@@mathewsphiri5629 Faster IPC and more L3 cache. This game is more dependent on a few cores running higher frequency and gets some limited use out of 3D V-cache. a 5600X3D and 5800X3D both get 60 fps 1080p ultra where a standard 5700X gets 53 fps. the 5700X3D get 57 fps, slower than the 5600X3D. Clearly, cores matter little when the game only uses a few.
Not really. The testing was made on clear windows install with just a singleplayer game running. In real life scenario you would have some background tasks, discord, browser, probably 2nd or 3rd monitor and some other stuff running on your pc. And here 8 cores do their job
@@bartix698 discord and browser dont make much difference with modern cpus hell i got a 6 core and can unzip stuff with winrar and while gaming no problem
It seems that we are slowly moving toward 8 cores as a standard, however 6 cores are still a sweetspot. You would want to put extra money into gpu, not 8 core cpu
Nah for 2 frames ? More cores are only good for high frames but you don't need more than 144 it's useless 6 cores will forever be the best till devs utilize more than 6 cores
I would say if it's just for gaming. 4/8 Minimum. 6/12 Recommended. 8/16 Optimal. 12/24 Max overkill for prolly 90% of games. 16/32 Absolute overkill i'd think for any game, as far as I'm aware of.
@Melon are the e cores really good enough for streaming and If so how does the operating system know which ones to use for what since both task are highly intensive
@@OussaMeb most definitely. But since the 5700x wasnt much more than the 5600x it seemed right to just go for the 8 core chip. Especially since games will just get more cpu demanding in the future. But as of now im mostly gpu bound in most games
just be one step ahead: if everyone says the sweet spot is 6-cores cpu, better buy 8-cores cpu. if everyone says 16gb RAM is enough for gaming - buy 32gb, disable pagefile and say goodbye to stutters in game even if you multitasking
exactly what i did. When everyone buying a 4790k, buy a 5820k 6 core. Also the first cpu to support ddr4 and quad channel. Wasnt even that much more expensive and could overclock easily to the same core on core performance of the 4790k. Still holds its own today, and didnt really get surpassed until the 8700k.
Oh man, feels like yesterday when most people agreed all you really needed was 4 cores, I've only recently upgraded to 8 core 16 threads, seems to be holding up nicely
yea on 1080p u will have a difference but at higher resolutions like 1440p and above u wont a have a cpu issue even with 4 cores, at 4k u dont even need to worry even if u have an i3
@@Mike-cj2gc Short: Higher FPS (120+) are dependent on how fast CPU can process. Resolution does not matter for CPU. Explanation: For gaming, Faster CPU (Above 4 core) is needed to push more frames each second. Because final image is processed by CPU after GPU calculates all mesh, textures and shaders. Say if you increase resolution, Your FPS goes down thus CPU usage also goes down. For your case, I suspect if background programs are hogging (like Windows Update, Discord...)
This isn't a CPU comparison, it's a comparison between the number of cores being available, don't read too much into the stats itself, just pay attention to the frame rate, either way you look at it, it paints a generally clear picture that there's a noticeable performance gain or loss depending on how many physical cores you have available for modern games, so if you have something like an i5 7400 then it means you definitely need an upgrade
CPU architecture is more important than # of cpu core which is more important than hyper threads (amd SMT or intel HT) which is more important than cpu frequencies in MHz. That's all.
No wonder my i7 6700k with 4 cores stutters and lags when i do streaming on Tiktok or RUclips while playing FIFA23 or any story games like Tomb Raider, etc. It's always on 100% CPU usage and made the game crash too sometimes. So should i upgrade to a new CPU? And if so my motherboard too right?
"should i upgrade to a new CPU" Yes. "if so, my motherboard too right?" Also yes. For multitasking, target Alder Lake and Raptor Lake because of Thread Director, scheduling on AMD CPUs is dumber.
@@iikatinggangsengii2471 on friday i built my i5 12400f rig (switching from an i5 2500k, same gpu which is a gtx 950 however i plan to upgrade to a rx 6700 xt in the future) and the difference was huge, 100+ fps in every cpu based game that i play (like csgo, where i get 200-300, used to get 120-180)
I was saying the same as i bought my FX8350 back in 2012. This "future" is still future even today :D The best advice would be just get the best current gen price/performance CPU. In my situation today i will be upgrading from my i7 7700k to R5 7600x. Hopefully this month. In 5 years i will be upgrading again to a maybe 3d cache CPU. We will see.
By the time your 6 core cpu becomes obsolete it will be time for an upgrade anyway and the 8 core you spent extra money will become weak so you will always upgrade to the new one future proofing is dumb af
yes buy 6 unless your specific needs requires more/more convenient if more (eg multitask work + video playback, instrument playing etc you get the idea)
@@Amzyy i think the way to do it is just keep the current stuff you have until it literally becomes pretty slow or notice a significant amount of performance drop (either on newer titles or the games you usually play that usually runs smoothly), if the stuff you currently have is still chugging along pretty well on most if not all the games you play then theres not a reason to upgrade yet, and of course make sure to do your maintenance such as updating drivers, clean up once in a while, update BIOS etc etc so the lifespan is longer so you can save up more money and by the time youre in need of an upgrade youll be getting some of the nice mid-high end parts youve been eyeing
I would still buy 6 core cpu for 3060ti in future to be honest, only for 3070 and above you actually can see diffrence cause you need more 2 core to utilize it i am having 5600x now gonna switch to 5600 in futre when my 5600x die hope my 3060ti live long Playing at 1440p no rt only dlss quality in aa games and dlss performance in comp games
Results look good because you had SMT on. Me having R5 3500x (6 cores without SMT), I face quite bad issues with quite a lot of modern games. Please, try with SMT off.
