4 cores or 6 cores for future 2018

[steveamor_00]

Hi, im building a new pc but i cant decide whether to use processor which is 6 cores or 4 cores. E3 just finished and I've seen all those beautiful games coming. So now i worry that in the next 2 to 5 years, 4 cores wont be enough anymore. So....4c or 6c for 2018 ??

 

[Hellfire13]

I would say a 6 core Ryzen 1600 is a wise selection keeping the future in mind. Ofcourse you wont get the 150ish fps that 7700k gives, but a decent 120ish fps, which is more than enough for a smooth gaming experience, with a couple of years more than the 7700k in terms of pc life is probably a more rational choice.

 

[maxalge]

Hi, im building a new pc but i cant decide whether to use processor which is 6 cores or 4 cores. E3 just finished and I've seen all those beautiful games coming. So now i worry that in the next 2 to 5 years, 4 cores wont be enough anymore. So....4c or 6c for 2018 ??

depends

a 6300 is a lot worse than a i5 3470

 

[maxalge]

I would say a 6 core Ryzen 1600 is a wise selection keeping the future in mind. Ofcourse you wont get the 150ish fps that 7700k gives, but a decent 120ish fps, which is more than enough for a smooth gaming experience, with a couple of years more than the 7700k in terms of pc life is probably a more rational choice.

the 1600 is good for ~60hz gaming

but struggles with higher refresh rates

the 7700k easily handles 144hz gaming

 

[Dunlop0078]

Well I would skip over i5's at this point, in my opinion something like the ryzen 1600 is much better value. However I am doubtful the ryzen 1600 will ever outperform the i7 7700k in gaming now or in the future, I guess we shall see.

 

[Hellfire13]

As far as i have seen, when OCed to 3.7 and above, it is pretty much handles everything.

 

[Dragos Manea]

I would say a 6 core Ryzen 1600 is a wise selection keeping the future in mind. Ofcourse you wont get the 150ish fps that 7700k gives, but a decent 120ish fps, which is more than enough for a smooth gaming experience, with a couple of years more than the 7700k in terms of pc life is probably a more rational choice.

the 1600 is good for ~60hz gaming

but struggles with higher refresh rates

the 7700k easily handles 144hz gaming

What? 190fps in crysis 3, 200 fps in rise of the tomb raider, 100+ fps in witcher 3, 200 fps in doom 3, 200 fps in bf1. Are you telling me that ryzen cannot achive 144 fps? This was at lunch, with the latest agesa 1.0.0.6 ram are working at at elast 2666 mhz and things ahve changed a lot. If you like the proofs for what i m saying just say the word and i post some videos, those numbers are from my pc and i can post it anytime.

 

[maxalge]

I would say a 6 core Ryzen 1600 is a wise selection keeping the future in mind. Ofcourse you wont get the 150ish fps that 7700k gives, but a decent 120ish fps, which is more than enough for a smooth gaming experience, with a couple of years more than the 7700k in terms of pc life is probably a more rational choice.

the 1600 is good for ~60hz gaming

but struggles with higher refresh rates

the 7700k easily handles 144hz gaming

What? 190fps in crysis 3, 200 fps in rise of the tomb raider, 100+ fps in witcher 3, 200 fps in doom 3, 200 fps in bf1. Are you telling me that ryzen cannot achive 144 fps? This was at lunch, with the latest agesa 1.0.0.6 ram are working at at elast 2666 mhz and things ahve changed a lot. If you like the proofs for what i m saying just say the word and i post some videos, those numbers are from my pc and i can post it anytime.

I would actually

 

[Dragos Manea]

Those benchmarks are when ryzen was lunched, since then 6 bioses were lunched and performance improved significantly, if you insist i will post tonight some videos. It seems odd that someone with the ryzen pc says somethign about the games he is playing and someone just post a few months old review saying something else.

