Gamers - quad core/hex core dilemma

[moonbogg]

Question is simple. Do you feel torn between quad core and hex core CPUs for gaming, either now or in the near future, maybe a year from now?

 

[sm625]

Given the current state of affairs where you either have to pay ungodly $$ for 6 good cores, or settle for 6 terribly weak cores, I'd rather just have 4. There's no way any current 6 core is going to outgame a 5GHz 4790K anyway. Well, maybe a couple games will, but only marginally at best. There's never going to be a game where a 6 core totally blows away a 4c8t by like 40% or some crazy number like that.

 

[moonbogg]

Given the current state of affairs where you either have to pay ungodly $$ for 6 good cores, or settle for 6 terribly weak cores, I'd rather just have 4. There's no way any current 6 core is going to outgame a 5GHz 4790K anyway. Well, maybe a couple games will, but only marginally at best. There's never going to be a game where a 6 core totally blows away a 4c8t by like 40% or some crazy number like that.

Are those chips hitting 5ghz? I didn't know they were doing that good. I read 4.6 is to be expected as the average. A 4.5ghz hex core haswell would be better in every aspect for only a little more money.

 

[Lil'John]

I'm not voting but core count as it relates to games is sort of the chicken/egg issue.:whiste:

Game companies don't want to develop games requiring high core counts because people aren't buying high core count CPUs.

Gamers aren't buying high core count CPUs because there are no games that take advantage of them.

Unfortunately, it is going to take the game companies driving the need for more core counts... just like graphic cards. In my opinion, game companies should be making games toward 4 cores needed for medium experience and 6+ cores would be a huge improvement.

FWIW, my game computer is a 3930k(ie Sandy Bridge-E) BUT, I got a good discount on the CPU... if I didn't, I would probably be using a i5-2500:$

 

[aigomorla]

octocore...

I shall has octocore when that beast comes out.

5960X where art tho~

 

[moonbogg]

I'm not voting but core count as it relates to games is sort of the chicken/egg issue.:whiste:

Game companies don't want to develop games requiring high core counts because people aren't buying high core count CPUs.

Gamers aren't buying high core count CPUs because there are no games that take advantage of them.

Unfortunately, it is going to take the game companies driving the need for more core counts... just like graphic cards. In my opinion, game companies should be making games toward 4 cores needed for medium experience and 6+ cores would be a huge improvement.

FWIW, my game computer is a 3930k(ie Sandy Bridge-E) BUT, I got a good discount on the CPU... if I didn't, I would probably be using a i5-2500:$

I use the same chip. An upgrade probably won't be required for a cool decade, but that's no fun.

 

[crashtech]

It would be an easier decision if the HEDT hexcores weren't always one step behind the mainstream quads. I guess I would have to pick a quad if hard pressed.

 

[aigomorla]

It would be an easier decision if the HEDT hexcores weren't always one step behind the mainstream quads. I guess I would have to pick a quad if hard pressed.

but I like to have a gazillion things open when I game.

I need my Skype on... need my walkthough website.. need youtube to see how to beat a boss im stuck on... while I need media player playing my music or a movie if im grinding so I don't go mad... then I need all my monitoring problems to make sure nothing is over spec in the temp range... then I need vent or TS on so I can use a mic with team mates... then I need... ummmm... I need a ton of stuff open when playing a game...

So to me its always MOAR CORES!!!

 

[BrightCandle]

Its hard to even justify a quad core for most games. A few games do come out requiring more than 2 cores but most of them really don't seem to utilise much more than an i3. Still its not really about most games, its about the hardest to run games. Some of them benefit from more cores (BF4) and some of them require lots of clock speed (Arma 3). I personally chose 6 cores last time, the extra PCI-E lanes and RAM were certainly useful as well.

Its not an easy choice, the price difference is quite large and the performance difference is normally quite small, just not always.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Happy with a quad.

 

[moonbogg]

but I like to have a gazillion things open when I game.

I need my Skype on... need my walkthough website.. need youtube to see how to beat a boss im stuck on... while I need media player playing my music or a movie if im grinding so I don't go mad... then I need all my monitoring problems to make sure nothing is over spec in the temp range... then I need vent or TS on so I can use a mic with team mates... then I need... ummmm... I need a ton of stuff open when playing a game...

So to me its always MOAR CORES!!!

That's a really good point. I encoded a video while playing BF3. Noone in game believed me. They called BS. But it was true, and it was running pretty good without too bad of a performance hit, because I had 12 threads. They couldn't do that as well because they only have 4 in most cases.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Question is simple. Do you feel torn between quad core and hex core CPUs for gaming, either now or in the near future, maybe a year from now?

No, I feel torn because there is such a dearth of good quality single player games.

Seriously, I think it is a very open question, but I am not that demanding of graphics. I have a SB i5 and figure it will be adequate for my uses for the foreseable future with perhaps a gpu upgrade. 1080p, 40fps, med to high is plenty good for me, and I think that cpu should handle those settings in even new games coming out.

 

[crashtech]

but I like to have a gazillion things open when I game.

I need my Skype on... need my walkthough website.. need youtube to see how to beat a boss im stuck on... while I need media player playing my music or a movie if im grinding so I don't go mad... then I need all my monitoring problems to make sure nothing is over spec in the temp range... then I need vent or TS on so I can use a mic with team mates... then I need... ummmm... I need a ton of stuff open when playing a game...

So to me its always MOAR CORES!!!

In some ways it sounds like you'd be better served by having more than one machine.

 

[aigomorla]

In some ways it sounds like you'd be better served by having more than one machine.

I already have too many machines...

I have a FreeNAS PC
I have a Torrent / NBZ / FTP box because I don't like to keep the PC which is open like that on my network without firewalls.
I have my Smoothwall PC which is my firewall/router because I hate consumer routers.
I have my windows2008R2 server which has DHCP/DNS for my network.
I have a Shared Storage PC which has a dedicated raid controller ARC-1680ix with a bunch of 2TB drives on R0

Then lets not ignore the other PC's I have though out the house which family members use...
...

I have so many things connected, im almost tap'd out on my 24 port managed switch, if I include the Ubiquiti AP's I setup to get full coverage anywhere inside the house. >.<

 

[TuxDave]

but I like to have a gazillion things open when I game.

I need my Skype on... need my walkthough website.. need youtube to see how to beat a boss im stuck on... while I need media player playing my music or a movie if im grinding so I don't go mad... then I need all my monitoring problems to make sure nothing is over spec in the temp range... then I need vent or TS on so I can use a mic with team mates... then I need... ummmm... I need a ton of stuff open when playing a game...

So to me its always MOAR CORES!!!

Cheater!

 

[mindbomb]

because of consoles, games will have to be optimized for 8 cores, and thus, I feel a quad core with smt will be the sweet spot. We've had these processors since 2008, and the gaming software/api's are still in the near future, so I understand the cynicism around processors with many cores.

 

[ShintaiDK]

because of consoles, games will have to be optimized for 8 cores, and thus, I feel a quad core with smt will be the sweet spot. We've had these processors since 2008, and the gaming software/api's are still in the near future, so I understand the cynicism around processors with many cores.

Consoles can max use 6 cores for games tho. Also scaling matters, so more cores are not nessesary faster than fewer faster cores. Even if all are used.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I think quad core will be fine for this generation of games. Maybe get one with HT to be safe. The consoles may have 8 cores but they are pathetic cores.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I'm still waiting for a decent game to come out.

Half Life 3, where are you?

 

[crashtech]

I'm still waiting for a decent game to come out.

Half Life 3, where are you?

Don't remind me...

 

[Madpacket]

6 cores is ideal but 8 would prevent you from having to upgrade for a number of years. I'm happy with my 3770 but will likely upgrade to 8 core / 16 thread Intel CPU if the price becomes reasonable in a few years. I'm not spending more than 500 on an 8 core.

 

[Ranulf]

Torn, no. Unless the price/performance makes sense, quad is the answer for the 2-3 year future. For just gaming, high speed dual core seems to be just fine for many games. I bought into the go quad or go home argument 4 years ago and it still hasn't happened gaming wise. I sure didn't notice a big change going from an e6600 to a q8400.

 

[Cerb]

With the price difference, no way I'd go hex. By the time I would appreciate the difference, I'd probably have reason to buy a new platform, not just the lone little CPU. For now, I could use (or not use) the savings much better than the cores.

I could use more cores at work, sometimes, though.

 

[rgallant]

a highly clock-able 6 core with out ht could temp me.
-not all that sold on ht , might like that ht tech to direct data to all of the highly clocked 6 cores for gaming. by the 4Q we should see if the game dev's are going to use more cores.

 

[tidy]

.