How Many Cores Really Need For Gaming?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- 4 Cores vs 6 Cores vs 8 Cores vs 10 Cores vs 12 Cores (Ultra Settings 1080p)
Games :
Battlefield 5
Rainbow Six Siege - 01:01
Assassin's Creed Odyssey - 01:49
HITMAN 2 - 02:35
The Witcher 3 - 03:26
System:
Windows 10 Pro
AMD Ryzen 9 3900x 3.8GHz (SMT - OFF)
GIGABYTE X570 AORUS PRO
GeForce RTX 2080 OC 8GB
16Gb RAM 3600Mhz
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
![IPS vs TN vs VA - Which Is Best For Gaming? [Simple Guide]](/img/1.gif)
Games :
Battlefield 5
Rainbow Six Siege - 01:01
Assassin's Creed Odyssey - 01:49
HITMAN 2 - 02:35
The Witcher 3 - 03:26
Где Метро???
*May be threads? Or really cores?) Damn! I thought 4 core its normal in 2k19.. but looks this video seen that 8 cores need..... my core i7-8700 is trunk? :D*
blablabla blablablabla if u just gaming get a PS4 computer is for everything
Next test with threads pls
@@B-Gaming82
Troll😄
Dual core CPU has left the chat
xD
Since 2014*
Brian Barba Gonzalez i still use 2 cores and 4 threads
BGS Marko same
Ganze_Ente for 1 month i’ll be getting i7-9700k (8 cores and 8 threads)
I remember when gaming was about graphics cards
@XBOXRULES That's a fair point right there
I remember gaming when Ma kicked our asses out into the backyard and we played with rocks and sand
I remember wanting gaming
Ma: We have gaming
Gaming at home:
LUDO
Kevin Gliebe so true
ok boomer
Bro the jump between 4 and 6 cores is bigger than my future
Bigger than all of our futures together!
154 to 169 perfect timing
Bro
i have see a lot of benchmark and difference between 4/6 never was that big.... i think there are something wrong with his video...
i myself had a 6 core afters years of gaming with 4 core... yes you have a little imporvement but you don't earn 20/30fps....
it's more like 4/5 fps more
Omg looking at the cat in your pfp i so confusing am so used tho the cursed version
The difference from 4 core to 6 core is so huge.
Edit: Thx for the likes guys, this is my most liked comment 🙂
Yes, because the 4 core has smt disabled
pretty interesting and i thought that 4 cores is obsolete now..
Here i am with 2 Cores!
@Salt Maker I just recently upgraded to an i5 2500k
Edit: spelling
@Salt Maker still chiling with an old i7 doing just fine
Pretty mad how 4 cores can hinder your FPS that much. Was thinking of upgrading my GTX 1060 but looks like it's my 6700k that needs the upgrade.
I have the laptop version of the 6700k, i definitely want a cpu upgrade. Preferably 8 cores becuase the new gen consoles have tbat, but 6 would be better than I have.
@@ryans3795 6 cores (ryzen 5 3600) is good. I think I read that the PS5 will use 1 of those cores for the OS and 1 more for something else. (Meaning that for gaming it'll be 6 cores because the others are reserved)
if you play in 4k, you don't need cores anymore
Im glad I went with the i7 instead of the i5 for my laptop , I thought for gaming i5 was enough and was not going to make a difference ....this video puts my mind to ease
no it doesn't. this video is misleading. your cpu is unlocked, just overclock the cpu and get a new gpu. this video only shows that much of a difference because it's one 16 core cpu with cores locked. of course they aren't as powerful individually
Me: looking at my pc
My pc:We can talk about this
My video card, realising if CPU gets replaced he will be the new bottleneck:
Hey man, don't do anything rash now, LoL still runs good amirite?
LOL. The pc must be scared right now :D
Now the real test should be for
4 core 8 thread, 6 core 6 thread, 6 core 12 thread.
No, They should add Dual Cores to see the change
Games are pretty bad at using threads, because very few of the processes in a game can be parallelized.
Things like AI and visual effects COULD be parallelized, so they use different threads for that simultaneously, but most of the processes in a game is not suited for that.
That's why videogames aren't being multithreaded that much, it's just much harder to do, then production software.
There's more details about that, but you can look that up yourself, if you want to.
That being said, testing out the difference in threads isn't going to do much, not nearly as much as core count and core frequency.
4c8t is 6c6t. 6c12t is 8c8t. 8c16t is 10c10t. 10c20t is 12c12t. 12c24t is 14c14t. 16c32t is 18c185
@Vιѕнυ кнαтιуαи not likely......... Physical core vs virtual core
WORDs yesssssssssss
The human eye can only see 4 cores
I see what you did there :D
actually, we can only see 2 cores as we only have 2 eyes duh
The human brain can only remember two different joke styles. The human eye and the nobody jokes.
so original
hahahahahahha
So you need 6, and 8 is better value than 10 or more.
He is using a 3900x, they dont have the same performance as intel on cores in gaming so this video is only really for people who use AMD. Intel would probably do much better with 4 cores
@@ProjectRUclips "Intel would probably do much better with 4 cores..." I wouldn't be so sure any more.
@13432 2dkti3 *cough* zen 3
Intel 4 core is not equal to AMD 4 core cpu
@@ProjectRUclips (Intel would probably do much better with 4 cores) yes.. because they can sell fantastic prices for the processor with only 4 cores inside.
8 Cores is the sweet spot then
goodbye 8600k, hello ryzen 1600
@@mustang_7553 Zen1 or Coffee Lake CPUs may show different results in same tests. this video works only for Zen 2 architecture.
@@mustang_7553 yeah obvs 8600k over 1600 ryzen
Not really i would say. i think 6 cores with 12 threads or 8 cores with 16 threads would be optimum as we tend to run background app while gaming.
6 cores (12 threads) is the 'sweet spot'.
Watching on my single core celeron
:,)
@Mia khalifa I know that you have 8 holes, but 8 cores? Hope you don't delid them for a quarterback...
Celeron with GeForce 9400t and 1gb ram Is beast.cus I have play gta 4 in that
Same here bro! Potent wee CPU ain't she?
