Battlefield V Open Beta Benchmarked

[Evernessince]

Again, you purposely attempt to mislead with more lies and false accusations. Let's look at the facts again.

1) I edited my post 16 minutes before you even quoted me in your own post. 3:10 AM is 16 minutes BEFORE your own post at 3:26 AM.

2) Your comment that quoted my post even contained the most recent and latest version of my text. So you were quoting the last version of my post.

You have no excuses for feigning ignorance...which must be why you're making false accusations against me.

And no, quoted text in a 3rd party comment do not automatically update themselves if the original comments are edited by the original poster. And even if it did somehow do that, my edits predates your own comment by 16 minutes so your claim is still nonsense.

Your claim that I magically changed the quoted text in YOUR comment is a complete lie and refuted by obvious facts.
Why don't you drop this line of discussion instead of embarrassing yourself more?



Nice attempt to mislead and change the subject. Let's go back to the point that you were confusing different average framerates on two different systems with "stuttering."

Again, getting less average framerates on a quad core computer compared to a 6 core computer is NOT THE SAME as a computer stuttering. Getting less average fps on one computer compared to another does not automatically mean that computer is stuttering.

Furthermore, you seem to not understand that CPU usage is also directly tied to GPU usage, so high CPU usage does not automatically mean a CPU is insufficent. It just means the GPU is less of a bottleneck compared to most situations. Use a weaker GPU and the CPU usage will lower. The result will be the system will be getting lower average fps, but that does not automatically mean stuttering. Neither average fps nor CPU usage is automatically or directly tied to stuttering.



Keep telling yourself that if it feels better. You're just pretending your own assumptions are the author's claims, because the author's article never supported any of your claims about "stuttering" or "subpar" performance.

I just hope the posters here don't follow your bad advice and spend money on upgrading when they didn't have to.

Indeed, how about you look at the facts?

"When you remove 33% of your cores and 66.6% of your threads (4c 4t vs 6c 12t) on a game that already consumes 80% of your CPU, you are going to see sacrifices. That's not an opinion, it's basic math."

and the author's thoughts

"Battlefield 1 was one of the first games to really kill the quad-core CPU, 64-player multiplayer Battlefield 1 to be precise. As expected Battlefield V is no easier on quad-cores, we regularly saw my Core i7-8700K test system which features all cores clocked at 5 GHz exceed 70% utilization and at times peak at over 80%, so good luck with four threads."

and https://www.google.com/search?q=bat...K0KHUelC14QrQIoBDAKegQIARAM&biw=1172&bih=1115

The author must mean something else when he said that /s. I guess "kill the quad-core CPU" means something else in your language.

You can't debate the facts so you continue to sling mud, it's sad.

 

[m3tavision]

Bluescreen...

Would you please stop trolling..? Everyone knows Battlefield needs cores and when tons of physics are going off (ie: multiple destructions), the game will stutter on a quad core, because it can't handle it.


The author of the review just assumed everyone knows this, because it is well known. Nobody should have to explain it to you, because if you play, or a tech reader, you would already know this.

 

[Lionvibez]

Been playing it on my 6 Core i7-970 + 580x 8GB with 12GB's of Ram and its plays great no complains. I've been playing in DX12 and didn't really notice the suttering but my friend playing on a Fury card with 4GB of ram has.

I'm going to try switching to DX11 and will check my fps.

 

[Evernessince]

Been playing it on my 6 Core i7-970 + 580x 8GB with 12GB's of Ram and its plays great no complains. I've been playing in DX12 and didn't really notice the suttering but my friend playing on a Fury card with 4GB of ram has.

I'm going to try switching to DX11 and will check my fps.

You shouldn't see stuttering with a 6 core. BF is pretty threaded up to 8 cores.

 

[Sausagemeat]

So has no one here seen the video released by hardware unboxed, presented by Steve who wrote this article? The quad core 7600K was beating the the 6 and 8 core 1600X and 1800X. The Quad core 7700K beat every Ryzen CPU by a reasonable margin. And this was on his best attempt to do a multiplayer benchmark which he details in the video. Steve also reported more stuttering on Ryzen CPUs than the Intel parts.

So clearly quad cores are not dead for Battlefield. And that’s a great thing, games needing less cores to work well means more people can have access to it.

