The 8 Core CPU: Are they replacing 4 Cores as the standard? (Poll Inside)

[pcslookout]

I voted Yes, 8 cores are the new standard and Intel will catch up very soon.

 

[Topweasel]

OMG 90% on 12 threads? You see! We really have entered the era of the 8 core CPU! I'm such a prophet. That's profit, baby.

No, jk. This is absolutely disgusting. But, I must say, DRM or not, I'm really glad I don't have a quad.

This was pretty predictable and people who have been fighting that a 4c8t CPU as being the best gaming CPU at $300 are going to be in for a rude awakening even as early as next year. Games are well on their way to capping out on 4c CPU's, there is only so much mad clock capability of SL and KBL will help out.

 

[epsilon84]

This was pretty predictable and people who have been fighting that a 4c8t CPU as being the best gaming CPU at $300 are going to be in for a rude awakening even as early as next year. Games are well on their way to capping out on 4c CPU's, there is only so much mad clock capability of SL and KBL will help out.

Don't think the situation is as dire as you make out for 4C/8T CPUs:
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/assassins-creed-origins-pc-performance-analysis/2/

I'm not disputing that higher threaded CPUs are more 'future proof', obviously that is the case. We just haven't reached the point yet where 4C/8T is a detriment to gaming performance, even in a 'worst case' scenario like AC:O

 

[Topweasel]

Don't think the situation is as dire as you make out for 4C/8T CPUs:
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/assassins-creed-origins-pc-performance-analysis/2/

I'm not disputing that higher threaded CPUs are more 'future proof', obviously that is the case. We just haven't reached the point yet where 4C/8T is a detriment to gaming performance, even in a 'worst case' scenario like AC:O

Depends on what you consider detriment. A super fast 4 core in current games is overcoming a thread limitation. But that is because those games are specifically pulling back workload to fit in well on a well clocked i7. This changes starting next year, between R5, R7, more price attainable HEDT higher core solutions, i5, and i7 there will be more than enough 6-8+ core solutions for companies to stop specifically optimizing for the old i7 base. The code will pretty much already be there from the consoles.

But that was what I was getting at, it's easy to look at the raw FPS numbers and see the 7700 sticking out at the top and think 4c has a long way to go. But you look beyond that and specifically look beyond the benchmarks and look into game play, the tale changes. You already have about a dozen games that have noticable boosts from more cores. The number will continue to grow and that was happening without hindsight of Ryzen, Threadripper, or the adjusted pricing of SLX, with only a little bit of information about CoffeeLake. Now that all have been out for a bit 2018 is going to shake that up.

 

[TheELF]

But that is because those games are specifically pulling back workload to fit in well on a well clocked i7.

LOL, no!
Games are pulling back so they can still be played on consoles!
That's why we now have low level APIs and that's also why so many games use the GPU for as much compute as possible instead of using the CPU.

 

[Topweasel]

LOL, no!
Games are pulling back so they can still be played on consoles!
That's why we now have low level APIs and that's also why so many games use the GPU for as much compute as possible instead of using the CPU.

Not far from the truth. But my point was that Multitasking in the past was handled kind of poorly because people were writing for pretty extreme setups on completely unsupported architectures with the 360 and the PS3. So starting in 13 with a 3-5 dev cycle we are seeing the first of games using MT code for 8 cores (if anemic cores) that is compatible with the PC when porting. On top of that DX12 and Vulcan dev has only just started to really push into game usage this year and for the most part the primary development for those games was DX11. DX12 will only increase core usage as devs get more accustomed to it. Then on top of that you have the different needs trying to get 60FPS, 144FPS and so on means more page calls which means more CPU usage that again with DX12 and Vulcan get spread across the cores. Not something to worry about on consoles with them primary locked at 30FPS.

Point being that a lot of the groundwork has already being established. Sure we still aren't getting the kind of AI we saw FEAR. The physics system is never going to be really strong (so when it matters more QTEs). But the hard work is already being done and when it comes to customizing the ports they will have less reason to optimize for the old I7's as the defacto gaming CPU's start having more resources.

 

[traderjay]

So maybe one day my 44 core XEON workstation can run all future games w/o problems!

 

[Topweasel]

So maybe one day my 44 core XEON workstation can run all future games w/o problems!

Lol. That isn't what I am talking about. But I mean yeah it should already play all current games and probably all games for the next 10-15 years.

 

[TheELF]

DX12 will only increase core usage as devs get more accustomed to it.