Pentium G4400 + GeForce 9600GT
"Laughs in Amd 64 cores threadripper"
Joke, I'm actually broke
u had us in the first half, I'm not gonna lie
thats a bad cpu for gaming anyways. not worth your money
Dont worry guys i have 128 core 256 thread AMD Threadripper
@Masoud Fasihi If it utilized.
@@lux4049 for minecraft?
Where is 2 cores😂😂
I use i3 6100
RIP
Muerto ☠️
@@esrd43 it is a bad cpu wtf. POS cpu. Quad cores are the minimum for these new games. And you're saying something with half of those cores is not bad? Gtfo
@@esrd43 GTA IV released on 2008 required quad core for optimal settings.
It's a good cpu actually. Because of the HT.
8-core is the best price-quality ratio
This is a flawed test, the processors are much closer, but because he turned off cores that means cache and different ccx modules are off, thus making for a worse performance when disabling cores than it would actually be. Fact of the matter is the 3600, 3700x and 3900x are all within 10% of each other at most. In most games the difference is zero to 2-3% percent. So while 8 cores does feel like a sweet spot, it all comes down to what you need the most. For example 12 cores is crucial for work, it will be massively better than 8 cores, but between 6 cores in the 3600 and 12 cores in the 3900x there is little difference in games. In fact better memory kit would provide you with better performance than more cores. 3400MHz at CL16 with manual timings setup will give you much better performance.
Depends on which platform you choose. Generally speaking when it comes to ryzen 6core/12 thread would be a sweet spot and offers the best price to performance ratio. 8core/16thread is the best for building a high end rig without crossing into "overkill" territory. But Intel scales a bit differently because fewer of their chips offer smt. I'd say if you have to choose team blue then the 8700k is probably the best all rounder. The other chips like the i5 and i3 lack smt and can choke if to much is demanded from them. I also wouldn't try and stream games if my chip doesn't have smt. So I'd use 4cores for indie titles and platforms and even older AAA games. 6 for e-sport/lite content creation/ lite AAA games. And 8 cores for moderate to heavy content creation, AAA gaming as well as streaming. Now there's plenty of exceptions to this rule like budget, your resolution, the games you wanna play etc.. but typically this is a good road map. A perfect example is my friend. He wants to game but doesn't want to stream or edit content he also plays mainly e-sports (csgo, dota2, StarCraft 2, Apex legends etc..) So he can get away with his 2400G and Rx 570. It suits his needs and then some, plus he plays at 1080p 60fps.
This tests shows different results because it's just a 1 CPU all along with it's SMT and other cores disabled therefore resulting with a disabled L3 Cache too. It's a flawed Test. If you want to see the real difference between a 6 Cores and 8 Cores and 12 Cores R5s, R7's, R9's see channels like Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus. Because those channels benchmarks real certain CPUs instead of just trying to simulate them with 1 CPU..
@@SlickR12345
True, but I think this is where some people miss that FPS isn't everything. A 9700K overclocked to 5.0 GHz will easily give more FPS than any Ryzen CPU, but when a game needs more threads than the CPU has to offer, it's not performance that takes a hit, it's the frame pacing. Try 64 multiplayer on Battlefield V, it uses 12+ threads easily, and while a 9700K will have more FPS, a 3700X will feel smoother despite lower FPS, that's because the frame pacing is more consistent with the extra threads. More consistent frame pacing means less micro stutter, which as sensitive as our eyes are, is very easily perceived. That said, I believe if someone is buying now and wants the most longevity paired with performance, 8 cores, 16 threads is the approach. 6 cores, 12 threads is fine now, but moving into the future, when a game requires 16 threads, it'll start to feel lacking, especially because PCs have processes running the background even if you only have the game running, and a lot of people have a web browser, music or something running while gaming too. If budget allows, I would just get the 3700X over the 3600, despite costing $130 more. Learning from history, this will buy longevity for sure. 7600K back in its day was enough too, the 7700K was seen as unnecessary, but look who's laughing now. The 7600K doesn't play AAA games that well and hasn't for a while now, while the 7700K is still very relevant and probably has another year of life in it before it's truly edged out of the AAA game spectrum. I'll bet the 3600 vs 3700X will face a similar situation (but less prominent in severity) a few years down the line.
Actually it isn't the best price-quality, in CPU demanding games the 8 core is almost maxed out which means it will lose performance and /or bottleneck the GPU sooner than a 10 core in the future and will have to be replaced sooner to keep the same performance. Once you factor that in it has no real value over a 10 core.
For me personally as long as it's above 60FPS that's okay for me.
1% lows are what you should always target, since it's frame drops that are what ruin the experience. It's why console games locked at 30FPS and movies locked to 24FPS don't look off, but when you get those frame drops at 60fps, it feels like you're playing a slideshow.
Do not let advertisers fool you with "average FPS", since "average" is such an abritrary variable:
Just an example of how meaningless 'average' is:
If you drove in a straight line from point A to B, an average speed of 100MPH could mean I drove 50mph for the first half, and 150mph for the second half, OR I never went above or below 100MPH throughout the trip.
sameee
buy a console then
Please smt-on with same tests..4-8 6-12 8-16 ..
we need this as some games does have fps disparity with SMT of/on
Smt is already on.
@@unspreadablesoap Its off as you can see in the discription...
@@unspreadablesoap dumb
@averylazyhoe the fuck are you talking about? How can more threads hinder the performance?
Games were starting to get optimized for 6&8 cores and then came along 12 cores. For new builders 6/8 cores are the sweet spots. 4cores are really starting to get obsolete.
4 core 8 thread is also viable if you can OC it. Your drop-off on a new gpu is around 10%.. so unless you have money to burn, wouldn't bother quite yet. I'm talking 6700k, 7700k and the like.
@@adam346 my 8600k conquers pretty much everything I throw at it! New rtx 2070 super going in tomorrow :P selling my gtx 1070 founders too
@@drummonkeystuffuk1875 im not 100% but an 8600k @ 5ghz is pretty close to parity on an 8 core ryzen 3000 series chip with smt off @ 4.1ghz as far as gaming is concerned. I would be interested to see the comparison with a ryzen 3900x with smt off vs the various intel cpus just for shiggles.
@@adam346 THat would be for some interesting results :)
Finally
Core 2 duo: Hold my cooler
-How many core you really need for gaming (Today)?
-More than Intel can offer without selling your "car" 🤣
oof
@@giftig694 nothing funny about the truth.
@v KEITH v it can "beg" as much as it likes.... facts are facts. dead platform crazy temps and overpriced hyped. no. i will think to buy intel maybe if they are into their "ivy bridge moment" after 3-4 or more years..and learn to properly comment your thoughts in a single post...dont be a spammer BESIDES a fan boy.
Comments: Are meant to introduce opinions and to discuss about the video.
Fanboys: Allow us to introduce ourselves
@v KEITH v you are giving an absolete and useless option when the video demonstrated that 8cores is the sweet spot and more for actual work and future games! you 6core old i5 is a cpu of the past and your 160$ will be wastes...when with the same or even less about 140$ today you buy Ryzen 5 2600(x) or not and you have 12threads and a much better cpu overall and upgradability path ahead of you! so your comment was rooted from a fanboy trying to see one side of the coin. case closed.-
Kindly make video with 4 core 4 thread, 4 core 8 thread, 6core 12 thread and so on
8core 8 threads i7 vs 6 core 12 threads i7 vs ryzen 3600 oc would be fun
@@reggiexp69 8 cores beats 6c/12 threads easily. But and beats Intel at 6 core
softly accept the truth and resist the urge to spend on electronics
cores are more important than threads. threads can smooth out frametime (so I've read) but threads ≠ cores (in performance terms).
also, if you use threads, the usage stats get confusing. For example, on the witcher 3 test, 4 cores are bottlenecking the GPU. If you used threads, it might look like the CPU was probably at 50% but it would still be the CPU bottlenecking the GPU. Very confusing. Tech deals just did a test where this was happening and he explained that he was getting 50% utilisation but with SMT off cores would have been saturated.
Depends of course how well a game makes use of cores. I think this video shows that pretty well actually
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j that depends if it's only 8 cores and 8 threads then a 6 core 12 thread cpu would performance similar
Me having a 2 core cpu: 👍👍👍👍
Woah!
I actually have 4😊
@@poiuytrewq9953 nice
4 Cores : Decent for budget gaming
6 Cores : Capable of Both gaming & multitasking.
8 Core : Gaming and heavy processing.
10 Core : Extreme gaming and multitasking.
12 Core : Multi - user process handling specialized with extreme utilization.
6 cores is needed atleast now to run any AAA title
I can run ray tracing 60 fps on my 3400g with 1660 super
No problems with my 4c 4t i5-6600k 3.60ghz oveclocked to 4.80ghz.
@@ChadPANDA... My i5- 9400F still can't run Crysis 3 on 60FPS. 😂
I am talking about future proofing ur pc 4 cores will be like any 2 core cpu now within next 2 years so if you are building a pc spending money atleast buy something that can last longer in this test only the 4c cpu was on 100 percent cpu usage all the time
I looks to me that the GPU bottle necked on the 10 and 12 core.
yee, frame times were less on the 12 core but fps was similar. in fact it looked like frame times were decreasing linearly from 8->10->12, so if they had a better graphics card, like an integrated intel (lol) then they probably coulda got another 10 fps. also im ignoring the data from odessy, that runs about as well as my grand father.
Odyssey indeed runs like ass all ubi games seem to can its less cpu intensive than vermintide 2 and it runs about the same
The proc il totally bottlenecked by 2080, to really bench the processor, he should have used a 2080 Ti. 10 and 12 core numbers are not so interesting here
Depends some low demand games doesn’t need so much utilization of gpu to achieve high fps, some high demand games doesn’t optimize well with multi cores processor hence doesn’t utilize well the gpu as well. A lot factors.
Yep
This dude has a Ryzen 9. I'm only as rich as just able to watch these videos for free.
i think he works in a pc store (ig he told someone in comments)
I need 16 cores lol porn hub is to slow on anything less
hahahahahaha
Haha porn joke funny
I think you mean 16gb Ram
@@itzdcx that too.
And a 300hz monitor to see some smooth action
That's wrong! You turned off the cores, new Ryzen architecture and cache not working. CCX0
, CCX1, CCX2
, CCX3.
forreal?
this i the best channel ever. it covers literally everthing you need to know
Processors time-lapse:
2006: the Dual-core processors are the future
2012: the Quad-core processors are the future
2017: the Hexa-core processors are the future
2021: the Octa-core processors are the future
2025: the Deca-core processors are the future
2029: I don't have enough money to buy a 16-core processor ...
O que fazes aqui?
Xeon serie : what do you say?...im still here
They have a 28 core since 2018. Catch up
@@a_b_c pesquisando árduamente sobre processadores para compará-los com o Ryzen 5 3600 e ver se é ou não uma boa escolha :)
@@jornalnumero125 Sucesso com a pesquisa aí então :)
so this was not different cpu's it was a ryzen 9 3900x with cores shut down
That makes it even more accurate, because you have a lot more control groups in the experiment. From 4 to 8 cores is a huge increase, but from 8 to 12 is only ~20fps.
@Salt Maker at that high I wouldn't notice 20 fps either way I'm waiting for the 4950x to come out before I upgrade from my 2700x I'll probably want to upgrade from a 2080 ti to whatever amd or nvidia have by then whatever is stronger I'm hoping amd brings something strong to the table though then my brother can get a nice Christmas gift 😂
Otto Ernst is right. 20 fps is *ONLY* 20 fps. That is an insignificant number. When you are above 100 fps 20 fps is trash for a difference. The human eye won't notice the difference. I'm tired of elitist liars trying to convince themselves that they WOULD notice. I have 21/20 vision and I wouldn't notice. And my eyes are sensitive to EVERYTHING including refresh rates.
@@asmongoldsmouth9839 Lol??? if u have an 144hz, almost anything below 115 will be noticeable. When i play league(ik not a verry interesting game), every time when i get below 115 i kinda feel it, in csgo is more noticeable
@@BarTa01 Not to reply to you specifically (sorry) but the thread is missing something crucial. Frametimes matter more than FPS.
We percieve framerates not in "fps" per-se but in ms between frames.
We don't look at all the frames delivered in a 1 second interval and then average them in our brains, We see it as a constant stream and stutters or "slide shows" can break immersion.
