Gamers - quad core/hex core dilemma

[moonbogg]

Price/performance is a "real" question, it's just not the OP's question, imo, though the OP might have been more explicit in excluding cost from the equation.

Even in a cost-no-object scenario, a multi-GPU high end Z97 board with a PLX chip and a liquid cooled 4790K is gonna be as good or better than an Ivy-E system for games most of the time. Guess we'll have to wait and see about Haswell-E...

I could have found lots of ways to overcomplicate the poll by specifying cost, additional tasks besides gaming etc etc. I just kept it simple. What's better, 4 or 6? Done.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

if cost is no issue, then no doubt I want my 6+ cores, but ultimately its going to be hard to justify when the total system cost is going to be much higher than the extra performance you might gain from it

 

[aigomorla]

I could have found lots of ways to overcomplicate the poll by specifying cost, additional tasks besides gaming etc etc. I just kept it simple. What's better, 4 or 6? Done.

if we ignored costs everyone who posted on this thread would take a 4960X over a 4770k any day of the week without looking back.

this is just common human greed of wanting more.

if cost is no issue, then no doubt I want my 6+ cores, but ultimately its going to be hard to justify when the total system cost is going to be much higher than the extra performance you might gain from it

exactly...


OP the problem is you have to play into financial situation here.
Also you need to look at what people have.. the processor by itself wont help gaming.
Its paired with the video card and display unit.
If someone is running 1080p, they wont see the value in getting a 780GTX Ti + a hexcore.
It makes no sense unless they are crypto mining.

However if u have a user which has 1440p or a 1600p display, then obviously that person is going to get a 780GTX + SLI + a Hexcore, because they are driven to get the max out of the said system.

 

[mindbomb]

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.

I don't think this applies to the ps4, only the xbox one.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I don't think this applies to the ps4, only the xbox one.

It applies to both. Same with the limited memory for games. Around 5GB for VRAM+Game. Thats about a lowend PC. Funny enough consoles perform like that as well.

http://ps4daily.com/2013/07/playstation-4-os-uses-3-5-gb-of-ram/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I could have found lots of ways to overcomplicate the poll by specifying cost, additional tasks besides gaming etc etc. I just kept it simple. What's better, 4 or 6? Done.

except you didn't really word it properly, by asking people if they were torn between the two, you're essentially asking htem to justify the decision they made between going for 4 or 6 core, a decision which most definitely includes weighing the cost. And, unsurprisingly, 4 core has received the most votes, likely because of the fact that it is so much more cost effective than the HEDT platform required to get more than 4 cores.

exactly...


OP the problem is you have to play into financial situation here.
Also you need to look at what people have.. the processor by itself wont help gaming.
Its paired with the video card and display unit.
If someone is running 1080p, they wont see the value in getting a 780GTX Ti + a hexcore.
It makes no sense unless they are crypto mining.

However if u have a user which has 1440p or a 1600p display, then obviously that person is going to get a 780GTX + SLI + a Hexcore, because they are driven to get the max out of the said system.

well, I know my own situation is fairly niche, but I shoot for 1080p120 because I'm a refreshrate/framerate junky, although I do have 1440p options. I might finally make a full switch once ASUS releases their 1440p120 monitor, but I'm not so sure as its already incredibly hard just to maintain 1080p120.

At any rate, I know I could probably get away with a 4 core, but I like having the extra breathing room, and for the few games that can use the extra CPU, it really does pay off.

I don't think this applies to the ps4, only the xbox one.

no, it definitely applies to the PS4: http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/03...l-and-how-they-can-make-them-run-really-fast/

Only six cores are available for games, as two are used by the operating system.

 

[SlickR12345]

Like what is the catch here? I mean its like asking do you get a jet or a bus? Of course you get a jet.

This question would work if it actually had any meaning behind it and you were asking in terms of performance, power consumption, price, etc....

When asked like this, yeah, go for 6 core, what is stopping you?

 

[Atreidin]

Six core minimum. Life is too short to not buy what I want then be lectured at by people on forums about how what I want is stupid.

 

[moonbogg]

if we ignored costs everyone who posted on this thread would take a 4960X over a 4770k any day of the week without looking back.

