[SOLVED] Curious question.

[Grant Cole]

This is not a troll question, so please no troll responses. I'm curious, if games are being developed with less cores or single core performance in mind. Why do console makers like Sony put their $$$ in on 8 core processors? The PS4 pro apparently carries an 8 core (a weak one, but I digress), and the PS5 is stated to have a Zen 2 8 core processor, which is theorized to be a Ryzen 7 3700x, (which I dunno how the heck they're going to be able to make an affordable console out of that tbh).

I believe Microsoft also puts their $$$ into 8 core CPUs. So with such an investment in these CPUs, wouldn't some variant of an 8 core CPU be the no brainer for a Futureproof CPU?

I know PC is not a console, and I know some people will say "Why don't you just go buy a console", but I'm making these comparisons because I believe developers will also have to take these comparisons into consideration when developing games in the future. I figured I'd ask here and hopefully there are a few people who's been at this long enough to see how things usually unfold in this area.

 

[PC Tailor]

I'm curious, if games are being developed with less cores or single core performance in mind.

Where did you get this information from?
Quite often the developers of today are trying to make multi-core usage more effective. it's just very difficult to program as every CPU is different, as is every game, so they'd all have to utilise multiple cores in different ways at different times.

 

[Grant Cole]

Where did you get this information from?
Quite often the developers of today are trying to make multi-core usage more effective.

I'm typically just going from my understanding of the Intel > AMD argument where single core or quad core performance are better than multi-core for gaming. This is an argument I seen thrown around a lot online by users and "professionals" alike. (I air-quoted professionals because I'm sure what counts as professional online can be easily put up for debate).

 

[sizzling]

My view is single core is still as important, you are not going to drive high FPS without strong single core performance. If single core performance was less important then old CPU’s like the FX8350 would still be relevant but reality is they can struggle to hold a minimum of 30fps in modern AAA games.

It is more the importance of more cores has increased but it has not offset the importance of single core performance.

 

[PC Tailor]

My view is single core is still as important, you are not going to drive high FPS without strong single core performance. If single core performance was less important then old CPU’s like the FX8350 would still be relevant but reality is they can struggle to hold a minimum of 30fps in modern AAA games.

It is more the importance of more cores has increased but it has not offset the importance of single core performance.

Absolutely agreed with this.

Single core performance is still vital, which is why say you compare a 9600K to a 3600X, the 9600K will always slightly outperform the 3600X, because it's single core performance is excellent, however now when you talk value, it's a different story, because in reality, the 3600X can often be the same price or cheaper, but for much better multicore performance, and marginally lower gaming performance, so for the same price, you get about the same in games, but a huge boost in multitaking operations.

Same goes for virtually all the Intel VS AMD.

AMD are just winning the value fight, and i think it's fantastic because it's kicking Intel partially into another gear (even if they still hold mass market share of CPUs). but developers are still trying to improve multicore usage, but it's difficult.

it's also why people debate the difference between the 3600X and 2700X - because thanks to 3rd gen ryzen, 2nd gen has plummeted in value, but in reality, the 3600X has better single core, so for gaming, trumps, but if you do any form of multitasking or workstation, it's hard to NOT get a 2700X at effectively the same price.

 

[sizzling]

I'm typically just going from my understanding of the Intel > AMD argument where single core or quad core performance are better than multi-core for gaming. This is an argument I seen thrown around a lot online by users and "professionals" alike. (I air-quoted professionals because I'm sure what counts as professional online can be easily put up for debate).

Careful how old these statements are. Multi-core has become far more important in the last 3 years.

 

[Grant Cole]

Careful how old these statements are. Multi-core has become far more important in the last 3 years.

I've seen a JayzTwoCents collab video with Gamers Nexus that was released a month ago that still seem to suggest (if I understood their argument clearly) that this belief is still relevant today. Again, this could still be bias from their part, but I figured I'd throw that out there.

 

[IInuyasha74]

More like in the last decade. I don't think anyone except small independent developers design games with a single-core focus. Unless you buy something old, you can't even buy a single-core computer or smartphone anymore. The gaming industry switched to a focus on multi-core game development starting around a decade ago.

That said, how many cores they design for varies greatly. Dual-core and quad-core development has been the focus for a long time. I honestly can't think of the last major title I bought that didn't come with multi-core support. Fallout 3 maybe? And that could be enabled, just wasn't by default. And that was 2008.

As for single-core vs multi-core performance, single-core performance is considered more important because some software is still designed with a single-core focus. It's also really important as a game still doesn't necessarily take advantage of all the cores available. A game may be designed to use just 4 cores, but you've got an 8-core processor with Hyper-Threading. That means just four cores will run the game, and you may get a benefit from having the other four cores and 12 threads handling background tasks, but they won't help with the game itself.

The extra cores really come in handy when the game is designed to be heavily threaded and can use all eight cores, in which case a processor with 8-cores with lower single-core performance may outperform say a 6-core processor with slightly higher single-core performance because two full extra cores are in use. This, however, is still not definite.

 

[sizzling]

I've seen a JayzTwoCents collab video with Gamers Nexus that was released a month ago that still seem to suggest (if I understood their argument clearly) that this belief is still relevant today. Again, this could still be bias from their part, but I figured I'd throw that out there.

Are you sure they weren’t saying single core performance is less of a differentiator between modern AMD and Intel as they now both have strong single core performance.

Another point is what is your measurement for performance? I’ve seen reviews where the i5 9600k has higher average FPS than a Ryzen equivalent but the Ryzen with more threads has higher minimum FPS which arguably could be said to give a better gaming experience.

 

[Grant Cole]

I personally don't have a measure for performance, just another confused person trying to buy my next part with some futureproofing in mind. I was considering a Ryzen 5 3600, but I feel this push for 8 cores as the standard makes that CPU a poor choice for gaming in the next 5 or so years.

I mean, if 8 cores becomes the standard, you don't want to be stuck with a 6 core processor. That's why I'm trying to understand all this.

This is especially true if consoles will already be providing better CPUs like an 3700x equivalent (again, lord knows how they're going to pull that off and haven an affordable console).

 

[PC Tailor]

Personally I opted for the 3600X, because I can't see gaming changing that drastically in the next few years, considering there is a new architecture bein released at least every 12 months now. And the 3600 had excellent performance, with IMO exceptional value.

 

[IInuyasha74]

Games aren't likely to advance that much. Usually the current game consoles are a strong item to consider as a lot of game are designed to ensure they work on the console. The consoles are 8-cores, but as I think someone else said earlier, they are relatively weak, and most quad-core processors will offer better performance than what's inside the PS4 or XB1.

Even if a game was designed to take advantage of 4/6/8 cores, it will run on fewer cores also. Developers want their products accessible by everyone, and they aren't about to cut off the large chunk of the market running quad-core processors. The market share of dual-core systems is really starting to decrease, but they won't want to cut out those people either. As such, they make sure it will run, though maybe not as well.

There's a lot more that could be said on this topic, but to keep things short, I'll just say you should be absolutely fine with a six-core processor like one of the Ryzen 5 CPUs for the next several years.