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

[StinkyPinky]

I think 4c/4t is yesterdays news for gaming and those cpus will get punished in 2018 for AAA games. A fast 4c/8t will still cope quite well for the great majority of games though.

In saying that, I'd suggest a i7-8700 for those that want to future proof their systems for the next five years. (i don't see games topping out 12 threads in this generation of console ports/cross releases)

 

[whm1974]

I think 4c/4t is yesterdays news for gaming and those cpus will get punished in 2018 for AAA games. A fast 4c/8t will still cope quite well for the great majority of games though.

In saying that, I'd suggest a i7-8700 for those that want to future proof their systems for the next five years. (i don't see games topping out 12 threads in this generation of console ports/cross releases)

That's it, the next build will have a 8C/16T CPU since it is going to take me two to three years to save up money for it.

 

[TheELF]

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.

If they are stronger they will put less of them in the consoles.
The only reason consoles have 8 cores now is because they are so incredibly weak.

 

[epsilon84]

I think 4c/4t is yesterdays news for gaming and those cpus will get punished in 2018 for AAA games. A fast 4c/8t will still cope quite well for the great majority of games though.

In saying that, I'd suggest a i7-8700 for those that want to future proof their systems for the next five years. (i don't see games topping out 12 threads in this generation of console ports/cross releases)

I agree that 4C/4T is becoming a bottleneck in games, but only when paired with high end graphics cards, which would be kind of an odd matchup. Nobody really buys an i3 8100 or R3 1200/1300X to go with a GTX 1070/1080 or Vega 56/64, right?

An i3 or Ryzen 3 paired with a GTX 1050/1060 class card is actually a pretty good pairing. Both CPU and GPU are capable of averaging 60fps @ 1080P at medium (1050) or high (1060) settings in todays AAA games, which is pretty much all you need for a budget gaming box. Sure min fps may drop into the 30s or 40s in some demanding games, but that's not really a deal breaker for most people.

Don't get me wrong, I know very well the limitations of 4C/4T CPUs, having upgraded from a 2500K recently. But I am an enthusiast who demands 60fps+ minimums at all times, and my expectations probably don't mirror that of most 'casual' gamers out there.

I think the 4C/4T quads like the i3s and Ryzen 3s form a good 'baseline' for game developers for the next few years. Its very unlikely that these budget lines will go beyond 4 cores in the short to medium term, at most we may see 4C/8T for next gen i3s/R3s. 8 cores will probably become the de facto high end standard once Intel releases 8 core mainstream desktop chips, but that is looking like 2019 at this stage.

 

[whm1974]

I agree that 4C/4T is becoming a bottleneck in games, but only when paired with high end graphics cards, which would be kind of an odd matchup. Nobody really buys an i3 8100 or R3 1200/1300X to go with a GTX 1070/1080 or Vega 56/64, right?

An i3 or Ryzen 3 paired with a GTX 1050/1060 class card is actually a pretty good pairing. Both CPU and GPU are capable of averaging 60fps @ 1080P at medium (1050) or high (1060) settings in todays AAA games, which is pretty much all you need for a budget gaming box. Sure min fps may drop into the 30s or 40s in some demanding games, but that's not really a deal breaker for most people.

Don't get me wrong, I know very well the limitations of 4C/4T CPUs, having upgraded from a 2500K recently. But I am an enthusiast who demands 60fps+ minimums at all times, and my expectations probably don't mirror that of most 'casual' gamers out there.

I think the 4C/4T quads like the i3s and Ryzen 3s form a good 'baseline' for game developers for the next few years. Its very unlikely that these budget lines will go beyond 4 cores in the short to medium term, at most we may see 4C/8T for next gen i3s/R3s. 8 cores will probably become the de facto high end standard once Intel releases 8 core mainstream desktop chips, but that is looking like 2019 at this stage.

My take is that in a few years we will see Pentiums with 4C/4T, i3s with 4C/8T, i5s with 6c/12t, and i7s with 8c/16t from Intel.

 

[s44]

An i3 or Ryzen 3 paired with a GTX 1050/1060 class card is actually a pretty good pairing. Both CPU and GPU are capable of averaging 60fps @ 1080P at medium (1050) or high (1060) settings in todays AAA games, which is pretty much all you need for a budget gaming box.

The problem is that it won't necessarily have the CPU to sustain 144+fps in current (Overwatch) and future esports titles. You can turn down rendering to compensate for a weaker GPU but CPU bottlenecks can't be bypassed.

60fps is a reasonable single-player target but for multiplayer 144+ is a huge significant target that you shouldn't need a high-end rig to hit.

 

[whm1974]

The problem is that it won't necessarily have the CPU to sustain 144+fps in current (Overwatch) and future esports titles. You can turn down rendering to compensate for a weaker GPU but CPU bottlenecks can't be bypassed.

60fps is a reasonable single-player target but for multiplayer 144+ is a huge significant target that you shouldn't need a high-end rig to hit.

I would have to check benchmarks, but isn't the i3-8100 capable of doing 144+ in Overwatch and future e-sports titles.

