[SOLVED] CPU Cores or Speed for FPS?

[Hypoltan]

In gaming (preferably Fortnite), how do the CPU cores and speed affect FPS, which one effects it more, how come, and which should I go for? (I'm thinking either i5 9600k or ryzen 5, maybe ryzen 7)
Really would appreciate any input.

 

[Phazoner]

It's the combination of number of cores/threads, clock speeds and IPC (Instructions Per Cycle). Nowadays all of these are still better in Intel processors but AMD ones aren't far and have a much better performance per dollar rate. For gaming, the best processor is the Ryzen 2600/X, without doubt. If you can wait until summer, Ryzen's third generation is going to be released and mean a noticeable performance improvement. If can't, Ryzen's second generation is anyways great and who knows if AMD would push the prices.

Ryzen's are benefited from high speed RAM modules. Get at least 3000-3200 speed modules.

 

[Hypoltan]

It's the combination of number of cores/threads, clock speeds and IPC (Instructions Per Cycle). Nowadays all of these are still better in Intel processors but AMD ones aren't far and have a much better performance per dollar rate. For gaming, the best processor is the Ryzen 2600/X, without doubt. If you can wait until summer, Ryzen's third generation is going to be released and mean a noticeable performance improvement. If can't, Ryzen's second generation is anyways great and who knows if AMD would push the prices.

Ryzen's are benefited from high speed RAM modules. Get at least 3000-3200 speed modules.

Thanks for the input, a few questions though. Are you saying I should go with the AMD chip over the intel chip and if so should I go with the 2600, 2600x, 2700, or 2700x? Thanks.

 

[TerryLaze]

If you are cheap go with ryzen,if you want top speed go with intel.
Ryzen are ok but they have two CPUs inside of them,you need the fast ram so that they can talk faster with each other but no matter what, they are still two CPUs and in every case that you need the second CPU to get better performance you also get huge communication lags.
Max FPS is still linked to max speed of single core performance and will be in the future as well.

 

[Cioby]

It's the combination of number of cores/threads, clock speeds and IPC (Instructions Per Cycle). Nowadays all of these are still better in Intel processors but AMD ones aren't far and have a much better performance per dollar rate. For gaming, the best processor is the Ryzen 2600/X, without doubt. If you can wait until summer, Ryzen's third generation is going to be released and mean a noticeable performance improvement. If can't, Ryzen's second generation is anyways great and who knows if AMD would push the prices.

Ryzen's are benefited from high speed RAM modules. Get at least 3000-3200 speed modules.

That's not really true unless he's playing at 4K, which most people don't.
Even old CPUs like my 4770k gives you more fps at 1080p 1440p.

It depends what GPU you also have and how many fps do you want at which resolution.
I just found a video for someone else, at 1080p 144 fps epic, a 2700x which is the top line Ryzen atm, overclocked at 4150, barely runs under 144 fps.
Any Intel, let's consider only the new ones since older ones aren't cheaper atm maybe, a 8600k 8700k, 9600k 9700k, will beat the Ryzen at 1080p and 1440p by 10-50 fps probably.

More cores almost never help you in gaming, unless you compare a i3 with 2 cores with a i5 or i7. Besides that any 4 core/ 8 thread 6c/6t 8c/8t will do almost the same. Or unless you're streaming or something at the same time. I even played and watched movies at the same time with my old 4770k and it had 4c/8t.

Also the thing about RAM doesn't really matter as long as you don't have --------- unnamed RAM or very bad CL/speed, your RAM will not increase your fps for more than 1-7 fps and that's being generous. This has been demonstrated 100 times over the past years.

 

[Hypoltan]

That's not really true unless he's playing at 4K, which most people don't.
Even old CPUs like my 4770k gives you more fps at 1080p 1440p.

It depends what GPU you also have and how many fps do you want at which resolution.
I just found a video for someone else, at 1080p 144 fps epic, a 2700x which is the top line Ryzen atm, overclocked at 4150, barely runs under 144 fps.
Any Intel, let's consider only the new ones since older ones aren't cheaper atm maybe, a 8600k 8700k, 9600k 9700k, will beat the Ryzen at 1080p and 1440p by 10-50 fps probably.