@@mahmoudrabya585 Previously, when I started playing fortnite, the whole game stuttered for a few minutes, and after changing the CPU, this problem was practically gone. Same in minecraft (I have a gtx 1660 super and 16gb ram for this so it's a very good configuration)
depends on background applications as well, If you're purely gaming 6 is fine but if you want OBS or a variety of other applications then 8 if you're having to manage large sets of, data depending on how big, 8+
To just simplify 6 cores is MINIMUM in 2023. 8 core is more ideal and everything over that is luxury. To people wondering if 6 is ideal why not just stop there? is because the more cores and threads you have the better the fps. and not just more , the better the fps you get better frame pacing, which means you will have less micro stutters in your game the more cores and threads you have. So you reading this dont think just because your using a 4 core 8 thread cpu and a 4090 and you getting hella fps that it will be a good experience. you will have bad frame timing and pacing even though the gpu is giving you the frames.. the cpu cannot keep up and you will get micro stutters. just look at that line graph you see between them all its the most stable on the highest core and thread cpu obviously
Dont like the fact of that if you want the greatest cpu for gaming, you still must buy i9 or R9 CPUs. Someones says "games cant utilize so many cores" - that's right, but highest CPU models it's a winners of sillicon lottery - they have highest clocks etc, and even if you don't wanna have too many cores, but want best RAM controller and single core perfomance - you still need buy i9 or R9. Other 7, 5, 3 cpu models from both of the companies - it's a "defective" version's of a 9 models, what not fit's to the standarts. I would like prefer R5/i5 and R7/i7 with highest single core perfomance and greatest RAM controllers on it, and to the R9 and i9 less frequency for the less temperatures and TDP and maybe having not the greatest ram controllers. It's not so necessary for working station's in compare to the games, but i'm understand it's not working like that.
Would be interesting to see if it makes a difference for VR gaming. I have 8 cores cpu i7-9700k overclocked to 4800Ghz. I often see it being utilised at 100% under load. I wonder if upgrading to i9-9900K has any sense in my case, it has the same amount of cores but 16 insead of 8 threads.
@@BaieDesBaies I've upgraded to i7-13700k. It's a beast. Does not exceed 50C after undervolting while playing games in 4k on full settings. Paired with 4080 GPU.
@@pistopit7142 Great choice ! It is way better than the i9 9th gen. I went for a i5 14600K because it was cheaper than any i5 13600K i could find. Not as powerful as the 13700K but still a beast and paired with my 3080 there is 99% bottleneck on GPU in most games lmao.
Sometimes on these 2 ccx cpus it creates latency if it's using all the cores because it has to communicate between them, usually seen in the lows. Limiting the. To 8 cores or 6 cores depending on how many are on each ccx is the reason sometimes you may seem higher fps. Or just get an 8 core cou if your not using that many threads.
Yeah, I noticed that too. 8-cores only looks like the sweet-spot in this test because only one CCD is being used. Usually CCD #0 is a little bit of a better bin than CCD #1, so that helps too. in regards to boost clocks. Despite framerates being mostly the same, I also noticed 6-cores sometimes had slightly worse frametimes. I hope that Zen 5 has 6-cores per CCX... which would make for 12-cores per CCD.
@@Peter.H.A.Petersen have you looked at the 7950x3d? Only 1 ccx gets the cache, if a game uses more cores than what's on one ccx you lose a lot of the x3d performance.
@@anthonyrizzo9043 Zen 4 has no CCX'es, unless you call the hole CCD/die a CCX ... Even the non x3d 7950X has latency problems if a game uses cores from both dies. That's probably why the 7700X is generally faster than the 7950X in games!
@@Peter.H.A.Petersen I thought it was 2 ccxs on 1 ccd . This is from anandtech, you can search it. Comparing core to core latencies from Zen 4 (7950X) and Zen 3 (5950X), both are using a two CCX 8-core chiplet design, which is a marked improvement over the four CCX 16-core design featured on the Zen 2 microarchitecture, the Ryzen 9 3950X. The inter-core latencies within the L3 cache range from between 15 ns and 19 ns. The inter-core latencies between different cores within different parts of the CCD show a larger latency penalty of up to 79.5 ns, which is something AMD should work on going forward, but it's an overall improvement in cross CCX latencies compared to Zen 3. Any gain is still a gain.
Not a great comparison, you have just disabled some cores of 7950X to achieve this, things like L3 cache remain the same, you need to use different CPUs that actually have 4,6,8,12 and 16 cores
When you add streaming or recording to the background processes, FPS averages and lows will dip. 8 core/16 thread minimum recommended. If you are just playing a game, 6 core/12 thread will be fine. 4 core/8 thread should not be used with a RTX 4090 tier GPU. Really 4c/8T should only be used for basic computing tasks anymore IMO.
@Magnus Lööv Well technically it is about X cores and Y threads because AMD does not use the Big/Little architecture that Intel does. Even on older Intel chips that people are still using, they are not a hybrid architecture. 9th, 10th and 11th Gen for examples.
Hardware Unboxed did a video About this As well Some Games rely more on the CPU and some games rely more on the GPU. I think a lot of people misunderstand On how modern CPU's are becoming more powerful and efficient Then they ever were before. Its literally to a point where it's a small difference between framerate regardless of what cpu you have
I assume in this test 8 cores and less is a single CCD enabled and the 12 core is 2 cores on each CCD disabled. The 1% and 0.1% lows look the best usually with 8 cores. Rwaosn being I think is because of dual CCD and the latency penalty where it has to cross infinity fabric. There is no CPU with more than 8 strong cores on a single CCD or ring on current archs and there has not been since Comet Lake. Even 6 cores 12 threads is enough for high end gaming now in most cases and 8 cores 16 threads in like all cases assuming not doing excessive background tasks. Though if any games start to use more than 8 cores 16 threads, we really need AMD or Intel to release a chip with 10-12 P cores on a single CCD/ring. Some games liek CYberPunk 2.0 and Starfield can use up to 16 threads, though based on testing of CYberPunk, CPU usage on my 7800X3D at 4K with DLSS Quality on RTX 4090 is usually in the 20-35% and only once in a while goes up in heavy traffic and NPC areas to like 55 to 60% at most. So hard to see 8 cores not more than enough anytime soon. And high end 8 cores is the right and best choice for a RTX 4090 build unless you are ok dealing with scheduling issues and forcing to lock game threads to a single CCD in Ryzen CPUs in which case it would only be worth it if you also use it for productivity tasks as well. Otherwise I would have gotten more cores to futureproof for gaming (If Intel or AMD they had current arch with 10-12 P core son single ring/CCD) but games just do not seem to scale well to lots of cores. I am sure 1 or 2 are maxed close to 100% but rest are only used a bit as games are so hard to parallelize.