 

[epsilon84]

The problem is that it won't necessarily have the CPU to sustain 144+fps in current (Overwatch) and future esports titles. You can turn down rendering to compensate for a weaker GPU but CPU bottlenecks can't be bypassed.

60fps is a reasonable single-player target but for multiplayer 144+ is a huge significant target that you shouldn't need a high-end rig to hit.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1463-ryzen-3-gaming/page2.html

Seems fine for 144Hz gaming in Overwatch. Though I should mention that the amount of budget gaming boxes paired with a 144Hz panel is again, relatively rare.

 

[epsilon84]

I would have to check benchmarks, but isn't the i3-8100 capable of doing 144+ in Overwatch and future e-sports titles.

In Overwatch and CS:GO, over 200fps+ with a fast enough GPU. Not sure about 'future' e-sports titles and how demanding/thread aware they will be.

 

[whm1974]

In Overwatch and CS:GO, over 200fps+ with a fast enough GPU. Not sure about 'future' e-sports titles and how demanding/thread aware they will be.

True, but isn't there a lot of gamers who play E-sport titles on budget boxes? I've read that is the reason that these types of games are so popular due to being able to play them on most systems.

 

[tential]

144hz monitors are cheaper than ever too.
$300 for a freesync 144hz 27 inch IPS monitor.
Pretty good deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2sVe90hTA8
LinusTechTips

 

[arandomguy]

True, but isn't there a lot of gamers who play E-sport titles on budget boxes? I've read that is the reason that these types of games are so popular due to being able to play them on most systems.

It's the same difference between max settings at 60 fps in a AAA game versus just being able to play it at min settings 30 fps. Esports titles do have relatively low demands to just play against AAA titles. For the people really into them 60 fps is not the benchmark it is considered low or min, they are looking to drive FPS as high as possible even way beyond monitor refresh rates such as targeting the 300 fps cap in games like Overwatch. For these people they don't even necessarily care about the actual graphics settings and/or resolution.

Doing the above actually starts to put some differing requirements on a system beyond the typical GPU and CPU. In Overwatch for instance you cannot attain those high frame rates without going to very high speed low latency memory.

 

[whm1974]

It's the same difference between max settings at 60 fps in a AAA game versus just being able to play it at min settings 30 fps. Esports titles do have relatively low demands to just play against AAA titles. For the people really into them 60 fps is not the benchmark it is considered low or min, they are looking to drive FPS as high as possible even way beyond monitor refresh rates such as targeting the 300 fps cap in games like Overwatch. For these people they don't even necessarily care about the actual graphics settings and/or resolution.

Doing the above actually starts to put some differing requirements on a system beyond the typical GPU and CPU. In Overwatch for instance you cannot attain those high frame rates without going to very high speed low latency memory.

I prefer 1600p with high settings and reasonable high framerates, but that is me.

 

[arandomguy]

I prefer 1600p with high settings and reasonable high framerates, but that is me.

I should say that is for people on the higher end of the competitive spectrum in terms of mindset in esports titles. In Overwatch specifically they are not running max graphics and isn't just due to performance either as the extra noise basically can be a disadvantage. They might be running lower render scale as well and avoiding higher resolutions as it affects things such as the size of the outline which can be an advantage.

Not everyone plays esports titles for the same reason or with the same requirements much like any other game. Same with AAA games, some won't want to play them unless they can do so at max 60 fps and avoid doing so until they can, others are fine as long they can chug along at around 30 at min, as well as anything in between. Overwatch at the moment isn't even that popular on the esports side currently, most people are not playing it really competitively or as an esport.

 

[moonbogg]

VIA 8 core CPU's inbound according to some rumors I saw. Nice.

 

[wilds]

This feels like the old dual vs quad core arguments. The writing is on the wall for quads. That's a good thing.

 

[whm1974]

This feels like the old dual vs quad core arguments. The writing is on the wall for quads. That's a good thing.

I'm sure that most "normal" people will still be well served by quad cores for a long time. It is people like us that need and/or want higher core count CPUs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm sure that most "normal" people will still be well served by quad cores for a long time. It is people like us that need and/or want higher core count CPUs.

Here's the thing - the same price as an Intel 7th-Gen 4C/4T CPU, with AMD's Ryzen CPU line-up, you could now get a competitive 6C/12T... for the same price! (Incredible value, or so I thought at the time, so I replaced most of my rigs with them.)

Then Intel came out with their higher-freq Coffee Lake CPUs, and this Feb. (hopefully), AMD is going to fight back with some Ryzen CPUs, with increased max freq.

 

[whm1974]

Here's the thing - the same price as an Intel 7th-Gen 4C/4T CPU, with AMD's Ryzen CPU line-up, you could now get a competitive 6C/12T... for the same price! (Incredible value, or so I thought at the time, so I replaced most of my rigs with them.)

Then Intel came out with their higher-freq Coffee Lake CPUs, and this Feb. (hopefully), AMD is going to fight back with some Ryzen CPUs, with increased max freq.