More cores almost never help you in gaming, unless you compare a i3 with 2 cores with a i5 or i7. Besides that any 4 core/ 8 thread 6c/6t 8c/8t will do almost the same. Or unless you're streaming or something at the same time. I even played and watched movies at the same time with my old 4770k and it had 4c/8t.

Also the thing about RAM doesn't really matter as long as you don't have ------ unnamed RAM or very bad CL/speed, your RAM will not increase your fps for more than 1-7 fps and that's being generous. This has been demonstrated 100 times over the past years.

Thank you.

 

[herrwizo]

It is a combination of all factors to a certain degree.

Cores most certainly do matter, but it is up to the particular game to use them more or less. Older games are fine with 2 cores, most recent ones like BFV can use all you can throw at them. But at the moment, it is safe to say than any CPU with 4 cores (with HT) or 6 physical cores or above has enough threads for any game.

Higher clock speed, on the other hand, will certainly output more FPS, regardless of CPU and regardless of game, provided you are not bottlenecked by a weak GPU or are playing on a very high resolution where CPU clock speed becomes less relevant.

 

[Viking2121]

I'd say a sweet spot for a powerful GPU would be a 6 core with no HT now a days, but if you do stream and record or plan on running dual video cards, or wanting to sorta future proof a little more, you won't really need more than 6 core 12 thread CPU for the high end. A i7 8700K is neck and neck with a 9900K in games because 8 cores 16 threads really don't get used a whole lot, tho Battlefield 5 has no problem using 16 threads...

You can still definitely get away with a 4 core 8 thread cpu. High clock speeds do help, but it can't replace cores and threads, Its ideal if you balance it out, you don't need a 32 core CPU, but you also don't want the clock speed to be so low that games run like crap.

 

[Phazoner]

That's not really true unless he's playing at 4K, which most people don't.
Even old CPUs like my 4770k gives you more fps at 1080p 1440p.

It depends what GPU you also have and how many fps do you want at which resolution.
I just found a video for someone else, at 1080p 144 fps epic, a 2700x which is the top line Ryzen atm, overclocked at 4150, barely runs under 144 fps.
Any Intel, let's consider only the new ones since older ones aren't cheaper atm maybe, a 8600k 8700k, 9600k 9700k, will beat the Ryzen at 1080p and 1440p by 10-50 fps probably.

More cores almost never help you in gaming, unless you compare a i3 with 2 cores with a i5 or i7. Besides that any 4 core/ 8 thread 6c/6t 8c/8t will do almost the same. Or unless you're streaming or something at the same time. I even played and watched movies at the same time with my old 4770k and it had 4c/8t.

Also the thing about RAM doesn't really matter as long as you don't have ------- unnamed RAM or very bad CL/speed, your RAM will not increase your fps for more than 1-7 fps and that's being generous. This has been demonstrated 100 times over the past years.

What? There's nothing untrue in what I said.

But it is totally untrue to say a 4770k will beat a Ryzen, specially at 1080p/1440p. You are taking it the wrong way. If you are rendering at 4K, the GPU will be able to render much less frames and then you need a much less powerful CPU to prepare this frames. I have an i7 6700k and I would definitely switch to a Ryzen 2600 or superior, but my PC is Mini-ITX with a expensive MoBo and the upgrade just isn't worth it.

The IPC is still a little higher in Intel processors, and nowadays games aren't properly taking properly advantage of more than six cores, but a 2600 is much better in performance per dollar than any i5 and definitely will last longer than the i5 thanks to the virtual cores or threads.

I'm really, really tired of repeating this. There are tons of users that don't know what to buy on a budget and it is used to recommend an i5 as they are great performers for its time. Then 4-5 years pass and uh-oh, they start to bottleneck their graphics cards. Now tell them to buy an i7 for their MoBo. An i7 from its generation because Intel won't allow you to get a newer one for the same socket/chipset. An i7 which a lot of other people with the very same problem are looking for, so a expensive one.

The twelve-threaded Ryzen will last longer. And if he wants to upgrade, he will already have good speed RAMs and a socket/chipset which will allow him to get a newer, much better Ryzen. If he was someone which have the money to just throw almost the entire PC to the trash can and get a better one in just two, three, four years, he would be just getting a 9th generation i7 or i9 and not worrying about anything, but he is looking for the best budget option.

