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

[Pemalite]

Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Pemalite said:

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.

They aren't just "sitting there waiting to be used many years later". - You tend to have less of a performance penalty if you have a multitude of apps open.
Think: Virus scanner, xsplit, discord, web browser, Steam, GOG, Epic Store and more can all take resources.

Some games already will use every CPU thread you can give it... Think: Civilization, Cities Skylines 2, Ashes of the Singularity and more.
Even Cyberpunk sees scaling from 12 cores/24 threads to 16 cores/32 threads.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cyberpunk-2077-cpu-scaling-benchmarks


And whilst you are correct that we may see 12 cores as the "mainstream part" - It's going to be unaffordable for most as the price of DDR5 Ram and NAND is making any future platform changes unobtainable for most anyway... At-least for the next few years.
Those who are still on AM4 with a 12 or 16 core processor still have many many years of life left in the tank. - Especially as the X3D parts have sky rocketed in price on AM4, making the choice for a 16/12 core part a better option for most which are still cheap.

And as gamers we tend to upgrade GPU's more often than CPU's anyway, so being a little more conservative on the GPU, with the intent to upgrade it in 2-3 years time isn't the worst decision in the world. (An upgrade you would do anyway.)
The 9060XT isn't exactly a part that is unplayable in modern games verses the 9070.

I have always gone for the highest core counts and have always gotten stupidly long system life out of my systems.