 

[Evernessince]

So has no one here seen the video released by hardware unboxed, presented by Steve who wrote this article? The quad core 7600K was beating the the 6 and 8 core 1600X and 1800X. The Quad core 7700K beat every Ryzen CPU by a reasonable margin. And this was on his best attempt to do a multiplayer benchmark which he details in the video. Steve also reported more stuttering on Ryzen CPUs than the Intel parts.

So clearly quad cores are not dead for Battlefield. And that’s a great thing, games needing less cores to work well means more people can have access to it.

Is all you do is spread misinformation?

The 2700X is clearly above the 7700K. The numbers you cherry picked were from the prior benchmark which steve concluded that the AMD processors were bottlenecked by Nvidia's drivers. Try harder next time.

The fact that Intel's top end gaming processors like the 7700K are already falling off the top of the chart to mid range Intel 6 cores says enough.

 

[Sausagemeat]

You spread misinformation. Constantly. Like the misinformation that quad cores are dead. Or the misinformation that Nvidia drivers are holding back AMD CPUs. The 7700K clearly beat every Ryzen CPU in the rest. Steve’s conclusion was not that Nvidia drivers were bottlenecking AMD drivers! That is a flat out lie on your part. His conclusion was that he hopes Ryzen gets a bit more optimisation before the game actually releases, stating that he was surprised that Ryzen was performing so badly when it wasn’t in Bartlefield 1. Steve said sometimes AMD processors were bottlenecks by Nvidia drivers in other games. But he could not confirm this for this game. However I should point out that considering 80% of new GPU sales are Nvidia then even if Nvidia drivers do hold back AMD chips, then most users should take that into consideration. There was no way of finding out if it was true because AMDs best GPU, the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p, so all the results were the same when testing it with any CPU - and much lower than compared to the 1080ti setup.


There was no “cherry picking” there were only two sets of CPU results that were not CPU limited and in both, Intel quads were beating most of the Ryzen lineup. Like in most games. Steve also explicitly stated in the video at around 8mins 40 in, that he was shocked to find that there was no less stuttering with a quad core i5 or i3 as he did with the 2700X, which both did display a very small amount of stuttering. He then went on to say that the quad core 7700K has no stuttering and that even when using Vega 64 there was still stuttering with Ryzen.

Quad cores are not dead for gaming mate. Stop spreading that bullshit. If they were then a quad core 7700K wouldn’t humiliate the fastest 8 core 2nd gen Ryzen CPU out there in practically every game made at its stock clocks.

 

[Evernessince]

You spread misinformation. Constantly. Like the misinformation that quad cores are dead. Or the misinformation that Nvidia drivers are holding back AMD CPUs. The 7700K clearly beat every Ryzen CPU in the rest. Steve’s conclusion was not that Nvidia drivers were bottlenecking AMD drivers! That is a flat out lie on your part. His conclusion was that he hopes Ryzen gets a bit more optimisation before the game actually releases! Steve said sometimes AMD processors were bottlenecks by Nvidia drivers. But he could not confirm this. And I should point out that considering 80% of new GPU sales are Nvidia then even if Nvidia drivers do hold back AMD chips, then most users should take that into consideration. There was no way of finding out if it was true because AMDs best GPU, the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p, so all the results were the same when testing it with any CPU - and much lower than compared to the 1080ti setup.


There was no “cherry picking” there were only two sets of CPU results and in both, Intel quads were beating most of the Ryzen lineup. Like in most games.

Quad cores are not dead for gaming mate. Stop spreading that bullshit. If they were then a quad core 7700K wouldn’t humiliate the fastest 8 core 2nd gen Ryzen CPU out there in practically every game made at its stock clocks.

Steve said sometimes AMD processors were bottlenecks by Nvidia drivers

Enough said, thank you for proving my point. So pray tell, why were you quoting numbers you knew were bottlenecked by the GPU?

Or the misinformation that Nvidia drivers are holding back AMD CPUs.

Did you even read what you wrote? You admitted yourself in the same post that Nvidia drivers bottleneck AMD CPUs. Not that you could debate the data presented anyways that clearly shows that does indeed happen.

But he could not confirm this.

He only made an entire graph to illustrate the bottleneck was gone when going from Nvidia to AMD and made sure to point out that switching to AMD fixed the bottleneck.