Please make a video about RTX 4090 + R9 7950x3D FG + DLSS ULTRA PREFORMANCE once with RTX Ultra PERFORMANCE and once without RTX on 4K ULTRA in MFS2020
Please make a video about RTX 4090 + R9 7950x3D FG + DLSS ULTRA PREFORMANCE once with RTX Ultra PERFORMANCE and once without RTX on 4K ULTRA in MFS2020
Please make a video about RTX 4090 + R9 7950x3D FG + DLSS ULTRA PREFORMANCE once with RTX Ultra PERFORMANCE and once without RTX on 4K ULTRA in MFS2020
can you make/add a single game test with battlefield 5 or 2042 because that game tends to make use of every single available core and often even uses 100% util on most recent multicore CPUs
Intel wins because of Ring Bus, you don't lose 1% lows beyond 8 cores. Notice how the infinity fabric and cross CCD latency hurts 1% lows for 12 and 16 cores vs 8.
Great work to compile all this data. Can you do this comparison for something like a RX 6700 XT? I don't think there will be much difference between these CPUs if they are paired with anything below the RTX 4080. Yes, there might be a difference in the overall system snappiness or game smoothness but I don't think the Average FPS will be that different.
I think that it doesn't matter how many cores there are in the cpu but rather the speed to play... although the new standard that is being imposed is >> 6 cores running at least 3.5 Ghz or higher
Clock speeds are marketing bullshit. The improvements in CPU architecture each subsequent generations means more instructions are executed with each cycle--so even if next-gen chips have lower frequency, it may actually be faster.
Games that are extremely cpu bound due to just shoddy coding or engine limitations are going to be a waste for newer cpu's. See hogwarts as an example. With that said 6 cores is the sweet spot.
How many cores do you need?, just look at the latest console, that is the base, and so for other spec. When to upgrade? Wait until next gen console release..
6 cores still seem like the sweet spot and the way to go, unless you do a lot of multitasking and multithreaded workloads and need the extra cores, 6 cores should be fine for most. Spending more money on a GPU and going for a 7600x or 13600k makes way more sense
This is all single player games, obviously they are not cpu intensive but it would have been nice to see some bf2042 or any multiplayer game which acctually can use hyperthreading and all cores
@Rute Fernandes Not really, cause 13600K has 14 cores and 20 threads actually... Those 8 E cores can easily handle videos/streams in the background while 6 P cores run the game.
@@mercygotnerfed315 I disagree, I still think spending that extra money will be more worth while on a gpu. If you're comparing broken mp games like 2042 and mmo's like new world then yeah maybe...
i have nvidia 3070 asus tuf && i5 6600k overclocked to constant 4.5 GHz. CPU 4 core. In cyberpunk i have ~100% CPU load, fps with similar settings is ~60-70 in rooms and 30 in most loaded scenes in city. CPU power is ~70 Wt. No throttling. Why my fps isn`t 100 as on video? 4 cores vs 4 codes. Where is my bottleneck? Old CPU architecture?
Nah without Gpu amd are plain better go get the Ryzen 3 3200g or the Ryzen 5 5600g if you're looking to upgrade, or just buy GPU and use Ryzen 5 3600 since it's not ridiculous anymore, amd platform has more life than intel it's pretty impressive, I mean intel change their socket every 2 years or so compared to amd 6 years
Amazing that you keep testing the same games over and over, and over again. You know that there are tens of thousands of games, right? How about some simulations that stress the CPU more, pal? Like, Stellaris, Rimworld, Factorio...
Very disapointing again in 2023. At most towards Flight Sim that demands so much CPU power and fails so hard to use what is already there. Looks like, I need to turn off HT and overclock instead
Hogwarts Legacy RT concurs with The Witcher 3 as the worst performant RayTracing game ever made. It's nuts! This is not right. To be clear no one is questioning the overall quality of the games, they are amazing games, but they need some serious quality control making those pc games.
this is a great review. Only game i saw gain from 12 cores was MSFS an just a small boost. So unless you are running apps on the side like streaming extra cores won't help and single core performance is still king.
Still rocking a 7700kwith 32gif 0:43 I edit and game ect I do what most people do with 8-12-16 core machines. I am thinking of finally upgrading this year or earlier who knows maybe I can push it another 12 months but I doubt it.
Yes.... maybe no. Hard to say. With the 8-core test, he's using one CCD. With the 12-core and 16-core tests, the 2nd CCD is in use, which is never binned as well as the 1st CCD, and creates a bit of latency. Then again, if AMD made a CCD that had 16-cores, I would only expect the 16-core unit to be slightly better in a small handful of games. What mindfvcks everyone here is a larger die will prob have more cache, and the extra cache will make it better at gaming.
It is, cause he wanted to have a fair comparrison for every core. Obviously a 4 core cpu is cut down alot but to see if maybe a 16 core cpu also only needs 4 cores he tested everything with the same cpu and he came to the conclusion that after 8 cores, its innthe margine of error. 6 cored to 8 cores is a slight jump and from 4 cores to 6 cores is a huge jump in genral. So if 6 and 8 core has the same cache and almost the same frequnzy, than a upgrade depends on the price. Like a 5600 is much better value than the 5700x because its actually not that much better and for gaming 8 cores is just a slighty increase.
