Gamers - quad core/hex core dilemma

[frozentundra123456]

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.

Yea, because it is a terribly gpu limited scenario. I am sure in a game that is cpu limited the difference would be 20 to 50 percent in favor of the i5.

 

[crashtech]

Haswell-E might change the game somewhat if it is released well enough before Broadwell, at that point the enthusiast IPC will match the mainstream IPC.

 

[DominionSeraph]

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.

I'm sure those with i7 4790's are going to be jealous of your FX-6100 purchase.

Hey, for $145 you can get an entire 8 core system!

 

[Dice144]

I use a 4770k but would not mind a 8 core 16 thread beast. Just because

 

[Idontcare]

I'd want hex-core just to have extra cores available to process all the intermittent background tasks and BS that goes on with windows updates, software updates, A/V scanner, spamware scanner, etc etc.

If someone did a test in which they used a real-world rig, loaded with all the real-world crap that people actually have running in the background on their rigs, and tested a quad-core versus a hex-core, I would not be surprised at all if the hex-core equipped rig yielded better minimum framerates compared to the quad-core.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I use a 4770k but would not mind a 8 core 16 thread beast. Just because

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Integrit...132796?pt=COMP_EN_Servers&hash=item35d7b383bc

 

[rtsurfer]

Are you even serious right now? You're neglecting a major variable in your severely limited assessment: individual core and individual thread capability.

A single core on a i3-2100 will not compete with any of the other CPUs on that benchmark based on single-threaded performance. That's the primary reason for the poor performance, not solely because of the number of cores...

Why do you think we overclock our CPUs for gaming performance?

Okay. I missed that.
Also, apologies for being extremely late to the party.

Do me a favor and take a screenshot of your CPU utilization on the next game you're playing and see how many cores are spiking. Likely you'll be surprised.

The good thing about Quoting GameGpu.ru is that they do that for you.

I see more than 2 cores needed there.
I specifically choose Tomb Raider as it is known as a Game more dependent on GPU than CPU.

Taking something latest like Watch Dogs or Battlefield 4 would have given more results in favor of high core count.

You're right; it will backfire on me, and it'll be reduced to confirmation bias and anything not supporting their argument will be ignored. I just want them to start actually looking instead of assuming.

"Most games" means, out of all games. I'm not talking solely, big-budget, modern games. You have to admit, there's a lot of games out there, and most of them won't utilize more than 2 cores. Also, this does not mean I'm saying you only need 2 cores. Threads will spill over on the 3rd core often with the majority of these games, but primarily you'll see 2 cores being pegged a majority of the time.

Considering that OP started this poll asking Gamers for their opinion, I think we should look at mainstream games. Nobody makes a Gaming PC to play Angry Birds.

 

[SPBHM]

what is interesting about TR is the lack of HT usage on the i3, with the 2 cores at 100% load,
could the game just ignore the HT threads for no good reason?
or the code is not suitable for SMT!?

I remember Crysis 3 being patched to use HT, before the patch an i5 and i7 were the same, after there was a decent gap, I wonder if new patches for TR fixed this behavior.

typical MT games look like this on the i3

Crysis 3 before the patch is looking like this

almost like TR
well, if you can take this kind of test seriously.
trying to understand CPU load from what windows shows you is not very easy

 

[BFG10K]

The only people with this dilemma are the people that don't need an -E platform to begin with.

Those that know exactly why they need it don't have any such dilemma.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I use a 4770k but would not mind a 8 core 16 thread beast. Just because

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Integrit...132796?pt=COMP_EN_Servers&hash=item35d7b383bc

I'd be pretty sure he left out what was implied, "I use a 4770k but would not mind a 8 core 16 thread beast that could also be overclocked". Intel has had 8+core Xeons for a few years now, but they're pretty useless to enthusiasts when the 6 core i7s can overclock and match and even surpass their multi-threaded performance, while having that much better single-threaded performance. 4.7GHz 6 core, or 3GHz 8 core... not a very hard choice to make. We want the 4.5+GHz 8+ core.