 

[maxalge]

Those benchmarks are when ryzen was lunched, since then 6 bioses were lunched and performance improved significantly, if you insist i will post tonight some videos. It seems odd that someone with the ryzen pc says somethign about the games he is playing and someone just post a few months old review saying something else.

If I said I resurrected yesterday, would you take my word?

When all evidence points to it not beign very likely???

there is improvement, but you are claiming some pretty hefty fps

 

[Hellfire13]

Those benchmarks are when ryzen was lunched, since then 6 bioses were lunched and performance improved significantly, if you insist i will post tonight some videos. It seems odd that someone with the ryzen pc says somethign about the games he is playing and someone just post a few months old review saying something else.

Those benchmarks are when ryzen was lunched, since then 6 bioses were lunched and performance improved significantly

Agreed.

 

[das_stig]

Even with code optimisation and bios maturing, gaming will belong to Intel, until we see what happens with the next generation of Ryzen.

Oh and I have a 1800x running at 4GHZ with OC'd memory, so know from experience and bang for buck prefer it !

 

[Dragos Manea]

Those benchmarks are when ryzen was lunched, since then 6 bioses were lunched and performance improved significantly, if you insist i will post tonight some videos. It seems odd that someone with the ryzen pc says somethign about the games he is playing and someone just post a few months old review saying something else.

If I said I resurrected yesterday, would you take my word?

When all evidence points to it not beign very likely???

there is improvement, but you are claiming some pretty hefty fps

If you have 4 more hours patients until i get home i will post some videos to prove what i m saying, right now i m at work. Far cry is one of the worst examples you can post, it is terrible optimized, still it can manage decently in it.

 

[Hellfire13]

Above 60+ fps, the difference is not even visible to the naked eye, unless you place a counter on your screen. The purpose is to get a smooth gaming experience while keeping the provision for future games to scale well to more cores. Back in the day, the 8 core AMD chips were a failure in gaming. Today they have suddenly found prominence when games are using more cores. There is no doubt Intel rules in gaming, but it also has less upgrade path and shorter life span. I am an Intel fan myself, but seeing what Ryzen is doing, I am tempted to break rank.

 

[Dragos Manea]

[strike]How i promised i come back with proofs, take in mind that recording takes a toll on the fps counter and you should add around 15 fps to the counter displayed.
My system:

Battlefield 1: https://youtu.be/BVqK7OYQBVc
Rise of the tomb raider: https://youtu.be/5_8fdST8bxE
Crysis 3: https://youtu.be/kUOJPwi7dyg
On crysis 3 i could not find any skyline map which i get 180-190 fps but i think with the current recording i can prrove that it is at least equal with a 7700k in gaming.[/strike]


My bad, it does not show the fps counter. i will remake the videos
Back with the new videos. I repeat myself, because recording is taking a toll on the system, to the fps counter showing on video you must add 15-20 fps to obtain real fps number without recording.

My system:

Battlefield 1: https://youtu.be/RgvNNqgIxnE
Rise of the Tomb Raider: https://youtu.be/Ifl9GCtBKJ0
The Witcher 3: https://youtu.be/8oqf7CUqE2Y
Crysis 3 Multiplayer https://youtu.be/WQ6lwZr_M-o
Singleplayer: https://youtu.be/nk8PXKBEuVA

 

[Embra]

@OP:

If your wanting this build to last you 2-4 years, I would not recommend anything less than 6 physical cores. Whether it be Intel or AMD. AMD has the edge at this point price/performance.

 

[Ditt44]

6-cores. If you can afford it, get the 6. If it is a budge issue, go with the 4. Long-term, six are better.

If you want to argue FPS.... can YOU really tell the difference between 100 and 120? 120 and 140? With your naked eye? And if you can, are you a combat pilot? I think not. AMD is more than capable and actually, the majority of reviews find it may lag by a few % points in FPS but generally provides smoother *higher-lows* in FPS than Intel.

