Question 8 cores / 16 threads vs 12 cores /12 threads

[Wolverine2349]

What is better long term for gaming. It would seem real cores are almost always better than logical ones and all else being equal that is true I assume??

Though some say logical threads can be just as good.

Thing is Alder Lake P cores have slightly higher IPC than Zen 3 and sometimes modestly higher, but big advantage comes form manual all core overclock which is easier to obtain 5GHz or maybe more for P cores. Problem is Intel has only 8 of them.

Then there is 3D VCACHE 5800X which is 8/16 from AMD. Though no VCACHE versions unfortunately for 5900X nor 5950X.

So is more cores or more threads better?

 

[KananX]

Games only scale up to 8 cores, and most games use around 4 cores max atm. Maybe a few games use more than 8 cores, Shogun or so, I’m not sure on that. That said, the faster architecture will win here, it’s not the core count which will decide it. Eg alder lake will win against Zen 3, all but 5800X3D.

 

[Gam3r01]

Its not easy to make that comparison due to all the other factors that go into CPU performance.

All else equal, if we are talking about identical cores (which we arent), 8/16 and 12/12 would perform the same until something could utilize over 8 threads, the 12/12 would take the performance edge, Once you had a workload that could user over 12 threads, the 8/16 would take the edge.

Thats with no other performance deviation between the two, you would also have to factor in IPC, effective clock speed, thermals, etc.

Instead of getting hung up on core count, just compare performance in situations you would use the processors in question (gaming, rendering, etc).

 

[Phaaze88]

Within your budget, whichever offers the highest performance off of one core, because games are still bound by a single one that handles every bloody command ran from the game - even commands to other cores!
^Probably over-simplified, but more cores isn't the answer, and neither is the one boasting the highest clock speed(differences in cache and IPC shake this one up).

Plus, the overclocks can be sacrificial overclocks, especially in titles that don't use very many cores.
Gone are the days when all core OCs always yielded benefits.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Games only scale up to 8 cores, and most games use around 4 cores max atm. Maybe a few games use more than 8 cores, Shogun or so, I’m not sure on that. That said, the faster architecture will win here, it’s not the core count which will decide it. Eg alder lake will win against Zen 3, all but 5800X3D.

Strange thing is when games only scale up to 8 cores and most only use a maximum of 4, why is this a thing in this thread:

https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/i5-9600-bottleneck.3767090/#post-22724003

John Chesterfield says it is threads that make a difference and a 9600K is bottlenecking as it is only 6 threads though it is 6 good cores. If most games only use 4, why would that user have issues??

Do games have separate usage of threads and cores?

 

[KananX]

Strange thing is when games only scale up to 8 cores and most only use a maximum of 4, why is this a thing in this thread:

https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/i5-9600-bottleneck.3767090/#post-22724003

John Chesterfield says it is threads that make a difference and a 9600K is bottlenecking as it is only 6 threads though it is 6 good cores. If most games only use 4, why would that user have issues??

Do games have separate usage of threads and cores?

Without seeing data, first of all I doubt that anyway. Secondly, if I were to speculate, it’s because of background activities the 6 threads (allegedly) aren’t enough. Games really don’t use that many threads.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Its not easy to make that comparison due to all the other factors that go into CPU performance.

All else equal, if we are talking about identical cores (which we arent), 8/16 and 12/12 would perform the same until something could utilize over 8 threads, the 12/12 would take the performance edge, Once you had a workload that could user over 12 threads, the 8/16 would take the edge.

Thats with no other performance deviation between the two, you would also have to factor in IPC, effective clock speed, thermals, etc.

Instead of getting hung up on core count, just compare performance in situations you would use the processors in question (gaming, rendering, etc).

The 12/12 config would be a Ryzen 5900X hypothetical with SMT off. Just like you could make an 8/16 ALder Lake 8/8 or a Ryzen 5800X or 3D verison 8/8 with SMT off.

But is Alder Lake on a per core and same clock basis that much better than Zen 3. Some reviews say yes and some say no and they trade blows.

And it also seems Alder Lake needs extra L3 cache to really get IPC uplift over Zen 3 and only 12%

Intel 12th-Gen Core Alder Lake Architectural Benchmark

As a follow up to our feature on how CPU cores and cache impact gaming performance, we're testing different Intel 12th-gen Core Alder Lake CPUs configurations to...

www.techspot.com

.

Its almost like you need to buy a 12900LK or 12900KS and disable e cores just for added L3 cache and better P core binning. Cause with lower L3 cache, the gains over Zem 3 get worse or disappear. Or is that not really accurate?

Cause the e cores and hybrid arch stink IMHO. I wish Intel had Alder Lake IPC with more than 8 P cores. Just 10-12. Does not even need to be 16.

Cause it does seem more than 8 cores can give smoother gaming performance:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY-6QZSAVxk

 

[Wolverine2349]

Without seeing data, first of all I doubt that anyway. Secondly, if I were to speculate, it’s because of background activities the 6 threads (allegedly) aren’t enough. Games really don’t use that many threads.

Is it easier and single thread IPC more important especially if you keep background tasks low. I debloat Windows and disable lots of services, though not to the point of breaking functionality except for the stupid MS Store which I hate.

 

[Why_Me]

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-12700F-2-1GHz-6xxChipset-BX8071512700F/
Intel Core i7-12700F $312.96

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...2700f-processor-25m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html

 

[Gam3r01]

Part of the issue is you are looking at general use processors for only a specific task.
Sure, they dont need 16 threads for gaming, but not everything is about gaming. Those 16 threads can be used for other applications.

Instead of worrying over core counts, disabling threads, and comparing potential gains/drawbacks just compare direct performance of each model for your specific use.
Disabling threads for potentially slightly increased performance is a waste of time.

Unless there was a clear consensus about solid performance increases, I wouldnt bother.

 

[KananX]

Cause it does seem more than 8 cores can give smoother gaming performance:

That’s the higher L3 cache then and not the additional unused cores. No way any game runs smoother on a 5900X vs 5800X for example, same with Intel. The 10900K mainly beat the 11900K because it had more L3 cache, though not in all games. All games are optimized for around 4-8 cores max, why, because it’s unneeded to do more, because it’s a ton of work to do more, and because consoles don’t have more than 8 cores, with 2 being also reserved for the OS.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Games only scale up to 8 cores, and most games use around 4 cores max atm. Maybe a few games use more than 8 cores, Shogun or so, I’m not sure on that. That said, the faster architecture will win here, it’s not the core count which will decide it. Eg alder lake will win against Zen 3, all but 5800X3D.

Would you say for games that scale beyond 8 cores, is it extra threads that will help or only extra cores. Like would 5900X be better for such games than 12700K or 12900K because the first has 12 strong cores while the later has 8 even better cores, but 4 and 8 far far far weaker e cores that especially seem bad for gaming and scheduler optimizations do not know how to properly utilize them?

 

[KananX]

Is it easier and single thread IPC more important especially if you keep background tasks low. I debloat Windows and disable lots of services, though not to the point of breaking functionality except for the stupid MS Store which I hate.

The big difference between 9600K and 3600X is again that the 3600X has way more L3 cache. IPC on both is comparable but the 9600K has a higher clock.

 

[KananX]

Would you say for games that scale beyond 8 cores, is it extra threads that will help or only extra cores. Like would 5900X be better for such games than 12700K or 12900K because the first has 12 strong cores while the later has 8 even better cores, but 4 and 8 far far far weaker e cores that especially seem bad for gaming and scheduler optimizations do not know how to properly utilize them?

That’s a hard comparison, but yes, cores help way more than threads and 5900X would beat the 5800X then, not sure vs Intel, as Intels architecture is a bit faster for gaming, I would say the 12900K would strictly win, 12700K could be a wash.

 

[Wolverine2349]

The big difference between 9600K and 3600X is again that the 3600X has way more L3 cache. IPC on both is comparable but the 9600K has a higher clock.

Yes it does and it seems to scale much better today. Which is odd as when it was released almost 3 years ago all I remember was AMD was close but Intel still had the gaming crown. And AMD only took it with Zen 3. I guess things have changed over time with games? Or it depends so much on the game and same is even true for Alder Lake.

 

[KananX]

Yes it does and it seems to scale much better today. Which is odd as when it was released almost 3 years ago all I remember was AMD was close but Intel still had the gaming crown. And AMD only took it with Zen 3. I guess things have changed over time with games? Or it depends so much on the game and same is even true for Alder Lake.

Thats because with Zen 3 AMD has higher IPC than Intel until Intel released 12th gen and higher clocks compared to Zen 2. Essentially Zen 2 came near enough to Intel so people already considered it a alternative while Zen 3 took the performance crown (in gaming, everything else was already done with Zen 2), with another big improvement over Zen 2.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Thats because with Zen 3 AMD has higher IPC than Intel until Intel released 12th gen and higher clocks compared to Zen 2. Essentially Zen 2 came near enough to Intel so people already considered it a alternative while Zen 3 took the performance crown (in gaming, everything else was already done with Zen 2), with another big improvement over Zen 2.

Yeah Zen 2 was close to Intel in gaming and beat Intel and was only choice for more than 8 cores. Unless you wanted to go to Intel Cascade Lake CPUs which were only a little more expensive but much more power hungry.

Though Cascade Lake X 18 core got spanked by 3950X in lots of things and even lost in gaming to Zen 2where as Comet Lake and Coffee Lake overall seemed to still have a very small edge in gaming over Zen 2.

 

[John Chesterfield]

Without seeing data, first of all I doubt that anyway. Secondly, if I were to speculate, it’s because of background activities the 6 threads (allegedly) aren’t enough. Games really don’t use that many threads.

Exactly that, all the background stuff. That's why you get higher lows with more cores because the background stuff doesn't interfere.

 

[John Chesterfield]

Is it easier and single thread IPC more important especially if you keep background tasks low. I debloat Windows and disable lots of services, though not to the point of breaking functionality except for the stupid MS Store which I hate.

Which is fair enough. But in 2022, I don't want to keep background tasks low. I don't mind loading half a dozen game clients at startup and have them all running in the background along with one or two VMs, but everyone's use case is different.

I can't be arsed tweaking Windows and restricting background stuff in this day and age, I'm not running Windows 98 any more.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Which is fair enough. But in 2022, I don't want to keep background tasks low. I don't mind loading half a dozen game clients at startup and have them all running in the background along with one or two VMs, but everyone's use case is different.

I can't be arsed tweaking Windows and restricting background stuff in this day and age, I'm not running Windows 98 any more.

I fell in love with Windows 2K and XP compared to 98 back in the day. 98 and 9X in general were pretty bad multi tasking and other things in general as well and NT was far superior. I do not mind some background stuff. In fact sometimes I have a web browser open to search for game tips if I am stuck and do not know what to do next in a game, I will pause a game and leave it running to look, but that is it. I do not allow Windows updates to run and download and install them manually once per month. I debloat the spy Big Brother crap in WIN 10. I only have an ESET NOD32 AV normal process in background as well as MSI Afterburner to track frames during gameplay and HWINfo64 as always and general essential Windows stuff of course. But not going to start up VMs when gaming nor run another game or stream along side it. So I am not that minimalist compared to those who use WIN10 Lite unofficial versions, but not as heavy resource usage as you.

 

[osfanbuff63]

If you are worried about multi-threaded programs (not games though usually), then Alder Lake would be better, given the 12700K isn't 12C/12T, it's 12C/20T (8 p-cores, 4 e-cores IIRC) because the P-cores do have hyper-threading, but the E-cores don't. If you are using your system only for gaming, then I'd go with the 5800X3D (if you can find it at a good price) (especially if you have an AM4 mobo/system already), but for most other things the 12700K outperforms it.

