I think quad core CPUs are still just fine for low end gaming pc builds and for general/casual usage. I’ve got a 4790 (non k) in an Alienware X51 to use as a Windows 7 machine to run simple and retro games.
It's actually a pretty important distinction that you use Windows 7. Windows 10 and 11 use more thread just to get background tasks done. Heavy thread utilization is basically required to get max throughput from SSDs. I frequently upgrade people's computers to SSD, and those low core count CPUs are maxed out throughout the duration of updates and driver installs on a clean install of Windows. Even an internet speed test pushes the CPU up to 80%+. It makes no sense to consider buying an 4 core in the present day.
@@blkspade23 I do agree, but architecture is also important as well, given how good a 12th gen i3 is as a modern day quad core. I'm not here to say that anyone should be getting a quad core for their gaming/editing setup, but anyone that has an older desktop lying around with a quad core or still has older gen hardware in their main system should still keep them if they're happy with what they're getting out of them. I don't use my X51 as my main PC, I have a Win11 system with a 14900K as my main rig. But I actually never knew threads would help with better throughput with SSD, so that's good to know at least!
@@blkspade23 That's why debloat software exists, squeeze more performance out of a 4 core. As long as you're not running things in the background most should be good. fyi I've had a 6 cores and swapped down to a 4 core because its more than enough and 6 cores aren't even that mind-blowing so invest in a better graphics card.
@@fancynin12 Keep in mind I'm talking about just the process of installing updates on a clean install. Just getting an SSD to churn takes those threads. Continuing to be good on a quad is just you not needing much out of your computer. It would be more legit to just use Linux. You play any games the do shader caching, it's not going to matter how clean your windows is. I moved from a 4790k to a R7 2700 because I wanted faster transcoding and computer that remained very responsive while having that load in the background. Game performance was basically lateral, but the overall computing experience while having my computer do real work was tremendously improved. I already knew I needed more cores, when my 4790k OC matched a stock 7700K.
4 Core* CPUs are still fine for casual gamers that doesn't need a high end PC. *With Hyperthreading. 4 Core 4 Thread CPUs however are done, unless for a cheap budget build.
I still have a 3770K paired with a GTX 960 4GB. Its not my main system, but honestly its still holding up alright. I can still run all the same games as my AM5 main PC, albeit at much lower settings/resolution😂
My 4790K is also still going strong. I recently re-installed Win10 and made some tweaks in the bios to optimize the power consumption and it's now pulling ~42W at idle (1x nvme, 2x sata ssd, 32GB ram), not a bad result in my opinion
Still on a heavily overclocked 4790K (all core 4.7ghz), which makes it very close to a stock 7700K. Oc'ed my 1600 ram to ~1835 (by FSB oc-ing) Overclocing does prolong your build a bit, but literally at a cost; it draws nearly 180 watts on the cpu alone. With an also OC-ed 1080ti my system draws nearly 530 watts (!!) on load, while being outperformed by a current gen i3.
It doesn't draw anywhere near that when you're actually using it normally. I have a 4.6core/4.4ring 4790k. It uses barely anything while gaming. Only in R23 and shit do you come close to those numbers.
@@ashryver3605 Yeah, try pushing your cpu beyond what it can do. To achieve the last 100 MHz it requires an insane amount of vcore. I've sailed it back to 4.6 because it requires beyond 1.38 vcore which is way to high
I've still got the 7700K but have been thinking of upgrading for a while now. I built a i5 13500 system for my son recently and that i5 runs rings around my old 7700K, so I'm almost tempted to go the i5 route.
@@Chrissy717depends on where you live and where you shop the i5 12600kf is the same price as a ryzen that's 20 dollars more but is 2 percent faster than the ryzen, Intel are currently better for low to midrange budget systems
@@alteito Nice. I had mine at 4.6ghz for years but it had started to have problems on occasion around the time I decided to upgrade, so I probably needed to dial it back or tweak the settings a bit. I was too lazy at the time and just disabled the OC haha.
It's worth mentioning that, while faster, the Core 2 Quad chips were not true quadcores. At least in the sense of the cpus themselves. You were getting 4 cores, no doubt, but it was effectively two dual-core cpus on the same package. And unlike modern chiplet-based designs, they do not share cache. While being otherwise slower and inferior, the Phenom chips were the first true monolithic quad-core chips like future Intel quad-core parts.
I had 2500K and it wasnt powerful enough to utilize GTX980 to 100% is some games. After switching to 8 core 9700K I've got 25% more FPS from the same GPU.
@@Boris-Vasiliev similarly my i5 6600k couldnt utilise my old gtx1080 and once i upfraded to 9700k peformance litterally doubled, and now i am experiencing similar situation with my secondary test pc with i5 3570k which cant fully utilise gtx 780
Recently replaced the dead motherboard in a friends PC, and they are still getting good use out of my old i7 4790K. They found it far better than the i5 4440 I had given them previously (I've been handing down parts when I upgrade). Even the i7 3770S in my brother's PC has been working well enough. Faster in games than an i5 3570K while running far cooler. Wouldn't go below a 6 core these days however.
Intel still make dual core CPUs today. Dual Core and Quad Core CPUs are fine for basic stuff. You can even game on some of them. But if you're trying to stream, video edit, music production, etc, you'll want a better CPU. Every CPU has its purpose. If you compare a quad core CPU from 7 years ago to a quad core CPU from today, that quad core (and even some dual cores) will walk all over thAt old CPU. The reason is because the lithography and architecture of the chips are smaller and more efficient. Not to mention the motherboard chipsets on top of all of that and faster ram. Even more so, the software and optimization included to make those chips even better. What I am saying is, core count is only 1 small piece of the puzzle.
