How much longer will 6 core CPU's be useable for gaming?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- Steve goes ham...
Join us on Patreon: / hardwareunboxed
Join us on Floatplane: www.floatplane.com/channel/Ha...
Buy relevant products from Amazon, Newegg and others below:
Core i5-11600K - geni.us/jlEP
Core i7-11700K - geni.us/4s6Flp6
Core i9-11900K - geni.us/pq4sO
Core i5-10600K - geni.us/Rrku
Core i5-10600KF - geni.us/IH7l5FP
Core i7-10700K - geni.us/hNx1
Core i9-10900K - geni.us/tH9y
Ryzen 9 5950X - geni.us/NsJEp
Ryzen 9 5900X - geni.us/h38MFeB
Ryzen 7 5800X - geni.us/AkRU1R9
Ryzen 5 5600X - geni.us/Vyz5
Ryzen 5 3600 - geni.us/w5Q4k6F
Disclaimer: Any pricing information shown or mentioned in this video was accurate at the time of video production, and may have since changed
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. We may also earn a commission on some sales made through other store links
FOLLOW US IN THESE PLACES FOR UPDATES
Twitter - / hardwareunboxed
Facebook - / hardwareunboxed
Instagram - / hardwareunb. .
Music By: / lakeyinspired
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Visualizer)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
man it's been 5 years now and i'm still rocking my i7 8700k with 6core and matching my new GPU 3080 still no problem and running so smooth
Just keep that 8700k as long as you can, I upgraded from my 8700k to 9900k for cheap on a sale, should easily last another 4 years
i still run 9700k, smooth i think mei 3070 rtx run at 99% usage in 1440p, what else i want
My 7700 with 4 cores is dying :(
@@dazeen9591 me with i5 7400, still are good
@@nivea878 I’m running a 6700k should I upgrade it’s paired with a 4080
My kids are using 4 core CPUs, an i5 6600k and a Ryzen 3 1300x and they can still play everything. I guess my 6c/12t i5 10600k will last me a pretty long time. I'll upgrade my RX 590 long before I even worry about my CPU.
Just play games without looking at benchmarks
@@PhoenixSky7 right on. That's what I do.
The longer you wait, the better it feels when you finally do upgrade.
play everything but not a having a good experience...no way a i5 6600k is fun in modern games..
@@ryn5302 that was a year ago. Meanwhile I upgraded them to i7 6700k and R5 1600af. Very cheap upgrades and very effective.
Honestly, it just depends on the FPS target. If you aim to target 60 fps, 6 core will last probably even more then 5-6 years. If you aim to target 80-120 fps then 6 core CPU may last 3-4 years before it just gets too heavy on the CPU with the improved scripts and A.I....
If you aim to play at 144 fps+ Then even the halo product of today won't work within next 3-4 years where you will have to buy a new CPU.
I have 6 core CPU (11400) and in most games since I target 60 fps, run at 15-30%, only games like RDR2 managed to bring that to 50-60% and according to todays benchmarks, i5 11400 is enough for smooth 120 fps gaming (99% low is still above 120 fps).
So really it all just depends on what FPS target you are aiming at. 60, 120, 144+, 240...
There is far more to it then just fps target,6 core CPUs are already hitting over 90% in cyberpunk,when unreal engine 5 games release at the end of next year any 6-8 thread cpu will crumble with horrible stuttering,your 11400 will hold up decently but not above 80-90 fps,rocket league will still run at 500+ though
@@Kevin-fl7mj lot of factors yeah, comes down to the games u play
@@Kevin-fl7mj at what fps ? You say cyberpunk is hitting 90% but at what FPS?
My 10700F will be fine for at least 3 more years, but my concern is that i'm stuck with PCI gen 3.
@@sermerlin1 around 75 Fps 1080p ultra
I think it kind of depends on what you want to achieve. Last time I checked, an i3 10100F could push RTX 3080 to 100% usage in 4K.
Lets hope the 14nm is causing this. If they will start to add cpu consumption with actually 0 upgrade s to the game just to push the market we are done
Even a rtx 3070 can't be pused to 100% by a 7700k 🤔.
@@readywer ruclips.net/video/Tp2-5xtWF-g/видео.html
That's where I saw the 10100F pushing the RTX 3080 as far as the 12900K can (100%). Maybe there is a huge difference in online multiplayer. Still, the 7700K has just as many cores as 10100F and is 3 generations older, so there isn't a huge difference between them.
@@Hardcore_Remixer I am 100% te these are fake check the i3 12100 video of the gamers nexus it clearly won't powerfull for these class of gpus all in all. Maybe you saw a specific game but nothing elese.
Lol any shitty cpu can push any card to 100% in 4k, 4k is gpu bound :)
It's relative to what games you are playing, and what resolution you are going for. Im still using a 4c/8t cpu and it plays anything i throw at it just fine lol
resolution affects gpu performance much more significantly really
4 cores is fine if you're happy with 60 fps.
@@mikem9536 We had more than 60fps when there were only DualCore, because fps is not bound to CPU power.
@@mikem9536 I have drops to 30-40 fps Ii some games (i5 7400) but I still gonna use it for next 3-4 years
@@mikem9536 Nah I can do 120 fps in most new AAA games with a tenth gen i3, architecture is just as important as clock speeds and cores as an 8 core Xeon from 5 years ago gets shit on by any modern 4 core hyper threaded CPU
6 to 8 cores could become necessary as the consoles have 8 plus 8 threads. Dev's usually target the weakest systems which will soon be consoles
devs target the most popular console regardless. and they don't have 8+8 FREE threads for gaming. they're more like 7 core cpus.
7 is still more than 6. Plus you want a core or 2 in the background to deal with the OS like the console does.@@GraveUypo
@@mikem9536 That second sentence makes zero sense and isnt true.
