Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Future for quad core CPUs in PC Gaming

Tags:
  • Core
  • Quad Core
  • PC gaming
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 7, 2013 9:42:01 AM

Since the release of Battlefield 4, and it being optimized better for hex core and octo core CPUs, future titles have started this as well. What does this mean for i5's and i7's and other quad core CPUs in this "revolution" for more cores in future gaming?

More about : future quad core cpus gaming

Best solution

a b à CPUs
November 7, 2013 10:32:45 AM

BF4 is optimized for multicore processors, which includes quad core processors. this is through the use of multithreading, which allows threads to be run on different cores. Multithreading is very new to the software world and it will be a very long time before quad cores become irrelevant. that said, the i7 uses "hyperthreading" which gives it 8 logical cores, which BF4 (or any other multithreading application) can utilize. Realize that people are still using dual core processors (the i3 is a dual core with hyperthreading (four logical cores)), and it will be a long time before there is a major shift away from quad core CPUs.

You also have to remember that current technologies have a limit on how much they can handle. Back when we had single core processors, people realized that you really couldn't go above 5 GHz without crazy cooling needed, this led to additional cores being added to the processor and the speed being lower. Right now there is no major problem prmpting a huge need for CPUs with greater than 4 cores.
Share
November 7, 2013 10:39:17 AM

P1nnacle said:
BF4 is optimized for multicore processors, which includes quad core processors. this is through the use of multithreading, which allows threads to be run on different cores. Multithreading is very new to the software world and it will be a very long time before quad cores become irrelevant. that said, the i7 uses "hyperthreading" which gives it 8 logical cores, which BF4 (or any other multithreading application) can utilize. Realize that people are still using dual core processors (the i3 is a dual core with hyperthreading (four logical cores)), and it will be a long time before there is a major shift away from quad core CPUs.

You also have to remember that current technologies have a limit on how much they can handle. Back when we had single core processors, people realized that you really couldn't go above 5 GHz without crazy cooling needed, this led to additional cores being added to the processor and the speed being lower. Right now there is no major problem prmpting a huge need for CPUs with greater than 4 cores.


very comforting to hear that
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 473 à CPUs
November 7, 2013 10:39:43 AM

Agreed with P1nnacle, it will definitely take a while. I do think it depends on how ports from console will work though. If they're lazy and decide not to optimise it, it may run better on 8 cores as that's what the new consoles run on. Yes I know they are 'weak netbook cores' but 8 cores are 8 cores. Not saying it would run badly on a quad or dual core at all though, they would most likely perform great too. All in all, probably a few years before games start utilising it, depending on upcoming tech and whatnot too.
m
0
l
November 23, 2013 1:06:04 PM

Multithreading is NOT NEW to the software.... its only new to games since Sega Saturn....
m
0
l
November 27, 2013 11:33:06 AM

I would like to add some BF4 stats on a few various AMD and Intel Processors. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...

For the 8 Core FX 8350, it gets a lot of bang for its buck while the 4-core i5-2500k does as well. These CPUs are $190 and $225 respectively, and we have no idea how BF4 will respond to an OCed FX-8350 (arguably the best AMD OCing CPU. The i7 on the other hand is a 6 core processor, but might as well be an overpriced silicon chip if you are to play this game seeing as how the benchmarks are not significantly different from the i5, and it cost ~$980. Not sure if this is because of the CPU architecture though, or if there is some other bottleneck (could not be the GPU), but multicore and multithreaded is definitely catching up these days, it was well ahead of its time. They have been made for years, yet many programs were and some are still running only for single and dual core optimization. That is soon to change though it seems, and AMD might be able to be a true competitor if that happens, making some of Intel's higher priced chips, again, look like overpriced piece of silicon.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
November 27, 2013 4:02:02 PM

^Beta benches, FYI.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2013 5:09:47 PM

Hey this topis is really interesting because just now that I am willing to upgrade my PC and I am struggling to bad between a i5, i7 or FX 8350. What would be more reliable for the long time for a gaming and multimedia creation rig? I am not friend of updating hardware each year, so, much like others here I always go for the most future proof, even than I know future proof doesn't exist really in computing. But seeing how the old Core i7 980 and the Core 2 Quad still moving games softly, is still a matter of future proofing topic...
My theory is that the 8350 being 8 physical cores, would distribute the load more efficiently than a 8 logical cores i7 cpu. But I am not an expert, so someone please explain me this, because is a very interesting topic.
m
0
l
December 7, 2013 1:24:28 AM

I got Myself an amd 8150 and on previous gen games intel did better however im now happy cause consoles are using amd 8 core which will give amd an edge in this gen example bf4 i ad no fps drops and some amd cpus even did better than intel however ido agree with pinacle the change will come however popular games run good with dual core i3s

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 7, 2013 6:11:11 AM

I don't think that you should look at consoles as an indicator to market change. They have 8 processors but no discrete GPU, so really you're looking at underwhelming graphical output tied with a low clock CPU (the PS4's CPUs run at 1.6GHz). All in all, this looks like a step back to me.
m
0
l
December 9, 2013 8:35:38 PM

What is the main difference between dual core core2-duo and quad core can someone tell me plzzzz
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 9, 2013 9:11:34 PM

The core 2 duo is a dual core, the quad core is a quad core.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
December 10, 2013 7:06:14 AM

P1nnacle said:
The core 2 duo is a dual core, the quad core is a ad core.


:lol: 
m
0
l
December 10, 2013 3:41:44 PM

one has two cores the other has 4 cores
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2013 5:12:12 PM

We don't really need 8 cores. The 4670k is still better than the FX 8350 at gaming (even if it is somewhat slight). The 4670k has 4 cores. The 8350 has 8.

We need to focus on how to extract the power out of 4 or such cores first before we need to start worrying about needing more. I don't want that to be a disservice to AMD in the process either, but the AMD FX should at least have good enough performance per core so that they can sell the FX 4 for people who only want 4 cores and don't want the other 2 or 4 to have to be bundled in for it to have good performance in games.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
December 11, 2013 6:15:33 AM

Lessthannil said:
We don't really need 8 cores. The 4670k is still better than the FX 8350 at gaming (even if it is somewhat slight). The 4670k has 4 cores. The 8350 has 8.

We need to focus on how to extract the power out of 4 or such cores first before we need to start worrying about needing more. I don't want that to be a disservice to AMD in the process either, but the AMD FX should at least have good enough performance per core so that they can sell the FX 4 for people who only want 4 cores and don't want the other 2 or 4 to have to be bundled in for it to have good performance in games.


Agreed. You've probably already seen this ( http://www.hardwarepal.com/amd-fx-series-processors-wil... ) but let's hope the possible next gen of AMD FX severely increase the single-core performance. It still says "piledriver" so I doubt it. ._. Hopefully we'll be seeing more games that at the very least make use of 4 cores, hopefully more.
m
0
l
December 15, 2013 6:59:03 PM

Lessthannil said:
We don't really need 8 cores. The 4670k is still better than the FX 8350 at gaming (even if it is somewhat slight). The 4670k has 4 cores. The 8350 has 8.

We need to focus on how to extract the power out of 4 or such cores first before we need to start worrying about needing more. I don't want that to be a disservice to AMD in the process either, but the AMD FX should at least have good enough performance per core so that they can sell the FX 4 for people who only want 4 cores and don't want the other 2 or 4 to have to be bundled in for it to have good performance in games.


There are some uses for those cores though that make it better than the 3570k, 3770k, and 3820. Here is a review of the AMD 8350 vs those 3 processors with gaming and streaming. The extra cores make it not reduce in FPS as much as the intel processors while gaming, making it useful for people who want to do streaming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
m
0
l
February 21, 2014 8:39:49 AM

Well, this depends on how developers develop their games in future. I feel that we're going to need more horsepower in future if the games will be written in directX, because of the coming of these new gen consoles. But hey, it seems like AMD now has their own API called 'Mantle'. If they further optimize and stabilize it, then I'm sure most of the future developers will write their games in Mantle, which shall decrease the work load on cpus.
m
0
l
March 17, 2014 3:27:39 AM

but in the future at 2015 more cores will be everything because next gen consoles have 8 cores and games are using more than 4 cores
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2014 4:41:46 AM

How many cores did PS3 have? And how much did that affect the games for PC?
m
0
l
!