 

[rtsurfer]

what is interesting about TR is the lack of HT usage on the i3, with the 2 cores at 100% load,
could the game just ignore the HT threads for no good reason?
or the code is not suitable for SMT!?

I remember Crysis 3 being patched to use HT, before the patch an i5 and i7 were the same, after there was a decent gap, I wonder if new patches for TR fixed this behavior.

typical MT games look like this on the i3

Snip

almost like TR
well, if you can take this kind of test seriously.
trying to understand CPU load from what windows shows you is not very easy

Hmm.
Looks like you are right.
While what Windows shows must be taken with a grain of salt, it is obvious that your CPU is limiting factor when your FPS increase with the same GPU & a more powerful CPU.
Both the i3 & i7 are at stock clocks, so minus the 400Mhz or so in ClockSpeed difference, there is still some gain to be had with more cores.

The guy claiming that most games only use 2 Cores is just ridiculous.

The only people with this dilemma are the people that don't need an -E platform to begin with.

Those that know exactly why they need it don't have any such dilemma.

Exactly, for most people E platform tends to be more of a luxury then a need.
More so this Gen with the DDR4 premium added.

 

[pandemonium]

Hmm.
Looks like you are right.
While what Windows shows must be taken with a grain of salt, it is obvious that your CPU is limiting factor when your FPS increase with the same GPU & a more powerful CPU.
Both the i3 & i7 are at stock clocks, so minus the 400Mhz or so in ClockSpeed difference, there is still some gain to be had with more cores.

The guy claiming that most games only use 2 Cores is just ridiculous.



Exactly, for most people E platform tends to be more of a luxury then a need.
More so this Gen with the DDR4 premium added.

Yeah, it's ridiculous to note your cited example obfuscates threading capabilities of different CPUs, instead of clearly defining core count limitations.

 

[rtsurfer]

Yeah, it's ridiculous to note your cited example obfuscates threading capabilities of different CPUs, instead of clearly defining core count limitations.

How?
It utilizes more cores when thrown at it & gives higher Performance.

If it indeed only needed a Dual core than there shouldn't be using more than 2 cores on the 2600K.?

Look here

A 4670K is faster than 4770K & almost close to 3970X because the game doesn't require more than 4 cores.
4770K has a small performance hit due to HT.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Considering that OP started this poll asking Gamers for their opinion, I think we should look at mainstream games. Nobody makes a Gaming PC to play Angry Birds.

This is League:

Hoping to play one of the best games of the last decade? Well I hope you weren't expecting to get a solid 60fps in The Witcher with "moar cores."

As a gamer, I'd take a Haswell i3 over an X6.

 

[rtsurfer]

This is League:

Hoping to play one of the best games of the last decade? Well I hope you weren't expecting to get a solid 60fps in The Witcher with "moar cores."

Lol is very light on the resources. That is well known. It is not a graphical marvel either.

The Witcher came out in 2007.
When you buy a CPU today, do you buy it looking back so that you can run old games at max settings or you look forward to be more future proof & looking at current Gen & upcoming games.?

Edit: As for your last comment, I never recommended any CPU to anyone. This argument was basically about how most games don't use more than 2 cores. Which is not the case today & wont be moving forward.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The Witcher came out in 2007.
When you buy a CPU today, do you buy it looking back so that you can run old games at max settings or you look forward to be more future proof & looking at current Gen & upcoming games.?

Beowulf cluster of 3x:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Proliant...626162?pt=COMP_EN_Servers&hash=item2a3c241d32
$508

Or:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/DjjJmG
$526

Which would you rather have as the basis of a gaming rig?

The former has around 140% the processing power of an i7 4960X. The latter, around 30%.
I'd take the latter.

 

[rtsurfer]

Beowulf cluster of 3x:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Proliant...626162?pt=COMP_EN_Servers&hash=item2a3c241d32
$508

Or:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/ZC22bv
$506

Which would you rather have as the basis of a gaming rig?

The former has around 40% more processing power than an i7 4960X. The latter is... an i3.

A real odd way to discuss.