4 cores are still enough, just turn down the graphics, recommending people more expensive processors seems kind of silly, if what most causal gamers do is office stuff and game here or there. It makes more sense to recommend 6,8,12 and beyond for streaming and multitasking while gaming. In addition you're helping create e-waste by steering people away from perfectly good processors.
I ran an i7-7700 in my HTPC until just a month ago. It did amazingly well. My old Core 2 Quad 6700 (which the i7-7700 replaced) is still in use in a friend's office PC.
My HP AIO PC was upgraded to i7 3770 and yes its still perform nice plus i just upgraded the MXM gpu from original Ati to GTX 1060 and it become a better as fun pc for me making music and do some simple video and photo editing.
The applications now can use these cores properly, that is why more core today even in low frequency is better than less cores. I have an i5-7300HQ mobile CPU (4c/4t), using it mainly for coding and sometimes gaming, still does the job for titles i play, but because it is getting old, i have to use lightweight software, for example i'am currently using Lubuntu OS.
Built an i7 3770 in 2022 and it was my first gaming pc , it was great for a starter tbh haha and i paired it with rx580 . And now im on Ryzen 5 5600 the feeling is smoother
Nice video. actually my old PC (which I still have it) is i7 7700k with ASUS 1060 6GB and served perfectly for 6 years untill I built a new one with Ryzen 7700 (none X) and ASUS 4070 last year.
So I used to have an I7 7700 without a code and I rarely edit videos, mostly just for myself. I also only edit or watch videos in 1080P not in 4K and when it comes to games I only use 1080P 60 FPS log without ray tracing and whether video editing a little delay inside doesn't bother me I don't need any programs to be loaded in 1 ms if games or programs take a bit of time to load it doesn't bother me and as far as the PC in the video is concerned RGB is always off for me before each use
Awesome video, I enjoyed it a lot! Totally agree with you on the drawbacks of 4 core CPUs today, especially in CPU heavy workloads like video editing as you showed. Modern hyper-threaded quad core CPUs are surprisingly great for budget gaming systems, but if you plan on doing anything productivity related, I'd say 6 cores is an ideal minimum. I'll be excited to see what you're going to upgrade your CPU to! Hopefully it can help out with that lag you talked about in your video editor; I totally feel just how frustrating that can be. I've ran into similar lag when trying to edit my videos on my laptop, which actually has a 6 core 12 thread Ryzen 5 (4600H). It's not a bad CPU, it's just that my footage is VERY heavy, and it definitely makes editing a challenge at times. It would be great if your new CPU can solve that for you
Amen! I see lots of channels advising on cheap (used) quad core builds but no legacy quad core cuts it anymore these days. The cheapest I recommend people is Chinese lga2011 and an 8-12 core xeon; you get decent overall experience and avoid using a 10yo+ board that could give the ghost any day. Overall, let's just say that those pre-Zen times when Intel had no competition were pretty terrible; gen3 to gen 7 you get 20-25% increase in IPC, i7 3770 to 7700, 5 years later, you had no reason to upgrade.
I'm a huge amd fan but I have to say intels i3 from the 12100 to 14100 Is honestly a very good chip and it is a lot more than I would have ever expected from a quad core
The quad core core is dead? Long live the quad core! I have a 6 core 12 thread Xeon 1650v2 in my old HPZ 620 WS that I use only for testing GPUs because it has an 800W PSU and can accommodate long length cards. That machine is a power hog. The only other multi core I have is a 6 core I5-8400. I do have a stash of 4th gen I7-4790Ks, one 4770K and two 6th gen I7-6700Ks that are awaiting new homes in planned budget builds. Great video on the history of the quad cores.
The i7 960 Is a Workstation/HEDIT Cpu with Ak complete different socket. the Consumer Counterpart the i7 8xx Make more sens to show. The i7 970,980,990 Are 6 core cpus. Later HEDIT i7 have more Than 4 cores.
I'm still buying 4 core CPU's for the office..intel i3 12100 + 32GB Ram :) All because i want that low 54w power draw.. if i need more cores i will switch to a AMD 5700X for the 65w or 45w eco mode in bios. The end result is the most stable long lasting low heat output system you can buy.. its also more then enough CPU power for Office apps :).. For gaming at home any cpu is fine because you can upgrade anytime without issues if you want too or if it fails
Its interesting since Intel also released the N100 which not only is a 4 core cpu, but it’s only efficiency cores which has been praised as a great cheap chip for mini pcs. The Steam Deck is also a 4 core cpu and it is still winning in terms of efficiency against newer chips in the 10-15 watt power range for gaming. For your use case, there’s no argument, 4 cores is not enough and i think for many others that is the case as well. But I still think 4 cores has its place in the market and I kinda disagree with your point, it just needs to be priced right or placed in specific use cases.