30fps=33.3ms, 60fps=16.6ms, 120fps=8.33ms, 240fps=4.16ms etc
As framerates go up the time between frames gets much tighter (assuming a constant framerate "pacing" with no variability) so as fps goes up the difference is felt less, As you can see above a 16.6ms difference then an 8.33ms difference then a 4.16ms difference.
That being said saying "a 20fps difference" or "oh if you overclock you'll only gain maybe 5fps" is hugely disingenous and misleading!
Watch out for people saying that stuff!
A "20fps increase" can be 40fps>60fps so going from 25ms down to 16.6ms, So 50% increase or a 50% decrease in time saving 8.4ms which is definitely noticable.
Meanwhile going from 200fps to 220fps (still +20fps) is only a 10% increase going from 5ms down to 4.54ms so your frames are only saving 0.5ms or 0.0005 seconds between frames, You will likely not notice this even *IF* you have a 200+hz monitor.
That's aside from the fact allot of games framerates are highly variable so the average fps might deviate by 40% from 160fps-240fps or 4.16ms-6.25ms (still averaging 200fps). That 0.5ms increase is insignificant compared to the normal frametime variance in natural gameplay.
This is why "average fps" alone and even "1% low" don't tell the whole story and frametime graphs over time are so important.
If you found this useful please try to help others understand better next time you see someone state performance gains in a fixed fps out of context.
(this is the original).
I didn't know cores matter so much!
Ryzen 5 3600 solve the problem, easily
Huge L3 cache virtually Free Boost FPS
This tests shows different results because it's just a 1 CPU all along with it's SMT and other cores disabled therefore resulting with a disabled L3 Cache too. It's a flawed Test. If you want to see the real difference between a 6 Cores and 8 Cores and 12 Cores R5s, R7's, R9's see channels like Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus. Because those channels benchmarks real certain CPUs instead of just trying to simulate them with 1 CPU..
yet loses fo intel
When people still dont set the SecondLevelCashe in the registry and windows pretends it doesn't exist, too this day windows is set to 256kb
Price/performance champ and goes head to head with Intel's near $500 dollar I9 9900k in many games. The best sub $200 dollar chip ever. Been an Intel guy for years but just built a Ryzen system. Amazing comeback for AMD.
@@Thanatos4655 how to do that? Is that really make difference?
6 cores is enough for gaming unless you have endless money to spend
Exactly.
Well, 6C/6T is the absolute minimum I'd go for if I'm on a very tight budget. 6C/12T if I can stretch a bit. But 8C/16T is ideal, if you don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, and for future titles.
cores is not everything. 2700x will give you less fps than 3600 in most games
@@AzumDzumHzumS - For now, and games these days aren't utilizing more than 12 threads. Once it does, 2700X will pull ahead 3600, for sure, in terms of stability in framerate i.e. 1%, 0.1% Lows.
@@AnalogFoundry when this happens you will have so many other options already. i have 2700x myself but i would buy 3600 if i was buying today. i dont buy sth. so its better in 4 years maybe.
4 cores enough, but 8 cores is sweet spot to play comfortably on 144 hertz. Thx for review!
6 cores is the new 4 cores.
Jeff Mattel agree
Edit: wanna add that good quality high MHz RAM very important too, and ofc nicely overclocked new gen CPU + Windows 10 microstutters optimization like cmd commands, GPU optimization, HPET forced to OFF, game optimization, enough power supply etc..all is important i think. Peace man!
Very interesting. I would be interested to know how clock speed factors in too. Like does a 5ghz 8 core beat a 4.2 ghz 10 core
Dude i9 is 8 core trust me
Tareq Shosho did you reply to the wrong comment or something ?
ruclips.net/video/geOy6vncL3A/видео.html
@@tareqshosho1773 depends on which i9, saying core i9 is like saying ryzen 5. it also makes you sound like one of those dumb apple fan fucks
it probably wouldn't because more cores means it can execute things more efficiently and isolate processes despite a clock speed difference. Like more ram is almost always better despite whether its 2133,2666,3200 or 4000 mhz ram. Advertising clock speed is sort of just a marketing tactic
Nice test. 4 cores is playable, 6 cores is good, 8 cores is recommended and anything above it is just enthusiastic things.
but futureproof
@@cptninja7890 You dont need more cores, you need threads.
95 fps playable? That's pretty damn good. 45fps is playable. 95 is solid.
@@mattevans1643 4 cores is reaching 48FPS on 1% low and only 9% on 0.1% low on BF1. These data that really matters, not average. Not need to mention the 50% bottleneck measure by GPU Usage on BF too. 4 cores is thead by a long time. Do you ever bother too see other games too?
@@rodrigomendes3327 well an old i7 is still doing well :p the point is u need HT~ the old i5 quadcores are pretty dead at this point
me with a dual core cries in the corner
you need to buy a mice
same lol
@@Funkiam why lol, like thats gonna add more cores to my cpu?
@@Funkiam Chances are, someone with a dual core CPU will also have bad internet and not a lot of money to spend on games.
@@tridium8923 I mean that's not a good stereotype.
I remember when cpus just got upgraded to dual core and it was a revolution, then quad core was a crazy jump, now they are obsolete
Good old times. I remember Q6600 and 8800GTX
8 cores is the sweet spot indeed. More developers are programming for 8 cores.
Look at the 1% numbers, 8 cores is sweet spot
for me, 4 cores are enough for now. in the future, when 16 cores become more mainstream ill just jump over 6,8,10,12 cores and buy that instead. especially now that triple-A has been terrible for the last couple of years, there is no point in upgrading.
You call RDR2 terrible??? Watch dogs? Assassins' Creed? There are so many great triple A games to play RN. Don't call every triple A game bad just because of Cyberpunk lol.
Laughing in intel petium 3
So i had to use my phone to watch and reply
Ryzen 3 3300x :- hold my quad core
Yeah, this video is dumb. He's using the same cpu, just deactivating some cores. A cpu built with 4 cores in mind will perform as well as 6 core or even better in gaming
Clearly, in summer 2019, eight cores were the optimum in terms of bang for the bucks combined with some future-proofness. If only price to performance was (is?) a criteria, then maybe the six-banger was (still is?) an OK choice even though performing 10 to 15% worse than its next bigger sibling. Four firing pots were definitely not enough already by 2019 (even though at that time the R5 3300X didn't exist yet, which even by 2020 might still be an ok budget choice, performing even slightly better than an Intel i7 7700K...).