We've seen this in multiple games now, it's a known pattern by now.

There was no “cherry picking” there were only two sets of CPU results and in both, Intel quads were beating most of the Ryzen lineup. Like in most games.

You picked out results you knew AMD were specifically handicapped in. You cherry picked, plain and simple. Your original statement was that the 7700K beat the 2700X and that was proven completely false.

Quad cores are not dead for gaming mate. Stop spreading that bullshit. If they were then a quad core 7700K wouldn’t humiliate the fastest 8 core 2nd gen Ryzen CPU out there in practically every game made at its stock clocks.

That was the article author saying that. Here's his words again

"Battlefield 1 was one of the first games to really kill the quad-core CPU, 64-player multiplayer Battlefield 1 to be precise. As expected Battlefield V is no easier on quad-cores, we regularly saw my Core i7-8700K test system which features all cores clocked at 5 GHz exceed 70% utilization and at times peak at over 80%, so good luck with four threads."

You must know more then everyone at techspot though /s.

Also like to point out that the 7700K is on average 2% faster in games then a 2700X. Far from humiliation that you claim it to be. In case you didn't realize, taking Intel's top end 7700K's performance to represent all quad core CPU's performance is cherry picking. Just pointing that out because you say you aren't cherry picking yet keep doing it anyways. If you don't know what it is, you can just ask next time.

the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p, so all the results were the same when testing it with any CPU - and much lower than compared to the 1080ti setup.

Sorry but it's not and you are insinuating that TechSpot doesn't know how to do it's job. I'm sorry but I'm 100% sure I trust Steve knows how to spot a bottleneck Mr.Internet expert.

 

[Sausagemeat]

You spread misinformation. Constantly. Like the misinformation that quad cores are dead. Or the misinformation that Nvidia drivers are holding back AMD CPUs. The 7700K clearly beat every Ryzen CPU in the rest. Steve’s conclusion was not that Nvidia drivers were bottlenecking AMD drivers! That is a flat out lie on your part. His conclusion was that he hopes Ryzen gets a bit more optimisation before the game actually releases! Steve said sometimes AMD processors were bottlenecks by Nvidia drivers. But he could not confirm this. And I should point out that considering 80% of new GPU sales are Nvidia then even if Nvidia drivers do hold back AMD chips, then most users should take that into consideration. There was no way of finding out if it was true because AMDs best GPU, the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p, so all the results were the same when testing it with any CPU - and much lower than compared to the 1080ti setup.


There was no “cherry picking” there were only two sets of CPU results and in both, Intel quads were beating most of the Ryzen lineup. Like in most games.

Quad cores are not dead for gaming mate. Stop spreading that bullshit. If they were then a quad core 7700K wouldn’t humiliate the fastest 8 core 2nd gen Ryzen CPU out there in practically every game made at its stock clocks.

Steve said sometimes AMD processors were bottlenecks by Nvidia drivers

Enough said, thank you for proving my point. So pray tell, why were you quoting numbers you knew were bottlenecked by the GPU?

Or the misinformation that Nvidia drivers are holding back AMD CPUs.

Did you even read what you wrote? You admitted yourself in the same post that Nvidia drivers bottleneck AMD CPUs. Not that you could debate the data presented anyways that clearly shows that does indeed happen.

But he could not confirm this.

He only made an entire graph to illustrate the bottleneck was gone when going from Nvidia to AMD and made sure to point out that switching to AMD fixed the bottleneck.

We've seen this in multiple games now, it's a known pattern by now.

There was no “cherry picking” there were only two sets of CPU results and in both, Intel quads were beating most of the Ryzen lineup. Like in most games.

You picked out results you knew AMD were specifically handicapped in. You cherry picked, plain and simple. Your original statement was that the 7700K beat the 2700X and that was proven completely false.

Quad cores are not dead for gaming mate. Stop spreading that bullshit. If they were then a quad core 7700K wouldn’t humiliate the fastest 8 core 2nd gen Ryzen CPU out there in practically every game made at its stock clocks.

That was the article author saying that. Here's his words again

"Battlefield 1 was one of the first games to really kill the quad-core CPU, 64-player multiplayer Battlefield 1 to be precise. As expected Battlefield V is no easier on quad-cores, we regularly saw my Core i7-8700K test system which features all cores clocked at 5 GHz exceed 70% utilization and at times peak at over 80%, so good luck with four threads."