Very well said, I definitely agree with your view that 4 cores are still valid depending on the use case. Bit of an oversight from me not considering all use cases
First off: it's crazy how the slower/weaker "E-cores" on modern Intel CPUs have similar IPC to Skylake/Kaby Lake, which would also make them similar to Coffee Lake (or even Comet Lake) as you increase their clock speed. I'm interested to see how much they'll improve as time goes on (and whether or not Intel will finally make an i3 that has some) Second: how you gonna disrespect Sandy Bridge like that lol?? The i5-2500K & i7-2600K are some of the most iconic quad-core CPUs released in the last 10-15 years (2700K is largely irrelevant due to the 2600K's virtually identical performance as they can usually both hit 5Ghz on a liquid cooler). While these days they have definitely fallen out of popularity due to the existence of so many cheaper (yet substantially more capable) options to choose from (either new or used), Sandy Bridge was relevant for as long as it was/still is to some due to it's impressive IPC and absurdly high OC headroom. The 2600K just more or less outlived the 2500K thanks to the hyper-threading, but the memory controller & support for PCIe 2.0 only has impacted it the most in the modern era where newer entry level/midrange GPUs are only x4 to x8 PCIe 4.0 lanes on a 64 or 128-bit memory bus. So I guess I can kind of understand why you started with Ivy Bridge when it comes to the first generation to kick off Intel's quad-core "Golden Age", as later revisions of the chipset it used allowed for PCIe 3.0 support and the memory controllers were also improved upon/could run kits at the upper limit of DDR3 (such as 2133Mhz) I guess I'm just a little biased as I had a 2600K up until 2020. And while it was running at 5Ghz 24/7 on a 240mm AIO for a good while, I eventually ended up lowering it to 4.5Ghz due to swapping over to an air cooler (obviously NOT the stock Intel one lol) which I only did to repurpose the AIO for a 5930K-based server I built. But even with the drop in clocks, the 2600K still handled games fairly well with the RX 580 I had at the time and I only decided to finally upgrade after the RAM died (16GB of 4 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600). So instead of going the cheaper route and just replacing it, I bought a MSI B450 Tomahawk, R5 2600, and 32GB (4 x 8GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3000) from a local seller on FB for $250 in late 2020. Kept the RX 580 and used the pair for 2 years before swapping the 2600 for the newer 5600 ($150 new, sold the 2600 for $60) and getting a Zotac 3060 Ti OC model ($300ish new/open box from another FB seller). Also sold the RAM after a friend of mine sold me a 32GB kit (16GB x 2 G.Skill Trident Z RGB DDR4-3200 CL14) for like $40. So with my current setup being a R5 5600 @ 4.8Ghz all-core (with a Wraith Prism RGB cooler lol), 32GB DDR4-3200 CL14, & a 3060 Ti OC (OC'ed manually thru Afterburner to 2190Mhz core / 2250Mhz memory clocks), I haven't felt the need to upgrade anything other than maybe my CPU -- which is primarily only due to it "only" having 6C/12T (funny how this video was emphasizing that 4C/8T isn't worth it anymore, yet even the next step up is slowly beginning to follow suit). It seems devs & other programmers alike are dead set on making 8C/16T the go-to "standard", seeing as how even current games that are designed for console first are optimized for a down-clocked R7 3700X. So either I just drop a 5800X3D in my existing system, get the 7900 GRE I've been eyeing, and use AM4 another 2-3 years...or swap over to a Z690/Z790 & get a 12700K or 13600K while my B450 + 5600 would go to my wife to replace her B360M-A + i7-8700 that's paired with a 6600 XT (also 32GB DDR4-3200 that's only running at 2666Mhz due to the lousy mobo limitations).
I got the 14900k and I feel really bad about my purchase I should have stayed with the 8700k yea it's a stronger cpu but the heat and noise from the aio is not worth it
Wrong, 6-Cores have been the mid-range option from AMD and Intel, not their flagship products, and tend to be budget-friendly, however the flagship products now feature 16-Cores in the case of AMD, same with Intel, they just bullshit people with their "e-core" thing but their flagship performs the same if not a bit worse than the 7950X
@@alexg9601 that's what mainstream means. The Ryzen 5s are the quad core i5s of 2011-2017 that the majority of people buy. The 200-300$ price range is what people buy in.
@@rattlehead999 Ryzen 5s are not quad cores also people were buying i7s also i am pretty sure that even more people had i3s then i5 so by your logic we were not even in quad core mainstream times, when someone says main stream they mean a consumer platform regular socket, not xeon one or intel extreme, also both old i5s and i7s are quad cores with i7s addition to having a hyperthreading, so nowdays we are in both 6cores and 8core standard
@@Ciffer-1998 I said 6 core(Hexa Core), quite literally. Ryzen 5 1600 = 6 core/12 threads Ryzen 7 7600 = 6 core/12 thread, we've been stuck on 6 cores for the mainstream for 7 years.
@@rattlehead999 but you sayed " The Ryzen 5s are the quad core" unless you meant it that ryzen 5 are now what i5 were back then, anyway people were saying that we are stuck to 4 cores because both i5 and i7 had 4cores, and by that logic now days we have 6cores and 8cores mainstream cpus(if we dont count efficiency cores) also saying "we've been stuck on 6 cores for the mainstream for 7 years" is as if i am to say that we have been stuck to dual cores for 10yeas since core2duo till i3 7th gen since i3 are even more mainstream then i5 ryzen 5 are, or we could say that we are still stuck in dual core era as there are still dual core cpus being made like the newest intel 300
Hello! This video is necessary. 8 cores* and 32gb are the """ bare minimum """ today! Specially for editing software and multithreading. I'm glad AMD has changed the game! Rocking a 5700u laptop here. I Still think the efficiency intel cores are "waste of silicon", because they could be called half cores. I don't think it matters too much tho. But they're still there, better than nothing I'd say, but a little lacking. Sadly the laptop market doesn't have a decent 8 core processor with a low end graphics card, I dont need more than a 2050 (I think). My use case is specific and I just needed a little more GPU power, the Vega 8 just doesnt cut it, (but its surprisingly powerful on its own I have to agree) but in video editing its miles better than the older 3200u (2c4t) I had. The laptops I found had 12 threads, and a "low end" gpu, but I need 16 threads, and they are expensive because they have high end graphics cards lol. I might just give up and build a pc lol. Long comment, random babling... Yeah.. those are my thoughs. Last edit: MAYBE the Ryzen 9000 or 10000 laptop edition change the low end graphics game for my use case, since they are claiming 1060 performance on the internal GPU.