If you have PS5/Xbox or better performance, then you'll probably be fine until after the next console gen. Just like was the case with the previous gen PS4 etc. Console performance is what drives game design for all developers that release on console, and that's pretty much everyone now since they're all x86.
Yeah, so R5-3600 or weaker rigs may have problems by generation's end because it has 2 cores off versus the Series S|X/PS5 and Windows is more heavy versus the OS on the consoles.
A 3700X or equivalent likely will be able to manage, but that is dependant on how much Windows saps from performance on 8 Cores versus the Console OS's do for their CPU.
You are correct. I have seen PCs with fx6300, 8gb ram and gtx760 still doing 1080p 30 fps on latest games. I think if you have a ryzen 3600, 16gb ram, and rtx3060 you should be fine at 4k medium 60fps until PS6 releases.
This is incorrect, PS4 released with a CPU that could barely beat a 3Ghz Core 2 Quad.
That is not the same situation this time with PS5 as its released with a much better CPU in relation to the market.
@@Alovon emmmm consoles have like a 3700x
@@nicane-9966 yeah, saying that a 3600 wouldn't cut it because of that???
I assume that in 5 years' time a Zen 3 or Alder Lake 6-core will be just as usable as decent quad-cores are today, i.e. they may not get the highest or most flawless performance but they'll still play pretty much everything fairly well
6 cores are entry level, ok for lower end GPU's.
4 core is entry-level for gaming. 6 core is mid range, 8 core is high end for gaming. Anything higher is geared towards other workloads. Games just don't use more than 8 cores at the moment.
@@mikem9536 The 7600x beats intel 10 cores and its a hex. Most games still play ok with fast quad core. Hex is all you need in 2023 and for some times.
@@mikem9536 Hardly 6 core 5600x3d works with ANY gpu high or low end gpu. Have a nice day spreading misinformation again.
7700x is 8 cores.@@Physics072
The thing is that games currently don't scale much on CPU as they do on GPU resources.
Or better most of the games scale based on single core performance even if they split the load across threads, but usually GPU ends up being a bottleneck earlier. Though some games have a hard time going over 200fps (getting relevant for high refresh monitors) even with reduced graphic settings which I think is both a symptom of either too demanding graphics or poorly scalable CPU utilization.
The issue games are facing in not being as forward looking is that the traditional approach to threading a game is to statically bind tasks to the available threads in consoles as this serves for predictable and consistent performance, but sadly it also means that the highest loaded core is the bottleneck and with more cores than a certain number they will actually not serve any purpose.
Games like Doom Eternal on the other hand use a job based system where they split every cpu task they could in the smallest chunks possible and distribute them across all the available threads. This means that the game actually scales across CPU resources horizontally and not just vertically.
That is the kind of system that would allow developers to develop features that actually scale based on CPU resources.
Sadly from what I could understand of Unreal Engine 5, this doesn't look like the approach they are taking but rather it's still binding tasks statically.
As a developer myself I just hope I missed it or misunderstood when I looked into UE5.
People need to stop listening to Tech Deals/Byte Sized Tech’s half assed advice about 8 cores being the minimum, 6 cores and 4 cores being dead, etc. 5 years from now a 5600X is still gonna be better at gaming than a 2700X or even a 3950X. You dont need a to blow more money on shit youre not gonna fully use. I feel like thats where most of this misinformation about 6 cores being obsolete comes from. The truth is for a primary gaming rig a 12100F is legitimately better for gaming than a 3950X and thats not likely to change within the next 4-5 years even. Youre not gonna do much productivity tasks with it but even streaming isnt a big deal for it if you have an nvidia gpu and use nvenc. Web browsing is fine with a 4 core 8 thread same is spotify in the background. I think people have a huge misunderstanding of what tasks are actually CPU demanding and what arent. By the way im not recommending people guy 4 core 8 thread im saying if all you can afford is that then even thats fine. A 12100F and 6600, 3050 or even a 6600 XT or 3060 arent horrible pairs for a budget gaming exclusively for gaming, browsing and vibing, homework pc.
I think how Steve puts it makes sense if you are a premium gamer where even a stutter is unacceptable, a 5600x isn't what you want. I mean it's all you need but you WANT the best. You want a Ryzen 9 or i9. Tech Deals thinks this way. His opinion is if you are buying a 3080 or 3090 why would you only buy a 5600x. I mean it works, and you will get mad frames. But if you are willing spend $2000 on a GPU, why would you only spend $300 on a CPU when the 12 or 16 core is only 200 to 300 more. You are premium gamer.
Tech Deals speaks from a elitist mind set, so you have to view his advice that way. If you are going to buy one part high end, your whole build is high end. What Tech Deal forgot is not every one can afford that. Some people only can afford a i3 12100 and RTX 3060 and that is ok, and a balanced budget build. His opinion is well if you can afford a 3060 in 2021 then why can you afford a 3060ti for a little more, then if you can afford that, why not a 3070, then he will rant about if you can't afford high end then you have a money problem....that's the issue. He says if you can't afford high end then stop being broke. Everyone is like ok bro but like I can still only afford that i3 12100 so what GPU do I get ?🤣 The problem is that he feels if people can't afford high end then they can't afford PC gaming. He forgets most started off fooling around on cheap hardware got into it and moved up the stack. Most people don't drop 3k on their first machine.
Techdeals also made fun of the 5800X3D before it came out about how it doesn’t make any sense. He was completely wrong about that - it came out to great reviews from all the big tech sites.
@@Phil_529 That dude has lost touch IMO. His channel was once pretty good, and I still enjoy his reviews, but the advice for CPU especially has put me off. That and literally calling his viewers stupid or dumb, and banning people that say contradictory things in the comments section.
If you are on AMD, and want to game first and foremost, then the 5800x3D is a great choice. If building new, I think I'd wait for 7000 series or Raptor Lake to see what they are all about. if one had to build now and money is no object, the 12900KS, is hard to beat as the best all around CPU for most everything.
