Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
While I love the core count wars between the two companies, ultimately the winner in the consumer space will be whichever is the faster one in gaming. GPUs can be used to offload a lot of heavy tasks these days such as video editing, Ai and etc so I don't think that outside of truly heavily threaded use cases such as file compression, virtual machines and etc, most consumers and creatives will really benefit from a big core count advantage if the "lower core count" cpu is significantly better in gaming. This is why AMD's x3d chips and 6-8 cores in general dominate a lot of sales charts even though technically, Intel is giving you a lot more cores for the same price. I really hope as next generation gets going, Intel makes some big changes to their direction. Longer platform support, refocused efforts in gaming and of course big increases in core count. They need to hit AMD with a one two punch instead of half assing their efforts, even when they are behind. The cpu in the ps6 should be nuts though. I'll probably upgrade my cpu the cycle after the ps6 releases. |
Counter to that... Higher core count CPU's tend to last longer.
Case in point... Back in the Core 2 Duo days, I opted for a Core 2 Quad despite no games using 4-CPU cores, so most games ran better on the Core 2 Duo, but over successive years as games became a little more threaded, that Core 2 Quad lasted a lot longer... I actually still have my Core 2 Quad today, which I use mostly for modding/testing and it's able to play games like Fortnite competently at 60fps.
Still have my Phenom 2 x6 PC as well, which is able to play many modern games just fine, provided they don't require newer SIMD instructions that were in Bulldozer or newer... And the Phenom 2's had IPC roughly around the Core 2 levels... Unless you overclocked the NB, then you can approach Sandy Bridge levels clock for clock.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