The 4/8 7700k should have been 6/12. As you state there was almost nothing there compared to the 6700k. It was the cpu that started to give AMD the momentum they so very much needed. Had Intel actually given something valuable here then Zen might never have become so dominant.
pretty good vid, i think it would have been worth mentioning intel HEDT market as it was good option for high end users, yes even gaming pcs. For example in haswell/broadwell days you could spend roughly ~150$ more in total on mobo + cpu and you could get 6 core 5820k which also had plenty of pcie lanes and 50% more cores and threads than 4790k. So in late 2014-2015 there were more options for higher core count cpus. Nowadays HEDT and mainstream kinda merged, so we get $700 cpus which used to be HEDT area only, but with reduced memory bandwidth (dual vs quad channel) and much fewer pcie lanes.
Intel released some 2 core 4 thread i7s a few years ago so why not a 4 core 8 thread i7 in 2024? They destroyed their branding and lost my respect a long time ago.
You have only talked about AMD is better at innovation. Unless Intel can really bring it after the 14th gen...they pump so much power into the CPU they don't perform or die early...like the reports of i9 13 and 14gen are getting errors playing games. I get the i5 and i7 from Intel can game very well, the X3D from AMD can better. I might only look at gaming myself, that's just me. But if you are looking for video or render work, shit you better look pro grade like Xeon or Threadripper.
Sure we're comparing 4 cores to 4 cores here. But to make your point that "4 cores are dead", you completely ignored all pro-sumer and HEDT platforms, and most importantly, you completely ignored FX, which gave 8 cores on a consumer platform. So even if we're only comparing everyday consumer platforms, AMD was the 1st to 8 cores in 2011 with the FX-8150. When Intel's most powerful chip was the i7-990x. Which was a 6c12t chip mind you. Your argument of "quad cores have been the best for a long time" falls apart even under the lightest scrutiny. I feel you've been a little misleading here.
I see you've got ASUS prime Z270 motherboard . I'm putting together a i7-6700k system with this exact MB . I planned on installing windows 7 but I'm hearing microsoft will no longer allow activation of new win 7 installations . Since windows 11 does not support i7-6700k cpu it looks like Microsoft is literally forcing people to throw away older hardware since no avail OS will install/ activate on it .
Intel's first quad cores were two dual core chips on the same multi-chip module. AMD made the first quad core processor on a single silicon die.
And also made the first dual core. Pentium D was 2 pentium 4s on a different chips
@@excess.subiefl0w Pentium D was very crippled by not having direct communication with those two CPU’s
@@tezcanaslan2877netburst cursed
AMD was also the first to 1Ghz, the first to use a DDR Front Side Bus, the first x86-64bit CPU, and the first L3 cache x86 CPU.
I think quad core CPUs are still just fine for low end gaming pc builds and for general/casual usage. I’ve got a 4790 (non k) in an Alienware X51 to use as a Windows 7 machine to run simple and retro games.
Similar processor for all dx9-11 games. plus a ton of vga 7870, 980Ti, 5670, 3850...
It's actually a pretty important distinction that you use Windows 7. Windows 10 and 11 use more thread just to get background tasks done. Heavy thread utilization is basically required to get max throughput from SSDs. I frequently upgrade people's computers to SSD, and those low core count CPUs are maxed out throughout the duration of updates and driver installs on a clean install of Windows. Even an internet speed test pushes the CPU up to 80%+. It makes no sense to consider buying an 4 core in the present day.
@@blkspade23 I do agree, but architecture is also important as well, given how good a 12th gen i3 is as a modern day quad core. I'm not here to say that anyone should be getting a quad core for their gaming/editing setup, but anyone that has an older desktop lying around with a quad core or still has older gen hardware in their main system should still keep them if they're happy with what they're getting out of them. I don't use my X51 as my main PC, I have a Win11 system with a 14900K as my main rig. But I actually never knew threads would help with better throughput with SSD, so that's good to know at least!
@@blkspade23 That's why debloat software exists, squeeze more performance out of a 4 core. As long as you're not running things in the background most should be good. fyi I've had a 6 cores and swapped down to a 4 core because its more than enough and 6 cores aren't even that mind-blowing so invest in a better graphics card.
@@fancynin12 Keep in mind I'm talking about just the process of installing updates on a clean install. Just getting an SSD to churn takes those threads. Continuing to be good on a quad is just you not needing much out of your computer. It would be more legit to just use Linux. You play any games the do shader caching, it's not going to matter how clean your windows is.
I moved from a 4790k to a R7 2700 because I wanted faster transcoding and computer that remained very responsive while having that load in the background. Game performance was basically lateral, but the overall computing experience while having my computer do real work was tremendously improved. I already knew I needed more cores, when my 4790k OC matched a stock 7700K.
4 Core* CPUs are still fine for casual gamers that doesn't need a high end PC.
*With Hyperthreading. 4 Core 4 Thread CPUs however are done, unless for a cheap budget build.
My 9100f is still alive
@@divoulos5758 is it tho, it bottlenecks anything higher then 2060
@Ciffer-1998 the best gpu i have is a 1650s and i have it paired with and 9700kf
@@divoulos5758 i was assuming that you sayed i3 9100f is still doing fine to which i responded as it depends on what you consider fine
4 cores with HT are only good for desktop office usage
Glad to see I'm not the only one still rocking a 4790k... haha
I still have a 3770K paired with a GTX 960 4GB. Its not my main system, but honestly its still holding up alright. I can still run all the same games as my AM5 main PC, albeit at much lower settings/resolution😂
My 4790K is also still going strong. I recently re-installed Win10 and made some tweaks in the bios to optimize the power consumption and it's now pulling ~42W at idle (1x nvme, 2x sata ssd, 32GB ram), not a bad result in my opinion
😒👍 Devil's Canyon FTW 🔥😈🔥
Using regular i7-4790, delided yesterday temps went down from 82c to 70c when stress testing 🎉
Still on a heavily overclocked 4790K (all core 4.7ghz), which makes it very close to a stock 7700K. Oc'ed my 1600 ram to ~1835 (by FSB oc-ing) Overclocing does prolong your build a bit, but literally at a cost; it draws nearly 180 watts on the cpu alone. With an also OC-ed 1080ti my system draws nearly 530 watts (!!) on load, while being outperformed by a current gen i3.