@@davidandrew6855 5900x is still a better chose than the 3d....
@@UmbraWeiss Not for gaming, and most likely never will be. As for a better overall CPU, I agree.
Hi
please i wanted to ask you a question
I have a limited budget and I would like to buy a gaming laptop to use in gaming
I have the choice between two configurations
RTX 3070 100W WITH I5 11400H
RTX 3060 100W WITH RYZEN 7 5800H
please which one is better and which one can last in time (4-5 years). (better cpu or gpu)
I have a question for you guys. I'm looking into getting a new large (60" or bigger) 4K TV. Most will say they support 60Hz refresh rate, and even 120hz, but they never seem to tell you if they support higher refresh rates at lower resolutions. If I buy a newer 4K TV, I'm assuming they'll support lower resolutions like 1080p, 720p and even 1600x900 etc, but the specs provided by the manufacturer doesn't really specify anything but 4K. Will they be able to handle lower resolutions at higher refresh rates the way a purpose built monitor will? Can you evaluate some recent 4K TVs to give us an idea of what they actually support for PC / Console resolutions and refresh rates?
they do not. a 120hz screen will support 120/60/30 hz in all resolutions (unless it's bandwidth limited, in which case they might not support the highest refresh rate on the highest resolution. but that shouldn't be the case for the vast majority of modern tv now).
I feel very skeptical about game devs implementing minority features for high end CPUs, how would that ever stack up economically?
Putting the same effort into lowering the game recommended requirements to reach the mainstream market has far more sales potential.
Unless you're ubisoft lmao
I bought a 5600X when it came out. I'd be ok with it if it wasn't enough in 4 years. 5 years is acceptable for i5/R5 class cpus. Those years are not here yet, though, this cpu is a beast! Even in 4 years, it'll be enough for most games but there will be more and more exceptions until I decide to move to something new. I'm not a fan of changing my PC every other year or every year. Even if I had deep pockets I would not do it. There's warehouses all around the world full of old, useless PCs that will end in landfills where they will decay for centuries.
😎
good point, so are the average consumer which is the biggest money sink uses these hardware for anything beneficial to the planet or even themselves? if yes that's good but if no then its just mindless consumption and a wasteful way of life, which needs to be cut down, now im not saying don't buy average mid range spec pc if your not gonna be productive, im saying we as humans in a society and the silicon manufacturers and politicians need to be aware of our way of life and its effects on the whole world, since the IT and technology has drastically increased its presence in our daily life. so we can't just ignore our ways of living and choices and hope nothing will go wrong.
I think a interesting test would be to go through the years testing the 4, 6 & 8 core CPUs from nowadays compared to 4-5 years ago and then maybe 4-5 years before that. So basicly the i3 12100F/Ryzen 3 5300G, i5-12400F/Ryzen 5 5600X & i7-12700F(E cores disabled so only the 8C/16T P cores)/Ryzen 7 5700X vs i3-8350K/Ryzen 3 1300X or Ryzen 5 1500X, i7-8700K or 8086K vs Ryzen 5 1600X, Xeon E-2278G or 2288G or i9-9900/Ryzen 7 1800X or Threadripper 1900X vs i7-4790K, Xeon E5-1650 v3, Xeon E5-1660 v3 or 1680 v3
As a ex-owner of i9-9900, i swear i never buy again actual high-end flagship CPU, it was one of my stupid "waste of money"-things, my ass is burns now while i'am watching videos with 110$+ i3-12100 CPU goes almost on par with 3 year old 400$+ flagship. Also there are PCI-E Gen5, DDR5, better iGPU, much lower heat/wattage on board.
How many cores do you guys have now and do you plan on upgrading from a 6 to 8?
I have the Ryzen 5 3400G. 4c/8t and it is not enough for VALORANT. So I bought a GPU (RX 6600) and improved the game performance. (dips to 90 fps sometimes) Still, I feel this is not enough.
The same argument about Intel's period of stagnation applies to the ryzen era. It doesn't make sense to have been developing a game for the last ~2 years that is simply unplayable even on a quad core with an entry to mid level gpu at 1080/60. The silicon shortage also would have had a major effect on this.
I'm assuming you mean chip shortage because there isn't a silicon shortage. For the world of HPC there hasn't been a chip shortage. The chip shortage has affected industry and vehicles and various electronics that go into non-compute devices. Companies like Intel have been making all the die they need, and Samsung has all the die they need, and Nvidia you can say had all the die they needed, except for the fact that miners were getting their hands into the supply chain before GPUs got to retailers in which case it still wasn't a chip shortage as much as it was excessive demand due to mining. But there have been PLENTY of CPUs available and there was only a period of 2 - 3 months where after the products launched some skus had availability issues but that was over in 2021.
Now that the bottom fell out on mining Nvidia is stuck holding WAY too many GPUs along with their AIBs, mostly the top 4 skus in cost.
AMD has almost their entire line of products discounted to try to move product so whatever shortages existed are gone and Nvidia is trying to dump off wafer capacity because they're afraid they'll have too much stock sitting on shelves. AMD is also trying to get rid of wafer capacity for nodes like 7nm because THEY have too much supply. I mean I can already buy a 5800X3D for $420 USD and $170 for a 5600X
There has never been a chip shortage for the likes of Nvidia, AMD and Intel who have contracts with TSMC Samsung or Intel making their own products, just insane demand on GPUs and right now all those companies have an overstock problem.
5600x is still a great value buy that can last for the next 4 years. You may see it trying to keep up with those 8 cores counterparts, but you will probably be just in time for an upgrade then.
more like 10 years for just gaming
@@raptorhacker599 Possibly if you're using the 7600x, but not cheaper 6 cores, my 9400f already struggles to keep up.
Best choice today is 5700X for games and system.