 

[John Chesterfield]

I fell in love with Windows 2K and XP compared to 98 back in the day. 98 and 9X in general were pretty bad multi tasking and other things in general as well and NT was far superior. I do not mind some background stuff. In fact sometimes I have a web browser open to search for game tips if I am stick I will pause a game and leave it running to look, but that is it. I do not allow Windows updates to run and download and install them manually once per month. I debloat the spy Big Brother crap in WIN 10. I only have an ESET NOD32 AV normal process in background as well as MSI Afterburner to track frames during gameplay and HWINfo64 as always and general essential Windows stuff of course. But not going to start up VMs when gaming nor run another game or stream along side it. SO I am not that minimalist compared to those who use WIN10 Lite unofficial versions, but not as heavy resource usage as you.

Windows 2K was the bomb, as was XP but I found Windows 2000 was an 'XP like' experience without the bloat.

It really was magnificent, amusing that it had the same GUI as Windows ME, which wasn't based on NT and was a pile of crap 😆

 

[THpapi]

What is better long term for gaming. It would seem real cores are almost always better than logical ones and all else being equal that is true I assume??

Though some say logical threads can be just as good.

Thing is Alder Lake P cores have slightly higher IPC than Zen 3 and sometimes modestly higher, but big advantage comes form manual all core overclock which is easier to obtain 5GHz or maybe more for P cores. Problem is Intel has only 8 of them.

Then there is 3D VCACHE 5800X which is 8/16 from AMD. Though no VCACHE versions unfortunately for 5900X nor 5950X.

So is more cores or more threads better?

First of all, in general when it comes to gaming, clock speed is king. So the faster clocking cpu, in general, regardless of core count, is going to perform better in most games, than a slower cpu with more cores. This is because over the course of history, 100% of all games utilize 1 or 2 cores, probably 33% utilize 4 or more, and probably 1% utilize 6 or more cores.... Obviously, with today's open world titles, a single or dual core cpu is not very feasible for the newer games, but to illustrate my point, in a linear style game, its very possible that an older cpu with less cores but a faster clock is going to outperform a newer cpu, with more cores but a slower clock. Now with how much physics we have in modern games, you really need at least 4 cores or you are going to struggle, and for a high end gaming experience, you really need at least 4 cores hyperthreaded or 6 physical cores these days for most modern games. It mostly boils down to how much physics the cpu has to calculate, the more moving objects in a bigger world, the more AI, the more NPC's, the harder that is. In general, physical cores are better than virtual cores. In my experience, i5's (no HT) have been way more efficient gaming cpu's than i7's (HT). I've had more trouble and more heat with i7's, the i5's seem to just work well. But there are many more factors other than core count. Also, you really have to consider MOBO compatibility and chipset features as well when making this decision, if you go with a beefier CPU you need a beefier Motherboard with bigger heat sinks around the CPU socket. But just to answer your question, as it pertains to CPU core count and gaming, without knowing anything else as to what generation or chipset these hypothetical cpu's are, I would say 8 physical cores is plenty enough for modern games, so go with whichever option gives you a higher clock speed, will probably be your better performer. I'm guessing its the 8 core.... Just read Gam3r1's answer, pretty spot on, Last thought, these will probably perform very similarly in most games, so its a perfectly reasonable option to go with whichever is cheaper, that one probably also has a lower TDP, then you can also justify getting a cheaper board, and you'll probably be more satisfied overall, then going with the higher end option, paying more, possibly wrestling with heat....

 

[geofelt]

For long term gaming capability, you DO need sufficient processing threads.
Today, games have a hard time EFFECTIVELY making good use of more than 6-7 processing threads.
The exception is multiplayer games with many participants.
For single player games the single thread performance of the master thread is most important.
The theoretical underpinnings come from "amdahl's law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

Single thread performance is not just clock speed, but how many instructions the architecture can execute per clock.

To get some idea of YOUR single thread performance, run the CPU-Z bench and look at the single thread rating.
Here is an example for the i5-12600K:
https://valid.x86.fr/bench/bhgfiz/1

Modern processors are binned and the better chips can achieve higher turbo levels for one or two threads when conditions are right.
The turbo levels will exceed all core overclocks; that is exactly what you want for games.