This doesn't really feel like a proper comparison. Lower core CPUs have descending clocks and cache, making the decrease in core counts the same as a decrease in overall performance.
Games :
Forza Horizon 5 - 0:21 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesForza5
Hogwarts Legacy - 1:26 - gvo.deals/TG3HogwartsLegacy
Atomic Heart - 2:23
CYBERPUNK 2077 - 3:30 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesCP2077
Spider-Man - 4:31 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesSpiderManPC
Microsoft Flight Simulator - 5:35 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesMFS20
The Witcher 3 - 7:00 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesWitcher
System:
Windows 11
Ryzen 9 7950X 5.0GHz (SMT - ON) - bit.ly/3BVcNvQ
Gigabyte X670E AORUS MASTER - bit.ly/3BRDIIG
CPU Cooler - be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 - bit.ly/35G5atV
GeForce RTX 4090 24GB - bit.ly/3CSaMCj
G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB 32GB DDR5 6000MHz CL32
SSD - 2xSAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 1TB - bit.ly/2NmWeQe
Power Supply CORSAIR RM850i 850W - bit.ly/3i2VoGI
Thanks dud
Please ad Call of Duty:Modern Warfare || to tests🥺
1080p ultra...c'mon bro. 4k time
smt on 4 cores it is 8 cores smt off. You have to test 2/4 4/8 and 6/12 cpus bastard
The fact that most of these games are running at 120+ fps, some 200+ fps but Hogwarts is barely hitting 60 at 1080p is SAD.
Am saying 😂. Like even for a machine like this. What does that game want
@@mathewsphiri5629 Faster IPC and more L3 cache. This game is more dependent on a few cores running higher frequency and gets some limited use out of 3D V-cache. a 5600X3D and 5800X3D both get 60 fps 1080p ultra where a standard 5700X gets 53 fps. the 5700X3D get 57 fps, slower than the 5600X3D. Clearly, cores matter little when the game only uses a few.
4 cores: gaming entry level
6 cores: good enough
8 cores: better investment for the future
12/16 cores: overpaid if bought only for gaming
Spot on
Accurate
precise
Aye but the 8 core variant is not for futureproofing per say as the next gen 6 core will surpass it immediately.
Agree with that, Sir
Very interesting video. It seems all we need is a CPU with 6 cores atm, if you wanna save money to spend on other PC parts.
You are right 👍
Hogwarts Legacy doesn't count, that garbage makes 2007 Crysis look like a masterpiece by the CPU optimization, the 1% lows are so sh*t.
Not really. The testing was made on clear windows install with just a singleplayer game running. In real life scenario you would have some background tasks, discord, browser, probably 2nd or 3rd monitor and some other stuff running on your pc. And here 8 cores do their job
@@bartix698 that's an exception
@@bartix698 discord and browser dont make much difference with modern cpus hell i got a 6 core and can unzip stuff with winrar and while gaming no problem
It seems that we are slowly moving toward 8 cores as a standard, however 6 cores are still a sweetspot. You would want to put extra money into gpu, not 8 core cpu
For single player games *
@@mercygotnerfed315 id say generally
@@mercygotnerfed315 sp or mp doesn't matter
Yap, just move to 1440 and CPU become useless. Better buy higher GPU than CPU!
Nah for 2 frames ? More cores are only good for high frames but you don't need more than 144 it's useless 6 cores will forever be the best till devs utilize more than 6 cores
I would say if it's just for gaming.
4/8 Minimum.
6/12 Recommended.
8/16 Optimal.
12/24 Max overkill for prolly 90% of games.
16/32 Absolute overkill i'd think for any game, as far as I'm aware of.
id say if you record or stream + use 2nd led for monitoring 8 is minimum prob 13600k or 5700x
@@iikatinggangsengii2471 do the 13600ks e cores help when streaming?
@Alex of course. The performance Cores run the Game. The efficiency Cores your Streaming /recording Program.
@Melon are the e cores really good enough for streaming and If so how does the operating system know which ones to use for what since both task are highly intensive
i've got i5 10600kf running everything smoothly
Glad I upgraded to a 5700x from a 3600x. My %1 lows and average frames instantly went up
That's mainly because of the higher clock speed + Better IPC (efficiency) rather than the +core count .
@@OussaMeb most definitely. But since the 5700x wasnt much more than the 5600x it seemed right to just go for the 8 core chip. Especially since games will just get more cpu demanding in the future. But as of now im mostly gpu bound in most games
@Mike most definitely. I play at 1440p with a 3080 so im still gpu bound in most games. But i did still get a solid uplift in lows and averages
for these reasons I continue with my 10700
just be one step ahead: if everyone says the sweet spot is 6-cores cpu, better buy 8-cores cpu. if everyone says 16gb RAM is enough for gaming - buy 32gb, disable pagefile and say goodbye to stutters in game even if you multitasking
exactly what i did. When everyone buying a 4790k, buy a 5820k 6 core. Also the first cpu to support ddr4 and quad channel. Wasnt even that much more expensive and could overclock easily to the same core on core performance of the 4790k. Still holds its own today, and didnt really get surpassed until the 8700k.
Oh man, feels like yesterday when most people agreed all you really needed was 4 cores, I've only recently upgraded to 8 core 16 threads, seems to be holding up nicely
yea on 1080p u will have a difference but at higher resolutions like 1440p and above u wont a have a cpu issue even with 4 cores, at 4k u dont even need to worry even if u have an i3
You still don't need more than 6 cores
I have 6 cores 12 threads, my CPU is a Ryzen 5 4500, guess i don't have anything to worry about cause i game at 1680 x 1050 res.