@@mikem9536 yeah your 9400 has no hyperthreading sadly... it's comparable to something like my i3 10100f which is 4c8t
Again architecture is important. 5600x is a much more powerful cpu.
Current gen consoles use slightly nerfed zen 2, 8 core cpus. Their not that fast in the scheme of things but if you compare them to the jaguar cpus the consoles were using last generation it's a massive leap forward. For this reason I think zen 2 is the threshold most developers won't exclude for the foreseeable future. And the 6 cores in that series are faster than whats in the consoles due to the faster clocks. Based on early benchmarks unreal 5 also has no issues running on 6c/12t cpus. Though you really don't want to go lower than that.
Usable as long as these consoles are around. Also the majority of people have 4-6 cores so devs would optimize their games for the majority.
Most gamers are up to at least a 6 core these days.
@@mikem9536 any source for that? steam?
@@biggKIDDOYep steam says 40% of users use 6 cores vs 18% for quad core.
I have a 8086k all core 5ghz doing great since launch !
If you are not chasing every last fps, you should get another few years out of that chip easily.
My 4/4 Skylake i5 only ever started struggling with Cyberpunk and so far that games seems to be the only one that hits CPUs as hard.
I like that steve is still rocking Galaxy S10/+
It's good to see you boys respecting boundaries:)
chances are gaming will always be lagging behind the cpu/gpu space so that the majority of gamers can enjoy high fps and graphics fidelity, does that mean the minimum core count will go up? probably as 6-8 core cpus become mainstream and 12-16 for gaming while enthusiast is higher. this would be if devs can saturate the power properly. for a while 4 core was high end for years before 6 or 8 core became relevant.
Don't forget to follow the money. If you check Passmark hardware survey, it's a good split - 26% that use 4 cores, 25% for 6 cores and 27% for 8 cores, the remaining 73% is a jumble of 2 to 12 cores users. Steam still lists the GTX 1060 as top GPU in use at just over 7%. These number will change over time, but I would think that these numbers mean something to game developers. They want to target as many users as possible.
i have a 9700k and i think its time for me to upgrade to the AM5 chip..
It will be a while. My 3700k is still wrecking it with a 6900xt.
considering that the new consoles are 8 cores, 6 core chips will probably become limited in that 4 year time frame, will they still work, sure, but it will be like the quad cores today, you can play games, but tring to do something else while also playing a game that uses all 4 cores will result in stuttering or lag in the game when the something else is in use, like watching a youtube video. upgrading to a 6 core will resolve this in those games, but if cores continue to multiply, then the number required will also continue to increase in requirement.
I don't see them being limited within that 4 year span. But when new consoles hit in 2026 or so, and have the next iteration of CPU tech, possibly. Right now any good modern 6 core CPU, from the 3600/10600K/5600/12400f etc, are just as if not more powerful than what is in the consoles. Considering consoles also have limited clock frequency, and 1 full core allocated to background/OS, it bodes even better for the PC CPUs.
Personally, as slow as game development has been/is, I would think a 6 core CPU will still provide playable experiences for the next 5 years. I think we are away out before an 8 core becomes minimum spec.
Yeah, mostly likely in the future I will build a Ryzen 7 8 core CPU with a RX5600xt or RX6600xt, a 500watt system, but in the future with a Mid-Low level GPU would there be any advantage in having an 8 core CPU over a 4 Core CPU. I'm happy with a budget build i7-4790 and GT1060 running windows 11 with TPM 1.2, but with my next budget build with a Mid level GPU any Ryzen 7 like the 3600x would be more then enough. It will most likely be up to the game developers, but what was said about game engines, would 8 cores help is a strong maybe.
in my experience you need higher single core performance, you can play all games with i3 12100 because of powerful single core, now I have 2015 10 core xeon and in all games it is only 20% loaded
I mean… 20% could mean 20% of all 10 cores, or you could be totally bottlenecking your gpu with 100% usage on 2 cores
@@potatoes5829 my GPU is always 100% loaded
In 2 days this vid will be 2 years old
My old system has a 4core/4thread cpu that still runs everything though some games can’t get 60fps due to cpu bottleneck. I can’t imagine 6/12 cores being outdated for a long time.
My Ryzen 5 3600 + GTX 1060 3GB are just barely pilling through at 1440p medium-high settings with an FPS goal of 80+. Thank God for FSR making it possible for modern games :')
Why did you ever thought about playing at 1440p with a 1060 3gb? 1080p with higher settings would look better than this.
@@sadman.saqib.zahin01 1080p looks really blurry on a 1440p monitor. 1440p with some adjustment to resolution scale (usually 85%-90%) is much more visually pleasing. Some games run at 60+fps at native 1440p though.
I'm mainly limited by the 3GB of VRAM.
@@Zer0Cat0 you're limited very much by the GPU itself. 1060 was never meant for 1440p.
A 1080 could give some acceptable performance, but for a fantaistic one maybe look at RTX cards
@@Spido68_the_spectator yeah 1440p is rough but thankfully I manage to get by still. I'm ok with using a resolution scaler / FSR but honestly I can't believe how well my little 2016 single fan GPU handles games still. I can run a lot of games still just fine for now. I plan on getting a 3060 ti once I get the funds.
Somehow, the just pronounced the death sentence over my 3 core 6 tread FX6600... To be fair, so did I. But since a replacement has been VETO'd by the missus, i'm hoping for FSR to save it for a bit more.
The 6 core zen 1 CPUs will definitely struggle in 4 years, but my current 5600x I really doubt it will be obsolete.. I mean untill last year I was gaming on an i7 4790k with 8gb of DDR3 memory, and even though it was starting to struggle in demanding current gsmes, it could still run them decently. In 4 years this console generation will still be active, so I think it's impossible for the 5600x to be obsolete by then.
what? even 4 cores are fine for most games now
What about the 5600G that has less cache and is 0.2Ghz slower than the 5600X, but the 5600G has integrated gfx?
@@raptorhacker599 No they are not, 4 cores became obsolete, i mean it's playable but it's just not that good experience
If anything your 8gb ddr3 might have been the bigger issue
@@antonioilardo6691 yeap. It was in some games.
A lot of people don't understand that a bigger number doesn't always equate to better performance and that architecture of a CPU also matters and it takes a much longer time for a CPU to become outdated than a GPU
Out dated sure a low core CPU is less likely to be out dated but eventually you and me and everyone else are eventually gonna hit a hard wall of cpu power relating to gaming. Whether we like it or not. The barrier to entry with CPU power and cores isn't reducing or staying stable. 10 GB of VRAM is new must have
Just as 6 core CPU's are already showing their age almost as bad as 8C's / 16 threads are. YES they will work for gaming probably 5-6 more years but. The end reality is thats a perpetually heading towards true obsolescence. The only real reason to be going with a lower core CPU is cause of budget and the performance a person is aiming for. But if you intend to build a PC to last a long time. LOGICALLY you would not want to rely on a lower core system if you can avoid it simply cause at a certain point one is gonna hit a point of no return. And unlike higher core CPU's lower core CPU's aren't likely to hold their value well. Even in a secondary market. The only time a secondary market pays off is when you can no longer either get the hardware part or the manufacture quits supporting it. Is the only time often that CPU's and PC parts start appreciating value.
Like I'm looking at Steam Hardware survey and the average Physical CPU core is indeed 6 CPU cores. Which doesn't sound bad till you realize that developers are gonna then from there continue to grow post 6 CPU cores if thats the base line for CPU's Meaning if in 2023 6 cores is already the average then by 2029 we should be reaching 12 core cpu minimums. And the ugly reality is gaming isn't getting weaker as we get more advanced games. They are getting more intense and harder to run. Meaning while yeah 6 core cpu's can run a new game doesn't mean that the experince is gonna be good. We are already heading towards a era where DLSS is gonna be the saving grace for 90% of the gaming market.
I'm upgrading from a i5-9600k 6c/6t to a ryzen 9 5900x 12c/24t I got on sale for €380. Gonna sell my current cpu and mobo to get some money back
Get 64gb of ram if you have the cash and 32gb at the very least if you're going 5900x. 32gb is fine, if you don't multitask that much, but 64gb just allows you to have more cache.
@@zzz-vd5rp 64gb is completely overkill and ram has nothing to do with cache
As long as the cores themselves get stronger id think even quad core could be viable for years to come
Here's hoping. I saved about 100 dollars getting a 12500h in my new legion slim 7i over the 12700h. I actually didn't realize it only had 4 performance cores though, rather than the 6 in the 12700h. Did some benchmarking against reviews of the 12700h and doesn't seem like I'm missing out on much performance in the cross section of games tested (using 3060 gpu). Guess I'll see further down the road whether that was a wise saving or not (bought a 1tb pcie4 m.2 with the money saved on the CPU).
Well, you can look for "how many CPU cores for gaming" on YT. 8 cores are taking lead in benchmark vs 6cores. Then, more cores don't always give more performance.
No 4cores are as fast in gaming than a 6cores. And I don't know how e-cores do...
If I have a 6700k with a 4080 should I upgrade cpu
yes. New games are able to use 8 cores.
The most intensive cpu heavy afaik is warhammer,arma3 and 128 player bf2042. If you one of this favourite game.8core cpu is worth it to maintain fps without stuttering over 60fps
By the time 6 cores is dead 8 cores would me i5s or i3s. So everyone can access to it
Tech Deals *intensifies*
Sometimes single IPC performance is better than more cores, i3 12100 vs ryzen 3600x / 5500, considering i3 12100 4core monster ipc still run game with enough performance i think in the future 4 core 8 thread with fast ipc may still here to stay
Oh yeah the reason 4 core still goods today because dev also see ps4 as a base thst 8 smt jaguar core notebook level is pretty weak yet the ps5 is using 8 core 16 thread zen 2 so the future will be 6 core min / 8 core recommended
I've got a r5 1600 and a 2060, I was gonna get a 7000 series but the prices are mad so I'm gonna get a r9 5900 and a a new amd rx 7000 and finally play my games in 4k
where is your discord
Its all about the 1% lows.
everything you said is true there is no doubt in that, althought personally i would love to see how much different core count affect performance while opening a fair amount of background apps, since i know for a fact that most pc users dont use their pc like a game console (like only opening a single game and thats it) but rather with a lot of background apps such as discord.
Personally I just run the game.
Obviously the multitasking scenario you suggest would benefit from more cores.
But is not the question they're answering.
In terms of affecting game performance I think M.2 SSDs and the graphics cards will make more of a difference in the next 5 years than CPU cores.
That's a point that must not be ignored. I'm upgrading from 6 threads to 12 cores with Hyperthreading. My 9600k can run some of the newest games but as soon as I open discord or else performance gets hit, and I'm not talking only about average frame rate but frame times too. Annoying stutters and general less stable frame rate. Also some games are already bringing cpu usage to 100% by themselves like Back 4 Blood and CP2077, even if I pay attention in closing every background process I can. Maybe it is beacuse I play on 1080p 240hz but even with lower target fps I would like to be able to multitask without having to worry about my game suffering too much from it. Of course it all depends on the budget of each build, like if I hade to suggest a €700-€800 build today I could still recommend a R5 5600(now at €180 here)+ RX 6600(now at €300 here). However I think I should have got a R7 3700x instead of the 9600k at the time I built my pc(R5 3600 was even higher in price than my i5 in my country due to high request). I'm now upgrading to a 5900x I got brand new for €380
Total performance matters way more than core count - probably no one will disagree that difference in productivity between Core2Quad-6600 and i5-14100 is massive, but they both have 4 cores))
And of course demands to CPU performance conditioned by current game engines and user's hardware - desktop and consoles. It was more than enough to have something like FX-8300 in terms of performance to have playable fps in all games in 2014-2019 just because PS4 have 8-core AMD CPU and devs can jump a bit further only with a bad PC-optimization)))
So as for now - devs can't jump way further than Ryzen-7-3700X level of performance just because their games won't run well on consoles, straight until PS6 release.
