Would more cores make up for low GHz?

[Bukkakemon]

I wanna get MGSV:TPP but it requires quad core with 3.2 GHz. Would 6 core 2.0 GHz be able to work around that?

[Aytex]

depends. what CPU it is?

[don_svetlio]

Depends on the CPU - usually GHz mean very little - the architecture is far more important

example: 8350 @ 5 GHz is roughly equal to an i5 4460 @ 3.2 GHz when all 8 cores are used.

[The Official Czex]

I wanna get MGSV:TPP but it requires quad core with 3.2 GHz. Would 6 core 2.0 GHz be able to work around that?

 

If it's Intel, yes. If it's AMD, no.

[Glenwing]

Depends on whether the game can utilize multiple cores. Most of older games won't be able to, but newer ones are getting better at it.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Any recent CPU plays the game great.

 

[Aytex]

Any recent CPU plays the game great.

 

 

but... 980 ti.....

[SteveGrabowski0]

but... 980 ti.....

 

When you do a CPU benchmark you always want to go overboard on GPU to force the CPU to be the limiting factor. If you test with a lesser GPU than your test essentially becomes a GPU test, like Luke's ridiculous Skylake test at 4k.

[Morgan MLGman]

Depends on the CPU - usually GHz mean very little - the architecture is far more important

example: 8350 @ 5 GHz is roughly equal to an i5 4460 @ 3.2 GHz when all 8 cores are used.

Wait, what? 8350 overclocked that high is more powerful than an i5-4690k when all 8 cores are used to 100%

[Majestic]

but... 980 ti.....

 

Which means CPU isn't a problem, since the GPU certainly isn't.

[Majestic]

Wait, what? 8350 overclocked that high is more powerful than an i5-4690k when all 8 cores are used to 100%

 

Yeah, as much as I like to rag on the 8350. That was a false statement indeed.

[Bukkakemon]

 

depends. what CPU it is?

 

 

Depends on the CPU - usually GHz mean very little - the architecture is far more important

example: 8350 @ 5 GHz is roughly equal to an i5 4460 @ 3.2 GHz when all 8 cores are used.

 

Intel Xeon Processor E7540

[don_svetlio]

Wait, what? 8350 overclocked that high is more powerful than an i5-4690k when all 8 cores are used to 100%

 

Yeah, as much as I like to rag on the 8350. That was a false statement indeed.

Hmm? Can you link me a bench? I remember Digital Foundry doing a comparison in Witcher 3 and the 8350 lost to the 4690K

Nevermind - That was stock. I guess I'm too used to people OCing the 8350 I forgot you can run it @ stock. My bad.

[Majestic]

Hmm? Can you link me a bench? I remember Digital Foundry doing a comparison in Witcher 3 and the 8350 lost to the 4690K

Nevermind - That was stock. I guess I'm too used to people OCing the 8350 I forgot you can run it @ stock. My bad.

 

Witcher 3 is far from utilizing all 8 cores. I think it's about 6, but it still has a heavy mainthread which causes poor scaling on AMD CPU's.

 

 

Intel Xeon Processor E7540

 

Nehalem @ 2ghz. No, not going to be enough. Not by a long shot.

[don_svetlio]

Witcher 3 is far from utilizing all 8 cores. I think it's about 6, but it still has a heavy mainthread which causes poor scaling on AMD CPU's.

Actually - it's one of the few games that does.

[Majestic]

Actually - it's one of the few games that does.

 

Nah man, it doesn't.

 

 

 

9590 still below the 2500K. Whilst the 9590 (5ghz) is faster than the 2500K in synthetic benchmarks. It's not scaling fully.

[don_svetlio]

Nah man, it doesn't.

 

 

 

9590 still below the 2500K. Whilst the 9590 (5ghz) is faster than the 2500K in synthetic benchmarks. It's not scaling fully.

I don't exactly trust the cinebench one since the 5775C was faster than the 4790K thanks to the faster L4 Cache or something of the sorts. But still - Vishera is old - not really surprising for it to be behind.

[Morgan MLGman]

Hmm? Can you link me a bench? I remember Digital Foundry doing a comparison in Witcher 3 and the 8350 lost to the 4690K

Nevermind - That was stock. I guess I'm too used to people OCing the 8350 I forgot you can run it @ stock. My bad.

This is what I mean: considering that you can get 4,5-5.0 ghz on nearly every 8350 provided you're able to cool it enough, the score would be even better. 8350 is indeed more powerful. Also, look at how the i3 experiences framerate drops when going into Novigrad cause it's not powerful enough, in that heavy load scenario the 8350 performs just as well as the 4690k or even better at times...

[Majestic]

This is what I mean: considering that you can get 4,5-5.0 ghz on nearly every 8350 provided you're able to cool it enough, the score would be even better. 8350 is indeed more powerful. Also, look at how the i3 experiences framerate drops when going into Novigrad cause it's not powerful enough, in that heavy load scenario the 8350 performs just as well as the 4690k or even better at times...

 

 

Don't push it m8. 8350 still isn't a great CPU for gaming. I'm just giving credit where credit is due. An overclocked 8350 beats the 4460 at 8-threaded applications.  Hell, it even beats it without OC.

 

Not in games though.

 

EDIT: and whats with the arbitrary 3D Mark synthetic benchmark.

[Morgan MLGman]

Don't push it m8. 8350 still isn't a great CPU for gaming. I'm just giving credit where credit is due. An overclocked 8350 beats the 4460 at 8-threaded applications.  Hell, it even beats it without OC.

 

Not in games though.

 

EDIT: and whats with the arbitrary 3D Mark synthetic benchmark.

Well yeah I wanted to show him that the 8350 is definitely not less powerful than the 4460 with this pic.

And I agree, in PCs that are built solely to game, there's no place for the FX CPUs, I was pointing out the fact that some people recommend i3s for gaming when in more demanding games these CPU are simply not powerful enough as in the Novigrad the FPS dropped to 30-40 at times, from being 70 out of the city, no such thing with the 4690k or the 8350 occured

[Majestic]

To answer the question though. 2 ghz Nehalem Architecture CPU isn't fast enough.

[typographie]

I wanna get MGSV:TPP but it requires quad core with 3.2 GHz. Would 6 core 2.0 GHz be able to work around that?

 

Firstly, no, core count cannot be considered a "substitute" for per-core performance. Often games cannot even scale beyond 2–4 cores anyway, so they won't care how many you have.

 

That said, MGS:V runs very well and is probably very CPU-agnostic. I would not be surprised if it worked fine regardless. You could always wait for a sale on MGS:V Ground Zeroes, which is a cheaper standalone title that runs precisely the same engine to see if performance is where you'd want it.

[Bukkakemon]

To answer the question though. 2 ghz Nehalem Architecture CPU isn't fast enough.

 

How about Xeon E7450, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, Xenon L5630,Xenon X5460, Core 2 Quad Q9450.

 

I just need an inexpensive CPU to play TPP if I buy it.

[Helio_Vice]

The newer the architecture, the newer the Instructions per clock, the more reliable each core is. 

 

Xeon CPU's aren't built with gaming in mine, they're server chips and serve to have higher cores > higher IPC. Of course which each new architecture this improves, but Intel's i5/i7 line have superior single/multi-thread performance, so I wouldn't trust a nehalem chip (that's an extremely old architecture) to push today's games well, especially at a mere 2Ghz.

[jjohnthedon1]

Let's all just take a minute to look at the i7 beating the i5 by 20 frames