@Mike bottleneck
@@Mike-cj2gc Short: Higher FPS (120+) are dependent on how fast CPU can process. Resolution does not matter for CPU.
Explanation: For gaming, Faster CPU (Above 4 core) is needed to push more frames each second.
Because final image is processed by CPU after GPU calculates all mesh, textures and shaders.
Say if you increase resolution, Your FPS goes down thus CPU usage also goes down.
For your case, I suspect if background programs are hogging (like Windows Update, Discord...)
The thing is 4 core of the 7950X is way more powerful than an actual old ass 4 core cpu it's probably comparable to 6 core cpu's
yes, i5 7400 is the real 4 cores cpu
This isn't a CPU comparison, it's a comparison between the number of cores being available, don't read too much into the stats itself, just pay attention to the frame rate, either way you look at it, it paints a generally clear picture that there's a noticeable performance gain or loss depending on how many physical cores you have available for modern games, so if you have something like an i5 7400 then it means you definitely need an upgrade
CPU architecture is more important than # of cpu core which is more important than hyper threads (amd SMT or intel HT) which is more important than cpu frequencies in MHz. That's all.
No wonder my i7 6700k with 4 cores stutters and lags when i do streaming on Tiktok or RUclips while playing FIFA23 or any story games like Tomb Raider, etc. It's always on 100% CPU usage and made the game crash too sometimes. So should i upgrade to a new CPU? And if so my motherboard too right?
"should i upgrade to a new CPU"
Yes.
"if so, my motherboard too right?"
Also yes. For multitasking, target Alder Lake and Raptor Lake because of Thread Director, scheduling on AMD CPUs is dumber.
A direct fps bump can be seen between 6 and 4, after 6 increasing cores improves fps (which is not noticeable) but the price difference is hugee
no realistically one go from smth like 2200g or i5 4670 to smth like 5600/12400f which will be quite huge jump prob double fps
@@iikatinggangsengii2471 on friday i built my i5 12400f rig (switching from an i5 2500k, same gpu which is a gtx 950 however i plan to upgrade to a rx 6700 xt in the future) and the difference was huge, 100+ fps in every cpu based game that i play (like csgo, where i get 200-300, used to get 120-180)
Try it in 4k and difference is way bigger
@@matiasvaisanen83594k is for bullied losers.
6cores now the best spot for gaming
But 8 cores looks more future directed.
I was saying the same as i bought my FX8350 back in 2012. This "future" is still future even today :D The best advice would be just get the best current gen price/performance CPU. In my situation today i will be upgrading from my i7 7700k to R5 7600x. Hopefully this month. In 5 years i will be upgrading again to a maybe 3d cache CPU. We will see.
By the time your 6 core cpu becomes obsolete it will be time for an upgrade anyway and the 8 core you spent extra money will become weak so you will always upgrade to the new one future proofing is dumb af
yes buy 6 unless your specific needs requires more/more convenient if more (eg multitask work + video playback, instrument playing etc you get the idea)
@@Amzyy i think the way to do it is just keep the current stuff you have until it literally becomes pretty slow or notice a significant amount of performance drop (either on newer titles or the games you usually play that usually runs smoothly), if the stuff you currently have is still chugging along pretty well on most if not all the games you play then theres not a reason to upgrade yet, and of course make sure to do your maintenance such as updating drivers, clean up once in a while, update BIOS etc etc so the lifespan is longer so you can save up more money and by the time youre in need of an upgrade youll be getting some of the nice mid-high end parts youve been eyeing
I would still buy 6 core cpu for 3060ti in future to be honest, only for 3070 and above you actually can see diffrence cause you need more 2 core to utilize it i am having 5600x now gonna switch to 5600 in futre when my 5600x die hope my 3060ti live long
Playing at 1440p no rt only dlss quality in aa games and dlss performance in comp games
We don't need a lot of cores. We need better optimization for pc.
It's shocking how unoptimized/broken Hogwarts Legacy is, and on a 4090 nonetheless!
Yes, I was very surprised by such low performance at Full HD.
I don’t know if I should then hope for optimization for my RTX2060 super)))
@@Viper4858 I don't think you should worry about it too much if you're not using RT.
@@Nayr7928 You are right, by the way, in this game, even without RT, most of the surfaces have quality reflections.
I wish there were less FPS drops.
because Denuvo
I think it's funny that it uses so much system RAM. 16GB is not enough for a modern gaming rig anylonger
Now test this 7950X on 1GHz and 16 cores
when disabling cores did you use bios? when selecting which cores to disable did you keep them on the same ccd? 4+0 or 2+2? 6+0 or 3+3?
Results look good because you had SMT on. Me having R5 3500x (6 cores without SMT), I face quite bad issues with quite a lot of modern games. Please, try with SMT off.
Why do you have smt off? Just disable the affinity inside the pc
@@UkiKuki877 Because the CPU doesn't support SMT.
@@darexas1602 Well. fudge
For modern games there is a significant difference between 4 cores with and without SMT.
Recently I was thinking about going from i3 10100f to i5 10400f and after a while of thinking I did it and the difference was really big
i think it really depends on your GPU, if its a weak GPU it wont matter at all
@@mahmoudrabya585 Depends on the game
@@mahmoudrabya585 Previously, when I started playing fortnite, the whole game stuttered for a few minutes, and after changing the CPU, this problem was practically gone. Same in minecraft (I have a gtx 1660 super and 16gb ram for this so it's a very good configuration)
Fortnite, Pubg and similar games does depend on the CPU
I miscalculated how popular these games are, but they are the only exception to the rule
Nice to hear that I have an i5 10400f and sometimes thinking about was it useless against i3? Good I choosed i5 instead for gaming.
6 cores are more than good enough. And the difference gets even slimmer at higher resolution.
Atomic Heart is only new released game that is optimized pretty well, or optimized at all rather.
8 cores is a sweetspot
4 enough without SMT or hyperthearding
LoL, i was about to say this exactly 💯😂
My man
6 cores is a sweet spot
@@hlanbarjar 6 is beginning to seem more like just the minimum requirement these days
Exactly the video I asked for 2 days ago on your older version of this. Great timing! Thank you.
I have still the I7 4790 16GB Ram and the GTX 1070 and i love the PC!
I still have my 1070 but I'm retiring it this year.
depends on background applications as well, If you're purely gaming 6 is fine but if you want OBS or a variety of other applications then 8 if you're having to manage large sets of, data depending on how big, 8+
true 6 just enough/convenient for gaming only, multitask its struggling
Still 6 cores is a good buy
4 cores : budget
6 cores : best budget
8 cores : standard for most users(there is a chance you get 8 cores cpu for better prices)
>12 cores : RICH
6 or 8 cores is enough
To just simplify 6 cores is MINIMUM in 2023. 8 core is more ideal and everything over that is luxury. To people wondering if 6 is ideal why not just stop there? is because the more cores and threads you have the better the fps. and not just more , the better the fps you get better frame pacing, which means you will have less micro stutters in your game the more cores and threads you have. So you reading this dont think just because your using a 4 core 8 thread cpu and a 4090 and you getting hella fps that it will be a good experience. you will have bad frame timing and pacing even though the gpu is giving you the frames.. the cpu cannot keep up and you will get micro stutters. just look at that line graph you see between them all its the most stable on the highest core and thread cpu obviously
how i see it are.. non streamer (budget 4 core, preferable 6 core, ideal 12 core), Streamer (Budget 8 core, preferable 12 core, ideal 16 core).
so waiting for 7800x3d🤭
Dont like the fact of that if you want the greatest cpu for gaming, you still must buy i9 or R9 CPUs. Someones says "games cant utilize so many cores" - that's right, but highest CPU models it's a winners of sillicon lottery - they have highest clocks etc, and even if you don't wanna have too many cores, but want best RAM controller and single core perfomance - you still need buy i9 or R9. Other 7, 5, 3 cpu models from both of the companies - it's a "defective" version's of a 9 models, what not fit's to the standarts.
I would like prefer R5/i5 and R7/i7 with highest single core perfomance and greatest RAM controllers on it, and to the R9 and i9 less frequency for the less temperatures and TDP and maybe having not the greatest ram controllers. It's not so necessary for working station's in compare to the games, but i'm understand it's not working like that.
8 cores, got it.
Finally a test where CPU freq is the same ... between cores of ONE cpu :D
The fact that Hogwarts Legacy performs worse than Microsoft Flight Simulator...
They really need to optimize that game.
Crysis 2007 runs way better on 1% lows than that dumpster fire, also Crysis 2007 still has WAY better physics than Hogwarts Legacy.
6 cores is enough))
4 more than
Oh cool, the same music people use in their videos to show off how strong and vicious their pitbulls are.
however 8 performance cores is the top of the line on intel's muddafakkas
8-12-16 cores same performance with all games but 8 core is the best in efficiency.
Because AMD chips have the problem of cross CCD latency, so perfomance beyond 8 cores is actually worse.
All you need is a single freaking core that can run Crysis.
Still far smoother and way better physics for that 2007 game than Hogwarts Legacy garbage stuttery mess.
6 cores is a sweet spot for gamers😎
Hogwarts Legacy is also garbage, no difference between 4 cores and beyond. The worst CPU optimized game basically since Crysis Remastered on launch.
Fact
4 cores are still enough for 60 fps gaming
yup cheap 6 core cpu's are great for gaming
Would you to see star citizen tested Ike this
Would be interesting to see if it makes a difference for VR gaming. I have 8 cores cpu i7-9700k overclocked to 4800Ghz. I often see it being utilised at 100% under load. I wonder if upgrading to i9-9900K has any sense in my case, it has the same amount of cores but 16 insead of 8 threads.
I wouldn’t bother at that point upgrade the motherboard
It wouldn’t be worth it
I'd rather upgrade to any recent CPU if i were you.
Any i5 from now beats a 9th gen i9 : more cores, more clock speed, more cache...
@@BaieDesBaies I've upgraded to i7-13700k. It's a beast. Does not exceed 50C after undervolting while playing games in 4k on full settings. Paired with 4080 GPU.
@@pistopit7142 Great choice ! It is way better than the i9 9th gen.
I went for a i5 14600K because it was cheaper than any i5 13600K i could find.
Not as powerful as the 13700K but still a beast and paired with my 3080 there is 99% bottleneck on GPU in most games lmao.
Sometimes on these 2 ccx cpus it creates latency if it's using all the cores because it has to communicate between them, usually seen in the lows. Limiting the. To 8 cores or 6 cores depending on how many are on each ccx is the reason sometimes you may seem higher fps. Or just get an 8 core cou if your not using that many threads.
Yeah, I noticed that too. 8-cores only looks like the sweet-spot in this test because only one CCD is being used. Usually CCD #0 is a little bit of a better bin than CCD #1, so that helps too. in regards to boost clocks.
Despite framerates being mostly the same, I also noticed 6-cores sometimes had slightly worse frametimes.
I hope that Zen 5 has 6-cores per CCX... which would make for 12-cores per CCD.
@@m8x425 Zen 3 and Zen 4 does not use CCX'es. All 8 cores can aces all L3 cache on the die directly, unlike Zen, Zen+ and Zen 2!
@@Peter.H.A.Petersen have you looked at the 7950x3d? Only 1 ccx gets the cache, if a game uses more cores than what's on one ccx you lose a lot of the x3d performance.
@@anthonyrizzo9043 Zen 4 has no CCX'es, unless you call the hole CCD/die a CCX ... Even the non x3d 7950X has latency problems if a game uses cores from both dies. That's probably why the 7700X is generally faster than the 7950X in games!