That's why people fraking out about a 3050 or 3060 being obsolete soon doesn't make sense. It'll be at least a few good years before that card is even considered the minimum for most games.
Some mad people still use core 2 Duo ffs. People will always game on anything. That doesn't mean it's a great experience. 4 cores now stutter loads on many titles and only are viable playing older games. Some 6 cores even struggle in some games too now but you still have a great experience.
My i5 7400 enough for everything, and I gonna use it for 3-4 more years
You can run many things on a 16 core cpu. They just don't do it, since GPUs do it faster and coding the same thing twice is expensive. But theoretically they could make a game that uses 16 cores, where 8 is fixed for physics and 3d deformations instead of the GPU. The problem is that would give a few % extra FPS only since GPUs do that easily. But if they did that, they could scale better, and perhaps PCI-E bandwidth would have more impact on performance. But I don't see that happening ever. Game companies, pressured by publisher want to just stamp games, not develop them. They pick the current generation consoles as a starting point, and over that you get an Ultra setting. That's it.
I have a intel 4790k which is now 8 years old. whilst a beast in its day, it only has 4 cores (8 threads), and is no where near as powerful as an AMD 5600. That said, there is still no game i have played which it cannot handle (e.g. total war series games). I will finally upgrade in the next cycle, but moreso because windows productivity software will need it, not games.
Which prod. sw do you use?
@@MrDgt66 video editing, using excel, writing books in word, etc. They are all getting much more CPU intensive.
Want to pull the trigger when the right time comes. I have 8700, so want double the cores, double the threads. When 12 core / 24 thread is reasonable, I want to jump on that.
I mean have you seen 5900x and 3900x prices? I got a 3900x for £250 at the time I didn't think my x370 board would get ryzen 5000 upgrade...
Me watching this on a 4core 8 thread i7 3820 with 11 years old! 👍👍
IPC matters in gaming, not cores.
Both matter. And actually more cores matter the most. Because most recent ipcs are already good, so for example an i7 5960x with 8 cores will still run games fine despite old ipc, but if you run out of cores your fps will heavily tank and you will notice the stutters.
@@ArthurM1863 I have an i3 12100f and I'm getting better performance than an i7 8700k. 8700k have 6 cores but 12100f only have 4 cores.
@@oldsculgamer5815Yes, I believe you. Ipc actually matters most for achieving higher fps, for example on a high refresh monitor, 144hz/175hz. Cpu cores quantity comes in handy on a cpu intensive situation, like for example drawing a lot of geometry, or lots of NPCs in the screen.
@@ArthurM1863 yes cores matters as well but IPC matters the most. My purpose is 1080p gaming. So, I'm having no trouble with my 12100f + rx 6600. I'm playing all 2021-22 games on 1080p ultra, getting around 60-120 fps easily. Games that are released before 2021, I'm playing them on 1440p or least intensive games on 4k ultra
I think it really comes down to the application and what is programmed for. Some applications/games really only target one core so in that instance it is better to have a much faster/better IPC for the CPU.
Some games actually do leverage more cores, but even then if you had a few ultra fast cores, you may not be missing out, probably why the 12000f is as fast as it is in gaming with only 4 cores/8 threads.
I think we can see that with say the 5600x vs the 3700x. The 3700x is probably never going to be a faster gaming CPU ever, despite have 33% more cores/threads.
It will be possible for 4+ years ,
My reasoning is if you buy a chip that can near max out a 3080/3090, these can still be maxed out on a gen 3 never mind gen 4 board . In 5 years a 5060/5060ti will likley be fast as a 3080/3090.
This feels about right as a 1080 is still faster than a 3060. Now the question can a 3060 still game and the obvious answer is yes as a 2060 still can decently at 1080p upscaled to 4k.
Will it be a 4k 60fps experience? probs not but it still should be a very playable experience at a lower res.
Chances are a modern Ryzen will likley work ok on a 4080 also .
A 1080 is not faster than a 3060 for one, it is almost identical to a 1080ti.....
@@drunkhusband6257 then change it to a 1080 ti and my point still stands .
@@wrusst you said the 1080 was more powerful than a 3060 though....
@@drunkhusband6257 probs the ti I only looked quickly on a Vs . My overall point was higher tier cards can play games longer . Also you said first of all so what's the rest of it?
Imho current gen 6 core (12 thread) parts will be viable for the next 5-7 years. Here is why.
Back in 2012 a 10 year old part was near unusable (think single core like the pentium 1,2,3,4 series or amd K chips) You just couldnt even think about playing modern games with those parts(at that time)
But a chip from 2012-2013? They are still usable and in most cases play the game acceptably (there are games that wont fire because right around there is when *someone correct me if im wrong* AVX2? was just getting rolled out and most of those chips didnt have it.
Dont get me wrong they are certainly on their last gasps but I can still see them kickin around for a couple more years.
I have a 3600. Its still a good chip, and given all the advances, this chip will still be usable (and somewhat decent) for the *next* 3-4 years.
And still be usable for 4-5 years after that.
As chips are getting more and more advanced, their useful lives tend to be extended. and if you want a reason for this just look at the history of CPUs as a whole from the 8008 to now. The progress in what (60 ish years?) is nothing short of astonishing.
6 core cpu's are great, you can use them for years for gaming sure.
What if I get myself a R5 1600 or 1600 AF?
Get a Ryzen 5 5500 for $129, much stronger than a Zen/Zen + cpu!
It depends what you want, what's your current configuration, where you live etc. I currently have the 1600AF and it's perfectly fine for my needs, but I can't just recommend it to you without knowing the things I mentioned.
I have a 1600, and it does all I need, which is single player games at 60fps, and the multiplayer ones at between 100-144fps. I would not get it for a high refresh rate experience, but if you can get it for less than $80 US, it could work, otherwise the 5600 is a much better purchase choice, if you have a mobo that can run 5000 series CPUs.
I would not recommend buying it as part of a full system build, just go with something better like a 5600 on AMD platform, or 12400f on Intel.
Depends on the FPS target and how much new engines and devs will push to leverage more cores. We're already at a point where some new games really need 8 cores minimum to hit over 60fps (specifically looking at multi-player games nowadays). Most games are fine with 6 but I think we're in the transition period from 6 to 8 cores like years ago when we went from 4 to 6 as the "standard" (which is subjective).
Some games today are even hitting close to or just a bit past 50% of 10+ core CPUs which supports the thought even more that we're in the transition to 8 cores becoming the standard. I think 8 cores will become the new norm in the next 2 years and anything higher will typically be used for content creation. Raptorlake is supposed to bring 24 cores and Meteorlake as well as Zen5 (last I checked) are bringin up to 32 cores.
We're at the point where the smoothness and instant response of having more cores is becoming more mainstream. I think builds from here on forward are mostly gonna use 8 or more cores, especially when it comes to price to performance. What's another $50-150 if you can get a few more cores and know you'll be good for a bit longer before needing to upgrade? In a few years you won't even need that extra cash cause I bet the i3 and r3 lineups will have 8+ each. Imagine an i3 or r3 (if AMD does go big.little like rumored) of 6+4. I feel the future of CPUs is gonna be great for many years to come.
Which games require 8 cores for 60+fps?
There are literally no games that require over a 6 core cpu...especially a 6c/12t cpu
@@drunkhusband6257 and @sneer go look at some footage of Battlefield 2042 on a 10400 and you'll see what I mean. On 1080p it def gets on average around 60 or a bit higher but can still dip to the 40s. If you play in 1440p it's constantly bouncin between around 35 and 70fps and sometimes chugs lows of single digit frames when there's a lot goin on at once. I've seen Cyberpunk 2077 do the same. I've also seen the Division 2 use up to and (barely) over 50% of CPU usage on a Ryzen 9 5900x and 5950x.
These aren't the rules, these are the exceptions. But the fact is there are a few games out now that really do use 8 cores or more properly for a smooth experience (or a playable one looking at BF2042). Most games are fine with 6 cores but to say there aren't any games that need more is just wrong. I'm sure there might be a handful of others I don't know about but again, they're outliers among the thousands of games out there that actually need (or dont need but can use) more cores.
@@BigBananaVT bf2042 as well as cp2077 run smooth and fine on both my 6700k, and 8700k, gonna say you're dead wrong.
@@drunkhusband6257 that's fine if YOU have no issues with them. That doesn't mean that everyone else experiences the same thing. Again, I told you to look this up. There are other people who are reporting the same thing.
Still rocking a 3700x
Heres another point 6 cores 12 threads are enough but it some of the most demanding games your looking at 90-95% cpu utilisation depending on your target framerate , ie CP2077
I think that game may not be the best barometer for true CPU usage. Is/was that not a mess of an unoptimized game?
I have a 8700k in my living room pc.......it doesn't even hit 60% usage ever. You wanna lie some more bud?
I'm not a programmer but I thought it was now clear that some applications are not particularly suitable to be divided into different processes.....
Would a six core processor have less latency than an eight core processor?
Listen guys its very simple. If you have ryzen 5 3600 you are covered for next 4 or 5 years, why? Because it cpu equal to current gen console as long as you can matxh or beat current gen console cpu's you are covered for entire generation
Actually it’s the 3700X that’s roughly equivalent to the consoles. As both PS5 & Xbox are running 8 cores, not 6.
@@Zenzuu You not seeing a bigger picture in theory you right, but practically there is no way it equivalent to 3700x. Ps5 and xbox series i think don't use all 8 cores some are reserved for os, not all 8 core power will be utilized for games. Also ps5 and xbox can run up to 3.8ghz with hyperthreading disabled but with enabled hyperthreading those clocks go down to 3.5 and 3.6ghz depending on console. So ryzen5 3600 is actually equal match to ps5 and xbox cpu, as ryzen 5 3600 also runs on higher frequencies like 4.2ghz.
My i5 7400 is enough for next 3-4 years
10 year old sandy, ivy and haswell chips are still useable, modern chips will still be useable unless there is some quantum leap.
Cores are impt but wat abt 1440p and 4k gaming. It will make no diff at all. Game developer should just focus on using gpu power to develop since the future is higher resolution than 1080p.
6 should be enough but if you are trying to make money selling hardware you collude with companies to make their games detect and run slower on quad and hex cores and faster on 8 cores. This gives pc gamers a reason to buy a upgrade. They do the same thing with light bulbs. They can make them last 8 years but no profit in that. I have some commercial grade lamps that are over 15 years old still going strong. By contrast my home depot home lights last 3 months.
As long as the single threaded speeds are marginally higher than the current consoles, a six core should be easily sufficient through the current console generation as long as you arent trying to drive a 144Hz or higher display in AAA stuff.
hyper threaded 6 cores + 4 efficiency core would be awesome
12600K?
Now 6+8🤣
So, probably for another 10 years.
I would atleast have the same amount of cores as the consoles. That being said going into 2023, I recommend 8 core CPUs or higher
If is a modern and recent CPU even a quad-core is usable.
you can buy a 8 core cpu for £150 (AMD Ryzen 7 5700G) and a 6 core is only a little less like for example the 12400f
lol So many people are still on 4 cores or below and you guys are talking about "how much longer will 6 core be useable"?
Me when still using 4 core and still satisfied.
Fyi, I am still using my 7700k and it is working great.
Still using a 4c/8t cpu i7 4790k in Oct 14th, 2022... lol.
Definitely cpu of the decade. But it’s time to retire it. You will get a good lift of performance jumping to 13th gen
@@mikeramos91 Still using it as of Dec 24th. Will retire it but not now. Holding out for Meteor Lake.
@@BravoSixGoingDark I hear meteor lake will only be 6 performance cores & the rest e cores
@@mikeramos91 I'm actually looking at it's iGPU. Rumor has It that it is on Par with the Arc A380/ GTX 1650/ GTX 1060.
Very dependent on consoles. As much as PC gamers think they are the number 1 priority, most game developers take into account of the ability to run on the consoles as they design the game.
The CPUs on the last-gen consoles were notoriously weak. Attempts by various developers to make truly next gen games during that era resulted in notoriously bad performing games due to the lack of CPU performance. Think AC Unity (from Ubisoft), or Just Cause 3 (from Avalanche) or even Cyberpunk 2077 (from CDPR).
So, they all redesigned their game engines/philosophies to put as much processing away from the CPU towards the GPU. For example:
Ubisoft: As there is simply not enough CPU power to produce a highly dense and urban setting, they decided to keep the # of NPCs the same but put it in a much bigger and larger map. That results in less being on the screen as any given time, lowering the load on the CPU
Avalanche: they literally rebuilt their game engine from the ground-up to offload as much from the CPU to the GPU (in Just Cause 4)
However, with CPUs in the current gen consoles being relatively so much better than the last gen consoles, I fully expect developers to start shifting certain processing back from GPU to the CPU once more.
Also, important to note that while both newer CPU and GPU are getting more expensive, GPUs seem to be getting both more expensive and more power hungry faster than CPUs. That incentivize developers to put more in the CPU compared to GPU
Hardware Unboxed is the master of FUD.
nah im sticking with mh 6 core for a much longer time since im not gaming anyway
I always buy the mid to low end CPU and GPU and upgrade every few years. :).. i end up with lower power usage and a good enough product for the next few years :)
Gear up your gaming experience with Cibergator Labs, baton rouge, Louisiana
I'm happy. Got a 10850k paired with a 3080, play at 1440p high fps. I'm not too concerned for the time being.
Well that has 10 cores 20 threads , so u are good for a long while
Well GPU and ram speed is more important. I only see Max 60℅ Cpu usage and 100% GPU usage in gaming at max setting😅
60% cpu usage is quite high
@@dubya85 not really lol
@@theanimerapper6351 playing a game it is
your cpu is probably pegged the entire time and bottlenecking your system pretty hard. being "60%" doesn't mean it's not holding everything back. game code is NEVER fully multi-threaded to the point of using all cores equally at full load.
For 1440p 144hz, what's the strongest GPU a 5600X can handle without any CPU bottleneck?
6700xt is a good combo
First if all IPC matters. Someone moving from a i7 3770k to a i3 12100 is going to feel the difference. A 12100 likely has the multi thread performance of a i7 3930k 6 core because today's processors are so much faster. The point is while keeping the thread count the same, a new CPU is much more superior experience compared to something in the SandyBridge era. IPC matters. Especially since Intel has been pushed by AMD.
Second is your use case. When I game I watch RUclips, browse the web or listen to music at the same time on a second monitor. So for me an 8 core makes sense so I have a few extra threads. But I personally use a 5900x, why if 8 cores would cover my gaming use case? Because I do a ton of Handbreak video encoding so 12 Cores makes sense here. So if you do things other than gaming on your PC something more than a 6 core makes sense. If all you do is game a 6 core is fine.
And Im still using i5 4670K
Oh no, my core i7 980x will be obsolete in 4 years?
Here is what the legendary today probably destroyed by Ryzen 5 5600,the Intel Core i7 4790K can do with the RTX2060 6GB .
Most impressive methinks.
IF this CPU does THIS well,after 8 ( yes EIGHT)year do this than 6c/12t CPUs have VERY bright gaming future indeed.
And I am sure it's fine for amateur content creators/streamers as well:
ruclips.net/video/aibcVHEJBTI/видео.html
10 year old i5s still hit 60fps in new games.
Thanks for reminder I use dell laptop with dual core i7 7500 u turbo boost 3.5 GHZ
I wish I had this kind of problems not 70% utilision fire fox while watching RUclips
Where are my 4790K lads!?
meanwhile the i3 12100 is far stronger than my 6 core Ivy bridge Xeon 2630 v2.. IPC still king
and yet i still use my 4c 4t for 1080p gaming
Is it good enough ?
@@veenibik336 still hitting 60 and plus for the game i play so yeah it prolly fine for another year or two, but already upgraded the ram to 16 and all ssd system tho
@@hartantosetiawan4835 what cpu are u using and graphic card ?
Even 2c 4t works, although just barely.
UE5 titles aren't years down the road though. They start releasing this year and Matrix Awakens will cause a 5600X to become a bottleneck. That's already been shown which is why the question comes up. While it's true that not all games built on UE5 is going to push a 5600X to 100% CPU utilization, there's going to be more than one game that will, so I wouldn't build a new gaming rig that I want to keep for 4 - 7 years with a 6 core CPU. The baseline is now an 8 core CPU because of the game consoles. Add to this game companies have SAID they're working to improve CPU utilization for higher core count CPUs and this is in reference to game engines.
Development code is often poorly optimised, you cannot base conclusions on pre-releases.
In modern processors removal of branches used for debugging purposes can massively accelerate even well written code.
lmfao talking about some shit that's not even out yet as facts
Most games don't use more than 4 cores effectively...
Yes they are, you will especially see most impact on low 1% fps which is basically stuttering/flickering you see in game and most annoying thing to experience in game due to low cpu cores
Im going to use my 5950x for the next 5 years!!!
Me chilling with i3 10105f