No it won't, that's an old wive's tale that get's parroted around on all the forums.
Dx12 will get rid of the ,in amd's case single threaded, driver thread.
Devs will have to add dx12 driver workload to every one of their game threads,so bottom line games will keep the same amount of threads they have today,minus the separate driver thread, but each one of them will do a bit of driver work instead of all of it being done on one thread.

Dx12 has the potential to be used with more threads but it won't happen, for the same reasons games in general don't have a lot of threads today although they could,games are designed for consoles...

 

[Topweasel]

No it won't, that's an old wive's tale that get's parroted around on all the forums.
Dx12 will get rid of the ,in amd's case single threaded, driver thread.
Devs will have to add dx12 driver workload to every one of their game threads,so bottom line games will keep the same amount of threads they have today,minus the separate driver thread, but each one of them will do a bit of driver work instead of all of it being done on one thread.

Dx12 has the potential to be used with more threads but it won't happen, for the same reasons games in general don't have a lot of threads today although they could,games are designed for consoles...

That do have tons of threads. Hell you have some games assigning upwards of 32 and 64 threads. The threads exist and have existed for over a year or two. The optimization for what were the fastest CPU's in the i7's have held back CPU usage.

Now this isn't me saying OMG we are going to see 100% CPU usage on a 16c+ CPU soon. But we have been seeing the i7 capping out at 99%+ CPU usage for a year and a half now. I can't believe it is this hard for people to see this shift coming even though it's this close.

 

[TheELF]

That do have tons of threads. Hell you have some games assigning upwards of 32 and 64 threads. The threads exist and have existed for over a year or two. The optimization for what were the fastest CPU's in the i7's have held back CPU usage.

Now this isn't me saying OMG we are going to see 100% CPU usage on a 16c+ CPU soon. But we have been seeing the i7 capping out at 99%+ CPU usage for a year and a half now. I can't believe it is this hard for people to see this shift coming even though it's this close.

And this has what to do with dx12?
So we have games that assign 32-64 threads for years now but somehow they are still held back by the i7?

 

[Topweasel]

And this has what to do with dx12?
So we have games that assign 32-64 threads for years now but somehow they are still held back by the i7?

DX12 is naturally multi threaded and naturally spawns threads for page calls. As for the threads yes, even though these games utilize more threads the workload itself isn't too much larger than it would be on a 4c8t setup. Which makes sense, I mean you have to optimize a game you can't cripple the fastest system by sending more data then the CPU can handle. Again consistent 90%+ CPU usage for the last couple years.

 

[Topweasel]

Here is an example from a test earlier this year.

https://youtu.be/qiA_NnI3TpM

 

[Carfax83]

Don't think the situation is as dire as you make out for 4C/8T CPUs:
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/assassins-creed-origins-pc-performance-analysis/2/

I'm not disputing that higher threaded CPUs are more 'future proof', obviously that is the case. We just haven't reached the point yet where 4C/8T is a detriment to gaming performance, even in a 'worst case' scenario like AC:O

DSOgaming updated that article after patch 1.03 and said that it improved performance on their hex core CPU. I can also verify that patch 1.03 increased performance as well, but annoyingly, it also introduced some stuttering in Alexandria

 

[Carfax83]

Here is an example from a test earlier this year.

https://youtu.be/qiA_NnI3TpM

That's a good example of how critical IPC and clock cycles are to performance. While games are undoubtedly becoming more and more parallel, IPC and clock speed are still very important factors when it comes to overall performance. Some games are more parallel than others, and so will benefit more from multiple cores compared to other games.

 

[epsilon84]

DSOgaming updated that article after patch 1.03 and said that it improved performance on their hex core CPU. I can also verify that patch 1.03 increased performance as well, but annoyingly, it also introduced some stuttering in Alexandria

You mean this right? http://www.dsogaming.com/news/assas...mproves-performance-16-intels-hexa-core-cpus/

Without testing out the other thread configurations, we can't really come to any conclusions as to whether the performance increase applies to 6C CPUs only, or across the board. I would guess that performance in general across all CPU thread configs would improve, but again, without actual testing we can't prove that one way or another.

Perhaps you can toggle HT on/off on your 6900K and see what effect (if any) the extra HT threads have on performance?

EDIT - Found the answer to my own question - the 1.03 patch *does* enable the 6C CPUs to exceed the performance of 4C/8T chips:
http://www.pcgamer.com/assassins-creed-origins-performance-guide/

Minimum fps in particular are much healthier on the 6C CFL chips compared to the 7700K.