You must know more then everyone at techspot though /s.

Also like to point out that the 7700K is on average 2% faster in games then a 2700X. Far from humiliation that you claim it to be. In case you didn't realize, taking Intel's top end 7700K's performance to represent all quad core CPU's performance is cherry picking. Just pointing that out because you say you aren't cherry picking yet keep doing it anyways. If you don't know what it is, you can just ask next time.

the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p, so all the results were the same when testing it with any CPU - and much lower than compared to the 1080ti setup.

Sorry but it's not and you are insinuating that TechSpot doesn't know how to do it's job. I'm sorry but I'm 100% sure I trust Steve knows how to spot a bottleneck Mr.Internet expert.

Lol. You clearly haven’t even watched the video have you. You claimed that Steve concluded that Nvidia drivers bottlenecked AMD CPUs. Steve stating that he has seen that before is NOT concluding that its happening in this game. He said he could not tell if it was happening here. Steve also himself stated he felt the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p in the video and the numbers speak for themselves, Vega 64 (122 FPS on average) was topping out much lower than the 1080ti (158 FPS on average). To quote Steve word for word from the video regarding Vega 64: “For the most part we are now GPU limited so its difficult to determine just how much Nvidia are to blame for Ryzens weaker than expected performance with a GTX 1080 ti”. He then re-iterates that these chips are GPU bound with Vega 64.

You ARE wrong when you say quad cores are dead for battlefield. They may have not performed very well in BF1 but in this new one, initial tests show (as demonstrated on the hardware unboxed video) that the quad core 7700K is around 18% faster than the 8 core 2700X. And as you seem upset with the 7700K being used as an example the 7600K was faster than a 1800X. Happy now?

Please mate, go and watch the video. It’s only around 10 minutes of your time. Because right now all you are doing is humiliating yourself. You really don’t know what you are talking about at the moment.

Of course, I don’t expect you to admit you are wrong, you never do. But you really are this time mate.

 

[Evernessince]

Lol. You clearly haven’t even watched the video have you. You claimed that Steve concluded that Nvidia drivers bottlenecked AMD CPUs. Steve stating that he has seen that before is NOT concluding that its happening in this game. He said he could not tell if it was happening here. Steve also himself stated he felt the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p in the video and the numbers speak for themselves, Vega 64 (122 FPS on average) was topping out much lower than the 1080ti (158 FPS on average). To quote Steve word for word from the video regarding Vega 64: “For the most part we are now GPU limited so its difficult to determine just how much Nvidia are to blame for Ryzens weaker than expected performance with a GTX 1080 ti”. He then re-iterates that these chips are GPU bound with Vega 64.

You ARE wrong when you say quad cores are dead for battlefield. They may have not performed very well in BF1 but in this new one, initial tests show (as demonstrated on the hardware unboxed video) that the quad core 7700K is around 18% faster than the 8 core 2700X. And as you seem upset with the 7700K being used as an example the 7600K was faster than a 1800X. Happy now?

Please mate, go and watch the video. It’s only around 10 minutes of your time. Because right now all you are doing is humiliating yourself. You really don’t know what you are talking about at the moment.

Of course, I don’t expect you to admit you are wrong, you never do. But you really are this time mate.

You aren't saying anything here I haven't dismissed already. Your comments speak for themselves.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Lol. You clearly haven’t even watched the video have you. You claimed that Steve concluded that Nvidia drivers bottlenecked AMD CPUs. Steve stating that he has seen that before is NOT concluding that its happening in this game. He said he could not tell if it was happening here. Steve also himself stated he felt the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p in the video and the numbers speak for themselves, Vega 64 (122 FPS on average) was topping out much lower than the 1080ti (158 FPS on average). To quote Steve word for word from the video regarding Vega 64: “For the most part we are now GPU limited so its difficult to determine just how much Nvidia are to blame for Ryzens weaker than expected performance with a GTX 1080 ti”. He then re-iterates that these chips are GPU bound with Vega 64.

You ARE wrong when you say quad cores are dead for battlefield. They may have not performed very well in BF1 but in this new one, initial tests show (as demonstrated on the hardware unboxed video) that the quad core 7700K is around 18% faster than the 8 core 2700X. And as you seem upset with the 7700K being used as an example the 7600K was faster than a 1800X. Happy now?