Keep it for the winter, great spaceheater right there.
This was me up until Ryzen came out. Doing more than just gaming with my PC demanded more cores.
It doesn't draw anywhere near that when you're actually using it normally. I have a 4.6core/4.4ring 4790k. It uses barely anything while gaming. Only in R23 and shit do you come close to those numbers.
@@ashryver3605 Yeah, try pushing your cpu beyond what it can do. To achieve the last 100 MHz it requires an insane amount of vcore. I've sailed it back to 4.6 because it requires beyond 1.38 vcore which is way to high
@@kash1222 it was fun to OC older hardware. They used to have so much headroom.
I've still got the 7700K but have been thinking of upgrading for a while now. I built a i5 13500 system for my son recently and that i5 runs rings around my old 7700K, so I'm almost tempted to go the i5 route.
There is virtually no reason to go Intel these days. AMD has better performances for the price.
get a ryzen 7600 or 7700
@@someguywithmtndew5691 better just 7500f
@@Ciffer-1998 oh yea i forgot about that
@@Chrissy717depends on where you live and where you shop the i5 12600kf is the same price as a ryzen that's 20 dollars more but is 2 percent faster than the ryzen, Intel are currently better for low to midrange budget systems
Well the i3 12100f is 45 percent faster than your current CPU so it isn't just cores that matters it's also architecture, cache, instruction sets etc.
Still rocking my skylake Xeon W-2102 (4 core) in 2024 as a NAS pc. It came in an HP G4 Z4 tower that I saved from being "thrown" away.
Up to 2021 July, I was on a 4590(2015)
I think Quads are still relevant, even for low end gaming
up until last December, I was running a 4790k, and it still hangs for the most part. It definitely started to show its age though.
@@nickdibart still using a 4790(non k) in office pcs
@@ivanlimzg All things considered, it's a solid CPU. I have no complaints with it at all.
Also running a 4790k here, OCed to 4.5ghz, it's still a very solid choice for budget builds, and not just for games
@@alteito Nice. I had mine at 4.6ghz for years but it had started to have problems on occasion around the time I decided to upgrade, so I probably needed to dial it back or tweak the settings a bit. I was too lazy at the time and just disabled the OC haha.
It's worth mentioning that, while faster, the Core 2 Quad chips were not true quadcores. At least in the sense of the cpus themselves. You were getting 4 cores, no doubt, but it was effectively two dual-core cpus on the same package. And unlike modern chiplet-based designs, they do not share cache. While being otherwise slower and inferior, the Phenom chips were the first true monolithic quad-core chips like future Intel quad-core parts.
Yes, you are right. It didn't help AMD in any way, though. The first generation of Phenoms was a huge disappointment.
@@independentthought3390 Yeah, they where phenomenally bad.
Watching this with my i5 3470 :(
My 2500K hates you so much right now, as do my Athlon3000 and my Ryzen 3 3200G. 🙂
I had 2500K and it wasnt powerful enough to utilize GTX980 to 100% is some games. After switching to 8 core 9700K I've got 25% more FPS from the same GPU.
@@Boris-Vasiliev similarly my i5 6600k couldnt utilise my old gtx1080 and once i upfraded to 9700k peformance litterally doubled, and now i am experiencing similar situation with my secondary test pc with i5 3570k which cant fully utilise gtx 780
i have an 1500X (4c/8t) CPU. Still doing very well. FX 8350 in 4 modules still does what Its have to do.
Recently replaced the dead motherboard in a friends PC, and they are still getting good use out of my old i7 4790K. They found it far better than the i5 4440 I had given them previously (I've been handing down parts when I upgrade).
Even the i7 3770S in my brother's PC has been working well enough. Faster in games than an i5 3570K while running far cooler. Wouldn't go below a 6 core these days however.
Intel still make dual core CPUs today. Dual Core and Quad Core CPUs are fine for basic stuff. You can even game on some of them. But if you're trying to stream, video edit, music production, etc, you'll want a better CPU. Every CPU has its purpose. If you compare a quad core CPU from 7 years ago to a quad core CPU from today, that quad core (and even some dual cores) will walk all over thAt old CPU. The reason is because the lithography and architecture of the chips are smaller and more efficient. Not to mention the motherboard chipsets on top of all of that and faster ram. Even more so, the software and optimization included to make those chips even better.
What I am saying is, core count is only 1 small piece of the puzzle.
4 cores are still enough, just turn down the graphics, recommending people more expensive processors seems kind of silly, if what most causal gamers do is office stuff and game here or there. It makes more sense to recommend 6,8,12 and beyond for streaming and multitasking while gaming. In addition you're helping create e-waste by steering people away from perfectly good processors.
I play BeamNG, and to run more cars, I need more cores. 4 cores are not enough for heavy gaming
I ran an i7-7700 in my HTPC until just a month ago. It did amazingly well. My old Core 2 Quad 6700 (which the i7-7700 replaced) is still in use in a friend's office PC.
you forgot bout i7 4970k devils canyon. still using it till this day ahahah im so poor
Nah thats not being poor , thats valuing what you have
I had an i3 7100 until january of 2023, it was actually surprisingly good for the most part, even for video editing and gaming.
My HP AIO PC was upgraded to i7 3770 and yes its still perform nice plus i just upgraded the MXM gpu from original Ati to GTX 1060 and it become a better as fun pc for me making music and do some simple video and photo editing.