Yes, but how many "normal" people know this, or do much research before buying a computer?

 

[epsilon84]

Here's the thing - the same price as an Intel 7th-Gen 4C/4T CPU, with AMD's Ryzen CPU line-up, you could now get a competitive 6C/12T... for the same price! (Incredible value, or so I thought at the time, so I replaced most of my rigs with them.)

Then Intel came out with their higher-freq Coffee Lake CPUs, and this Feb. (hopefully), AMD is going to fight back with some Ryzen CPUs, with increased max freq.

AMD doesn't have enough marketshare to dictate market trends though. The R5 chips are great value, but it takes Intel increasing core count for the momentum to shift towards more cores. That has started with the i3 being 4C and i5 being 6C, ideally we will have 8C i7s next gen and then I feel we will get a lot of traction towards 'moar cores'

 

[TheELF]

AMD doesn't have enough marketshare to dictate market trends though. The R5 chips are great value, but it takes Intel increasing core count for the momentum to shift towards more cores. That has started with the i3 being 4C and i5 being 6C, ideally we will have 8C i7s next gen and then I feel we will get a lot of traction towards 'moar cores'

Nope,not even intel can shift the momentum,cores increase over time no matter what,it just takes very long because of how little they're useful.
We have reached status quo for core count for many many years to come.
AMD and intel getting into a "core war" would just result in amd closing down very fast and not even intel want's that to happen.

Also gpu computing and avx drastically reduce any need for lot's of cores,anything a normal user* would use more cores for he can do faster with even a low range gpu,heck intels igpu is better at h264/h265 encoding than most "many core" CPUs.

*I guess the same is true for a lot of server stuff as well

 

[Glo.]

AMD doesn't have enough marketshare to dictate market trends though. The R5 chips are great value, but it takes Intel increasing core count for the momentum to shift towards more cores. That has started with the i3 being 4C and i5 being 6C, ideally we will have 8C i7s next gen and then I feel we will get a lot of traction towards 'moar cores'

9th gen of Intel CPUs:
Core i7 - 8C/16T.
Core i5 - 6C/12T.
Core i3 - 4C/8T.
Pentium - 4C/4T.

Can you imagine a GV108 with GTX 1050 Ti level of performance, for 79$, and Pentium G6560 for 64$ with 4C/4T config?

Its bizarre to think what might happen in next round of computer hardware.

 

[tential]

9th gen of Intel CPUs:
Core i7 - 8C/16T.
Core i5 - 6C/12T.
Core i3 - 4C/8T.
Pentium - 4C/4T.

Can you imagine a GV108 with GTX 1050 Ti level of performance, for 79$, and Pentium G6560 for 64$ with 4C/4T config?

Its bizarre to think what might happen in next round of computer hardware.

You have to have your head completely in the sand to think that these core counts aren't a DIRECT fight against AMD.
Intel does NOT want confusion as to what the best CPU options are.
We are just getting insane levels of performance now, I actually am excited about goldmont + as my DAILY system.

I was already going to upgrade eventually, but with this type of competition, I mean... my next i7 will be so stupidly powerful compared to my 4770k I don't even know what to think.

Considering the price of an i7, and the price of an 8c/16t from AMD, there just is no reason to NOT go 8c/16t. That's the future. Those who went 4c/8t were rewarded with supreme longevitiy and no need to upgrade except for fun.

Now with 8c/16t, when intel releases the 9th gen, the 9th gen and AMD's competitor will also enjoy that same longevity.

Personally, I wouldn't get it now only because Ryzen to me is like a beta test. I'll wait for when AMD has to compete against intel head to head vs the 9th gen before I buy in.

The crazy thing about the 9th gen is with a VM, I could just use it as 2 faster version of my 4770k, drop in a new GPU, and play games with my roommate multiplayer.
I honestly just can't wait to see what we do with all this new computing power AMD is pushing on us by increasing core counts.

 

[moonbogg]

my next i7 will be so stupidly powerful compared to my 4770k I don't even know what to think.

Dude, your next mainstream i7 will be faster than an overclocked 6950x. That's basically just 2 years later and $1,300 cheaper than 6950x. The mainstream 8/16 i7 will be clocked so high when OC'd I expect it to actually beat 6950x in almost everything. And many people think AMD had nothing to do with it. Yep, Intel was simply in the mood to give us a $1,700 CPU for $400 only 2 years later. This sounds crazy but Intel literally has no choice, because as you pointed out, if Intel wants to avoid the confusion about which company has the better CPU, they have to go 8/16 and they need to do it right damn now.
This is awesome because I don't have to spend high end money to get my next CPU upgrade. I can go back to the mainstream platform and save cash because 8/16 is just where its at now.

 

[Glo.]

This is awesome because I don't have to spend high end money to get my next CPU upgrade. I can go back to the mainstream platform and save cash because 8/16 is just where its at now.

And to get 100% out of the platform, you do not have to burn money on expensive MoBo and Quad Channel memory.