How well will CPUs like the Core i5 age?

Xenoraiser

Commendable
May 26, 2017
38
0
1,530
With how Ryzen seems to be shaking up the market, what kind of longevity can we expect from CPUs like the Core i5's (quad core without hyperthreading)? Is a big push for 6c/12t CPUs to run games at solid settings (60+ FPS at high graphics) within the next 2-3 years realistic, or will the process be slower and more gradual? Will CPUs from the 4690K to the 7600K still achieve sought-after results when paired with strong GPUs in the foreseeable future?
 
Solution
Okay so, generally speaking we all know more threads would be better for "future-proofing" but I have noticed over the years that the number of threads, the clock, and even cache is all negligible. Reason is that a cpu is so damn complicated that you can't base it off such few stats. For one I think every PC component is designed to either die out or become irrelevant at some point in the near future. So what I am saying is there is no future-proofing, as some say because once a company releases their new lineup, your new component is already outdated and model specific optimization is done for your card. No one is able to say if any of OUR components will be relevant tomorrow, because something as simple as making a cpu out of...
Honestly, if Coffee lake has 6 core i5's, the process will really accelerate. If Intel continues with the big daddy attitude(is that the right phrase?) and stick to quad core i5's, they'll either get destroyed by Ryzen, or they'll just pay off game developers to continue using 4 cores to the max. Either way, until either Intel switches to mainstream hexa-cores, or AMD partners up with more game developers, the market will probably be stagnant at 4 cores.
 
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 2-3 cores; rarely over 4.
Here is a set of older tests on the effect of many cores on FPS:
http://www.dsogaming.com/editorial/report-despite-claims-most-pc-games-are-still-unable-to-take-advantage-of-more-than-4-cpu-cores/
The conclusion is that PC games are unable to take advantage of more than 4 cores.
There are a few exceptions, FSX is supposed one. FSX uses threads to load textures, but I do not see that much core usage when I run FSX
It is more important that the cores be fast.
Another exception is multiplayer with many participants.
AMD hates that because their cores are somewhat less efficient than intel's. Perhaps 10% slower per clock.
That is also a motivation for DX12 , a technology that improves the efficiency of graphics drivers.
DX12 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 master thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law


In the $200-$300 price bracket, You can safely buy most any cpu and it will do a good job with most graphics cards.
It is when you get to the top end cards like the GTX1080ti where individual core speed really counts.

I do not see that improving much in the future. Possibly with10nm canon lake or the amd response.

I do see much faster graphics cards on the horizon so stronger individual cores may well be what is needed.

For now, those with I7-4790K processors do not usually have a great need to replace their processors.
FX-8350 users do have a reason because of slow cores, not because of the number of threads.
 
We're in the same transition now that we went though with dual core CPUs a decade ago. Basically it will be a long slow transition because the hold up isn't hardware but software. The more cores/threads a specific software trys to use at the same time (especially when it all must remain in sync like for a video game) the more complicated and difficult the software becomes.

So long answer short, a quad-core CPU isn't going to turn into garbage tomorrow. But they will likely not be able to reliably play games at absolute max settings in 3-4 years. It really all depends on how soon the main graphics engines start baking in multi-thread support in an idiot proof way.
 

xXxREBELOxXx

Distinguished
Jul 23, 2015
88
0
18,660
Okay so, generally speaking we all know more threads would be better for "future-proofing" but I have noticed over the years that the number of threads, the clock, and even cache is all negligible. Reason is that a cpu is so damn complicated that you can't base it off such few stats. For one I think every PC component is designed to either die out or become irrelevant at some point in the near future. So what I am saying is there is no future-proofing, as some say because once a company releases their new lineup, your new component is already outdated and model specific optimization is done for your card. No one is able to say if any of OUR components will be relevant tomorrow, because something as simple as making a cpu out of different materials can leave the silicone relatives in the dust. Making all our components under perform to what is considered standard.

Well then, assuming there will be no major change in architecture in the near future (Big brands will milk silicone for all the money they can before changing) you have to look at things like optimization for programs. This is huge because this alone is a big performance factor, so get the brand that is the most supported for what you will be doing (or what games you'll be playing).

Then you can look at stats like pci lanes or cache. If you want to be able to support Crossfire/Sli in the future with high end graphics cards. Then more pci lanes is better, as more lanes equates to a higher max bandwidth for data flow from the Pci-e slots to the cpu socket. So that means you can have more cards at once and running them faster as well. Things like core count are very obviously for more multi-threaded performance (multi-tasking). A ThreadRipper is good here because of the high number of lanes, plus the fact that every ThreadRipper has the same amount of pci lanes *cough* Intel *cough*.

Say you like doing lots of things at once on your pc (like me) and want to be able to continue doing so in the future without programs outgrowing your cpu. You would invest in multi thread performing chips with a good amount of cache, so for instance a Ryzen R7 1700 (no x) is perfect since it has 16 total threads with good performance.

Now if you just want a CPU that won't be outdated for gaming then it's different, first you don't need more than 8 threads max, 4 recommended. This is because games usually prefer single thread performance along side multi thread, instead of just multi-threaded performance. So you would want something with a good clock speed and IPC (newer architectures have a higher IPC in general). So if you want a gaming CPU then an Intel I5 7600k or Ryzen 1500x is what you will need.

Final notes;
-Every CPU supports a max amount of ram, so take that into account as well.
-Remember this leaves out overclocking, you will need a high-end motherboard for good overclocking. I also only advise you start overclocking when you find that your CPU is starting to become overworked (running @ 100% and causing noticeable performance hits in any way).
Afterall this is just my advise from my years of experience and mistakes with computers.
 
Solution