I have an i7-6700K @ 4.5GHz & RX 6700 XT on my 2nd rig and still a solid 1080p144 setup. :)
The applications now can use these cores properly, that is why more core today even in low frequency is better than less cores.
I have an i5-7300HQ mobile CPU (4c/4t), using it mainly for coding and sometimes gaming, still does the job for titles i play, but because it is getting old, i have to use lightweight software, for example i'am currently using Lubuntu OS.
Built an i7 3770 in 2022 and it was my first gaming pc , it was great for a starter tbh haha and i paired it with rx580 . And now im on Ryzen 5 5600 the feeling is smoother
meanwhile me on a dual core:
D805 or G6500? not the same, but all dualcore.
Nice video. actually my old PC (which I still have it) is i7 7700k with ASUS 1060 6GB and served perfectly for 6 years untill I built a new one with Ryzen 7700 (none X) and ASUS 4070 last year.
Nice upgrade. I had a ryzen 1300x and a gtx 1070 now I have a ryzen 5600x and a rx 5700xt
So I used to have an I7 7700 without a code and I rarely edit videos, mostly just for myself. I also only edit or watch videos in 1080P not in 4K and when it comes to games I only use 1080P 60 FPS log without ray tracing and whether video editing a little delay inside doesn't bother me I don't need any programs to be loaded in 1 ms if games or programs take a bit of time to load it doesn't bother me and as far as the PC in the video is concerned RGB is always off for me before each use
No problem. i don't have a 4 core CPU. I have a Kaby Lake Pentium 2 CORE cpu
Does i5 4460s quad core fall in this category of being dead??
I used to have a Quad Core i7, it was a great machine
i know quad core era ended but i am using my MSI Titan Laptop which is still working really good and beast. i overclocked it . alot. with good temps
Imagine if Ryzen failed, maybe we are still in quad cores and 6-8 cores will cost a fortune.
Thats good, i have an i7-990x 6 core 12 thread so i should be good right 😅 alot of 4 cores cpu are made for budged desktop, some are still very good.
I'd like to upgrade my server to a 7700k though
i3 14100f: hold my beer.
heh i got my first quad core in 2020 on a ryzen3 laptop, because my desktop skipped quads completely going from 3 core phenom2 to a six core ryzen 5.
My i7-3770 still serves me well when I need it. It does more and everything I need it to do. I also have a i7-12700k for the heavy lifting duties.
I but i7 9700k in 2020 but now the CPU cannot handle ultra setting new games ...too short time now 20 core i7
good thing that mine died right before i bought rtx 4080 so as a replacement i got i5 13600kf
Just to the z170/z270 custom bios mod for coffee lake CPUs you can go to 8th to 9th gen cpus
is that even real, smells like a bullshit.. no way that a mod for a mobo can change its cpu support
@@Ciffer-1998 ruclips.net/video/hghT2iOvWTU/видео.htmlsi=oLEWpdh3pYundAm5
Awesome video, I enjoyed it a lot!
Totally agree with you on the drawbacks of 4 core CPUs today, especially in CPU heavy workloads like video editing as you showed. Modern hyper-threaded quad core CPUs are surprisingly great for budget gaming systems, but if you plan on doing anything productivity related, I'd say 6 cores is an ideal minimum.
I'll be excited to see what you're going to upgrade your CPU to! Hopefully it can help out with that lag you talked about in your video editor; I totally feel just how frustrating that can be. I've ran into similar lag when trying to edit my videos on my laptop, which actually has a 6 core 12 thread Ryzen 5 (4600H). It's not a bad CPU, it's just that my footage is VERY heavy, and it definitely makes editing a challenge at times. It would be great if your new CPU can solve that for you
Thank you 😊 I can't imagine how editing in 4K like yourself would go haha
4 core is enough for productivity imho, tech people need to stop recommending more than what people actually need especially in this economy.
Amen! I see lots of channels advising on cheap (used) quad core builds but no legacy quad core cuts it anymore these days. The cheapest I recommend people is Chinese lga2011 and an 8-12 core xeon; you get decent overall experience and avoid using a 10yo+ board that could give the ghost any day.
Overall, let's just say that those pre-Zen times when Intel had no competition were pretty terrible; gen3 to gen 7 you get 20-25% increase in IPC, i7 3770 to 7700, 5 years later, you had no reason to upgrade.
I just got a i7 2600 😅
I'm hunting for old K CPUs myself.
@@Alpha-ms9nj not very hard and expensive
More cores gives more 3D objects in games.
I'm a huge amd fan but I have to say intels i3 from the 12100 to 14100 Is honestly a very good chip and it is a lot more than I would have ever expected from a quad core
what about 10100 it was litterally i7 7700
The quad core core is dead? Long live the quad core! I have a 6 core 12 thread Xeon 1650v2 in my old HPZ 620 WS that I use only for testing GPUs because it has an 800W PSU and can accommodate long length cards. That machine is a power hog. The only other multi core I have is a 6 core I5-8400. I do have a stash of 4th gen I7-4790Ks, one 4770K and two 6th gen I7-6700Ks that are awaiting new homes in planned budget builds. Great video on the history of the quad cores.
The i7 960 Is a Workstation/HEDIT Cpu with Ak complete different socket. the Consumer Counterpart the i7 8xx Make more sens to show. The i7 970,980,990 Are 6 core cpus. Later HEDIT i7 have more Than 4 cores.
Great point, idk how I missed that haha. I've worked with Lynnfield CPUs too and I remember distinctly being confused with the LGA1156 and 1366 socket
I'm still buying 4 core CPU's for the office..intel i3 12100 + 32GB Ram :) All because i want that low 54w power draw.. if i need more cores i will switch to a AMD 5700X for the 65w or 45w eco mode in bios. The end result is the most stable long lasting low heat output system you can buy.. its also more then enough CPU power for Office apps :).. For gaming at home any cpu is fine because you can upgrade anytime without issues if you want too or if it fails
3770k gang assemble
jajaja yo el año pasado pase de n i7 3770K a un ryzen 7 5700X... se nota el cambio
Its interesting since Intel also released the N100 which not only is a 4 core cpu, but it’s only efficiency cores which has been praised as a great cheap chip for mini pcs. The Steam Deck is also a 4 core cpu and it is still winning in terms of efficiency against newer chips in the 10-15 watt power range for gaming.
For your use case, there’s no argument, 4 cores is not enough and i think for many others that is the case as well. But I still think 4 cores has its place in the market and I kinda disagree with your point, it just needs to be priced right or placed in specific use cases.
Very well said, I definitely agree with your view that 4 cores are still valid depending on the use case. Bit of an oversight from me not considering all use cases
thats also due to non optimized
Yes 100%
Great video, you've earned a new sub! 👍
First off: it's crazy how the slower/weaker "E-cores" on modern Intel CPUs have similar IPC to Skylake/Kaby Lake, which would also make them similar to Coffee Lake (or even Comet Lake) as you increase their clock speed. I'm interested to see how much they'll improve as time goes on (and whether or not Intel will finally make an i3 that has some)
Second: how you gonna disrespect Sandy Bridge like that lol?? The i5-2500K & i7-2600K are some of the most iconic quad-core CPUs released in the last 10-15 years (2700K is largely irrelevant due to the 2600K's virtually identical performance as they can usually both hit 5Ghz on a liquid cooler). While these days they have definitely fallen out of popularity due to the existence of so many cheaper (yet substantially more capable) options to choose from (either new or used), Sandy Bridge was relevant for as long as it was/still is to some due to it's impressive IPC and absurdly high OC headroom. The 2600K just more or less outlived the 2500K thanks to the hyper-threading, but the memory controller & support for PCIe 2.0 only has impacted it the most in the modern era where newer entry level/midrange GPUs are only x4 to x8 PCIe 4.0 lanes on a 64 or 128-bit memory bus. So I guess I can kind of understand why you started with Ivy Bridge when it comes to the first generation to kick off Intel's quad-core "Golden Age", as later revisions of the chipset it used allowed for PCIe 3.0 support and the memory controllers were also improved upon/could run kits at the upper limit of DDR3 (such as 2133Mhz)
I guess I'm just a little biased as I had a 2600K up until 2020. And while it was running at 5Ghz 24/7 on a 240mm AIO for a good while, I eventually ended up lowering it to 4.5Ghz due to swapping over to an air cooler (obviously NOT the stock Intel one lol) which I only did to repurpose the AIO for a 5930K-based server I built. But even with the drop in clocks, the 2600K still handled games fairly well with the RX 580 I had at the time and I only decided to finally upgrade after the RAM died (16GB of 4 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600). So instead of going the cheaper route and just replacing it, I bought a MSI B450 Tomahawk, R5 2600, and 32GB (4 x 8GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3000) from a local seller on FB for $250 in late 2020. Kept the RX 580 and used the pair for 2 years before swapping the 2600 for the newer 5600 ($150 new, sold the 2600 for $60) and getting a Zotac 3060 Ti OC model ($300ish new/open box from another FB seller). Also sold the RAM after a friend of mine sold me a 32GB kit (16GB x 2 G.Skill Trident Z RGB DDR4-3200 CL14) for like $40. So with my current setup being a R5 5600 @ 4.8Ghz all-core (with a Wraith Prism RGB cooler lol), 32GB DDR4-3200 CL14, & a 3060 Ti OC (OC'ed manually thru Afterburner to 2190Mhz core / 2250Mhz memory clocks), I haven't felt the need to upgrade anything other than maybe my CPU -- which is primarily only due to it "only" having 6C/12T (funny how this video was emphasizing that 4C/8T isn't worth it anymore, yet even the next step up is slowly beginning to follow suit). It seems devs & other programmers alike are dead set on making 8C/16T the go-to "standard", seeing as how even current games that are designed for console first are optimized for a down-clocked R7 3700X. So either I just drop a 5800X3D in my existing system, get the 7900 GRE I've been eyeing, and use AM4 another 2-3 years...or swap over to a Z690/Z790 & get a 12700K or 13600K while my B450 + 5600 would go to my wife to replace her B360M-A + i7-8700 that's paired with a 6600 XT (also 32GB DDR4-3200 that's only running at 2666Mhz due to the lousy mobo limitations).
For basic everyday tasks and light gaming quad core is still fine.
Great video! Wish Sucess to the channel!
I got the 14900k and I feel really bad about my purchase I should have stayed with the 8700k yea it's a stronger cpu but the heat and noise from the aio is not worth it
Sadly now we have been stuck on 6 core mainstream CPUs for 6 generations.
Wrong, 6-Cores have been the mid-range option from AMD and Intel, not their flagship products, and tend to be budget-friendly, however the flagship products now feature 16-Cores in the case of AMD, same with Intel, they just bullshit people with their "e-core" thing but their flagship performs the same if not a bit worse than the 7950X
@@alexg9601 that's what mainstream means. The Ryzen 5s are the quad core i5s of 2011-2017 that the majority of people buy. The 200-300$ price range is what people buy in.
@@rattlehead999 Ryzen 5s are not quad cores also people were buying i7s also i am pretty sure that even more people had i3s then i5 so by your logic we were not even in quad core mainstream times, when someone says main stream they mean a consumer platform regular socket, not xeon one or intel extreme, also both old i5s and i7s are quad cores with i7s addition to having a hyperthreading, so nowdays we are in both 6cores and 8core standard
@@Ciffer-1998 I said 6 core(Hexa Core), quite literally.