First of all I don't see how this even relates to the discussion.
I will repeat this the last time, I was arguing that people should at least get a real quad for gaming these days, not a dual core. I never argued an Hex Core as being the necessity.

As for your question, the I will add a video card to the former granted you can get it to me running Windows 7/8.1 in a full tower case with noise & power consumption equal to a regular PC. Also it should able to support consumer GPUs. All those features at that price would be awesome.

If its cheap & practical, nobody is going to refuse more processing power.

Edit: Man do you drastically edit your comments after posting.

 

[pandemonium]

How?
It utilizes more cores when thrown at it & gives higher Performance.

If it indeed only needed a Dual core than there shouldn't be using more than 2 cores on the 2600K.?

Look here

A 4670K is faster than 4770K & almost close to 3970X because the game doesn't require more than 4 cores.
4770K has a small performance hit due to HT.

You're completely missing the point, man. CPUs aren't equal and not solely due to their core counts. Period.

If you took a highly capable CPU and disabled cores to match the core count on a lesser CPU, observed the differences, you'd see that the numbers of cores isn't the only concern.

 

[RussianSensation]

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 the architecture difference will not matter for 5820-5960 vs. 4790k. Based on the current Intel roadmap it seems Skylake K got pushed back. SlowSpyder made an excellent post - assuming 5xxx overclocked decent (4.2-4.3ghz), then a top of the line quad - 4790k - won't be much faster since most review samples online are getting 4.7-4.8ghz. In a lot of CPU tests at Techspot, games hardly scale from 3.5ghz to 4.5Ghz on Haswell, even on Sandy.

One could make a case for a hexacore because in modern games, we are mostly GPU limited. In cases where we are CPU limited, it is usually either strategy games, flight sims or outdated DX9-10 game engines that use 1-2 cores. I can't see much difference between a 4.2-4.2 and a 4.8 Haswell in games when at times even i7 4770k is hardly faster than a 4.0Ghz i7 920. However, if any game uses more than 4 cores, it is impossible to make up for the loss of 2 cores. I guess it comes down to how long one intends to keep the platform, how well 5xxx overclock, what the price premium will be for DDR4 and the cost if a good X99 motherboard. A lot of people start throwing things like $300-500 for a top X99 board, but even a $225 X99 board should outclass 90% of z97 boards in features and DIMMS.

Hypothetical: Add $50 more for X99 board, $160 for 5820 and $50 for DDR4. That is not that large of a premium esp. if places like MicroCenter drop 5820 to 4820 levels.

 

[rtsurfer]

You're completely missing the point, man. CPUs aren't equal and not solely due to their core counts. Period.

If you took a highly capable CPU and disabled cores to match the core count on a lesser CPU, observed the differences, you'd see that the numbers of cores isn't the only concern.

So are suggesting that the i3 s cores are deficient compared to i5 & i7 & the performance increase in moving to a quad core is not because of more cores but because of more powerful 2 cores that the game was originally using. ?

 

[DominionSeraph]

I was arguing that people should at least get a real quad for gaming these days, not a dual core.

So you'd argue a Phenom 9100e over an i3 4360?

Edit: Man do you drastically edit your comments after posting.

I like the case better, and as it made the i3 build more expensive it served to better illustrate the point. (When the i3 was $2 cheaper the basis for picking it could have been price. By pumping it to $18 more that no longer applied.)

 

[rtsurfer]

So you'd argue a Phenom 9100e over an i3 4630?

I Should have added an IPC in there somewhere.

If a Phenom had IPC comparable to i3, sure.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I Should have added an IPC in there somewhere.

If a Phenom had IPC comparable to i3, sure.

So you'd take a 4.77MHz quad-core with 1% greater IPC than an i3 over a 3.7GHz i3?

 

[pandemonium]

So are suggesting that the i3 s cores are deficient compared to i5 & i7 & the performance increase in moving to a quad core is not because of more cores but because of more powerful 2 cores that the game was originally using. ?

I'm saying it's a large factor to consider. Threading is affected by many factors, the amount of cores isn't the end-all of it. So your example of a dual core being much lesser in results in gaming isn't solely because of it being only 2 cores.

 

[tidy]

.