You, the OP and reader are responsible for doing the research. There is plenty of information out there and it is obvious that AMD chips more than hold their own in gaming. The best? Not always, but more than adequate and if you're that hung up on gaming, maybe you would be happier with a boxed-in console.... /rant.

Point being, don't fall for the AMD bashing unless you've researched and if you do more than purely game, you will do yourself a disservice by not being an informed consumer.

 

[Dragos Manea]

I just proved that ryzen is more then capable to game at 144hz. I did this because someone called me a liar and what i hate the most is to be called a liar.

 

[maxalge]

I just proved that ryzen is more then capable to game at 144hz. I did this because someone called me a liar and what i hate the most is to be called a liar.

no one called you a liar, read what I said again

Given the previous horrible ryzen performance, my stance was well founded.

and I must admit, the ryzen games much better now after the updated bios + game patches

I am no fanboy, I can admit when I am wrong.



So I ask you to do the same,

Be honest after all this time and with the current performance, it still makes 0 sense to go ryzen when building a new setup specifically for gaming


An i7 7700k build is just vastly superior, all you need do is look at the benchmarks.


The gap is closed a bit, but it is still wide.


May I ask why you did not run thru novigrad in witcher 3?


"190fps in crysis 3", more like you average around ~140 - 150

"200 fps in bf1", again more like ~140


you have sli 1080's correct?


an i7 700k gets better fps with a single 1080 at 1080p, is sli broken in that game?

 

[Dragos Manea]

Well i did in novigrad at first but i was too lazy after that, in novigrad it was 95-110 fps, battlefield took the hardest hit for fps during recording dont know why so crysis 3, rise of the tomb raider and witcher 3 had almost no hit at all 5-10 fps while battlefield 1 and crysis 3 had a 20-30 fps hit depending on the zone it may be due to my mechanical hdd on which i store my games and the videos i was recording, dont know what to say. anyway i proved my point, performance is up to 30-40% since it was released and it is capable of 144 fps gaming and further more the gap is almost closed between i7 and ryzen. Were it sucks compared to intel but this is due to shitty game optimization far cry series, that game runs like a potate even on i7, far cry 3 was running on my i7 6700k(@ 4.7 ghz) at around 90-100fps (with ups and downs from 140 to 80) now it runs at around 80 fps (with ups and down from 100 to 60), far cry 4 from 90-100 for i7 to 60-70 for ryzen. This is the only game that runs like shit (i mean a 60-70 fps is not considered shit framerate but considering my hardware it should be double)

 

[Hellfire13]

I just proved that ryzen is more then capable to game at 144hz. I did this because someone called me a liar and what i hate the most is to be called a liar.

no one called you a liar, read what I said again

Given the previous horrible ryzen performance, my stance was well founded.

and I must admit, the ryzen games much better now after the updated bios + game patches

I am no fanboy, I can admit when I am wrong.



So I ask you to do the same,

Be honest after all this time and with the current performance, it still makes 0 sense to go ryzen when building a new setup specifically for gaming


An i7 7700k build is just vastly superior, all you need do is look at the benchmarks.


The gap is closed a bit, but it is still wide.


May I ask why you did not run thru novigrad in witcher 3?


"190fps in crysis 3", more like you average around ~140 - 150

"200 fps in bf1", again more like ~140


you have sli 1080's correct?


an i7 700k gets better fps with a single 1080 at 1080p, is sli broken in that game?

Max, to keep the conversation in context, there is no beating the 7700k in pure gaming performance. But we have to keep in mind that the OP chose to stress on the longevity of the build than sheer performance

So now i worry that in the next 2 to 5 years, 4 cores wont be enough anymore.

which means he can accept a little less performance if the life of the pc is longer. If he would have stressed on the best performance irrespective of the duration of the components, i would have definitely suggested the 7700k. Hence why the 6 core was my recommendation over the 4 core. Now, going b the trends, there is no denying that games are using more cores nowadays.