Ryzen 5 1600 = 6 core/12 threads
Ryzen 7 7600 = 6 core/12 thread,
we've been stuck on 6 cores for the mainstream for 7 years.
@@rattlehead999 but you sayed " The Ryzen 5s are the quad core" unless you meant it that ryzen 5 are now what i5 were back then,
anyway people were saying that we are stuck to 4 cores because both i5 and i7 had 4cores, and by that logic now days we have 6cores and 8cores mainstream cpus(if we dont count efficiency cores)
also saying "we've been stuck on 6 cores for the mainstream for 7 years" is as if i am to say that we have been stuck to dual cores for 10yeas since core2duo till i3 7th gen since i3 are even more mainstream then i5 ryzen 5 are, or we could say that we are still stuck in dual core era as there are still dual core cpus being made like the newest intel 300
the fart sound effect 8:13 LOL
AMD FM2 Quad 3.9 GHz A8 6600K Tiny10 23H1 (occasional)
AMD FM2 Quad 3.9 GHz A8 6600K 7 Professional (daily use)
AMD FM2+ Quad 3.5 GHz Athlon X4 845 Vista Ultimate (daily use)
AMD AM3 Quad 3.2 GHz Phenom II X4 840 7 Professional (occasional)
I just can afford quad core ryzen 3 3200g because I'm poor
Rocking 1050ti with R5 2400g since 2018 😂😂
Hello! This video is necessary. 8 cores* and 32gb are the """ bare minimum """ today! Specially for editing software and multithreading. I'm glad AMD has changed the game! Rocking a 5700u laptop here. I Still think the efficiency intel cores are "waste of silicon", because they could be called half cores. I don't think it matters too much tho. But they're still there, better than nothing I'd say, but a little lacking.
Sadly the laptop market doesn't have a decent 8 core processor with a low end graphics card, I dont need more than a 2050 (I think). My use case is specific and I just needed a little more GPU power, the Vega 8 just doesnt cut it, (but its surprisingly powerful on its own I have to agree) but in video editing its miles better than the older 3200u (2c4t) I had. The laptops I found had 12 threads, and a "low end" gpu, but I need 16 threads, and they are expensive because they have high end graphics cards lol. I might just give up and build a pc lol. Long comment, random babling... Yeah.. those are my thoughs. Last edit: MAYBE the Ryzen 9000 or 10000 laptop edition change the low end graphics game for my use case, since they are claiming 1060 performance on the internal GPU.
An i7 7700k still better for gaming than those 16/32 Xeons
i3 12100f beg to differ.
Not to forgett the i7 5775c
The 4/8 7700k should have been 6/12. As you state there was almost nothing there compared to the 6700k. It was the cpu that started to give AMD the momentum they so very much needed. Had Intel actually given something valuable here then Zen might never have become so dominant.
Me playing with my i3-4160🙂
pretty good vid, i think it would have been worth mentioning intel HEDT market as it was good option for high end users, yes even gaming pcs. For example in haswell/broadwell days you could spend roughly ~150$ more in total on mobo + cpu and you could get 6 core 5820k which also had plenty of pcie lanes and 50% more cores and threads than 4790k. So in late 2014-2015 there were more options for higher core count cpus.
Nowadays HEDT and mainstream kinda merged, so we get $700 cpus which used to be HEDT area only, but with reduced memory bandwidth (dual vs quad channel) and much fewer pcie lanes.
nah i actually plan to buy i7 7700k right now i have i5 6400
human eyes can't see the difference between 4c4t and 4c8t cuz "both bad rn". No, 4c8t is much better than 4c4t in 2024
nice megadeth shirt
I feel personally attacked, because I still have the i7700k from the thumbnail. That is still a baller CPU!
Intel released some 2 core 4 thread i7s a few years ago so why not a 4 core 8 thread i7 in 2024? They destroyed their branding and lost my respect a long time ago.
i mean didnt they do that thing long ago they took their top of the line Pentium name and put it down at the bottom same with Amd with Athlon
Like the video please Subscribe if you haven't yet
Yes boss. Just 4U I will.
You have only talked about AMD is better at innovation. Unless Intel can really bring it after the 14th gen...they pump so much power into the CPU they don't perform or die early...like the reports of i9 13 and 14gen are getting errors playing games. I get the i5 and i7 from Intel can game very well, the X3D from AMD can better. I might only look at gaming myself, that's just me. But if you are looking for video or render work, shit you better look pro grade like Xeon or Threadripper.
😒👍 Core 2 Quad FTW 🐢🐢🐢🐢
Sure we're comparing 4 cores to 4 cores here. But to make your point that "4 cores are dead", you completely ignored all pro-sumer and HEDT platforms, and most importantly, you completely ignored FX, which gave 8 cores on a consumer platform. So even if we're only comparing everyday consumer platforms, AMD was the 1st to 8 cores in 2011 with the FX-8150. When Intel's most powerful chip was the i7-990x. Which was a 6c12t chip mind you. Your argument of "quad cores have been the best for a long time" falls apart even under the lightest scrutiny. I feel you've been a little misleading here.
oh really? i have a 12100f and it games great.
Ditto. Although I also have an i5-12400 and an R5 5600X, the little i3-12100 is my darling.
Great video
Thank you :)
Nothingburger
I see you've got ASUS prime Z270 motherboard . I'm putting together a i7-6700k system with this exact MB . I planned on installing windows 7 but I'm hearing microsoft will no longer allow activation of new win 7 installations .
Since windows 11 does not support i7-6700k cpu it looks like Microsoft is literally forcing people to throw away older hardware since no avail OS will install/ activate on it .
Wow really? That's a real shame
Almost 8 out of 10 people ONLY NEED 4 cores! An i3 12100f will BLOW your mind out! Amazing performance:)