@@Peter.H.A.Petersen I thought it was 2 ccxs on 1 ccd . This is from anandtech, you can search it.
Comparing core to core latencies from Zen 4 (7950X) and Zen 3 (5950X), both are using a two CCX 8-core chiplet design, which is a marked improvement over the four CCX 16-core design featured on the Zen 2 microarchitecture, the Ryzen 9 3950X. The inter-core latencies within the L3 cache range from between 15 ns and 19 ns. The inter-core latencies between different cores within different parts of the CCD show a larger latency penalty of up to 79.5 ns, which is something AMD should work on going forward, but it's an overall improvement in cross CCX latencies compared to Zen 3. Any gain is still a gain.
Looks like my 10900k will be holding up for a bit longer
Not a great comparison, you have just disabled some cores of 7950X to achieve this, things like L3 cache remain the same, you need to use different CPUs that actually have 4,6,8,12 and 16 cores
"Tech deals " is punching the air right now .
The architecture matters now, not cores. 8 old cores are slower than 4 modern.
When you add streaming or recording to the background processes, FPS averages and lows will dip. 8 core/16 thread minimum recommended. If you are just playing a game, 6 core/12 thread will be fine. 4 core/8 thread should not be used with a RTX 4090 tier GPU. Really 4c/8T should only be used for basic computing tasks anymore IMO.
That's what the 8 E-cores in the 6 P-core 13600k is for. It's not only about X cores and Y threads anymore.
@Magnus Lööv Well technically it is about X cores and Y threads because AMD does not use the Big/Little architecture that Intel does. Even on older Intel chips that people are still using, they are not a hybrid architecture. 9th, 10th and 11th Gen for examples.
say that to my 7700k @ 5Ghz
Hardware Unboxed did a video About this As well Some Games rely more on the CPU and some games rely more on the GPU. I think a lot of people misunderstand On how modern CPU's are becoming more powerful and efficient Then they ever were before. Its literally to a point where it's a small difference between framerate regardless of what cpu you have
I assume in this test 8 cores and less is a single CCD enabled and the 12 core is 2 cores on each CCD disabled. The 1% and 0.1% lows look the best usually with 8 cores. Rwaosn being I think is because of dual CCD and the latency penalty where it has to cross infinity fabric. There is no CPU with more than 8 strong cores on a single CCD or ring on current archs and there has not been since Comet Lake. Even 6 cores 12 threads is enough for high end gaming now in most cases and 8 cores 16 threads in like all cases assuming not doing excessive background tasks.
Though if any games start to use more than 8 cores 16 threads, we really need AMD or Intel to release a chip with 10-12 P cores on a single CCD/ring.
Some games liek CYberPunk 2.0 and Starfield can use up to 16 threads, though based on testing of CYberPunk, CPU usage on my 7800X3D at 4K with DLSS Quality on RTX 4090 is usually in the 20-35% and only once in a while goes up in heavy traffic and NPC areas to like 55 to 60% at most. So hard to see 8 cores not more than enough anytime soon. And high end 8 cores is the right and best choice for a RTX 4090 build unless you are ok dealing with scheduling issues and forcing to lock game threads to a single CCD in Ryzen CPUs in which case it would only be worth it if you also use it for productivity tasks as well. Otherwise I would have gotten more cores to futureproof for gaming (If Intel or AMD they had current arch with 10-12 P core son single ring/CCD) but games just do not seem to scale well to lots of cores. I am sure 1 or 2 are maxed close to 100% but rest are only used a bit as games are so hard to parallelize.
Please make a video about RTX 4090 + R9 7950x3D FG + DLSS ULTRA PREFORMANCE once with RTX Ultra PERFORMANCE and once without RTX on 4K ULTRA in MFS2020
Please make a video about RTX 4090 + R9 7950x3D FG + DLSS ULTRA PREFORMANCE once with RTX Ultra PERFORMANCE and once without RTX on 4K ULTRA in MFS2020
Please make a video about RTX 4090 + R9 7950x3D FG + DLSS ULTRA PREFORMANCE once with RTX Ultra PERFORMANCE and once without RTX on 4K ULTRA in MFS2020
can you make/add a single game test with battlefield 5 or 2042 because that game tends to make use of every single available core and often even uses 100% util on most recent multicore CPUs
Intel wins because of Ring Bus, you don't lose 1% lows beyond 8 cores. Notice how the infinity fabric and cross CCD latency hurts 1% lows for 12 and 16 cores vs 8.
@@saricubra2867 no, i dont mean on intel, i mean on cpu he used in this vid
Great work to compile all this data. Can you do this comparison for something like a RX 6700 XT?
I don't think there will be much difference between these CPUs if they are paired with anything below the RTX 4080. Yes, there might be a difference in the overall system snappiness or game smoothness but I don't think the Average FPS will be that different.
8
i think 6 is OK for 80% of games 8 is future proof NEXT 5 years !!!
8 core is enough
I think that it doesn't matter how many cores there are in the cpu but rather the speed to play... although the new standard that is being imposed is >> 6 cores running at least 3.5 Ghz or higher
Clock speeds are marketing bullshit. The improvements in CPU architecture each subsequent generations means more instructions are executed with each cycle--so even if next-gen chips have lower frequency, it may actually be faster.
no its true 3.5 and up are recommended, oc yours if yours not
Yeah like 5600X with PBO can go to a whopping 4.85ghz. With Zen 3 architecture and oc that's just incredible IPC isnt it?
8 cores gang
Games that are extremely cpu bound due to just shoddy coding or engine limitations are going to be a waste for newer cpu's. See hogwarts as an example. With that said 6 cores is the sweet spot.
i like how this guy playing usless games LOL instead of testing high cpu demanding games like battlefeild rust XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
These do not like the games that should be used to check which amount of cores is needed.
Literally has the Witcher 3........
How many cores do you need?, just look at the latest console, that is the base, and so for other spec. When to upgrade? Wait until next gen console release..