Please mate, go and watch the video. It’s only around 10 minutes of your time. Because right now all you are doing is humiliating yourself. You really don’t know what you are talking about at the moment.

Of course, I don’t expect you to admit you are wrong, you never do. But you really are this time mate.

You aren't saying anything here I haven't dismissed already. Your comments speak for themselves.

Your comments also speak for themselves. They are full of bias and misinformation.

Please watch the video and go cry afterwards if you need to. Comments like “4 cores and 4 threads is now considered entry level” could come back to haunt you. Especially if the initial results that Steve achieved remain true. You can blame Nvidia drivers, bad testing whatever you like. And I imagine you certainy will. But it appears that there are more factors at play than simple core count here.

I must say I don’t get it. Why do you want games to use more cores? And what evidence do you have to say that 4 cores and 4 threads is entry level? When games need more GPU cores we all say it’s badly optimised. I’d say the same for CPU cores. No one should need more than 4 cores and 4 threads just to play some games in 2018. If these initial battlefield results are true and we see 4c4t CPUs not fall behind like they did in BF1 then I would say this newer title is better CPU optimised and that’s a great thing for consumers. Of course we all know how good a CPU is does not depend on how many cores it has. Especially in gaming.

 

[Evernessince]

Your comments also speak for themselves. They are full of bias and misinformation.

Please watch the video and go cry afterwards if you need to. Comments like “4 cores and 4 threads is now considered entry level” could come back to haunt you. Especially if the initial results that Steve achieved remain true. You can blame Nvidia drivers, bad testing whatever you like. And I imagine you certainy will. But it appears that there are more factors at play than simple core count here.

I must say I don’t get it. Why do you want games to use more cores? And what evidence do you have to say that 4 cores and 4 threads is entry level? When games need more GPU cores we all say it’s badly optimised. I’d say the same for CPU cores. No one should need more than 4 cores and 4 threads just to play some games in 2018. If these initial battlefield results are true and we see 4c4t CPUs not fall behind like they did in BF1 then I would say this newer title is better CPU optimised and that’s a great thing for consumers. Of course we all know how good a CPU is does not depend on how many cores it has. Especially in gaming.

This article and the video both say the same thing, which is...

"Battlefield 1 was one of the first games to really kill the quad-core CPU, 64-player multiplayer Battlefield 1 to be precise. As expected Battlefield V is no easier on quad-cores, we regularly saw my Core i7-8700K test system which features all cores clocked at 5 GHz exceed 70% utilization and at times peak at over 80%, so good luck with four threads."

Not my words. I don't need to project my opinion here, the content speaks for itself. You have taken sly jabs at insulting Steve without any proof. I have zero reason to believe a person who attacks other's videos with zero proof of their own.

 

[m3tavision]

You spread misinformation. Constantly. Like the misinformation that quad cores are dead. Or the misinformation that Nvidia drivers are holding back AMD CPUs. The 7700K clearly beat every Ryzen CPU in the rest. Steve’s conclusion was not that Nvidia drivers were bottlenecking AMD drivers! That is a flat out lie on your part. His conclusion was that he hopes Ryzen gets a bit more optimisation before the game actually releases, stating that he was surprised that Ryzen was performing so badly when it wasn’t in Bartlefield 1. Steve said sometimes AMD processors were bottlenecks by Nvidia drivers in other games. But he could not confirm this for this game. However I should point out that considering 80% of new GPU sales are Nvidia then even if Nvidia drivers do hold back AMD chips, then most users should take that into consideration. There was no way of finding out if it was true because AMDs best GPU, the Vega 64 was GPU limited at 1080p, so all the results were the same when testing it with any CPU - and much lower than compared to the 1080ti setup.


There was no “cherry picking” there were only two sets of CPU results that were not CPU limited and in both, Intel quads were beating most of the Ryzen lineup. Like in most games. Steve also explicitly stated in the video at around 8mins 40 in, that he was shocked to find that there was no less stuttering with a quad core i5 or i3 as he did with the 2700X, which both did display a very small amount of stuttering. He then went on to say that the quad core 7700K has no stuttering and that even when using Vega 64 there was still stuttering with Ryzen.