 

[moonbogg]

i7 9700K inbound? Looks like it. We all knew it was coming. Well, some of us did anyway (see poll above). The i7 CPU of next year will be the new standard i7 CPU to get with 8 cores and 16 threads. From now on when people say they want an i7, they will mean 8 cores and everyone will know that's what they mean. No one will talk about 6 or 4 core i7's anymore. They are dead and forgotten.
This was expected (again, by some of us) but what I didn't expect at all was a 6/12 i5. That's funny though because a 6/12 i5 makes perfect sense actually, just like Ryzen 5. I didn't see that one coming though because an i5 that powerful made too much sense and was too generous of Intel for the thought to even enter my mind. I figured they'd stay with 6/6 i5's since that's the stingy thing to do and makes more sense for them (legit truth, no troll).
So this is exciting and I hope (for Intel's sake really) that the rumors are true. Intel will need that 8/16 standard CPU to compete as well as the 6/12 i5. They just can't skimp and rip us off anymore, not with that big AMD inertia swinging around all over the place smacking them in the forehead.

https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-8-cores-16-threads-rumor/

 

[unseenmorbidity]

intel is floundering on 10nm, near hopelessly so, and it might not be seen until 2020 on the desktop. Even then, 10nm won't be a significant performance upgrade over 14nm, if there's an increase at all.

In fact, there's a good chance amd gets ahead of intel on the next node shrink. Ryzen2, which is 7nm(Roughly equivalent to intel's 10nm), will release in 2019. Potentially even the first half of 2019.

Anyways, that means intel is stuck with 14nm, and the only thing they can do to stay ahead of amd is to offer 2 more cores again. So yah, 8 cores are going mainstream in 2019.

I don't know if this is karma or poetic justice, but I love it.​

 

[pcslookout]

This thread is epic!

 

[moonbogg]

This thread is epic!

I concur. I definitely concur. By this time next year it will be raining 8 cores everywhere.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I really hope that Ryzen 2 (Zen+) is going to be 12core/24thread per die, but perhaps that's just a tad optimistic, and that will happen when they move to GF 7nm process, and the upcoming 12nm shrink is just going to increase Fmax headroom (hopefully to above 4.5Ghz, maybe even 5Ghz, would be so sweet).

Edit: Not that I am unhappy with my Ryzen R5 1600 purchases at all. I thought that they were a (relative) bargain, compared to Intel 4C/4T CPUs at the time, and an overclockable 6C/12T to boot!

 

[dark zero]

For now 8 Threads at least is starting to get mandatory in near all the works.

 

[ksec]

We need to put this in context.

If I have to pick a PC for the vast majority of non geeks and business and their everyday task. I would pick a dual core + SSD over 4 or 8 core + HDD any day. Especially if Dual Core gets 4 threads, that is plenty for those majority. They dont work like us, which 10s or even 100s of open Tabs in browser, dozens of application opened in the task bar. Most of them are just two or three apps with a few tabs.

If it wasn't for the High res monitor, iGPU using main memory as Video memory and apps continues to gobble up memory, I would even dare to say 4GB memory is enough for them.

I think 2C4T + Modern SSD should be minimum these days.

For us geeks or really prosumers, 4C8T should be bare minimum as we should actually put those to use in everyday usage.

But we really need some more headroom. So I say 3C6T for non geeks and 6C12T for Prosumers as standard.

 

[moonbogg]

We need to put this in context.

If I have to pick a PC for the vast majority of non geeks and business and their everyday task. I would pick a dual core + SSD over 4 or 8 core + HDD any day. Especially if Dual Core gets 4 threads, that is plenty for those majority. They dont work like us, which 10s or even 100s of open Tabs in browser, dozens of application opened in the task bar. Most of them are just two or three apps with a few tabs.

If it wasn't for the High res monitor, iGPU using main memory as Video memory and apps continues to gobble up memory, I would even dare to say 4GB memory is enough for them.

I think 2C4T + Modern SSD should be minimum these days.

For us geeks or really prosumers, 4C8T should be bare minimum as we should actually put those to use in everyday usage.

But we really need some more headroom. So I say 3C6T for non geeks and 6C12T for Prosumers as standard.

Its not about what's needed. It's about what's coming.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Methinks it all comes down to what the consoles sport. The current feline bulldozers are basically 4m/8c, correct? If the next gen is 8c/16t AND those cores are more competent in single core than the cat cores (respective of era), then absolutely 8 cores will be the new standard.

But next gen consoles are probably another two years away, and currently a high-clocked i3 can typically outpace the cat cores game devs likely despise at this point.

I hope the moar cores trend continues in both hardware and software offerings, but being an rts/simulation game player, I am going to need all the single core I can get so I can lord over all of my digital peons and rejoice in their despair of my terrible decisions.