Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Since the ps4 has 8 cores, should I get an 8 core processor!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
April 2, 2013 5:34:41 AM

(I'm not sure if this is the right section to post this in, so please move this if it is.)

Okay since the PS4 might be using 8 cores , although I'm not sure if it will utilize all the cores for gaming or split it for gaming and background processing. I've heard they are getting a separate cpu for background processing, such as downloading stuff in the background while playing games.

So assuming the PS4 might be using 8 cores for gaming, do you think getting an 8 core processor such as the 8350 give an advantage, lets say over the 4 core i5 3570k for next generation games? I'm just really curious what the next generation of console gaming will affect some of us pc gamers (or both!).

(As a side question, why cant we use more than 4 cores on games just because consoles only use 4 cores on most games? Shouldn't pc's with 6 or 8 cores be able to utilize most or all their cores on gaming? Just a bit confused).

Thank you for reading, and yes I'm a newbie on this particular subject.

Best solution

April 2, 2013 6:04:23 AM

The number of cores in a processor does not determine how many are used by a game. The game developers write their game code to utilise multiple cores by making the code multi-threaded. Each thread can then run on a separate core rather than be time-division-multiplexed on a single execution core. The PS3 uses the 'cell' processor which is multi-cored (although some of those cores are very specialised and narrow in capability). Most modern games are threaded to some small extent but most are still only 2 or 3 threads. There are still single threaded AAA titles out there and there are a few that are highly threaded and will use all resources available, whether they be physical cores or ersatz ones like hyperthreading in some intel processors. So it's down to the developers to write code to utilise resources.
Share
April 2, 2013 6:11:43 AM

Hi,

PS4 has 8 cores because it is meant to be out there for 5-6 years without any upgrade.

Most games still utilizes only 2 cores. 4 cores is more than enough for modern gaming. AMD series processors have 6-8 cores but can not compete with intel i5 series which are quad core processors.

i5 3570 smokes out 8350. It is not that really important how many cores you have, but rather what kind of cores are they.

Since 8 cores will not come in optimization i games for couple years to come strong quad core is recomeneded. You can buy 8 core to be ''futureproof'', not to mention that you won't be able to have max from your games (8350 core vs i5 core is not comparable) but when time comes that 8 cores are really needed your today 8 core processor won't be able to run anything cause there are going to be CPU's whoose 2 cores will smoke this 8350 out of the way.

Quad core is your present gaming choice.

Best regards :) 
m
3
l
Related resources
April 2, 2013 6:14:43 AM

Thank you both for these answers, although I choose Feldmarschall's answer as the best which was more informative imo. Although great answer Flying-Q, I've learnt something new today too from you. :) .
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 6:16:43 AM

A four core i7 will nicely satisfy both as the OS "sees" hyperthreading as eight cores.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 6:20:34 AM

Quote:
AMD series processors have 6-8 cores but can not compete with intel i5 series which are quad core processors.


The 8350 and the 6300 compete quite well with the i5 quads. Not being able to compete would mean or to imply they can not reach similar goals. Such as certain fps in games. This is not accurate especially if you actually check reviews as well as benchmarks. Do they flat out beat intel i5 quads? Not in all circumstances but in some they do. the only form they fall behind are single threaded apps. So i would not call that being unable to compete.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 6:44:33 AM

More:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

It's not bad, just only better than a 3570K in very specific situations. It is equal at very high resolutions where games become GPU limited.

A stock clocked 3570K should still be able to outperform an 8-core AMD at 1.6GHz (last I saw for PS4) even having to swap between two threads per core, given the speed difference (more than double) and higher instructions per clock.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 6:52:57 AM

Rofl how hard did you hunt to find an obscure site that puts the 8350 not only far below the i5's but also the 8150? Why not look at all the reviews and start with those here? As well as many others? Even intel fan boys know the 8350 is a huge jump over the 8150 in the very least. And in that one article you have the 8350 below it? Really???

But it still comes down to some people like a mustang and others a corvette. Just like that old chevy versus ford the amd versus intel will always go on i guess.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 7:01:09 AM

zolton33 said:
Rofl how hard did you hunt to find an obscure site that puts the 8350 not only far below the i5's but also the 8150? Why not look at all the reviews and start with those here? As well as many others? Even intel fan boys know the 8350 is a huge jump over the 8150 in the very least. And in that one article you have the 8350 below it? Really???

But it still comes down to some people like a mustang and others a corvette. Just like that old chevy versus ford the amd versus intel will always go on i guess.


Blind perhaps???

Look careffully at that results. FX8150 overclocked to 4.8 is above a bit over stock FX8350... stock 8150 is down under.

It's not about chevy, mustang, or in Europe about bmw or mercedes. I accept facts. I have provided tests, and not some self made up stuff.
I have no problem to say that AMD is better when really is. This time AMD looses.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 7:25:52 AM

No you are spouting half truths as fact. The i5 clearly wins in single threaded apps. Now apply that to multithreaded apps. Does intel have that advantage? No. And even in single threaded apps the i5 is not that far ahead of the 6300 and the 8350 from the newest amd line of cpus. Does the i5 beat the 8350 in max fps? Yes. Do they beat the 8350 by large amounts? No. And you put a review of an over clocked set of cpus against one that is not and you think that is a good basis to use to tell the power of a cpu? Really? And even in your unoverclocked review you posted the stock 8350 was behind the 3570 by about 461. And this is a scoring system that can easily be changed by adjusting certain settings. It does not show a max fps all it shows is a general score.

A loss to me is by a lot more then just a few fps. Other factors need to be taken into account such as mobo costs cpu costs and over clocking. Intel has an edge in single threaded apps that is not debatable. What is though is many intel fan boys saying the intel line beats the amd line based solely on that. And many intel fan boys also forget that amd no longer competes at the high end with intel. The 8350 was put out to compete with the 3570k. And it does quite well. Especially in multithreaded apps. In single threaded and power consumption the intel has the edge. So each has their uses.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 7:45:36 AM

Dude... Question was "Do i need 8 core processor for gaming?" Asnwer is no, and next answer is "i5 is better in gaming". It is better in everything but full available threads test. It is even better in mulittasking.

FX8350 will be better only when game or app comes out that can utilize all possible threads of 8 core.
Of course that i5 can't compete with that since it has half resources.
And when that happens both of these will be so obsolete that you won't remember them.
Today, tomorow, next year i5 is better choice. Why? Because now 8350 may give close or same FPS like i5, but next monster game and it is smoked. Why again? Because 8 core utilized games won't be out there for couple years and i5 is stronger in core by core comparison.

BTW If you overclock both of these, you'll see how much increase in performace you can get out of each as presented in charts provided. Which difference rises and which is almost eliminated? It's not half true, it's true.


m
0
l
April 2, 2013 8:34:03 AM

If games remain single threaded then yes the i5 is a better solution for max possible fps. but it is also quite a bit more expensive over the amd line as well as the intel line rarely drops price while amd does regularly.But that is you trying to use a crystal ball and predicting that all games are going to remain single threaded. What if next year on they are all multithreaded? Would not the 8350 beat out the i5's?

In most reviews i've seen i've seen the i5 have better fps over the 8350 by a max of around 20 fps. Sounds like a lot right? But that is in the range of 80-100 fps!!! So while the i5 line does do better in gaming because of the single threading they are set in it is not by extreme large amounts and its not as if the 8350 does not give great fps.

Before intel fan boys would scream "You are better off with a i3 dual core over any thing by amd!!!" to it changing to "The i5 is better then the amd line!!!!" Yet the 8350 is nipping at the heels of the i5 line. And the next line is set to be even faster. intels next line? Oh that is right it uses a whole new socket. Which adds another expense. The 8350 can be replaced with intels next cpu line. Can intel do that? no they switch sockets quite frequently.

And you seem to expect that the newer game down the line will be not only single threaded but also you are assuming that the i5 will still compete while the 8350 can not? Really?? Since the two are so similar in performance would not the i5 also suffer if the 8350 falls in performance by the new game?

And you make the argument "Because 8 core utilized games won't be out there for couple years and i5 is stronger in core by core comparison." Now does that not change if it does require more cores? Would not the 8 core amd cpu then be a better future proof option by your logic? And if multithreading becomes more prominent in games would the i5 be a better choice over the 8350? The 8350 is a viable option for gaming, that is my point. But you think and are implying that the amd cpu is not a viable option in gaming. And then you lay down a lot of assumptions and guess work.

To me those do not equal facts.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 8:44:49 AM

Your words say that you are "fan boy".
There is no point to discuss with you anymore.

Best regards.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 9:01:09 AM

No i just use my pc for more then just gaming. As do many other people. while intel does have a slight edge in the single threaded apps they lose that edge in other instances. They do have better power usage as well but only those who actually count their wattages really concern themselves with that. Add to it the much higher costs of an intel cpu over an amd one? Plus the mobo prices? Then the cost versus performace is much higher compared to amd.

And if i can buy a cpu that performs as well as the other but cheaper? Which is the obvious choice then? Intel does give high performance but you pay for that as well. The 8350 is a great cpu and performs well. And is a viable option from amd as a gaming cpu. Only those blinded by their own favoritism of intel do not see it as an option in a gaming rig.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 11:53:44 AM

Well, this kinda got into a bit of a debate. The difference between the two are just so small in most things, what's the point comparing them? I just use whatever's better, either it be intel, AMD or any other random brand. I was going to get the fx 6300, just because it's the best "bang for your buck." Although I was opting for either the 8350 and the 3570k, because I wanted it to last longer, and with the possibility of 6+ cores being utilized for gaming I was stoked on whether to get the 8350 or 3570k. But since the possibility is PROBABLY not going to happen for quite a long time, I'm opting for the 3570k since both processors will probably be low-end by the time 6+ cores are being used. So all said and done, both of you have a point but there is no clear winner either way.



m
3
l
!