will coming future games will require 8 core processore?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

cveer

Honorable
Nov 13, 2013
9
0
10,510
As ps3 and xbox one are releashing with 8 core processor! so will future games will require 8 core processor as common ?

Is it true intel is releashing 8 core desktop processors, haswell-e?
what will be its expected release date?
i am going to buy a new Pc.
should it will be worth waiting for the new intel 8 core processors for future proof gaming!
Please really help!
 
Solution
JOOK-D
Please please please please look at all of the other threads on this topic before posting a new one. I will post my drafts here anyway.

As for nextgen, it is difficult to speculate. Next gen games may/may not be optimised for multicore cpu's such as the FX so they can get more performance. Games like Watch Dogs and BF4 are highly multithreaded but that does not necessarily speak true of all games. However, take a look at this: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/

The i5 has 4 beefy cores and the FX has 8 slightly weaker cores (please no-one start the physical/not argument). In single threaded games the i5 therefore has the advantage as they use less cores. In multithreaded games the FX catches up and in some instances...
Sort by date Sort by votes
JOOK-D

JOOK-D

Dignified
Aug 28, 2013
3,910
0
15,960
Please please please please look at all of the other threads on this topic before posting a new one. I will post my drafts here anyway.

As for nextgen, it is difficult to speculate. Next gen games may/may not be optimised for multicore cpu's such as the FX so they can get more performance. Games like Watch Dogs and BF4 are highly multithreaded but that does not necessarily speak true of all games. However, take a look at this: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/

The i5 has 4 beefy cores and the FX has 8 slightly weaker cores (please no-one start the physical/not argument). In single threaded games the i5 therefore has the advantage as they use less cores. In multithreaded games the FX catches up and in some instances performs better. In other multi-threaded apps such as those used for video editing or 3d modeling the FX is ahead. The i7's ivy/haswell would be ahead or on par with that however, but for much more cost.

Due to the extra cores available the FX has the ability to record/stream with less FPS loss (here are some links you should check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

Anyway, as I said it's pointless and relatively difficult to speculate about what the future will hold. Get what you need for right now and then upgrade in future when you need more power, or overclock! :) Both CPU's will perform very well and games are more dependent on having a good GPU anyway.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both the i5/i7s and the FX piledriver AMD line will be vary capable for a few years to come. If you want to wait for intel 8 cores you may be waiting until late next year or the year after that. Remember, it's more dependent on your graphics card anyway.

Here's a comparison draft between intel/FX:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.

For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
PepitoTV

PepitoTV

Honorable
Oct 10, 2013
847
0
11,360
Require is a strong word, "take advantage of" is more accurate.

The big load on the computer will always be on the GPU much more than the CPU so while we can see improvements by using more cores, quad core processors are still in a good position, and I think it will be for a while.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JOOK-D

JOOK-D

Dignified
Aug 28, 2013
3,910
0
15,960


+1

Perfect explanation actually, "taking advantage" and not "requiring".

I'm guessing direct lazy console ports will run slightly better on 8 cores than on quads. Quads will run them absolutely fine though, as is the opposite with 4core vs 8core at the moment. The PC is still leading the market, so it's likely quads will outperform octocores for a good while yet.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

BSim500

Honorable
Apr 6, 2013
269
0
10,960

Not really. To start with, consoles may have 8 cores but not all 8 are 100% available for games. At least 1 maybe 2 may be kept in reserve for background tasks (OS, downloading patches, background streaming, etc, whilst gaming).

Secondly, consoles CPU's are clocked at 1.75GHz (XBone) and 2.0GHZ (PS4). 8 of those barely = 4 Intel +3.5Ghz cores anyway. That's partly why a number of even new "next gen" games are limited to run at 720p/60fps or 1080p/30fps on consoles but 1080p/60fps on PC's.

I wouldn't bother waiting for any Intel 6/8 core. Just buy a 3570K / 4670K and OC it:-
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/17810-prestandaanalys-battlefield-4/4#pagehead
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JOOK-D

JOOK-D

Dignified
Aug 28, 2013
3,910
0
15,960


Remember that the clock speed of the console cores doesn't come into it too much since games are going to be massively optimised for their hardware platform, so they'll perform as being much stronger than whatever their actual figures are. EDIT: Just read the 1080/30 720/60 thing, you're right. But it's still going to perform better than those low clock speeds, just don't know by what the degree will be.

But I agree, 3570k/4670k will be the best for upcoming games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PepitoTV

PepitoTV

Honorable
Oct 10, 2013
847
0
11,360
Yeah, just to add to the equation, people seems to think than the CPU's that don't perform that well are directly trash. No, the i5 may overperform the FX 8350, but that in no way means that the FX chip will not play some game just fine with just a slight advantage to the better CPU. In fact, for the vast majority of titles, there won't be any difference between the two.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JOOK-D

JOOK-D

Dignified
Aug 28, 2013
3,910
0
15,960


Exactly. 60 FPS is good enough for a 60Hz monitor. What's good enough for you is the best option.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lessthannil

Lessthannil

Honorable
Oct 14, 2013
468
0
10,860
I hope not. It would be a nightmare for both sides.

Intel will have to start selling 8 core desktop CPUs at a reasonable price.
AMD will have to beef up their processor speeds immensely.

(If a game requires 8 cores, it probably needs a lot of more CPU power than a 4670k. As of now, 4670k > 8350.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

dihan91

Honorable
Dec 7, 2013
5
0
10,510


Totally agree.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

airborn824

Honorable
Mar 3, 2013
226
0
10,690
i know this is an old thread but we all forget to ask if he only runsthe game by itself. if hes streaming, watching movies like i do the 83xx will vastly outperform a i5. in that case you need a 83xx or i7.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
vmN

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,666
0
12,160
It is logical and possible.
How exactly are mantle affecting streaming application and how they work?

4670k could very well be stronger due to its stronger SIMD-per-thread and how windows schedulers its processes.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

airborn824

Honorable
Mar 3, 2013
226
0
10,690


But based on Tek testing from what I saw off loading to more cores helped streaming when using cpu based games. Not doubting Intel but everything is made for Intel thus as things are changing Fx8 is getting better with age.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
vmN

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,666
0
12,160
Based on him alone?
http://youtu.be/26UKz42uQ1Y?t=16m35s <- This guy tells the total opposite.

I doubt streaming is heavily threaded. And which piledrivers bad SIMD it might have a harder time than haswell. Also how windows schedules it process, doesn't stand in favor for more but weaker cores.

Only certain software are designed for a certain architecture.
For the general consumer nothing is made for Intel, or atleast designed for Intels CPUs.
The fx 83x0 wont get better, CPUs wont just get better when times go on.

I would also recommend taking information from Tek Syndicate with a grain of salt, as he sometimes do (sorry for the language) spit out shit. (I myself do watch some of his videos, alot make sense, some simply dont)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

airborn824

Honorable
Mar 3, 2013
226
0
10,690

Intel fan boys you should go over to Tek Syndicate where real testing is done and the 8350 rains supreme. AMD cpu and gpu beats an equal and much higher price intel and nvidia
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

airborn824

Honorable
Mar 3, 2013
226
0
10,690


thats a very good point to the Intel Fans. Tek proved that those $300 CPUs where just lining the pockets of Intel and their Benchmark buddies. and in 2014 for like the 15th straight year now AMD is still better just not more popular.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
vmN

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,666
0
12,160
Okay, I have nothing to do, so I'll leave a comment before I go to bed and might respond tomorrow.

Tek proved nothing. Tek is a "hipster" or whatnot. For a period of time he was the big "ANTI-Intel", and can you guess what CPU is in his system to this day?

You seems to not understand why Intel product are more expensive than their opponents(AMD)s.
It is not because Intel is overpricing their products. Intel in manufacturing their own CPUs, which are extremely costly, which AMD cannot do, because they simply doesn't make money enough. AMD pay another company to do this(Just like nvidia). Intel also have way more marketing than AMD could ever be dreaming of, and are playing a very aggressive game(Actually coming with new architectures, providing neccecary ISA), where AMD have been sitting on piledriver for so long, and a generally stuck with the cluster-cores(modules). AMD have been playing a rather safe game, compared to Intel(In the CPU department).

Piledriver is not better than Haswell, which are also a major reason why they have put their FX line on a stop(also because of their shitty marketing, which they are trying heavyly to fix), and been focusing on lower-end systems. AMD knew they cannot keep fighting a fight they would eventuelly lose, so they targeted a new area, where they would stand a bigger chance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JOOK-D

JOOK-D

Dignified
Aug 28, 2013
3,910
0
15,960


Except every test and benchmark on the internet disagrees with him, and his testing and results have been criticised on countless grounds that I don't care to get on to here.

Benchmarks are there to demonstrate performance. Sometimes the difference between components is not visible, but it often is.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

airborn824

Honorable
Mar 3, 2013
226
0
10,690


in reality they cant put out new tech and keep up with demand for the Wii U, PS4, and XB. BF4, Thief and soo Watch Dogs will push gaming heavilly toward AMD and Mantle since they are built around AMD instructions and not Intel. basically Tek proved that if you use a radeon card for real world testing with AMD it keeps up with intel just like they promised. So if ou like Nvidia your out of luck with AMD, but AMD all in means top notch performance all around. by November this year all new AAA titles will be built for AMD 8 core CPUs and GPUs. in any logical manner it all makes sence. I am not saying Intel is bad i am saying Tek only shows that in real world use your not losing performance either way. In another words dont waist money if you not just looking for bragging rights.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom