Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

Pemalite said:

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.

Personally it depends on whether or not you actively are using those additional cores or if they are just sitting there waiting to be used for many years later. Cause for a gaming build, a person could get a much better experience investing more into gpu than a cpu with more cores. For example, if a person is thinking between spending extra $200 to go from 8 to 12 cores or 9060 XT to 9070, they would get much more usage out of getting a 9070 vs those extra cores. It would also be easier to sell to a wider audience cause gamers generally value a higher tier gpu over a higher tier cpu.

On top of that, when it's time to upgrade, you may be getting the higher core count cpu for a mainstream price anyway. Like a 9700 with 8 cores costs about the same as an i7 7700k with 4 cores used to back in the day. And thanks to Amds platform longevity, you might not need to upgrade the ram or motherboard.

But if you are actively using those extra cores, then yea,by all means buy the higher core setup. My 5950x was such a wonderful cpu with 16 cores. It was awesome for vms and shader compliation. But after my new job which is more cloud based, I didn't need 16 cores for my next upgrade so instead, I decided to save $600 cad and put it towards a 4090 instead of a 4080. And as zen 6 is coming with 12 cores per ccd, we might soon get 12 core mainstream cpus.