Question is a 6c/12t still a wise decision ?

May 22, 2020
2
0
10
0
hey guys iam going to build my first pc in june a ryzen 5 3600 + 1660super for pure 1080p60fps gaming only, i have a question how a 6c/12t will hold against upcoming AAA games like cyberpunk .... since its my first pc iam scared to be forced to rebuy another cpu with 8cores.

as the title says is it a wise decision to buy this build in june ? or should i buy a 3700x + 1650 super ? '' on a b450 mobo "
 
Jul 15, 2019
97
9
45
2
No, 8 core 16 thread is now entry level for AAA games, you want a primo experience? get a 3900x now for cyberpunk, the 3700x is not that much of an improvement over a 2700x and that is a better deal at the moment but that's what i bought because i am happy to upgrade the cpu in a year or two

The 1650 super is not something that comes highly recomended, would save your money and wait for something better, 4gb vram will not be enough for cyberpunk, wait for the 30 series

in june you may be able to get a b550 motherboard too, which might be a really good deal for you aswell, newer design with better features and they are going to be fairly affordable at launch too
 
Reactions: mctrader07

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
i'm not sure where you get that 8/16 threads is the standard. not by a long shot. 6 cores is being seen more and more but that's only top end specs on the absolutely top AAA games.

you'll have no problem with the 3600/x for gaming assuming your not looking for top end results. that takes a top end pc with top end parts. also note that above 1080p the gpu is the bottleneck and the cpu gets a break.

if you want top end performance you'll have to upgrade all the time anyway since there will always be something new released that gives that extra bit that some people feel they absolutely need.

1080p from the 1660 at 60 fps will not be held back by the cpu. if anything it would be the gpu at max settings that will choke it out.

as for what exactly games will require in a couple years is anyone's guess. they are not even started yet so no one can guess what they'll require when they are released. anyone pretending to know is deluding themselves and anyone else that believes them.
 
Maybe...maybe not. It depends entirely on what you want to do.

A 3300X could be a way more economical choice. GamersNexus gives it a hearty approval even for AAA gaming if all you're doing is gaming. If you stream, though, you'll need 6/12.

You'll really only need 8/16 if you stream at game resolution but it's also really nice to have for just about anything else you might do on your computer as it makes Windows as smooth as butter and lightening fast all the time, whatever your doing, however many tabs you have open in Chrome or Firefox.

You only need 12/24 or 16/32 if you're getting into productivity and content creation; when time is money getting a rendering or encoding done fast can mean the difference.
 
Jul 15, 2019
97
9
45
2
i'm not sure where you get that 8/16 threads is the standard. not by a long shot. 6 cores is being seen more and more but that's only top end specs on the absolutely top AAA games.

you'll have no problem with the 3600/x for gaming assuming your not looking for top end results. that takes a top end pc with top end parts. also note that above 1080p the gpu is the bottleneck and the cpu gets a break.

if you want top end performance you'll have to upgrade all the time anyway since there will always be something new released that gives that extra bit that some people feel they absolutely need.

1080p from the 1660 at 60 fps will not be held back by the cpu. if anything it would be the gpu at max settings that will choke it out.

as for what exactly games will require in a couple years is anyone's guess. they are not even started yet so no one can guess what they'll require when they are released. anyone pretending to know is deluding themselves and anyone else that believes them.
a couple of reasons why i believe it to be the new entry level
More and more games are starting to take advantage of more cores and more threads, some will happily use all 8 and cyberpunk 2077 will use 12 no problem whatsoever, this will soon be normal for most titles not just AAA, even if it does not use all the cores, frame timings are better, less stutter, less input lag etc, it is a smoother experience

The new consoles are going to have something comparable to an 8 core 16 thread chip too, which is worth taking into account, many take that as a baseline for an entry to gaming

Having those extra cores makes multitasking easier and better and allows a little more room for windows and other background tasks and reduces their effect on gaming performance, which is especially nice when you have been running the same install of windows for 2 years and now it's weighed down with crap running in the background

Also the price difference between a 3600x and a 2700x might be tiny in some cases and it will end up being a better deal, the 3600 is usually cheaper but i have seen them on sale for the same price as a 2700x too, see what the price difference is for you

Edit: there is a ryzen 4700g on the horizon, that's an 8 core 16 thread processor with integrated graphics, Yea, 6 cores has had it's day in the sunlight, 8 core chips are now budget options, welcome to the future
 
Reactions: mctrader07
The price difference between the 3600x and 2790x may be tiny in some instances, but in a purely gaming scenario, the 3600x will perform better. It's faster and more efficient.

8 core chips are now budget options? No, not even close. Not good ones at least.

Cyberpunk specs haven't even dropped yet, so I highly doubt 8 cores will be required. 6 cores, maybe. Most of the predicted specs are saying 4th gen i5 as recommend cpu, with more emphasis on a fast GPU. While I'm sure it'll require some beefed up specs for high refresh 1080 or 1440/4k. OP is asking about 1080/60, in which the 3600 will be a solid performer for a few years easy.

If it doesn't utilize all cores or threads available, then all the things you listed wont be better. As the cores/threads don't do anything.

If 8t cpus fit your budget, go ahead. But its certainly not a necessity right now. And probably wont be for some time.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
yah i think you're theory is very flawed. i have not seen anything close to what you are assuming to be true about the future. could you source anything backing up what you are saying?

i read a ton of tech news all the time and can't think of anything anywhere that comes close to what you are suggesting. link please :)
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
The new consoles are going to have something comparable to an 8 core 16 thread chip too, which is worth taking into account, many take that as a baseline for an entry to gaming
Many would be wrong. Sony has been using 8 core cpus for years, they were using 8 cores at 1.8GHz back when the core i5-3570k was king of gaming cpus, so simply adding hyperthreading to a current 8 core cpu isn't going to suddenly raise the bar on desktop cpus.

Entry level gaming is 4c/8t or 6c. That's it. Which means cpus like the 6700k/7700k upto the I5-9600k. That's entry level. For Ryzen it's the R3 3100/3300x or any of the A series APU's. That's entry level.

Mid level is anything upto a 9700k/3700x. High end is above that.

Your 8c/16t opinion of entry level puts the 8c/16t i9-9900k as entry level desktop. And it sure isn't found in the Budget section of cpu choices.

You do understand that the entire reason high core, low speed cpus are used in consoles is heat, right? Has nothing to do with cpu power or core count for budget or entry level. A console is more like a laptop. Has very limited heat dissipation. More work can be done on 2 cores at 1.8GHz than can be done on 1 core at 3.4GHz, for less heat output.

Notice the difference between the higher speed, lower core Intels in the Xbox vrs the higher core, lower speed amd in the PS? Tell me which overheats.

Got nothing to do with desktops that run far higher wattage cpus with far higher cooling potential.

8/16 as entry level haha oh, that's rich... Made me actually laugh out loud for real. 🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
Reactions: dorsai

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Many would be wrong. Sony has been using 8 core cpus for years, they were using 8 cores at 1.8GHz back when the core i5-3570k was king of gaming cpus, so simply adding hyperthreading to a current 8 core cpu isn't going to suddenly raise the bar on desktop cpus.
It isn't only SMT though, next-gen consoles have Zen 2 instead of Jaguar cores and the clocks are a fair bit higher as well. Instead of being years behind mid-range desktop on CPU-power at launch, the ~15% underclocked 3700X next-gen has to accommodate TDP for the super-sized IGP is on par with current mid-range desktop CPUs.

In previous generations, there was no worries of consoles driving game development beyond what desktop CPUs could handle because they started with considerable handicaps. This time around, consoles are starting on par or even ahead of most people's PCs.

While it may take a while for console developers to make use of the whole 8c16t, the potential for pounding most PCs into the ground is definitely there once you account for consoles games being far better optimized thanks to having very limited spec variations to worry about.
 

Schlachtwolf

Upstanding
Jun 22, 2019
405
87
390
32
It is still the case that on AAA games the GPU you have is going to have a MUCH bigger impact on your gaming experience than if you have 6 or 8 cores.... and I would reckon that will stay as such for the next 2 or so years. The new AAA games after that will probably need a minimum of 8GB GPU RAM and 10-12 for top settings due to Ray-tracing, DLSS 2.0 (or 3.0) etc.

But with PCIe 4.0, DDR5 RAM etc, etc on the horizon there will be so many things to upgrade in the next few years it really is exciting !!!
 

Third-Eye

Distinguished
In my opinion, 6 cores 12 threads should be the minimum people consider for a system that won't be upgraded for 3-5 years, but it's not that simple. The Ryzen 3 3300X and i3 10100 are actually a better value at $120-125 for per core performance in comparison to the R5 1600AF/2600. If you are on a tight budget, the $"85"-120 Ryzen 5 1600AF/2600 should only be considered when the games you want to play gain higher fps with more cores/threads and you want to stream/record. The Ryzen 5 3600 should be your minimum choice for 6 core CPUs that will probably be good enough to come close to or match the PS5 and Xbox for 4k60FPS gaming, assuming you get a higher end GPU.

And another thing to add, is that the PS4/XB1 use at least 1-2 cores/threads for OS and background functions or tasks that are still running when a game is running. So while the new consoles will have 8c16t, at least some of those resources won't be available to the games for extra performance. Desktop CPU tend to be faster per core than console, so it's possible a 6c12t desktop CPU could be nearly equivalent to the console 8c16t in games specifically.
 
Reactions: mctrader07

ntragas10

Prominent
Oct 20, 2018
13
1
515
0
Ryzen 3600 will be more than enough for 1080p/60hz for the next 3 years. It's the gpu that you will have to worry about. 3 months back people was buying 3600 for 144hz gaming... there is no way games will demand so much cpu performance in the near future.
 
Some thoughts:

Cores do not count; it is the threads that count.
Some games actually specify 4 or more threads to run.
ryzen 3600 has 12, more than enough, I think for moat anything.
Past that is the question of how many threads can be usefully used.

I suggest to anyone who is interested in performance to buy a second monitor and use it for some displays such as task manager, cpu-Z and HWinfo to monitor what is happening while you are gaming.
You will always see all threads with some activity. Do not be deluded into thinking you need all of them.
(unless they are all at 100%)
What you see is windows spreading around the activity from a smaller number of threads.
You can perform an experiment by booting with a lesser number of threads to see how thread count impacts your performance.
Game developers want the largest possible audience for their games.
They have an incentive to keep game requirements low.

In any multithreaded system, there must be a master controlling thread.
Amdahl's law shows how the benefits of many threads is reduced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
It points out the need for a fast master thread.
Today, so far as I can see, it is multiplayer games with many participants that benefit most from many threads.
Other games such as sims, mmo and strategy games depend on single thread performance.
Fast action games depend on a fast graphics card.

One reasonable rule of thumb is to budget about 2x the cost of the processor for the graphics card.
For the OP, a 3600 and a GTX1660 super is not far from 1:1.
That would suggest that a lesser cpu and a stronger graphics card might be a better balance.

While the new 10th gen intel processors need to be evaluated and sorted out, I think the i5-10600K is going to be the gamer's cpu of choice for anything less than top end builds.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Ah, but now you get into preferences. Me, it's 5 minutes, no hassle to throw in a gpu. Start messing with a cpu and thats a different ball game. A 3600 is a good cpu for anyone to start with, there will be no need to mess with it for years, just like many people are just now upgrading 2nd/3rd and 4th gen i7's. There's significantly fewer i5's being upgraded because they've already been upgraded several years ago with 1st gen Ryzens or 8/9th gen Intel.

So moving up in gpu as the games progress and become more demanding is far easier and often cheaper than having to replace the core components, which with Intel is usually the motherboard and cpu.

Your mom did that when you were a kid, bought oversized clothes that you grew into, and could get longer use from, didn't buy clothes that fit now and you'd grow out of quick. Buying a cpu that barely meets minimums in order to get a better gpu just means imho replacing it that much sooner. I'd not buy a 9600k, nor any quad+HT atm. That's a grandma websurfer.
 
Some thoughts:

Cores do not count; it is the threads that count.
Some games actually specify 4 or more threads to run.
ryzen 3600 has 12, more than enough, I think for moat anything.
Past that is the question of how many threads can be usefully used.

I suggest to anyone who is interested in performance to buy a second monitor and use it for some displays such as task manager, cpu-Z and HWinfo to monitor what is happening while you are gaming.
You will always see all threads with some activity. Do not be deluded into thinking you need all of them.
(unless they are all at 100%)
What you see is windows spreading around the activity from a smaller number of threads.
You can perform an experiment by booting with a lesser number of threads to see how thread count impacts your performance.
Game developers want the largest possible audience for their games.
They have an incentive to keep game requirements low.

In any multithreaded system, there must be a master controlling thread.
Amdahl's law shows how the benefits of many threads is reduced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
It points out the need for a fast master thread.
Today, so far as I can see, it is multiplayer games with many participants that benefit most from many threads.
Other games such as sims, mmo and strategy games depend on single thread performance.
Fast action games depend on a fast graphics card.

One reasonable rule of thumb is to budget about 2x the cost of the processor for the graphics card.
For the OP, a 3600 and a GTX1660 super is not far from 1:1.
That would suggest that a lesser cpu and a stronger graphics card might be a better balance.

While the new 10th gen intel processors need to be evaluated and sorted out, I think the i5-10600K is going to be the gamer's cpu of choice for anything less than top end builds.
So what I gather is gaming really can't benefit a lot from a lot of threads since it's really dependent on the performance of that one 'master thread'. The other threads don't present nearly so much a load as the master thread so they're not hitting the processor hard. BUT, let's say you have a game that spawns 1 master thread that can fully utilize one core and 4 minor threads each much more lightly utilizing a core. So let's say we have a 4 core processor, the games master thread might find itself sharing cores with one of the other game threads since there's not a one to one relationship.

So OK, a smarter scheduler might try to not hinder performance of that master thread so it might just as well be found loading up another of the less utilized cores with two threads instead of the main thread's core. But what if a game comes along that wants to run 6 or 8 or 10 minor threads? At some point, almost certainly that master thread will be sharing cores with one of the minor threads more often than not and hindering it's performance. So at that point...a 6 core...or even 8 core processor should become more desireable so the scheduler can keep that master thread unaffected. Or so it seems to me.

The question that comes up...are any games spawning such a large number of minor threads as to matter yet? Will Cyberpunk do so? That may be unknown, but what is known is that Windows is heavily multi-tasking and itself runs a large number of background tasks (over 80 proceses, active and inactive, in Task Manager last time I counted) that can wake up and beg for attention at any moment. When that happens another core gets another task to handle even if for just a brief moment.

And then I may be an idiot, but i don't like killing my Firefox session with 20 open tabs, my spreadsheet with 10 tabs that auto-recalcs every minute or so, my outlook e-mail/calendar and two Bluestacks emulator sessions just because I want to open a game up and frag a few minutes to reduce stress. What happens then?

I think there's a valid point to be made for 8 core/ 16 thread processors to make a gaming session more enjoyable and less intrusive EVEN THOUGH games don't use anywhere close to 16 threads and one only very heavily. If you keep a clean system even 4 core/8 thread might be enough: but who does these days?
 
Last edited:
The question is how many threads can be used EFFECTIVELY?
I do not know the answer to that.
If you look at task manager you may see a dozen apps open but you will also see perhaps 100 processes.
Five years ago, I saw a test of games with and without hyperthreading on.
For those games, there was minimal performance difference between 4 and 6 threads.

The best I can suggest is to test YOUR games with one less thread and see if it makes any measurable difference to you.
 
....
The best I can suggest is to test YOUR games with one less thread and see if it makes any measurable difference to you.
I cut my 3700x down to 4 cores/8 threads and played some Ghost Recon: Breakpoint and didn't note any difference in gameplay at 1440p. I didn't try 1080p. I got essentially the same graphics score in Time Spy (within margin of error IMO); the CPU score was quite obviously much reduced.
 

dorsai

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
893
135
11,390
94
I would have zero concerns buying a Ryzen 3600 to game on today...even with other programs running like Discord and ReLive I never have any issues with CPU performance while gaming. Nothing is future proof...there will be a day when a 10 core 12 thread CPU won't cut it...but for today and the next couple of years 6 core 12 thread is plenty.
 
Entry level gaming is 4c/8t or 6c. That's it. Which means cpus like the 6700k/7700k upto the I5-9600k. That's entry level. For Ryzen it's the R3 3100/3300x or any of the A series APU's. That's entry level.
I guess it depends on what anybody considers entry level...
The quad core 9100 can beat the 8/16 2700 in gaming plus 1080p streaming and is pretty much on the level between a 6/12 3600 and a 8/16 3700 depending on game.
https://www.legitreviews.com/intel-core-i3-9100-4-core-processor-review_213639/9

Recommending a 4/8 as entry level because of cheap is a different thing than outright calling it entry level.
Being able to stream and game at 1080 at over 100FPS minimums is way above entry level for me,anybody else might have a different opinion.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G CPUs 27

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS