Overclock.net banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Will be better for games have 6 cores on 4,2 or 8 cores with 3,5?
Any advice for configuration?
 

·
9 Cans of Ravioli
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Depends on the software and what you're doing in the background.
 

·
Da Boss
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
The basis now is 4 cores is now the minimum for any gaming rig. Anything else is extra. Once you hit higher resolution, it's more GPU dependent.

You can literally hit up YouTube/google it and find reviews to see how gaming stacks up with multiple core configuration.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,117 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
786 Posts
Generally less cores is just less cores. Its not like dual core CPU's hit 8Ghz, Quad cores hit 6Ghz and Octa core is stuck at 4Ghz...All CPU's right now basically sit at around mid 4Ghz (with overclocks etc). So the question isnt cores vs speed but cores vs money. Get as many cores as you can afford that makes sense for what you do.
 

·
FX-5000
Joined
·
974 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverNYX View Post

Will be better for games have 6 cores on 4,2 or 8 cores with 3,5?
Any advice for configuration?
If I had to really choose, I'd go with 6 cores and 4.2ghz.

Because processor speed trumps the 2 extra cores.

And then there's cooling difference. The 6 cores run just about as hot as 8 cores. So 4.2ghz with 8 cores should be doable if your cooling solution can handle 6 cores any ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,479 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverNYX View Post

Will be better for games have 6 cores on 4,2 or 8 cores with 3,5?
Any advice for configuration?
Core counts and clockspeeds really mean nothing by themselves unless you're comparing similar/identical chips.
A modern 3GHz dual core CPU will run circles around a 3GHz dual core CPU from a decade ago despite those two factors remaining constant.

For gaming in general having fewer faster cores is usually almost always better than having more slower cores.
Assuming the processors were equal in every way aside from core count and clockspeed, I would recommend a 4.2GHz 6core over the 3.5GHz 8core for gaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusRed View Post

The basis now is 4 cores is now the minimum for any gaming rig.
Not for any rig, but definitely most.
If you're looking to build a rig to play RTS games or MMOs, a fast dual core is still a totally viable option. Obviously if the budget allows for it go for a quad for multitasking ability, but don't be so quick to say no to a dual core without doing some research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusRed View Post

Once you hit higher resolution, it's more GPU dependent.
Potentially misleading.
Resolution is GPU dependent but the CPU requirements for a game remain the same regardless of what resolution you play at. CPU requirements don't go down as resolution goes up.
 

·
FX-5000
Joined
·
974 Posts
Quote:
Core counts and clockspeeds really mean nothing by themselves unless you're comparing similar/identical chips.
A modern 3GHz dual core CPU will run circles around a 3GHz dual core CPU from a decade ago despite those two factors remaining constant.
I had to laugh cause it's true but at the same time figuring he was thinking about an FX processor considering they didn't make 6 and 8 core single socket processors a decade ago.....
biggrin.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,326 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

Core counts and clockspeeds really mean nothing by themselves unless you're comparing similar/identical chips.
A modern 3GHz dual core CPU will run circles around a 3GHz dual core CPU from a decade ago despite those two factors remaining constant.

For gaming in general having fewer faster cores is usually almost always better than having more slower cores.
Assuming the processors were equal in every way aside from core count and clockspeed, I would recommend a 4.2GHz 6core over the 3.5GHz 8core for gaming.
Not for any rig, but definitely most.
If you're looking to build a rig to play RTS games or MMOs, a fast dual core is still a totally viable option. Obviously if the budget allows for it go for a quad for multitasking ability, but don't be so quick to say no to a dual core without doing some research.
Potentially misleading.
Resolution is GPU dependent but the CPU requirements for a game remain the same regardless of what resolution you play at. CPU requirements don't go down as resolution goes up.
The window is closing quickly on a fast dual core being a viable option for anything but the most basic computing needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,479 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisjames61 View Post

The window is closing quickly on a fast dual core being a viable option for anything but the most basic computing needs.
It's really isn't unless companies stop manufacturing them in the next generation or two. You make it sound as if you need a quad core just to stream netflix and surf the web and that's simply not true.

Gaming (aside from chess/tetris, etc) is far from one of the most basic computing needs. Compare the latest i3's vs the i5's and i7's. The i3s hold up well in lots of games and even the Pentiums continue to do their job well in some.

Take a look at this video comparing a dual core with an 8-core. The chips are both ran at 4.7GHz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEEuXQf29Z4

The point here isn't just about a G3258 vs an FX8350. The point is that core count isn't the only important factor, you need to take core performance into consideration as well before making a judgement. Don't be surprised if you see some AMD Quads outperforming the current lineup of AMD's 8-core CPUs when Zen fully hits the market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,326 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

It's really isn't unless companies stop manufacturing them in the next generation or two. You make it sound as if you need a quad core just to stream netflix and surf the web and that's simply not true.

Gaming (aside from chess/tetris, etc) is far from one of the most basic computing needs. Compare the latest i3's vs the i5's and i7's. The i3s hold up well in lots of games and even the Pentiums continue to do their job well in some.

Take a look at this video comparing a dual core with an 8-core. The chips are both ran at 4.7GHz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEEuXQf29Z4

The point here isn't just about a G3258 vs an FX8350. The point is that core count isn't the only important factor, you need to take core performance into consideration as well before making a judgement. Don't be surprised if you see some AMD Quads outperforming the current lineup of AMD's 8-core CPUs when Zen fully hits the market.
We are in an enthusiasts forum. Very few people here use dual core cpu's. The i3's have hyperthreading so they are not included. I am talking about G3258. The Pentiums suck. I have read countless complaints about this in this forum. Poor game play, stuttering. It isn't rocket science that the ZEN four core cpu's will beat the current eight core FX cpu's. Every one knows that. That is totally different than comparing a Pentium to a current FX 6 and 8 core cpu.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

It's really isn't unless companies stop manufacturing them in the next generation or two. You make it sound as if you need a quad core just to stream netflix and surf the web and that's simply not true.

Gaming (aside from chess/tetris, etc) is far from one of the most basic computing needs. Compare the latest i3's vs the i5's and i7's. The i3s hold up well in lots of games and even the Pentiums continue to do their job well in some.

Take a look at this video comparing a dual core with an 8-core. The chips are both ran at 4.7GHz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEEuXQf29Z4

The point here isn't just about a G3258 vs an FX8350. The point is that core count isn't the only important factor, you need to take core performance into consideration as well before making a judgement. Don't be surprised if you see some AMD Quads outperforming the current lineup of AMD's 8-core CPUs when Zen fully hits the market.
The i3 and PentiumG do well in games, because the current games, practically push 100% the dual cores and 50% or worse an 8 core. It doesn't even matter much if the game can spawn 8 threads, if these threads are like 25% load. In practice, when you haven an FX8350 at 50% CPU load, it's like running an FX quad at 100% load. Current games, simply take full advantage of dual cores, while they don't do the same with quads Intels or octacores. Because unfortnately, FX wasn't made with games in mind. If a game was to come out and use 100% an FX, it means the PentiumG would be unplayable and the i3 would stutter...
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top