That's said, by far not everyone owns an expensive RTX card and hence if using lower performing, cheaper cards, very likely full-HD games will be earlier GPU than CPU limited anyway. Means: for most gamers the CPU doesn't matter that much unless it's really, really obsolete (like 2, 3 and 4-core Athlons, Bulldozers or Phenoms).
Those who waited until now (August, 2020) sitting on pre-Ryzen/AM4 hardware, I'd recommend to wait longer until AM5, DDR5 memory and PCIe4 will be real for upgrading to a brand new, long lasting platform. That is one, maximum two CPU generations away (2020/2021 latest).
Or they can buy the final AM4 Zen generation at a good discount later this year! Everybody wins!!
Maybe, because many games released in console first, and current gen consoles (xbox one, ps4) have 8 cores.
Even Z490 supports Pci express Gen 4 with Rocket lake and I think getting that is a waste.
Alder lake is supposed to be 12th gen and is in a different socket! (LGA 1700) With DDR5 coming soon, getting the 10th gen cpus might seem a good value but 11th gen is kinda waste...
Wow Ryzen 3000 cpus are looking better now
Leftwitch these are comparing ONLY ryzen cpus 9900k would do the best in all of these games.
@@jowarnis yeah in games maybe, but who uses their PC for gaming only? Thats why you should go AMD. Price / Performance ratio is just SO MUCH BETTER than intels overpriced crap. AMD's chips may not be the best for gaming (remember they are not even made for gaming, but they do a very good job at it) but when it comes to multitasking, your 9900k can go home.
@@Sharpless2 true, like yeah, almost everyone doesn't just use their PC's for gaming, just like me, I game, but program too.
Looks like you don't need more than 8 cores for gaming after all
But 10 cores show more fps then 8,6,4
Now...
2 years ago the quad cores dominated
@@androidkasha yes. Because the 8 core has smt disabled
People said the same thing about not needing more than 4 cores years ago. Look where we are now. Eventually games will use 8 cores and the bar will keep raising.
@@taegire You can be sure in it. It will take exactly 2 years from now(speculation) 6/12 to be the minimum 8/16 to be the safe bet. But in the same moment cores will become MUCH cheaper than now. In total 6/12 is the best bet in this moment. Gaming wise - ill buy more than 6 or 8 cores when 12 cores(24) cost like 6(199$).
Threadripper 3990X: Allow us to introduce ourselves
Linus: "As we can see, blender can't take all cores"
It doesn't do anything! 8 cores are enough.
@@breadbuttrjam1604 6 cores*
Pretty sure these tests were all done with the same processor, just disabling cores...
Yeah on a 3900x
A real test, Ryzen 3 3300X vs. Ryzen 5 3600:
ruclips.net/video/ALQ1YuBaxLs/видео.html
But isnt it showing threads not cores cause if I look at it in task manager my xeon has 4 cores but it shows 8 "cores" with are my threads
@@warmaster2104 His test was showing "cores" specifically done on a single CPU that's 12 cores / 24 threads. He disabled some of the cores and tested with ONLY cores. He also disabled SMT which is AMD's Hyperthreading. It's like using a quad core i7 and disabling Hyperthreading basically turning it into an i5. If he didn't disable SMT then a quad core would have performed MUCH better. My friend that's using my old i7 6700K that I sold him years ago still performs really well and he games on a 1080p 144hz and Ultrawide 1080p monitors. If your resolution is 4K or even 1440p then games become GPU bound and not so much CPU bound. This test is misleading and people should read the description before making assumptions and commenting.
this test is bullshit and misleading.
Everything over 8 cores doesn’t make sense now, 6 cores seems to be a sweet spot.
Well, maybe if you only game on your pc. But most of us do more with it then just gaming and surfing.
Some people game and want to stream. Others game and have 20 tabs in there browser open. Some people render videos, or do other productive stuff with it, too. PCs are not only for gaming and even if you want to game with it, the other things are still on your mind if you choose a rig.
6 core with gaming and streaming can get really fast laggy, depending on the game you play and the coding. Even with 8 cores you can reach a limit pretty fast. So 12 or 16 cores are a nice option to consider.
@@callyacaos5339 that is only like 10% of people, but for gaming, the best price/performance 6 cores 12 threads is best.
@@callyacaos5339 I mean the whole point of this video is about what cpu is sufficient enough for gaming...
@@bigberther7368 So just because the video is about gaming means that you should not talk about the wider view of computers?
Since AMD opened the desktop pc for more than just only gaming or office work, people will consider more than just gaming into their thoughts. Most PCs are not used to game...
@@callyacaos5339 Yes but you're not seeing the point here. This video was made to give GAMERS an idea of what cpu they should be getting for GAMING in which is shown by duh GAMING performance.
How much stuff did you open in the background? Most games use 1-2 cores are most, why is there such a big difference?
6 Cores and 12 Threads new standar (4Cores 8Threads minimum)
I have an i5 2400, it has 4 cores and 4 threads, and I have no problems playing Shadow of the tomb raider, Witcher 3, Rainbow 6 siege, etc...
@@lancebermejo3319 You don't see problems in your setup with your GPU, 4/4 is not enough for gaming anymore if you want a smooth 60fps experience, I upgraded from an i5 6600k to a R5 3600 (RX480) and seems like a whole new PC in some games. And my i5 was at 4.4 and my ryzen is in like 4ghz.
@@Uri_Nrv Yeah, 4 cores is enough, look at the video. Yes theres a bottleneck, but it still performed very well even with 4 cores, and heck, who would pair an RTX 2080 Ti with a quad core? They're meant for mid range GPU's like a 1060 or RX 580
@@lancebermejo3319 quad core is getting out of fashion really fast. Not saying its bad, but when the next waves of AAA games come, you will see a drastic decrease in perforamce. When you do some tests with bottlenecking and all that, the 2080 Ti with an R5 3600 seems like a perfect pair.
