8 cores for gaming

[Samsonsuperco]

So I always hear the saying, "you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming", or, "games don't use more than 4 cores". Now I'm not saying you need to go and buy and 8 core cpu to play games, but why do people always assume games will never use more than 4 cores? Here is what my cpu usage looks like playing Grand Theft Auto V:

(Keep in mind that the x5450 is a 4 core cpu and I have 2!)

[don_svetlio]

Some games do use more than 4 cores but the vast majority are limited to 4 or even 2.

[L.E.D]

It is using all the cores, simply because they're there. It's not like the game is only programmed to utilize a select amount of cores. It would probably run similarly with a 4 core, it just may cause more stress.

[App4that]

Because most of the people on this forum have a CPU with 4 threads or less. look at the system requirements on games on the horizon, a lot of them recommend a hyperthreaded CPU.

[OfficialSiRiS]

While a good quad core CPU is still a good choice for gaming, we are only going to see more games utilizing more cores, especially well optimized ones like GTA V. You may not see as much performance as you would expect with last gen games that may only utilize 2 or 3 cores, but the PS4 having 6 cores available to devs will only make it easier to optimize for more cores on PC.

GTA V is using all the 8 cores but not using all of their power, which I would expect from a console port. More games are utilizing more cores these days, and hopefully we will see even better optimization to make use of all the CPU's power.

[Thony]

So I always hear the saying, "you don't need more than 4 cores for gaming", or, "games don't use more than 4 cores". Now I'm not saying you need to go and buy and 8 core cpu to play games, but why do people always assume games will never use more than 4 cores? Here is what my cpu usage looks like playing Grand Theft Auto V:

(Keep in mind that the x5450 is a 4 core cpu and I have 2!)

What windows version are u on ? I would like that app too.

[applesuxD]

Gta is a game that uses alot of cores anyways

But i guess it is sort of futureproofing if cpu market stays so slow...

[BrightCandle]

I have gone through the gamegpu.ru game data (they are the only place testing lots of CPUs and GPUs against a wide range of gamers over time) and captured data for 6 cores, 4 cores etc going back years. Across 126 games the average benefit to 6 cores over 4c8t is just 1%. In 3/4 of games its 2%. But in that last 25% it ranges from 2% all the way up to 67%. When we talk about the games that do benefit its things like Total war, Battlefield 4, Metro last light, Crysis 3, Far cry 3, Hitman absolution, medal of honour warfighter and project cars. If you went and did a similar exercise for the past few months you would probably see a similar pattern of the big games benefitting by at least 20% over a 4c8t CPU.

 

The myth that pervades the industry that 4c4t or 4c8t is as good as it gets only remains because most reviewers do not test a wide enough range of games to genuinely capture the difference. It requires SLI/Crossfire and very particular games to get to the difference and its not sufficient to play a genre. If you chose 5 random games odds are none of them would show any difference, but some games show enormous differences going up to 6 cores with high end GPUs. The myth persists because of how terrible the reviews are and that not enough people realise how awesome what gamegpu.ru is actually doing (because its russian).

[App4that]

I have gone through the gamegpu.ru game data (they are the only place testing lots of CPUs and GPUs against a wide range of gamers over time) and captured data for 6 cores, 4 cores etc going back years. Across 126 games the average benefit to 6 cores over 4c8t is just 1%. In 3/4 of games its 2%. But in that last 25% it ranges from 2% all the way up to 67%. When we talk about the games that do benefit its things like Total war, Battlefield 4, Metro last light, Crysis 3, Far cry 3, Hitman absolution, medal of honour warfighter and project cars. If you went and did a similar exercise for the past few months you would probably see a similar pattern of the big games benefitting by at least 20% over a 4c8t CPU.

The myth that pervades the industry that 4c4t or 4c8t is as good as it gets only remains because most reviewers do not test a wide enough range of games to genuinely capture the difference. It requires SLI/Crossfire and very particular games to get to the difference and its not sufficient to play a genre. If you chose 5 random games odds are none of them would show any difference, but some games show enormous differences going up to 6 cores with high end GPUs. The myth persists because of how terrible the reviews are and that not enough people realise how awesome what gamegpu.ru is actually doing (because its russian).

The past=/=now that is what you miss. Look at the change in system requirements in the last games being released. Look at how the i7 SMOKES the i5 in Witcher. Games at the moment are changing to be more CPU dependent and are using more than 4 threads.

[BrightCandle]

The past=/=now that is what you miss. Look at the change in system requirements in the last games being released. Look at how the i7 SMOKES the i5 in Witcher. Games at the moment are changing to be more CPU dependent and are using more than 4 threads.

I am saying the same thing, there is value in having higher end CPUs and the data at gamegpu.ru has been saying this for literally years. But the reviewers still don't show a wide enough array of games otherwise the perception would have changed already. It was probably never true, its just bad testing.

[App4that]

I am saying the same thing, there is value in having higher end CPUs and the data at gamegpu.ru has been saying this for literally years. But the reviewers still don't show a wide enough array of games otherwise the perception would have changed already. It was probably never true, its just bad testing.

Ah, my mistake. I actually fell into this trap when I got my i5. Don't get me wrong I love my little processor that could, but it's not what I need to get through the next few years. So often on this forum I see people telling others that 4 treads is all you need, which then puts people in the position I'm in of having to upgrade a processor months old.

[Samsonsuperco]

What windows version are u on ? I would like that app too.

I'm running windows 8 Pro at the moment. You need to install 8GadgetPack for gadgets and the program for the gadget is CoreTemp.

