At some point you may have heard someone say that for gaming you need X amount of cores. Examples include "6 is more than enough cores," or "you need a minimum of 8 cores for gaming," let's address that misconception.
At some point you may have heard someone say that for gaming you need X amount of cores. Examples include "6 is more than enough cores," or "you need a minimum of 8 cores for gaming," let's address that misconception.
So how "fine" do these 6 games tested here run on your 2c/4t CPU?QUOTE
For example, games no longer run properly, or at all, on dual-core CPUs
UNQUOTE
This statement is completely false, my laptop has got a 2C/4T Skylake CPU and I can assure you that I game with it just fine when I am on the move.
I can also assure you, and provide examples, that games run properly and do run regardless.
Ofc, my definition of "games" might be different than yours.
I would LOVE to see the proof of your skylake dual core laptop running the likes of CP2077, HZD, and RotTR, since you are so eager to provide proof....For example, games no longer run properly, or at all, on dual-core CPUs
[\QUOTE]
This statement is completely false, my laptop has got a 2C/4T Skylake CPU and I can assure you that I game with it just fine when I am on the move.
I can also assure you, and provide examples, that games run properly and do run regardless.
Ofc, my definition of "games" might be different than yours.
He probably means many people (especially tech sites) regularly over-focus on the same 12x AAA's (Hitman, Tomb Raider, Far Cry, etc) over and over in benchmarks, whilst the vast majority of the 30,000 games on Steam / 4,000 on GOG do indeed run just fine on quad cores (and yes, most Indie's do run on dual-cores).So how "fine" do these 6 games tested here run on your 2c/4t CPU? Unless you mean Tetris, by your "definition of games"...
"Unless you play Cyberfail 2077, u r not a real gamer and ur opinion doesn't count, pog"
Yeah, no. I don't think that gaming means what you think it means.
QUOTE
For example, games no longer run properly, or at all, on dual-core CPUs
UNQUOTE
This statement is completely false, my laptop has got a 2C/4T Skylake CPU and I can assure you that I game with it just fine when I am on the move.
I can also assure you, and provide examples, that games run properly and do run regardless.
Ofc, my definition of "games" might be different than yours.
Agreed games covers a huge area not just triple A titles.
Funny thing is, I built my R5-1600 four years ago (2017) and upgraded to a 3600 just before the supply chain blew up. Then got an oppurtunity a few months ago to get my desired 3600 XT that I'd originally wanted at below MSRP (Great Sale price). Couldn't be happier with it and my GP104 GTX 1060 (2018) version I ended up with after the last one died and yes I run at 1440 now with Win10 and couldn't be happier.Interesting piece!
I went ahead and splurged on a 5800X when they came out last year because last time I built a PC everyone kept telling me I didn't need more than four cores. That was back when people were still running games on overclocked i5-2500Ks which were still holding on after a few years. But maybe four or five years later I ran into games that maxed out my old quad-core, and I kept using it for another few years.
Partially I got the 5800X in anticipation for what I might be trying to run four years from now (and I've started using Handbrake again), and I think that's what scares some people -- the fact that people upgrade CPUs much less frequently than GPUs, often only ever having one CPU in a system for its lifetime because maybe newer ones don't work with their old motherboards.
Also, be careful about sites like userbenchmark.com when looking at a new CPU to purchase. It makes quad core CPUs like the i3-10320 look really good for gaming when it really isn't.
You don't simply just add more cache to a CPU. You design for it - in advance.Interesting article!
Is it true that additional cache requires less wafer space than additional cores? If so it appears Intel is missing an opportunity to provide gamers with a higher performance, lower cost gaming CPU that is optimized around what drives gaming performance.
I'll repeat what I wrote under the HUB video.
"You need 8 cores for gaming as much as you need a $1000 dGPU."
The video was great confirmation for the ones that were confused and the ones that just wanted to see the data like myself, as the majority of us came to the conclusion already just from reading all the reviews we've seen on the internet over time.
No, it's not completely false.QUOTE
For example, games no longer run properly, or at all, on dual-core CPUs
UNQUOTE
This statement is completely false,
Which is exactly why the statement wasn't completely false. Usually, when talking games, we're referring to AAA-level titles like Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Deus Ex, Hitman, F1, Dark Souls, etc. because it is generally accepted that older games like GTA5, Skyrim, etc. will play easily on any modern PC hardware. To discuss them would be more or less pointless at this time.Ofc, my definition of "games" might be different than yours.
Naw, they're just making you buy more cores if you want more cache. Intel with their artificial market segmentation strikes again!Interesting article!
Is it true that additional cache requires less wafer space than additional cores? If so it appears Intel is missing an opportunity to provide gamers with a higher performance, lower cost gaming CPU that is optimized around what drives gaming performance.
I don't think that anyone here is noobish enough to take loserbenchmark seriously.Also, be careful about sites like userbenchmark.com when looking at a new CPU to purchase. It makes quad core CPUs like the i3-10320 look really good for gaming when it really isn't.
Sure but it's the AAA titles that require the most potent hardware. Other games can run on more or less anything that's even remotely modern.Agreed games covers a huge area not just triple A titles.
The 3300X at stock did well against 6 and 8 core parts. Couldn't really buy it, because it was almost never in stock. If you can get one it might be worth it.Lulz, that was you? I saw the comment but didn't note the name.
What I wonder about is where in HZD Steve tests as I've tried out the game in a number of minimally-specced systems (R3 1200 4c4t @3.7GHz, Core i7-4790 not K 4c8t @3.8GHz), and with a lot of machine AI on the screen, the R3 dips into the mid 20s fps and the 4790 into the mid 30s fps, both with 100% CPU use.
In other words, this game can be CPU-intensive enough that in order to maintain 60fps when you really need it, it may need a decent 6-core, though I'd love to know if an OC 3300X or i3-10320 might just be good enough. For science, of course as I do have better PCs to play the game on.
The 3300X at stock did well against 6 and 8 core parts. Couldn't really buy it, because it was almost never in stock. If you can get one it might be worth it.