Yes, pairing those 2 sounds completely retarded... but actually isnt. The whole "mid end, low end and high end" thing is bs. The R5 3600 isnt a high end CPU at all but the 2080 Ti definitely is. Yet if you pair those (mind you, a mid end CPU and a high end GPU) you have one beast of a Gaming / Multi tasking station.
Please do the amd ryzen 3950x when it comes out
I still have an core i3 6th gen and still I played cyberpunk 😂 at 720p also an GTX 1050Ti to support the poor thing
Fps?
@@darkphoenix00001 34-40 FPs one medium settings 720p when going to a highly density area it drops down to the 27-25 but still I can run the game 🙏 I also have 2133Mhz DDR4 16GB ram so no issu for RAM then M.2 for good loading time it's not good but it's worth my budject
@@kingkillayt3005 sounds very cool my man, i have the same GPU for now so that's definitely good to hear 👍
@@darkphoenix00001 mostly guys like u and me have 8GB of ram I guss put some more powerful ram if u can so the Poor GTX 1050Ti can have some back up
@@kingkillayt3005 yep I'm definitely planning on getting a good amount of fast RAM 😁
Conclusion : a 600$ CPU is faster than a 150$ one ... so buy the expensive one.
This conclusion was sponsored by Intel, AMD, Asus, Gigabyte, EVGA, Nvidia, and Microsoft ..
Remember "SMT OFF." It would change dramatically if you turn SMT on
What is the function of smt?
@@hotdog3219 It makes 1 physical core serves as 2 logical core, works not exactly but almost as good as 2 physical core
@@SyoShinozaki Not exactly. Performance can be increased about +20% in best case, but only +10-15% average. Logical core can not replace a physical core without dedicated executing units (logical circuits of transistors). SMT only helps to improve the core usage by using the idle state subunits if it is possible (it is highly depends on the type of the tasks and sotware optimalization). You can find also game tests comparing SMT on/off modes and there can be seen clearly that SMT on means about +10-15% only. It is better than nothing but far away from a real core. SMT requires about +5% transistor count, but gives 5-20% extra peformance, so it is not a bad feature at all....but not a silver bullet.
@@Leo-rw2ls Intel's Hyperthreading technology is SMT as well.
@@Leo-rw2ls Normally SMT feature is active by default. It can slightly improve the performance, especially under CPU intensive scenes....but i think if you have 8 physical cores then SMT is less important in games
Any dual core bros out there? Looks like I'm the only one playing those games in a dual core cpu 😔😔
I am too
Pentium e5200 here ;)
@@Youba05 I have a Core i3-7100U, though I'm probably going to get a new pc for Christmas which will most likely have a Ryzen 3 3100
The Idiot nice bro ,good for u!
i5-4260u :D
The Ryzen 7 2700 is probably one of the best jack of all trades master of none CPUs in the ~200$ range. God bless AMD and their prices, you get 8 cores and 16 threads of good performance and a cooler that doesn't sound like a vacuum cleaner to boot. Take that Intel!
Estimate preowned xeon e5 2678v3 for 110 usd. It has 12 cores and 24 threads.
@@ЮрийСер-к2е yes a 6 year old server chip that cost $1700 on launch that has no modern features that you can fry an egg on with its heat and power consumption and special server motherbourd with also don't have modern features and has a MAX BOOST clock at 3.3ghz. A r7 2700 at less then $70 more has all modern features, a standard am4 motherbourd socket. tell me if you want an old server chip that has aged HORERBLY and the only redeaming factor is that it has 4 more (very much worse) cores and 8 more threads and less then $70 cheaper or what first guy said
If you're in a Budget, 6 Core is the Sweet Spot =)
sweet spot of comfortbnale introvert get out and make friends you idiot s and stop being a kdi bullying shit you diito get pout you always will be emnbarrased yeah yeah im typping this so fast you wont even be able to tell what im saying bobobobo. you comffort zone
@@walidfakhfakh3660 What?
@@mrgtmodernretrogamingtech6891 whn
@@walidfakhfakh3660 Kid, I'm a 30 year old family man giving an honest tech opinion... If you don't like it, fine... Go find someone else to bother...
True 10600k i5 would work fine I guess. I am getting an intel because I also want to hackintosh my future PC
Ryzen 5 3500 (6 cores) Shows a +10% Speed and gives higher frame rates than Ryzen 7 2700 (8 cores)
in PUBG, GTA5, Fortnite and CSGO
According to:
cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3500/3957vs4053
(The video uses ryzen 9 3900x which comes with 12 cores and Different number of cores are achieved by shutting down two cores at a time, but the fact is comparing one processor with different core numbers and different processors are not the same, because cores are not the only thing that determine the power of processors, there are many 6 core processors in the market with better architecture than many 8 core, and definitely you can save some bucks too )
that is because ipc improvement in new architecture of zen 2
More cores doesn't mean you get higher fps. They are not for gaming. Its for content creators mainly.
@@luluw9699 In more games nowadays the combination of higher core counts with better IPC handlings are making ryzen cpu's better for gaming as well as multitasking, even better done at the same time. High core counts 100% benefit for gaming at least for most modern titles made after 2014.
@@Shyvorix just saying 6 cores are ok for gaming. People don't need to buy 12 core system just for gaming.
@@luluw9699 6 cores are indeed okay, though in due time we'll see 6 cores the same way we see 2 cores: obselete beyond words. Only time will be absolutely certain since original Crysis still runs like shit because Crytek made the game under the assumption that the future will be 2-4 core CPUs with clock speeds of 6-8+Ghz instead of 8-12+ core CPUs with minimized and optimized architectures running at the same speed as those from long ago.
Pentium 4 checking in
Thank God the Athlon 64 is about to curb stomp Intel House fire cpu
I had an E8400 with a Radeon 2400 Pro. It ran garrysmod and runescape
Pentium 3 tulatin 1.4 ghz reporting in : )
Ryzen 5 3400g checking in :(
GTA 5, Metro Exodus, CS Go and many other games run better based on clockspeed and hyperthreading rather than actual core count. You should have included them too for a better comparison.
20% OFF Discount Code For ALL Software Products: TG20
Windows 10 Pro Retail Key: bit.ly/33renoM
Windows 10 Home Key: bit.ly/39oBZOx
Office 2019 Pro Plus Key: bit.ly/33sJJv7
Office 2016 Pro Plus Key: bit.ly/3mIujKF
Why nobody like your comment
Lol nobody like his comment
Почему ты всегда убираешь FPS?
How many cores are needed for you to learn what a GPU bottleneck is.
6 core is better
6 cores the new 'minimum', 8 cores the 'recommended' and 10 cores the 'maximum'. 12 and above, seems like wasting money at least for 2019-2020.
RIP my 4 cores gaming rig, waiting for 6 cores APU :(
I have an i5 2400 and it's a quad core, and I have no trouble playing Shadow of the tomb raider with ease. If you saw the footage, 4 cores ran fine despite the bottleneck, but who the heck would pair an RTX 2080 Ti with a quad core?
@@lancebermejo3319 i have the 2080ti paired with 3770k. and i am so amazed and surprised at the results. 45-60fps on most games maxed out 4k. im starting to strongly believe that oc is more important than cores.
@@roberto19801909 Because most games STILL love high GHz not high threads!
Look like my R5 1500X 4C8T are going obsolete anytime now. but I'm still happy with 4 core and I dont think I want to upgrade anytime soon.
I have the same CPU and I can still play games well on it so I probably won't upgrade it for a few years.
@@stephengray3957 I'm not oc it yet if another year or two it's going to show its aged, I'm going to oc the hell out of it. And I'm saving some money for decent cooling right now.
@@goudatakeshi1228 Good idea.
Damn this is highly misleading, people thinking in the comments they will have a jump going from 4 to 8 cores, when hyperthreading is disabled so it's just 4 threads. Nobody has a 4c/4t cpu anymore 4c/8t are still more than good
How big is the performance difference between only one thread per core and two thread per core?
4c/8c is decent now but won't be in a couple of years.
well if u r only game most of the time then 4c/8t is enough. 6c/12t is for light streaming and productivity, and gives a little headroom. 8c/16t is for mid to heavy streaming and productivity, and for me 8c/16t is more than enough, anything past this is overkill for me
@@muhammadahnafwisnunugroho2534 Have you seen the benchmarks for Cyberpunk 2077?? The game will happily utilised 12 cores. Shadow of the Tom Raider will also use 8 cores if it's available. You're right 4c/8t will do but how long? 1 year, 2 year or 3 years. I'm not convinced that it can be pushed to 3 years. The new minimum is 6c/12t fi you wanna play modern games.
@@muhammadahnafwisnunugroho2534 You also need to take into consideration on what resolution you wanna be playing at. 4k gaming on latest AAA games. I don't think so. That's some serious potential bottlenecks.
Cores or threads? In the next few years, you will need sixteen threads, an eight core sixteen thread processor will become the stsbdard. Four core, and six core will become obsolete.
Why sixteen? The PS5 has sixteen threads, and so game developers will create game engines optimised for that processor. PC gamers are sleep walking into a threadpocalypse, that they have not see coming. 😂😂😂
2 cores and 4 threads reserved for the os tho
Please do this again but for intel
intel is dead why bother
He can't do it up to 12 cores only 10
@@26DeislerFCB Intel makes the fastest gaming cpu. Makes sense.
@@thelittledetailscr7231 not to mention price wise lmaooooo why bother on high resolutions only get intel for 1080p 144 or 240hz
@@redclaw72666 it makes sense for 1440p 144-165hz with a 2080ti as well. I have a great job and I want the best for my hobby. Don't want amd slowing me down just to save $150. Or save nothing if I get the 3900x, which is still slower.
It’s sad just looking at this with a 2-core cpu
its even sadder with a 1 core cpu
Even a 4 core is giving more than acceptable FPS
Ya
Yeah with a 2080 oc even the worst cpus will have very good fps
Yeah but that's with a good gpu, it's a massive bottleneck and if you buy this gpu and a CPU with 4 cores it's a waste of money
@@theoj901 I mean if you are playing games like valorant or league than it wouldn't matter
@@PsychoticBacon19 well obviously, if you aren't playing intensive games then yes, a 4 core CPU works just fine. I'm saying don't buy an rtx 2080 if you are going to pair it with this CPU, you won't be getting your money's worth
It will be interesting to watch this video in 2029. Reminds me of the debates on how many cores were needed back in 2009.
feel like 8 cores is the sweet spot
more like 6 to me.
@@prince_lish cuz u broke
@@パラドックス-v7p bold to assume that of someone you dont know lol.
@@prince_lish chill jk
I still have an FX-8350 8 Core Black edition! 😅
Wow man i feel sry about that
8 logical...
upgrade at least to a 3930K or 6700K you'll get like 50% more computing. Heck you can jump to 3800x or 9700k as well for cheap nowadays.
AMD lost that lawsuit lol, it's a quad core. Look it up. ;)
Its like cars, i4, v6, v8, v10, v12
True in more than one way, a new 4 core can outperform an older 8 core, in the same way that a modern i4 engine can outperform an old carburetted V8 engine. A Ryzen 3 3200G 4 core actually outperforms an old FX-8350 because it's more advanced and more efficient.
@1080p it makes the difference, but once you start gaming at 1440p and 4k it's more the GPU that affects the fps, not the CPU core count. 👍
hey bro! You rock. Thanks for the benchmarks differences among the 4, 6, 8, 10 & 12 Cores processors with the same GPU.
and same cpu
8 core looks perfecto perfecto according to this testo!
Youbetcho!
Excellento!
Epico!
Bravo!
Unbelievablelo
4 cores for low budget ( low-medium setting ) , 6 if you can spare some more (medium-high setting) and 8 , 10 for a truly stable experience (high-ultra) ( from pentium user 😂😂😂😂😂 )
9 cores?
@@breadbuttrjam1604 actually 10 but I was thinking about i9 that moment , just a typo thanks for pointed out
I would like to say that this title is not properly written. What you mean here is HOW MANY THREADS. i bet that with any 8 thread processor you would be good.
Smt is off. Check the description.
Those that say 4 cores aren't enough in 2019 are idiots.
You can have approximately those framerates on High or Custom High settings with midrange Graphics Card.
That aside on avarege 6 - 8 cores are probably a sweetspot value wise.
Not really if you are building a new computer. If you are about to spend a thousand on a brand new computer and you are buying a 4 cores cpu then you are the idiot. 4 cores cpu are already showing their age in 2019 multi threads optimized titles. Average fps is good which is to be expected cause the cpu is not used much when nothing is happening but the low 1% is suffering in multi-thread friendly games which lead to stutter and a lack of smoothness when there's a lot of actions. If you are betting on a brand new 4 cores cpu in 2019 with the next gen consoles being 8/16 then you are a very uninformed buyer imo. 6 cores minimum i would say. I would personally avoid any brand new cpu not 8/8 or 6/12 unless i plan to upgrade again in 2-3 years.
@@francischabot1412 nah 4cores is enough if you play in 4k look ryzen 3300
Thank god i just bought a used Helios 500 i7 8750h that has 6 cores with 12 hyperthreading capacity, 16gb with gtx 1070, just for 800$ (57500 INR).
😎😎😎
Thanks a lot for this video! I am very Happy for my 3700x
You should have tested 5 different cpus
i am watching this on a core 2 quad Q6600.
Legendary CPU bro. I have one myself!
@@vladvah77 thanks bruh
Works different for different cpus, you can't just disable cores on a single cpu and call it a day..
This has been tested to be accurate in simulating the lesser cpus of the same generation.
But since the subject of the test is core count and not CPU performance, disabling cores on exactly the same CPU is the best way to go.
4 Strong cores are started to struggle in demanding games a couple of years back after being the recommendation for gamers for years. Thankfully 4c8t CPUs do alot better, even a i7 2600k can push 60 fps in pretty much every game.
Long story short: It simply depends on the game. Will it matter more in the future? Yes.
Yeah man, most of the games are better optimized for Intel products (the difference is only 10 fps) just like some but less games are better optimized for AMD.
Hopefully in the future more video games will become well optimized for both of them.
@@theprinceofdarkness3250 Not anymore lol. Intel lost the gaming crown as well.
Also, zen 3 fixes many problems with zen 2 in games.
You never see how 12 cores CPU worse than 6-8 cores like this, now.
Ryzen 5 2600 cheap and strong👌
Naa... Only in multi-tasking but in gaming i5 9400f is there😉
The huge difference is because its a powerful gpu on basic gpu like 1050 there will not so much difference
Or resolution. I try and game at 2160p or 1800p on my vega 56. So if hit 50fps on my 4k TV I'm happy as no judder there (TVs can run 50hz or 60hz stable).
*me watching on a 60hz refresh monitor*
Yes yes I can really tell a difference 🧐
Numbers on the screen bro
i find this slightly whack, testing on a 3900x with smt disabled and disabling cores doesn't give a true comparison of performance
Yeah this test aint great. If anything it compares ryzen processors only. Need to toss in some intel ones. Betting a 7700HQ could kick the 6 core and 8 core limited 3900x, and so on.
@@Gwentron keep dreaming hahaha, even the R5 1600 can easily beat the 7700HQ in any recent game.
@@Lue1337 lol k
Do any programers actually program for smt?
@@Gwentron even 7700k is really weak now and you are talking about 7700Hq which is a piece of shit.
I'd like to see how threads fits in... For instance, I have a 6 core 12 thread CPU.
8700k Squad?
Threads are roughly equal to half a core, so 6c/12t is similar to 9c/9t.
Ht on intel usually reduces performance if its enabled.
@@Tim_Tam not really.. more like 25-30%..
@@mryellow6918 It depends on the workload and what is required
My 3200G: *cries in the corner*
Bruh don't cry! It's an amazing processor especially when using its integrated graphics! I use the Ryzen 3 3200G with integrated Vega 8 graphics and Minecraft, CSGO, Roblox, even GTA V all run very great! GTA V -> 720p high settings and I get just above 60 fps on average!
Remember, it needs to be used with fast RAM in dual channel tho, at least 8GB of RAM (2x4gb) dual channel running at 2800MHz. I use it exactly like this. The performance is 📈
@@deadchannel5933 I know. Actually, I am playing Red Dead Redemption 2 with my integrated graphics and I don't have dual channel RAM yet, so can't complain :)
ok so do you experience stuttering on browsers when hardware acceleration is turned on
@@abhimanyua1027 No need to have hardware acceleration on, it's useless and it breaks stuff...
@@abhimanyua1027 No I haven't experienced anything like that.
I need to see intel now.
Intel sucks
Intel dead
@@aetherian31 Intel is still the top for gaming...
Mofmed, Intel doesn’t suck because it can play games that only cares about 4 cores and the cpu clock speed such as X-Plane and other flight simulators
Intel 6 core 10600 k beat the most amd 8 core in gaming 😂😂😂. Amd 3000 is very slow for gaming
Cores chat:
AMD: Hi everyone I'm cores
Intel: Intel has left the chat
No intel is better with less cores at gaming.
8 cores sweet spot 6 cores minimum. Don’t go 4 core anymore if you’re playing newer titles. Newer consoles have 8 cores and a lot of games are going to be designed around these newer consoles
More and more games require 8 threads, not cores. As soon as you go below 8 threads there is a major performance impact. Since you disabled SMT this truth is hidden.
WHAT about The People buying i5 7xxx 2 years ago because gaming didnt need ht/smt? Hahahahhaha
6-8 cores is good for gaming.
go make a new video
10-12 is not good for gaming?
@@herzi8372 Not there yet. :)
I've been on 4 cores for nearly 5 years, about time to upgrade. I usually play on medium settings.
I have been on 4 cores for about 8 years man im about to get a new pc in about 3 days
Have been on 4 cores i5 3570k for 7-8 years. It still handles rdr 2. So i won’t change it soon
i’ve been on 4 core for 6 years still get 60 fps ++ in almost anygame with high preset
@@sunnyganim6727 noice, what gpu you have?
Sunny Ganim 4 cores is enough if u want 60 fps :)
8 cores = best (money saved goes to GPU).
AMD instructions is shit my old 8086k @5ghz take all
The jump from 4 to 6 is significant wow
Is the CPU core count dependency the same on higher resolutions such as 1440p & 4k? Also, why is SMT turned off?