Quad cores are not dead for gaming mate. Stop spreading that bullshit. If they were then a quad core 7700K wouldn’t humiliate the fastest 8 core 2nd gen Ryzen CPU out there in practically every game made at its stock clocks.

Quad cores are dead. They have been for nearly 2+ years, kid...

Not sure what planet your on, but Battlefield uses 8 cores, if you have them. And has used 6+ cores since BF4. Nobody here cares about your personal crusade to protect your fragile ego and defending quad cores (lol). Most of don't care about your personal buying habit and understand reality. Nobody is going to go out and buy a quad-core right now for gaming, unless they from a 3rd world county and are budget shoppers who have to compromise their gaming. Otherwise sit down and stop pretending..

Even the Xbox has more cores.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Quad cores are dead. They have been for nearly 2+ years, kid...

Not sure what planet your on, but Battlefield uses 8 cores, if you have them. And has used 6+ cores since BF4. Nobody here cares about your personal crusade to protect your fragile ego and defending quad cores (lol). Most of don't care about your personal buying habit and understand reality. Nobody is going to go out and buy a quad-core right now for gaming, unless they from a 3rd world county and are budget shoppers who have to compromise their gaming. Otherwise sit down and stop pretending..

Even the Xbox has more cores.

Quad cores are far from dead when it comes to gaming. On planet Earth, in the latest battlefield game, initial testing shows an Intel quad core is apparently 18% more adequate than any 8 core Ryzen CPU available .

You seem to think core count means more than it actually does. In these modern games a dual core last gen i3 would probably perform better than an older 8 core FX8350. You need to understand that core count is just one spec, the speed of the cores matters too, along with a whole load of other specifications. The Xbox 8 core is a lot weaker computationally than a modern quad core i5. Perhaps you should do some more research? It seems you have a lot to learn mate...

 

[m3tavision]

Quad cores are far from dead when it comes to gaming. On planet Earth, in the latest battlefield game, initial testing shows an Intel quad core is apparently 18% more adequate than any 8 core Ryzen CPU available .

You seem to think core count means more than it actually does. In these modern games a dual core last gen i3 would probably perform better than an older 8 core FX8350. You need to understand that core count is just one spec, the speed of the cores matters too, along with a whole load of other specifications. The Xbox 8 core is a lot weaker computationally than a modern quad core i5. Perhaps you should do some more research? It seems you have a lot to learn mate...

Sorry kid, even as far back as Battlefield 4, (which was many years ago), 6 core were better than 4 cores. And today Battlefield will make use of 8+ cores. Not sure what you don't get, other than being on a budget and trying to defend your ego....

Nobody is buying 4 core system right now, unless you are ignorant, or on an extreme budget.


Secondly, doesn't matter how weak the xbox cores are, it has cores... to be able to do many different things at once. You seem to keep dismissing this and focusing on core speeds, vs core count... as a fall-back argument. You also don't seem to understand the difference between smooth game play and stuttering. You can have smooth FPS on a quad core, until things start blowing up and doesn't have enough cores to deal with the physics of the game... and things start to stutter.

You are looking at ONE benchmark review of Battlefield as you ONLY source of education, instead of all reviews over the last 10 years.


GO ahead though, keep buying budget quad cores.... and keep recommending them for people who want to pretend to have a modern PC.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Sorry kid, even as far back as Battlefield 4, (which was many years ago), 6 core were better than 4 cores. And today Battlefield will make use of 8+ cores. Not sure what you don't get, other than being on a budget and trying to defend your ego....

Nobody is buying 4 core system right now, unless you are ignorant, or on an extreme budget.


Secondly, doesn't matter how weak the xbox cores are, it has cores... to be able to do many different things at once. You seem to keep dismissing this and focusing on core speeds, vs core count... as a fall-back argument. You also don't seem to understand the difference between smooth game play and stuttering. You can have smooth FPS on a quad core, until things start blowing up and doesn't have enough cores to deal with the physics of the game... and things start to stutter.

You are looking at ONE benchmark review of Battlefield as you ONLY source of education, instead of all reviews over the last 10 years.


GO ahead though, keep buying budget quad cores.... and keep recommending them for people who want to pretend to have a modern PC.

You are of course incorrect. It seems you place a higher value on core count than there actually is. There are quad cores that easily outdo 8 cores. Core count is just one spec. Do some more research, you have a lot to learn.