6 cores still seem like the sweet spot and the way to go, unless you do a lot of multitasking and multithreaded workloads and need the extra cores, 6 cores should be fine for most. Spending more money on a GPU and going for a 7600x or 13600k makes way more sense
This is all single player games, obviously they are not cpu intensive but it would have been nice to see some bf2042 or any multiplayer game which acctually can use hyperthreading and all cores
@Rute Fernandes Not really, cause 13600K has 14 cores and 20 threads actually... Those 8 E cores can easily handle videos/streams in the background while 6 P cores run the game.
@@mercygotnerfed315 Yes you're right but I still don't think that would have changed the fact that 6 cores is still the sweet spot
@@ProTroy_ I think 8 is the sweet spot if you more of a mmo or big mutli fps like battlefields. 6 really bound any decent gpu
@@mercygotnerfed315 I disagree, I still think spending that extra money will be more worth while on a gpu. If you're comparing broken mp games like 2042 and mmo's like new world then yeah maybe...
6 cores is enough
4 no more
Tere lye 6 core enough he khachar
Laure tere lye 4 core enough he teri auqat hi yahi he chutiye
this video would have been more useful if youd show core usage instead of just FPS.
6
i have nvidia 3070 asus tuf && i5 6600k overclocked to constant 4.5 GHz.
CPU 4 core. In cyberpunk i have ~100% CPU load, fps with similar settings is ~60-70 in rooms and 30 in most loaded scenes in city.
CPU power is ~70 Wt. No throttling.
Why my fps isn`t 100 as on video?
4 cores vs 4 codes. Where is my bottleneck? Old CPU architecture?
I wish i can upgrade to i3 12100F from Athlon 3000G oc :")
Nah without Gpu amd are plain better go get the Ryzen 3 3200g or the Ryzen 5 5600g if you're looking to upgrade, or just buy GPU and use Ryzen 5 3600 since it's not ridiculous anymore, amd platform has more life than intel it's pretty impressive, I mean intel change their socket every 2 years or so compared to amd 6 years
5800X3D ❤
The reason you should choose 8/16 and not 6/12. PS5 and Xbox have 8/16... Means the focus at games optimazion is at 8/16 ..
So nothing change in the last decade, 6 core still the sweetspot for gaming, no need to go beyond that unleash you already have top of the line GPU
Amazing that you keep testing the same games over and over, and over again. You know that there are tens of thousands of games, right? How about some simulations that stress the CPU more, pal? Like, Stellaris, Rimworld, Factorio...
Very disapointing again in 2023.
At most towards Flight Sim that demands so much CPU power and fails so hard to use what is already there.
Looks like, I need to turn off HT and overclock instead
2023 taking games 5 years old like witcher... . why not cod, bf multiplayer? they use cpu a lot and not singleplayer games 5 years old...
Hogwarts Legacy RT concurs with The Witcher 3 as the worst performant RayTracing game ever made. It's nuts! This is not right. To be clear no one is questioning the overall quality of the games, they are amazing games, but they need some serious quality control making those pc games.
PLEASE a video like this but testing Ryzen 7950x3D
this is a great review. Only game i saw gain from 12 cores was MSFS an just a small boost. So unless you are running apps on the side like streaming extra cores won't help and single core performance is still king.
4/8 lol no
6/12 budget sweetspot
8/16 futureproof solidspot
You don't even need to think about the rest for gaming.
How many CPU core do you need in 2023?
Proceeds to test old games 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Dear god, why Atomic Heart? ☠💀☠💀
6 seems to be the sweetspot which is why mny 5820k is hanging on despite the ancient architechture. buying new id probably get an 8 core
More than 8 cores seems overkill
For single player games *
@@grimfist79 meh
Cross CCD latency penalty hurting 1% lows on AMD, on Intel the experience is smoother.
I have a 5800x3d (8 cores). Wondering if it’s enough to game and stream. I play in 4k
Looks like as long as it’s not 4 cores you’re good cause all the other ones are about the same
Still rocking a 7700kwith 32gif 0:43 I edit and game ect I do what most people do with 8-12-16 core machines. I am thinking of finally upgrading this year or earlier who knows maybe I can push it another 12 months but I doubt it.
very interesting !!
above 8 core is completly useless ^^
and 6 core does a good job.
4 is not enought.
Yes.... maybe no. Hard to say. With the 8-core test, he's using one CCD. With the 12-core and 16-core tests, the 2nd CCD is in use, which is never binned as well as the 1st CCD, and creates a bit of latency.
Then again, if AMD made a CCD that had 16-cores, I would only expect the 16-core unit to be slightly better in a small handful of games. What mindfvcks everyone here is a larger die will prob have more cache, and the extra cache will make it better at gaming.
This ain't a relevant test.Common 4-core CPUs run at 4ghz instead of 5,have different architecture,cache size,etc...
It is, cause he wanted to have a fair comparrison for every core.
Obviously a 4 core cpu is cut down alot but to see if maybe a 16 core cpu also only needs 4 cores he tested everything with the same cpu and he came to the conclusion that after 8 cores, its innthe margine of error. 6 cored to 8 cores is a slight jump and from 4 cores to 6 cores is a huge jump in genral.
So if 6 and 8 core has the same cache and almost the same frequnzy, than a upgrade depends on the price. Like a 5600 is much better value than the 5700x because its actually not that much better and for gaming 8 cores is just a slighty increase.
This doesn't really feel like a proper comparison. Lower core CPUs have descending clocks and cache, making the decrease in core counts the same as a decrease in overall performance.
4 cores for 30fps- 60fps is ok.
If you play games at 144+fps, you need 8 cores.
You don't need 8 cores for gaming. At all. What you need is high IPC and modern architecture.
i have i7 11700Kf and im pleased with it.
Would be really nice to see star citizen since it likes to use all the cores