Everyone would not do that if gaming was their only concern. They might take the 4960x for other reasons, such as to sell it on ebay or something way off topic. But for gaming, many people think 4770k is better.

 

[mindbomb]

no, it definitely applies to the PS4: http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/03...l-and-how-they-can-make-them-run-really-fast/

well, I'll be damned. Why would a gaming console, whose sole function is gaming, need to reserve 25% of it's cpu power for non-gaming, whereas my pc, which is multipurpose, can dedicate 100% of it's processors to a game. Funny how that worked out.

Well, I guess this changes my thoughts on the subject, since most games I think are gonna want to be multiplatform. So a native hexcore or triple core processor with smt is going to be ideal I predict.

 

[crashtech]

Everyone would not do that if gaming was their only concern. They might take the 4960x for other reasons, such as to sell it on ebay or something way off topic. But for gaming, many people think 4770k is better.

That's right, because quads like the 4790K have the best IPC and also seem to have a few MHz advantage as well. So unless you are saturating all 4 regularly, a hex core is just not gonna be as fast, unfortunately.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

well, I'll be damned. Why would a gaming console, whose sole function is gaming, need to reserve 25% of it's cpu power for non-gaming

Because they're not just game consoles anymore, they're becoming more and more PC-like with each generation. Microsoft actually opted to stop packaging Windows Media Center into a version of Windows 8 because they'd rather have people use an XBox as their go-to Home Theater/Media Center device. (You can still get Windows Media Center, it just costs extra now, and quite a bit extra)

whereas my pc, which is multipurpose, can dedicate 100% of it's processors to a game. Funny how that worked out.

Its not funny, its sad that you actually think that is true, as it is yet another example where you appear to be blissfully ignorant on a subject.

Windows doesn't stop running when we run our games, the reason you might think that to be the case is because desktop CPUs are simply that much faster to where the OS (and other background tasks/apps) simply requires a smaller proportion of a much more powerful CPU to continue to run in the background.

Well, I guess this changes my thoughts on the subject, since most games I think are gonna want to be multiplatform. So a native hexcore or triple core processor with smt is going to be ideal I predict.

Not so fast. Again, a modern desktop quadcore is so much faster than a low clocked 8 core Jaguar that it should be more than able to handle the processing load without having to divide up the processing to more than 4 cores.

Multiplatform games should be just fine on modern quads. It will be the PC games that look to push past the console envelope that we would want to see more cores for, and I don't think we'd want to limit ourselves with what I think you have in mind (an i7 at the least, preferably an HEDT i7), a "6 core" AMD will not be any better off than a 4 core Intel.

 

[moonbogg]

That's right, because quads like the 4790K have the best IPC and also seem to have a few MHz advantage as well. So unless you are saturating all 4 regularly, a hex core is just not gonna be as fast, unfortunately.

Correct, for almost all games, with rare exception. However, its that rare exception that I seem to focus on like a laser beam.

 

[crashtech]

I like lots of cores, too, and wished most games could use more than 4. But my fantasy got smacked down by reality.

 

[moonbogg]

I like lots of cores, too, and wished most games could use more than 4. But my fantasy got smacked down by reality.

Everyone has their reasons. I play BF4 only. That's all I do with my rig at home (mostly). It uses more than 4, so I'm good with 6. I don't care if 99.999% of games can barely use 3 or 4 threads when the one game I care about uses up to 8.

 

[escrow4]

I have 2 PC's now, both with 4770's and I think come Christmas maybe I'll combine them. I'll build a 5960X system with 32GB or 64GB RAM, recycling this 1000w FSP Aurum and 2 x 1TB EVOs. Stick it all in a HAF XM case. Mmmm, should last for a while. Over here in Australia I suspect the price for CPU + RAM + MOBO will be around $2K. The 4960X is $1189 and the Asus Rampage IV Black Edition X79 is around $620 ish.

 

[BrightCandle]

6 cores is better. For all the architectural improvements the performance gain of 50% more cores out does the clock speed and architecture improvements. Most of the time it will come up effectively the same performance (many games aren't CPU limited), occasionally you'll come up 15% or so worse, but sometimes you'll come out 50% better.

Cost effective - well that is a harder question and depends very much on your disposible income. But I think technically the performance data says 6 cores is better than 4 cores despite the trade offs that implies in clock speed and architecture.

 

[crashtech]

Seems that those who run hexcores prefer... hexcores! I would have never guessed.

 

[moonbogg]

Quad core is the new dual core. Yeah its still "fine for now", but who wants just "fine for now"? I don't.

 

[Ranulf]

2 Cores..??
Really. ?
What is this 2007.?

Lets just take the example of Tomb Raider, which is seen as not much CPU heavy, unlike something like BF4 or Watch Dogs.

A dual core i3 was slaughtered.
Even though it had 2 extra HT threads just for Background stuff.

This data chart amuses me. In October 2011 I bought my X4 955 system and my 2500k system a week apart. The chart shows a 7fps difference between the two. The 955 cost $119, the 2500k, $219.

 

[SlowSpyder]

For me it is an easy decision, get the hexcore. I think the difference between the two in performance in any current or upcoming game is likely to be very little, most of the time a higher clocked quad / eight threaded CPU probably getting the better FPS. But, what would the difference be between a 4.5GHz Haswell 6c/12t vs. a 5.1GHz Haswell 4c/8t(thinking likely best case clocks here)? At best, we can assume a ~15% difference in favor of the 4c/8t with those clocks in the absolute best case, non-GPU limited situations. So if you have a game that's dipping to 20FPS on the 4.5GHz CPU, it'll still dip to ~23FPS with the 5.1GHz assuming it doesn't care about core count. I just can't see enough clock speed difference between the two to make a real night and day difference in playability.

Now on the other hand, we see today dual cores that are plenty for many games on their knees in the current games that don't play well on less than a quadcore. I don't know that we'll see that happen to 4c/8t CPU's anytime soon, but it certainly could. And I figure by the time the 6c/12t CPU is obsolete for gaming, the 4c/8t CPU's will probably have already seen that day come and go (even with the higher clock). Though truth be told, I imagine you'll want to upgrade out of boredom before either are obsolete, but you never know... just a month ago we had many people here saying 2GB was plenty for 1440P and would be for some time, it only takes one game to show how quickly things can change.

 

[mindbomb]

Not so fast. Again, a modern desktop quadcore is so much faster than a low clocked 8 core Jaguar that it should be more than able to handle the processing load without having to divide up the processing to more than 4 cores.

Well, there is that, but the expectations for the pc are also much higher in terms of IQ and frame rate. So that can bring a need for more than 4 pc cores despite being a console port. And the fact that it was on a console means it should scale to at least 6 cores.

 

[erunion]

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

Half Life 3, where are you?

It will likely come out when virtual reality is ready(1-2 years).

 

[aigomorla]

Everyone would not do that if gaming was their only concern. They might take the 4960x for other reasons, such as to sell it on ebay or something way off topic. But for gaming, many people think 4770k is better.

no u see now your thinking of reselling.

if u had a selection of 1 or the other, and you couldn't resell, you would take a 4770K?

I bet 9/10 people would pick the 4960X.
The 1/10 would pick the 4770K because they had no clue what the 4960X was.

Also the cache on the 4960X makes up for the MHz shortfall...
your comparing a 15MB cache on the 4960X vs 8MB on the 4770K.

Seems that those who run hexcores prefer... hexcores! I would have never guessed.

I prefer octocores!

 

[BrightCandle]

There is a genuine concern that architecture and additional clockspeed might mean a quad core was faster. But the benefit is basically 15% clock speed and 10% architecture (25% ish) in favour of the quad core and the six core is basically 50% faster due to the cores. But each will get its benefits in different games due to how well they utilise those extra cores. The quad core performance is more generally applicable, the clock speed and architecture will apply in everything all of the time. The extra 2 cores only matter when you can use it.

I don't think its as simple as always getting the six core, I think some people would genuinely choose the quad with the high clock speed, and in some circumstances they would actually be right, in others they would be wrong. Its not just a straight upgrade. The data suggests that the six core on balance is the better buy despite this.