How many Threads/Cores do you NEED to game?

[Edgerunner]

Lots of Cores and Threads are all well and good but how many do you actually Need if all I want to do is Game and some basic Photoshop stuff?

 

[mcnumpty23]

usually a 4 core like the 6600k/6700k would be fine

or a lower level 4 core depending which games you want to play

 

[Ecky]

A handful of games stutter on only 2 threads. A 4 thread CPU is really the minimum, such as the $60 Pentium G4560.

 

[boosted1g]

Threads and cores are important but not the whole picture

In most games a core i3-6100 with 2 cores and 4 threads at 3.7ghz will beat out an fx-8350 with 4 cores and 8 threads even overclocked to 4.2 ghz; why, because the architecture is that much more efficient.

For gaming a minimum starting point would be 2 cores 4 threads, 4 cores prefered. Now most games are still not programed to utilzed more then 4 threads thus an i7 (with 4 cores and 8 threads) will play no better then the same generation i5 (assuming equal ghz speed) with 4 cores 4 threads.

The bare minimum modern CPU today is the pentium g4560 or 4620. These are 2 core and 4 threads and will beat out any FM2 cpu AMD makes period, and will beat out even the higher end FX serries chips in single core peformance.

 

[Nerdy Nerd]

In my gaming rig, I have an i5 4600 cpu. That has 4 cores and 4 threads. I am able to run doom just fine along with many other games. So that is what you need for gaming, however, I do not do editing like photoshop. For that, you should get a little more. I would say 4-6 cores and some more thread. I am not 100% sure on the thread part, but have more than I do, I know that much.

 

[Onus]

^Excellent summary from boosted1g. Architecture matters too.
Having run a couple of 2-core Pentiums, including overclocked, I can tell you that having only two threads can bog a system down if it is running multiple tasks and/or well-threaded tasks. Hyperthreading does not give you the performance of another core; I think I'm seeing it gives you about 30% of another core. That's certainly better than nothing, but if your workload wants to run three or more threads hard, you'll want Real cores (assuming it fits in your budget). Although you probably wouldn't be "suffering" with a hyperthreaded i3, imho you'd see notable improvement from an i5.

 

[dark_lord69]

I wouldn't get hung up on how many cores or threads a CPU is capable of.
Instead just ask others what they believe is a good CPU for gaming.

I'll use mine as an example: Intel Core i5 6600K
(It's great for gaming.)
4 core
4 threads
up to 3.9 GHz

The last one is a measure of the clock rate which also directly affects CPU performance.
The problem with cores and threads is that a program (or game) must be written to take advantage of having more than 1.
If it was written to only use 1 core/1 thread then you need to rely on a higher clock frequency to get the job done fast on that 1 core.

SO...
1.2 GHz & 16 cores & 32 threads
may run the same program slower than a CPU with
4.2 GHz & 4 cores & 2 threads

other things to consider when looking at CPU speed are the amount of cache and the Bus speed.

To save plenty of money and still get a good CPU I would recommend a high level Intel Core i5.

 

[Edgerunner]

I wouldn't get hung up on how many cores or threads a CPU is capable of.
Instead just ask others what they believe is a good CPU for gaming.

I'll use mine as an example: Intel Core i5 6600K
(It's great for gaming.)
4 core
4 threads
up to 3.9 GHz

So, theoretically, the Ryzen5 1400X should be solid for Gaming then?

 

[Ecky]

I'd like to point out that a thread just popped up on another forum, titled "Is that the reason 8 cores is important for gaming?":

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/is-that-the-reason-why-having-8cores-is-important-for-gaming.2500069/

The discussion is about how in many games, having just 4 cores / threads is starting to be a handicap at the high-end. That's not to say you can't game on a dual core, just that games are now scaling well enough with more threads that 12 and 16 thread chips show measurable gains over 8, never mind 4.