(8GadgetPack) http://8gadgetpack.net/

(CoreTemp) http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/

(CoreTemp Gadget) http://download.cnet.com/Core-Temp-Gadget/3000-12565_4-75280179.html

[Egad]

@App4that, months old is pure hyperbole.  Yes, there are claims that DX12 and Vulkan will make multithreading easier (although DX11 made the same claims) and that is likely to push developers into doing a little extra work so people with more cores and/or hyper threading see gains.  However that also doesn't immediately mean that 4 cores will instantly start to run like shit, stutter, etc.  A large section of the gaming market runs an i5 right now and many folks can't or won't run right out to upgrade.  

 

Advising an i7 purchase for gaming right now is still unnecessary.  If DX12's multithreading support turns out to be mostly puffery, then 4 cores will likely remain the standard.  Yes you'll have specific games like the Witcher that are really done to be high end games and demand high end rigs to perform, but most studios are just going to optimize the thing for four cores and release it if it takes significant man hours to go beyond that.  Plus developers have to deal with the fact people can't afford to or just won't run out tomorrow and buy an i7.  Right now the i7 is like the 980Ti SLI, if you want a certain caliber of experience and can put the money down, yes, get it.  i7 or getting on the X99 should be prioritized over things like SSDs or such, but months old is a bit much.  

[App4that]

@App4that, months old is pure hyperbole.  Yes, there are claims that DX12 and Vulkan will make multithreading easier (although DX11 made the same claims) and that is likely to push developers into doing a little extra work so people with more cores and/or hyper threading see gains.  However that also doesn't immediately mean that 4 cores will instantly start to run like shit, stutter, etc.  A large section of the gaming market runs an i5 right now and many folks can't or won't run right out to upgrade.  

 

Advising an i7 purchase for gaming right now is still unnecessary.  If DX12's multithreading support turns out to be mostly puffery, then 4 cores will likely remain the standard.  Yes you'll have specific games like the Witcher that are really done to be high end games and demand high end rigs to perform, but most studios are just going to optimize the thing for four cores and release it if it takes significant man hours to go beyond that.  Plus developers have to deal with the fact people can't afford to or just won't run out tomorrow and buy an i7.  Right now the i7 is like the 980Ti SLI, if you want a certain caliber of experience and can put the money down, yes, get it.  i7 or getting on the X99 should be prioritized over things like SSDs or such, but months old is a bit much.  

lol, my advise is to check on things before you comment. I built my rig in the first week of September, as of this message it is October 17th, so I was being nice and maybe should have said month old. You may have built a rig to play Candy Crush on Ultra but I had kind of hoped to play Fallout 4 at higher settings. "But it's not out yet and recommended specs always go over what is really needed" Right? Is that why Game Debate had to change the recommended specs they had listed before the specs were announced from a low i5 to what Bethesda has listed a 4790K? I actually had someone link to Game Debates specs for Fallout 4 before they changed them in a discussion just, like, this one. Why you cling to the idea that 4 threads is enough for current high level games I just can't answer. GTA v, Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor, Cities Skylines, Star Wars Battlefront, Battlefield, all have benchmarks captured on YouTube showing tens of fps gained with 4790Ks over 4690Ks. The difference between the 4690K and the 6700K is embarrassing, and you should feel bad.

[Egad]

@App4that,

Congrats on your new rig and I'm sorry you didn't spec out sufficient CPU power for what you wanted.  While that may piss you off, that doesn't change the reality that lots of people doing builds on budgets, and limited to 1080p, 60 fps monitors and other things or are just fine with only getting into the 50s for FPS in some games.  I would direct to my previous comment about going i7 or X99 for high end builds over frills like SSDs.  For folks doing rigs on budgets though, reaching for the i7 still makes little sense and the month comment strikes me more as butthurt over your i5 not doing what you personally want out of it rather than being accurate for most folks who are doing this on a budget.

[App4that]

@App4that,

Congrats on your new rig and I'm sorry you didn't spec out sufficient CPU power for what you wanted.  While that may piss you off, that doesn't change the reality that lots of people doing builds on budgets, and limited to 1080p, 60 fps monitors and other things or are just fine with only getting into the 50s for FPS in some games.  I would direct to my previous comment about going i7 or X99 for high end builds over frills like SSDs.  For folks doing rigs on budgets though, reaching for the i7 still makes little sense and the month comment strikes me more as butthurt over your i5 not doing what you personally want out of it rather than being accurate for most folks who are doing this on a budget.

We're missing each other somehow. I've got a 60hz 1080p monitor, no need to go over 60fps. I want to hit 60fps though. My GPU is up to the task and then some, my dips come from the CPU. Again, the 4690K is a great CPU, I'm actually impressed with it. Overclocked to 4.6GHz it gets better Cinebench scores than a i7 3770, that's impressive. I'm not butthurt over my build, I'm butthurt that I see people like you misleading other people new to the hobby. I was one of those people. Maybe the 6600k will prove itself as good as the 4770, who knows. I know very few who don't have a budget, I also don't know anyone who wants to see their games have issues because the CPU they were told by you was enough, isn't.

[Prysin]

there is a difference between "using" and "using optimally"...

 

most games are "using" 8 cores. But they just throw some shit at it without being very efficient about it. So you load up all cores, but they arent really being pushed...

% load is often mis-judged by programs. The core is quite often just read as "busy", but not "at this % capacity".....

[Curufinwe_wins]

See it's stuff like this where I never recommend less than a I7 4790k for sli builds, and even then clearly it still makes a huge difference (note the same very significant 4.7 Ghz overclock)

Even with gpu utilization hovering around 100% and cpu being much less the 6 core beast constantly outperforms the 4 core by significant margins (and this is true max settings fps 4k, even aa is left turned up so it's as gpu limited as it can be).

And you want to tell me an I5 is sufficient for sli? Bullshit I say.

(And yes this is slightly off topic but still).

[Nena Trinity]

Most of my games uses 6 to 8 but the old ones uses 1!