-
T-Mobile Home Internet: Revisiting 5G connectivity for the home after two years
-
Multi-million dollar Cheyenne supercomputer auction ends with $480,085 bid — buyer walked away with 8,064 Intel Xeon Broadwell CPUs, 313TB DDR4-2400 ECC RAM, and some water leaks
Will games need more than 4 cores any time soon?
- Thread starter Jakeowar
- Start date
Solution
mcnumpty23
Polypheme
- Jul 15, 2011
- 15,519
- 0
- 66,960
AdmiralDonut
Distinguished
- Feb 21, 2014
- 959
- 33
- 19,640
Even if games don't require 4 cores anytime soon, having more than 4, even if they are not physical cores, is never a bad idea. After all, the OS needs one, and other apps need one. Having 4, 6 or 8 cores to assign to tasks is invaluable in the age of multi-monitor, multi-app computing.
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,368
- 4,182
- 174,240
Your i7-4790K is as good as it gets for gaming today, and likely for tomorrow too.
It has 8 threads.
I have heard some say that 8 cores will be required for future games.
I think that is FUD perpetuated by AMD.
Game developers want the largest possible market for their games.
No game developer will willingly undertake the extra cost to make their game multi core enabled and also require many cores to run.
They would not sell many games.
Most games today only use one or two cores.
There are a few exceptions, FSX is one.
It is more important that the cores be fast.
AMD hates that because their cores are much less efficient than intel's. Perhaps 30% slower per clock.
That is also a motivation for mantle, a technology that improves the efficiency of graphics drivers.
Mantle is most important for slow chips, but is irrelevant for $200 class intel cpu's.
Just because you see activity on windows task manager across all cores, do not assume your job is using all those threads.
What you are seeing is windows spreading the activity across all available threads.
Then there is "Amdahl's law" which limits how many threads can be useful, depending on the speed of the main thread.
I see many reviews from pleased users switching from a FX-8350 to a i5-4670K.
I see none who are pleased switching from a i5-4670K to a FX-8350.
It has 8 threads.
I have heard some say that 8 cores will be required for future games.
I think that is FUD perpetuated by AMD.
Game developers want the largest possible market for their games.
No game developer will willingly undertake the extra cost to make their game multi core enabled and also require many cores to run.
They would not sell many games.
Most games today only use one or two cores.
There are a few exceptions, FSX is one.
It is more important that the cores be fast.
AMD hates that because their cores are much less efficient than intel's. Perhaps 30% slower per clock.
That is also a motivation for mantle, a technology that improves the efficiency of graphics drivers.
Mantle is most important for slow chips, but is irrelevant for $200 class intel cpu's.
Just because you see activity on windows task manager across all cores, do not assume your job is using all those threads.
What you are seeing is windows spreading the activity across all available threads.
Then there is "Amdahl's law" which limits how many threads can be useful, depending on the speed of the main thread.
I see many reviews from pleased users switching from a FX-8350 to a i5-4670K.
I see none who are pleased switching from a i5-4670K to a FX-8350.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Apple debuts M4 processor in new iPad Pros with 38 TOPS on neural engine- Started by Admin
- Replies: 76
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
-
News Intel issues official statement on Core K-series crashes: stick to Intel's official power profiles
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 28
-
Question Sapphire RX 5700 XT Nitro+ is not working in main PCIe slot ?
- Started by digows
- Replies: 24
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram