a nice comparision to add to the topic.

[Inkz]

I would like to see a multitasking video while gaming, as that is one of their "great multitasking" selling points.

[sgloux3470]

The 8core results are clearly nonsense, if it wasn't apparent with Cities Skylines and Max Performance setting in Attila. 

 

Were the CPU's even all run at the same clock speed? 

[i_build_nanosuits]

The 8core results are clearly nonsense, if it wasn't apparent with Cities Skylines and Max Performance setting in Attila. 

 

Were the CPU's even all run at the same clock speed?

probably not...maybe that's the issue...i would have picked different games as well...those are know to be games that pin one CPU core hardly therefore they are not ''real'' modern multi-threaded games...ACU, watchdogs, crysis,sniper elite V3, battlefield, CoD:AW would have been better choices for example IMHO.

[sgloux3470]

probably not...maybe that's the issue...i would have picked different games as well...those are know to be games that pin one CPU core hardly therefore they are not ''real'' modern multi-threaded games...ACU, watchdogs, crysis,sniper elite V3, battlefield, CoD:AW would have been better choices for example IMHO.

 

Yeah game choice was pretty iffy too.

[ErickS89]

I think this is the first LTT video I've wanted on release day...

[Godlygamer23]

But can they run Crysis? :0 You did not say!

There's no verdict as of right now.

[BoxFabio]

Another Example of another game 

 

[Larunda]

This should be redone to include streaming, please?

[rinslime]

I would love to see a similar video with more multitasking.

 

Perhaps not ridiculous multitasking like streaming, rendering, and playing a game at once (because people who do this obviously know they need more cores) but perhaps like playing a game, and watching a movie on 2nd monitor while downloading another game on steam.

 

I really hope Intel start doing 6-core CPUs for their i5s, or at least their highest end i5s on skylake or at least its successor.

[StrangeOne]

I would have liked to see an AMD comparison in there as well, maybe not for A-series but it would be nice to know how the fx-4XXX, 6XXX, and 8XXX compare because I feel like the best price:performance is somewhere around the 8XXX right now (maybe 6XXX). But of course out of what is listed the 4 core no ht (i5) would serve the best price:performance

[Dabombinable]

I would have liked to see an AMD comparison in there as well, maybe not for A-series but it would be nice to know how the fx-4XXX, 6XXX, and 8XXX compare because I feel like the best price:performance is somewhere around the 8XXX right now (maybe 6XXX). But of course out of what is listed the 4 core no ht (i5) would serve the best price:performance

Its actually the i3, it performs better in all tasks that don't require more than 4 threads.

[Hatchi]

WTF 2 cores won't run far cry4? I have i3 3250 and it runs on 40-60 fps wtf?