• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Significant gains with extra threads/cores (1080p): myth or reality?

J

jana519

Senior member
There's a popular myth that extra threads/cores will result in significant performance gains for gaming at 1080p.

I present to you exhibit A:

85192.png



85193.png


85194.png


Here we see from none other than our own Ian Cutress that in 3 games benchmarked at 1080p, there is less than 2% performance gain realized from 4 additional threads.

Based on this data, it's ridiculous to recommend extra threads/cores for the average PC gamer. We, as a community, need to stop propagating this myth.

I look forward to your vigorous and data based rebuttals.
 
Anything more recent than these ancient benchmarks?

I've seen a few videos (like at Tech Deals) that show major limitations with 4c/4t CPUs.

He actually plays the games and said in many titles the stuttering and other issues was really noticable regardless of where the average fps showed m
 
jana519 said:
There's a popular myth that extra threads/cores will result in significant performance gains for gaming at 1080p.

I present to you exhibit A:

85192.png



85193.png


85194.png


Here we see from none other than our own Ian Cutress that in 3 games benchmarked at 1080p, there is less than 2% performance gain realized from 4 additional threads.

Based on this data, it's ridiculous to recommend extra threads/cores for the average PC gamer. We, as a community, need to stop propagating this myth.

I look forward to your vigorous and data based rebuttals.
Click to expand...
Is this a troll post or you just simply can't read?

The point is: there are a lot of games now that stutter a lot with less than 8 threads and the minimum FPS numbers are horrible, and the number of these games will only increase.

Inserting 3 graphs with 3 games where the average framerate doesn't suffer, shows only this: you either have no idea what you're talking abut, or you're just trolling. I can't decide.
 
It's easy to say "gaming" as if it's all one, and I do it myself sometimes; but this sort of thing is where the generalization breaks down.

Multi-threaded game engines benefit from more cores, up to the number of simultaneously busy threads the engine wants. More cores beyond that help relatively little, and then only by offloading background system activity.

So the question "will more cores help" can only be answered in the context of a specific set of game engines, and what versions of those engines, and how many active threads they are programmed to run. If you're running an old WoW that's essentially single threaded, then no of course more cores does nothing. And likewise for any other game engine that runs just a small handful of threads.
 
jana519 said:
Based on this data, it's ridiculous to recommend extra threads/cores for the average PC gamer. We, as a community, need to stop propagating this myth.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm sure it's just a total coincidence that the end result of this would most likely be people recommending Core i7/i9 CPUs over Zen 2.
 
jana519 said:
Post the data if you have it. The lazy argument with no facts or data presented is not a rebuttal of any standard or measure.
Click to expand...
What's there to argue? You've posted some old benchmark charts with a GPU bottleneck that doesn't tell anything of substance whatsoever. Also, AT gaming benchmarks are useless except the 720p low and 1080p medium results because they still haven't got anything faster than a GTX 1080 to test their games.
 
jana519 said:
Post the data if you have it. The lazy argument with no facts or data presented is not a rebuttal of any standard or measure.
Click to expand...

It is you that don't have valid argument for your statement. So it is up to you to give us better arguments.
 
Yeah we should all be buying 9350K /s

There is so much good information available that you obviously either haven't looked for it, or intentionally avoided it. I don't understand which purpose this thread serves.
 
I'm hearing outrage and denial, but so far no evidence or data has been presented to dispel or disprove my position.

Honestly disappointed, was expecting more. I'll be hanging onto my i5-6600K and 1080p, no good reason to upgrade unless I want a higher resolution monitor.
 

Supreme Commander Uses *all* 4 Cores

Ripped from Video ... it *belongs HERE* Topic Title: Supreme commander Quad core ready ? CPU whore SC *needs* more than 2 cores to run really well and SC is the "first" :P http://au.gamespot.com/features/6166198/p-6.html...
forums.anandtech.com

Tada! Old game that does better with more cores!

Whether or not a game will benefit from more cores is going to depend on what the game is doing. Games with a bunch of physics, pathfinding, and objects flying around are (likely) going to do better with more cores.
 
Maybe confirmation bias. I'm looking for evidence to disprove my assertion, and there's been scant presented so far. I presented 3 popular AAA PC titles with the resolution and average FPS in the image as clear as day, for all to see. One of those games (GTA V) still has tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of players today.

Hitman928 said:
Possibly a severe case of confirmation bias going on here?

BTW, from Iron Woode's post:

View attachment 15364

Compared to 4 cores, a 12 core CPU provided:

107% faster "average" fps
84% higher lows (taking 1% lows).

Nope, don't see much advantage there at all 🙄
Click to expand...

No game title, no resolution shown. It could be a AAA title in 1080p, it could be a Chinese MMORPG in 4K for all I know.

You can call me old-fashioned, but I kind of liked the days when data and results were presented in a straightforward, clear format. Less clickbaity headlines, more substance and content. Not a fan of flash in the pan YouTube reviewers that are here one year and gone the next like so many media socialites on Twitter and Instagram. Give me good old-fashioned websites that have some actual professional journalism.
 
jana519 said:
Maybe confirmation bias. I'm looking for evidence to disprove my assertion, and there's been scant presented so far. I presented 3 popular AAA PC titles with the resolution and average FPS in the image as clear as day, for all to see. One of those games (GTA V) still has tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of players today.



No game title, no resolution shown. It could be a AAA title in 1080p, it could be a Chinese MMORPG in 4K for all I know.

You can call me old-fashioned, but I kind of liked the days when data and results were presented in a straightforward, clear format. Less clickbaity headlines, more substance and content. Not a fan of flash in the pan YouTube reviewers that are here one year and gone the next like so many media socialites on Twitter and Instagram. Give me good old-fashioned websites that have some actual professional journalism.
Click to expand...
The resolution is 1080P and the game titles are in the video description.

Try looking there.
 
GTA V came five years ago (PC version), and was well known to be a really bad console port

The other two games are also more than 5 years old.

The fact that you claim that average fps for these ancient games is relevant for a discussion about thread-scaling makes a fact based discussion very difficult.
 
jana519 said:
Maybe confirmation bias. I'm looking for evidence to disprove my assertion, and there's been scant presented so far. I presented 3 popular AAA PC titles with the resolution and average FPS in the image as clear as day, for all to see. One of those games (GTA V) still has tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of players today.



No game title, no resolution shown. It could be a AAA title in 1080p, it could be a Chinese MMORPG in 4K for all I know.

You can call me old-fashioned, but I kind of liked the days when data and results were presented in a straightforward, clear format. Less clickbaity headlines, more substance and content. Not a fan of flash in the pan YouTube reviewers that are here one year and gone the next like so many media socialites on Twitter and Instagram. Give me good old-fashioned websites that have some actual professional journalism.
Click to expand...

You could, you know, watch the video like I did and clearly see that it is Assassin's Creed Odyssey at 1080p. I will say that AC:O is an outlier on how much additional cores benefit the game, but if you'd actually watch the video you'd see that there are good gains in every game they test moving up from 4 cores. In one instance the 4 core system drops to single digit fps (BF5). Yikes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top