Some of the data is just uncertain or half-true, as there are very few, older games where some older Intel processors will outperform a 2nd gen Ryzen. The advantage of the i5 is just not worth it as shown when directly comparing performance per dollar in nowadays games, taking in account how do age processors without virtual cores and the upgrade possibilities of this sockets.

Just as a reference, you don't even need to compare Intel and AMD processors, check the performance achieved in Battlefield V, a CPU hungry game which takes advantage of all cores (although being the sweet spot 6 cores/12 threads):

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-v-test-gpu-cpu

The i7 2600k running at 3.4Ghz beats the 7600k, having a much lower IPC and performance per core. This is a January 2011 processor.

 

[TerryLaze]

Just as a reference, you don't even need to compare Intel and AMD processors, check the performance achieved in Battlefield V, a CPU hungry game which takes advantage of all cores (although being the sweet spot 6 cores/12 threads):

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-v-test-gpu-cpu

The i7 2600k running at 3.4Ghz beats the 7600k, having a much lower IPC and performance per core. This is a January 2011 processor.

1-2 FPS is not really considered beating it's the same thing,you are confirming right here that higher IPC can match more cores,yes a January 2011processor needs the additional help of HTT (25-30% increase) to match a quad from today.
And it's very much apparent that with newer CPUs 4cores are the sweet spot for this game,the stock i3-8350@4Ghz 4 cores and the stock i7-8700k@3.7Ghz 6c/12t have the exact same minimum frames and so does the 7700k as well,they are all at 113 minimum.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_8350K/14.html
Minimum FPS

 

[Phazoner]

1-2 FPS is not really considered beating it's the same thing,you are confirming right here that higher IPC can match more cores,yes a January 2011processor needs the additional help of HTT (25-30% increase) to match a quad from today.
And it's very much apparent that with newer CPUs 4cores are the sweet spot for this game,the stock i3-8350@4Ghz 4 cores and the stock i7-8700k@3.7Ghz 6c/12t have the exact same minimum frames and so does the 7700k as well,they are all at 113 minimum.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_8350K/14.html
Minimum FPS

A second generation Intel Core i7 from January 2011 getting the exact same performance than an expensive, six years newer CPU is a clear victory to me.

Anyways you are showing data for Battlefield 1, a 2016 game, where the i5s and i7s had 4 cores. Check again the same link I sent before, you'll see why I say six cores are the sweet spot as there's no difference between six and eight cored Ryzens, as well as there isn't any advantage for six cored i5s over older eight threaded 8 threaded Intels. Looks like threaded processors win again over time!

 

[Karadjgne]

Bunch of misinformation. All around. It's all game dependant , whether thread count or speed or both is important. In games like cs:go, which only uses 2-3 threads, clock speeds are far more important for fps. In games like older BF4, the FX8350 (yes, really, the FX8350) came in second for fps, barely behind the i7-4770k/4790k because there the game was optimized for 8 threads, Intel IPC still giving it the edge. Games like skyrim are funky, the vanilla game gets far better fps with higher clocks, running 1-2 threads, however once you add a bunch of mods which are all scripted, to maintain that fps you need thread count. Large difference in i5 quad and i7 HT ability there.

So throwing out examples of this or that game is next to useless, the exact needs of the game code will change everything.

Resolution has no affect on cpus. The cpu will dish out as many fps as it can, according to demand from the gpu. But the game code is the same no matter what resolution, processing the same, communicating the same. Cpu sets the fps cap. It can only do so much. At 1080p, gpus are strong enough to have maximum settings and still run a cpu to its maximum cap. At 1440p, that's @1.7x as many pixels as 1080p, so significantly harder on the gpu, which may or may not live upto the cpu cap. At 4k, that's @4x as many pixels as 1080p, a huge hit to gpu performance and most gpus cannot live upto the cpu cap, resulting in a drastic drop in fps. That drop in fps makes it far less cpu dependant at 4k because ppl do not demand 200fps at 4k, whereas they do at 1080p.

 

[Cioby]

WHAT?
I'm sorry what?

There are too many things to reply to here, I'll start with the last one which is the easiest to debunk actually. @Karadjgne CPU sets the fps cap? False. People do not demand 200 fps at 4k? They do, they just can't get it due to the GPU and poor optimizations in games. At 4K you are bottlenecked by the GPU which explains why the AMD is closer to the Intel there even tho they have worse speeds and such. The GPU is the one dictating your fps more or less, the CPU needs to keep up with it, therefore at lower resolutions, better CPUs like the Intel will run much faster 200+ fps, at 1440p less but still better. At 4K that's a lot of work on the system so your CPU will not be able to do those values anymore since the GPU can't put out that many frames anyway.

Secondly, anyone using Battlefield, Doom or Ashes of the singularity to make an argument on CPU/GPU without the OP of the thread asking for it, are complete morons or biased pro-AMD fanboys. Battlefield is one of the last games that benefits AMD more, why, I do not know, I will not buy that game due to EA and their insults against their players. It may be that they have some AMD features implemented that don't work well on the Nvidia or Intel, I really have no idea and won't go into conspiracy theories like AMD apologists and fanboys.
I will just specify that Battlefield is one out of thousands of games that people play and is not relevant. Same with Dirt 4 I think.

Third, my old 4770k does beat the Ryzen and at 4K was almost equal to most high end CPUs. I know since I play 4K for over 4 years now. The first time the Ryzen came out and every reviewer was pro-AMD, even in those benchmarks the 7700k and the 4790k (similar to mine but a bit faster) were winning at 1080p my many fps in some games. Years later, the AMD apologists or "it will get drivers and be better" AMD fans still don't have their drivers or anything to show, since the Intels still win in every 1080p 1440p benchmarks, which are the resolutions most people play. Which is why I recommend those primarily. Therefore even a i5 (a high end one not the lowest tier non-overclockable i5 DUH) will outperform and outlive a AMD. I can see they weren't faking benchmarks to make people buy upgrades, since at 1440p on Kingdom Come, when I changed to the 8700k I could run 60fps easily when before I had drops to 45 in the center of the city. I even increased settings to ultra and it's still at 60 fps in the same place. At 4K I barely get 2-5 fps maybe, hard to compare since I didn't record videos on it.

Fourth, where the hell did you hear an AMD outlives a Intel? Be it i5 or i7?????? Even on this website we hear people with 7-10 years old Intels still running but looking for upgrade. Mine lasted over 7 years and I kept it OC every day and barely closed my PC. And I think my motherboard might be giving out since it was a mediocre cheap ASROCK. Where the hell do you get your stats from? Also I don't speak Russian so I won't be reading or listening to your link. Just google or youtube any i5 i7 Ryzen comparison that includes lower resolutions, not just 4K. The fact that an old second generation i7 still lives and outperforms in some cases MAKES THE BEST CLEAR EXAMPLE AGAINST YOUR OWN ARGUMENT @Phazoner . Lmao. You just proved that an old Intel can still perform well after so many years! Which means, since the Intel has very good durability and performance, long after your Ryzen will be obsolete, the Intel processors of today will still be top in benchmarks.

If the guy only wants gaming a i5 8600k will beat ANYTHING even a 8700k in many games(at lower resolutions and equal it at 4K) and clearly win against any Ryzen, even threadripper which is much more expensive. So if you have the budget and you should since a i5 is kinda the same or cheaper than a 2700x which is the only AMD CPU I considered when I was upgrading, you should get an overclockable i5. If you plan on doing more than that, but game mainly still, a i7 is better. And the new I7 have 6 cores 12 threads also, not to mention ONLY THE THREADRIPPER really outperforms and is worth the money in workloads and such, otherwise my 8700k has decent (it looses to 2700 if highly overclocked, by 100-200 points) if not above scores in cinebench or other CPU tests.

So stop recommending Ryzens to people that want to ONLY GAME when an i5 might give you 50+ more fps at 1080p (that's why I always ask people what fps they wanna play at and what resolution, or when they have a weak GPU I already assume it's not 4K). I just showed someone the exact fps on Fortnite (which was the game he was playing) and showed the 2600 is below 140 fps, while the i5 gets even up to 170, which means, he can get steady 144 fps at maximum settings on his 144 Hz monitor.
I get it, you love AMD, I am grateful they made Intel give us better CPUs but let's not be delusional to the performance, if not bottlenecked by the GPU. And I assume in the future if GPUs handle this a lot better, we might actually get more fps at 4K also, with the Intel CPU, exactly how we do now at 1080p and 1440p.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3937vs3958

View: https://youtu.be/F92byoMgptU?t=385


If you want more proof just google/youtube yourself.
And anyone saying "hurr durr you don't need those 10 fps", tell me how your RAM isn't using XMP or OC for a mere 1-2 fps lmao. Since RAM speeds really don't matter unless they run poorly with your CPU, which mostly happens to Ryzen from what I've heard.
Again, those extra fps matter if you don't use Vsync or your monitor's refresh rate is above the speed a Ryzen can give you.
Best you can do instead of hearing this AMD propaganda, is youtube your favorite game you will play and consider your resolution and desired framerate and compare CPU+GPU(that you already have) to the values in the benchmark. For example 1060 GTX 8600k Witcher 3 1080p.

 

[TerryLaze]

A second generation Intel Core i7 from January 2011 getting the exact same performance than an expensive, six years newer CPU is a clear victory to me.

Anyways you are showing data for Battlefield 1, a 2016 game, where the i5s and i7s had 4 cores. Check again the same link I sent before, you'll see why I say six cores are the sweet spot as there's no difference between six and eight cored Ryzens, as well as there isn't any advantage for six cored i5s over older eight threaded 8 threaded Intels. Looks like threaded processors win again over time!

V and 1 are the same game,they run the same.
Also yeah sure,it really shows us that threaded processors win again over time!
...
From your link
AMD FX-8350 4.0 60FPS min
Intel Core i3 2100 3.1 58FPS min

 

[Karadjgne]

@Cioby .

Wish ppl would learn to read. Cpu sets the fps CAP. It could be 300fps or 1000fps or 60fps depending on the game code. That's as fast as the cpu can process the game code and ship it to the gpu. There's nothing that can improve on that cap, it is what it is, the cpu cannot work any faster. That cap is most apparent in low resolutions with high power gpus where the gpu makes no real effort to get any and all fps sent to it on screen. Changing detail levels doesn't change fps because the cpu cap is the limiting factor. That's backwards to high resolutions like 4/5/8k where gpu power is severely stunted when trying to put fps up on a screen. The cpu might be capable of 300fps, but the gpu isn't, it's lucky to hit 60. Changing detail settings there will either increase or decrease gpu fps output to the monitor, but doesn't change the fps available at gpu input. Since the gpu is only capable of 60fps, that's all the cpu supplies, whether or not it's capable of 300.

Take minecraft for instance. It's graphically challenging enough that even igps have no issues. Fps is all dependent on the processor IPC and clock speeds. Mods are scripted add-ons, graphically about as challenging as the to original game, but can be huge draws on the cpu. With lower ipc/clock speed cpus, you'll notice a significant drop in fps, the cpu is maxed at a lower output due to the scripts. Gpu still has no issues. The stronger the cpu, the less the impact to fps.

Not sure how exactly an i5-8600k can beat an i7-8700k. They are the same cpu. One has hyperthreading enabled in factory instruction sets. I5 is 6 full cores, i7 is 6 full cores with 6 possible split threads. In games using 6 or less threads, they are the same, dependent on clock speeds alone to differentiate fps. In games optimized for 7 or more threads, the i7 has the advantage as threads are not prioritized in bandwidth. As to the Threadripper quip, games rarely see 10 thread usage or better, so the TR's high thread ability is wasted and it's resultant lower clock speeds kills it.

Right now, Intel has roughly 6% higher IPC. Clock for clock it still wins. Barely. The difference is most obvious in OC K cpus where Ryzens are pushing 4.0-4.6GHz and Intels are pushing 5.0-5.2GHz. That's going to translate to more instructions per clock, more clocks per period, more fps ability.

But at 1080p/60Hz, which is by far the single most common monitor sold worldwide, the i9-9900k, TR, i7-8700k, i5-8600k or even a Ryzen 1600 are all the same. 60fps. That's all you get, no matter what the stupid counter in Afterburner says. Makes exactly no difference if gpu output is 100fps or 1000fps, you get 60. You wanna chase benchmarks, fine, be my guest, but as long as all that's needed is maintained fps over 60, then the 2700x is no different than a R5 1600, just costs a heap more.