6 and 8-core CPU's in gaming?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

Fixadent

Commendable
Sep 22, 2016
307
0
1,780
Are there any games that would really make use of a 6 or 8-core CPU?

Should I hold off to get one? Or should I just go ahead and get a 7700K?
 
Solution
Frag Maniac


That's why I ended by including a disclaimer that we've only seen claimed syn benches so far, and need to wait for actual game benches. However everything to this point is indicating that their claim of 40% more IPC is true, so at the very least it...
Sort by date Sort by votes

I disagree. The AMD Ryzen X1700 even at launch is priced at only $390 at Fry's, just $50 more than their price on the i7-7700k. So even if it's initially only faster at tasking, editing, etc, it's worth it to gear up for future gaming I think.

If you recall, quad threaded games were slow to catch on at first too, but then quickly took over at one point. I think we're close to that point again, especially with 6 and 8 core CPUs coming down in price, and console games many PC titles are ported from having been developed for several core APUs for some time now. Plus you can no longer factor in just Intel's pricing when trying to account for game development trends. AMD is back in the CPU market big time.

The Ryzen X1700 is also cheaper and faster in CPU Mark than the i7-6800k, is 8 core vs the 6800's 6 cores, has more cache, has a 200MHz higher turbo, and is WAY lower in wattage.

http://www.hardocp.com/image/MTQ4NjgzMzgxN05Ed1MxaHNrd2hfMV8xX2wuanBn

^Keep in mind this is just a synthetic bench that applies mostly to tasking, editing, etc. We'll know more when the gaming benches come in.
 
Upvote 2 Downvote


AS for not many only a few however in the upcoming years they might for better performance because xbox one and ps4 have 8 cores and have bad single threaded performance but this all big assumptions
I believe watch dogs 2 uses more threads/cores not sure though
however i7700k is more than enough lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


To soon to make any claims of that.
I am hopping they do shake up the market but at this point we have leaked prices and benchmarks on a demo CPU.
Until we have benchmarks on production CPUs and see the actual in-store price to really get an apples-to-apples AMD to Intel comparison we cant say anything.

I am looking to do an upgrade this year and would love it if a Ryzen 5 6 core CPU can beat out an i7, but I am not making any decisions or change in mentality until it is proven so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Usually the advice is not to bother waiting for new tech, as you just end up perpetually waiting for the next thing. However...
This is one of the few occasions it is worth waiting to see what AMD can bring to the table, since its only a few weeks and we should have all the official bench marks and info. Then revisit your choices.

This is especially more true if your looking to play the few AAA titles that would use the extra cores.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


That's why I ended by including a disclaimer that we've only seen claimed syn benches so far, and need to wait for actual game benches. However everything to this point is indicating that their claim of 40% more IPC is true, so at the very least it will be WAY better than their Bullcrapper was. So yes, I think saying they're back to being much more competitive in the CPU market is not a stretch really.

Interesting to note, 6 yrs ago there was a thread on the GameSpot forum alluding to an article by a German site PCGameSHardware, that 17 games were already tested to be getting performance boosts of 5-30% on hex core CPUs.

However good luck if you can manage to find that article on a German site unless you translate your searches to German.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-linux-society-1000004/17-games-already-utilise-hexacore-6-core-cpusappar-27489746/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
If you only care about max FPS at 1080p, the 4 core i7-7700K is the king ($325), all AMD fanboys need to accept this.

However, you can also get a 8 core Ryzen 1700 ($300) or a 6 Core 1600 ($205) and spend 100 more on a graphics card and:

1. Get 50-100% more cores!
2 Stream better and with more FPS
3. Have applications running in the back while you game
4. Get better future performance as games and applications support 6 and 8 cores for the same money.
5. Much faster performance in video editing, rendering etc.
6. Overall faster multi-threaded work!

Also, this is only really relevant with GPUs from 1060/580 and up.... otherwise, you are better off, saving on your CPU and investing in GPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well according the Tom's Aug 15 article the Ryzen didn't hold up against Intel in games.

But I will give anyone the same advice I have given since I began the quest. How much money do you have and what do you want to accomplish. If you want bleeding edge pay for it and imo except in the days of the Thunderbird that has been Intel. If you want bang for the buck then by all means look at AMD every time. My 1.2ghz Thunderbird out performed anything Intel had at the time.

A solid graphics card is key. I prefer Nvidia, some prefer AMD. I haven't converted to 2k/4k gaming yet but I am using a Philips G-sync 1080p monitor and I will never go back. I would advise after you have decided which video route you are going or have gone then look at a sync'd monitor.

The fanboys will argue but in the end what matters is are you happy. So the Ryzen is 20fps less than whatever is current with Intel so what when you are talking fps above 60 does it really matter?

Predicting what hardware you need next year is always tough. However in the end it's your money and unless you have a vast quantity get as close to the top as you can afford, it will last you. Spread out the cost if you have to, but IMO put your money into the cpu/motherboard/ram first then the video. I'm still running my 4690k but I have upgraded to a 1070 (from 970 sli) and 16 ram (from 8) and I am still satisfied.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, now that March happened, amd is still the better for the money, but intel still sits comfortably on top in performance. Multi core tests aren’t relevant in gaming currently. So quad core is the main focus, I’m personally getting the 2600x because it isn’t overkill, but I have extra processing power for discord, music, internet tabs, shadowplay, maybe streaming if I find time to do regularly. But at age 17 school is still a concern, so definitely not at the moment. Regardless, strictly in gaming performance, look for lower tdp to higher clock rate ratios (aka intels 8600k) and smooth as butter. Basically if you don’t know, tdp is just how much power you should push trough the chip, more energy means more heat from inefficiency. So that’s a reason why something like the FX-9590 is a literal joke, because it just melts by its own doing.
If you are on a tighter budget get amd because it is definitely more cost effective and gets the job done almost just as well. Nowadays it’s to the point where it doesn’t matter because games aren’t pushing the limits, everything trending is indie or less demanding graphically, call me a kid (legally I am but throw me a bone) but fortnite is a good example, less textures because of the art style, same with the other less recent boom of cuphead. Both examples really are just to say that the current “meta” of gaming culture isn’t pushing the cpu or gpu limits at all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom