4 core or 6 core for Gaming??

[richdog16]

What is the advantage of having more cores for gaming?

Should I put extra money in buying a 6 core or just buy a 4 core for an AMD processor??

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Even a dual core Intel will probably beat a four core AMD at gaming

 

[toyota]

you should not be buying an AMD cpu for gaming in the first place if building from scratch.

 

[Fallengod]

Id have to agree. I dont know why anyone these days would want an AMD cpu but to each their own I guess.

Anyways, to partly answer your question, more cores does not necessarily equate to higher performance when it comes to games. Even these days I think games can yet fully utilize all cores of a cpu, especially when its more than 4. Higher clock speed/performance has always been the priority in gaming over multiple cores. For example, a dual-core 4ghz cpu would be significantly faster than a quad-core at 3ghz in games...

 

[toyota]

Id have to agree. I dont know why anyone these days would want an AMD cpu but to each their own I guess.

Anyways, to partly answer your question, more cores does not necessarily equate to higher performance when it comes to games. Even these days I think games can yet fully utilize all cores of a cpu, especially when its more than 4. Higher clock speed/performance has always been the priority in gaming over multiple cores. For example, a dual-core 4ghz cpu would be significantly faster than a quad-core at 3ghz in games...

in some games yes. the minimum you want when building a gaming pc is a modern quad core though.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Honestly, go with the 6-cores, for the sake of future proofing. Specially if it's an AMD chip.

And really, if you have a good GPU, you won't notice the difference between an Intel and an AMD chip at the end of the day.

 

[taltamir]

Even these days I think games can yet fully utilize all cores of a cpu, especially when its more than 4. Higher clock speed/performance has always been the priority in gaming over multiple cores. For example, a dual-core 4ghz cpu would be significantly faster than a quad-core at 3ghz in games...

This is double wrong.
First, it is wrong because modern CPUs have turbo boost where it will, as needed, turn off cores and clock the remaining cores higher. This means that on a quad optimized game you use it as a quad core, on a dual or single core limited game you use it as a faster dual or single core.

Second, it is wrong because the assertion that games are still better off in dual or single core (and thus turbo boost will actually turn off your cores and OC the rest rather then running it in quad core mode).
in outdated games that require relatively (by modern standards) light CPUs, a dual core at higher ghz would indeed be "superior" but that is only in very artificial benchmarks measuring hundreds of FPS. Far more then your display can do (60Hz, or 120Hz if you have such a nice expensive monitor).

In games that require heftier CPUs the developers had to, out of necessity, make them quad core capable because they NEEDED the CPU performance.
Those games have been long since optimized to run on quad cores and will do far better on it then on the dual core.

It doesn't even need to be developer optimization... Most developers outsource their graphics engine and build a game on top of that outsourced one.
The most common engine in games is unreal engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3
Check out those games list. Modern unreal 3 games will:
1. Use up all 4 cores effectively.
2. Will likely lag up on a 2 core CPU.

I empirically tested and proved (had a thread and a discussion about it back in the day) microstutter due to CPU limitations in Mass Effect 1 using an intel E8400 wolfdale dual core (100% utilization; minimal resolution and graphics settings, tested both nvidia and AMD cards that were more then beefy enough for it at min graphics quality), and overcame that by switching to a Q6600 (low CPU utilization, microstutter gone as empirically tested via FRAPs frame dump). (interestingly just 8 months prior to that I had sold my Q6600 to buy that E8400 after writing up why the quads make no sense for a gamer... I believe that I wasn't wrong per se, they didn't make sense at the time, they made sense 8 months later; I later upgraded my Q6600 to a Q9400 and then i7)

 

[Leyawiin]

O.P., if you have an AM3+ motherboard and the question is regarding the FX series of processors get the 8 core FX-8120 vs. either FX 41xx or FX 6XXX processors (the four or six core models). Its not that much more and a bit better. If you have an AM3 motherboard its almost a moot point - the better X6 processors are pretty much gone (X6 1090t or X6 1100t) and what's left are the X4 models. Of those, the X4 960t is pretty interesting - has the possibility of unlocking to 6 cores and even if it doesn't it still overclocks quite well (usually 3.8 to 4.0 Ghz). The X4 975 and X4 980 are fine as well.

If you don't already have an AMD motherboard, don't bother. Go Intel.

 

[beginner99]

Honestly, go with the 6-cores, for the sake of future proofing. Specially if it's an AMD chip.

And really, if you have a good GPU, you won't notice the difference between an Intel and an AMD chip at the end of the day.

But maybe at the end of the month when the electrical bill comes.

For gaming (and IMHO anything else) AMD Desktop CPUs make no sense at all anymore.

Only thing AMD makes sense is for cheap laptops with limited gaming abilities (eg APUs).

And future proofing, anyone here should now that that never makes sense.
@OP
Also an AMD 6-core is slower than a current intel quad-core. It also matters how much work each core can do and intel is much better in that regard.

 

[taltamir]

But maybe at the end of the month when the electrical bill comes.

For gaming (and IMHO anything else) AMD Desktop CPUs make no sense at all anymore.

Only thing AMD makes sense is for cheap laptops with limited gaming abilities (eg APUs).

And future proofing, anyone here should now that that never makes sense.
@OP
Also an AMD 6-core is slower than a current intel quad-core. It also matters how much work each core can do and intel is much better in that regard.

Every single one of your points is absolutely right.
OP, listen to this guy.

 

[Don Karnage]

Grab an I3 2130 and a Z77 Mobo till Ivy gets released. I can't wait to see how the Ivy dual cores compare to amd's quads in gaming.

 

[Maximilian]

What is the advantage of having more cores for gaming?

Should I put extra money in buying a 6 core or just buy a 4 core for an AMD processor??

Neither.

2500k or bust.

 

[tweakboy]

I read all posts. Wow this became a nice thread...
Mostly all of you are correct.

I play a few games that use up 60 to 70 cpu usage. Which means a dual is bottlenecking ,,, u need a quad. @ 3.6 it will crush the E8400 at 4Ghz. Thank you gl

 

[Don Karnage]

I read all posts. Wow this became a nice thread...
Mostly all of you are correct.

I play a few games that use up 60 to 70 cpu usage. Which means a dual is bottlenecking ,,, u need a quad. @ 3.6 it will crush the E8400 at 4Ghz. Thank you gl

Um What? 2100 is the better choice then any Amd chip

 

[SickBeast]

In fairness, there are games that really benefit from a quad core. The AMD chips actually aren't too bad for gaming once you overclock them and overclock the CPU-NB.

The 2500k is by far the best gaming CPU value out there right now, though.

 

[PG]

BF3 can use up to 8 threads. Multiplayer BF3 is very cpu intensive and a cpu with more than 4 threads really helps.
Haven't you all seen this?
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1657801&page=3
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/263/bf3casbmpmed.jpg/
Note a 1100T, 8150, and 2500k all have about the same minimum framerate.

 

[KingFatty]

Also, is there a particular game or usage you plan to do ALOT of? Perhaps if you are doing something specialized all the time, it might affect your decision, if that specialized task happens to do better on multiple cores. I think very few things fall into that category though.

 

[Don Karnage]

BF3 can use up to 8 threads. Multiplayer BF3 is very cpu intensive and a cpu with more than 4 threads really helps.
Haven't you all seen this?
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1657801&page=3
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/263/bf3casbmpmed.jpg/
Note a 1100T, 8150, and 2500k all have about the same minimum framerate.

Like i said before. For CPU intensive games a 955 at 4Ghz is still slower then a 2130 I3. Cores are nice but higher IPC is even nicer.

Do a search over at Overclock. Someone tested a 4.2Ghz Denab against a 2130 and the 2130 wiped the floor with it.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Like i said before. For CPU intensive games a 955 at 4Ghz is still slower then a 2130 I3. Cores are nice but higher IPC is even nicer.

Do a search over at Overclock. Someone tested a 4.2Ghz Denab against a 2130 and the 2130 wiped the floor with it.

I think I agree here

 

[Edrick]

BF3 can use up to 8 threads. Multiplayer BF3 is very cpu intensive and a cpu with more than 4 threads really helps.
Haven't you all seen this?
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1657801&page=3
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/263/bf3casbmpmed.jpg/
Note a 1100T, 8150, and 2500k all have about the same minimum framerate.

I noticed a fairly large gain going from a 2500K to a 3820 (clocked the same speed) in BF3 playing 64 player maps. There is no doubt BF3 can take advantage of 8 threads.

 

[Leyawiin]

Like i said before. For CPU intensive games a 955 at 4Ghz is still slower then a 2130 I3.

I thought they were about the same, but searching a few reviews it seems the i3 is better.

 

[PG]

Like i said before. For CPU intensive games a 955 at 4Ghz is still slower then a 2130 I3. Cores are nice but higher IPC is even nicer.

Do a search over at Overclock. Someone tested a 4.2Ghz Denab against a 2130 and the 2130 wiped the floor with it.

You got off topic. The OP asked if he should get 4 cores or 6 for AMD. The simple answer is get 6. He did not ask if he should get Intel or AMD. We know Intel in general is faster for gaming right now, but that was not the question.

 

[blckgrffn]

If you are asking because you want to know if you should buy the 1045t vs the 960t at Microcenter, I'd roll the dice on the 960t, personally, because it might be a good six core and OC'ing it is just going to be that much easier - put that $10 towards a decent air cooler.

If not, the 960t is still a reasonably good bet.

 

[Arik5405]

You got off topic. The OP asked if he should get 4 cores or 6 for AMD. The simple answer is get 6. He did not ask if he should get Intel or AMD. We know Intel in general is faster for gaming right now, but that was not the question.

If he can't figure out on his own if he should get 4 or 6 cores, how is he going to know whether to get an AMD or an Intel chip? People are just trying to help him out before he makes a mistake he will likely regret.

 

[taltamir]

If he can't figure out on his own if he should get 4 or 6 cores, how is he going to know whether to get an AMD or an Intel chip? People are just trying to help him out before he makes a mistake he will likely regret.

Yep.
Furthermore, the assumption that the OP is a fanboy emotionally invested in AMD or Intel is insulting to him.
When people ask for advice I assume them to be impartial and give the best recommendation as if they are as well. If the op clarifies that he finds intel to be unacceptable because X then it would be appropriate to drop the suggestion. Until the OP makes such a clarification then there is no reason to assume he knows all about the differences in performance, especially if he is asking for whether to get a 4 or 6 core due to admittingly not knowing the difference in their performance enough to decide on his own.