Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will more cores in a CPU improve my gameplay?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2013 3:27:16 PM

Currently, I'm using a quad core processor and I notice that games like battlefield 3 bring all my cores up to about 75% usage. Will using a six core amd or 8 core amd bring those numbers down? I heard that most games arent made to use more than 4 cores. I also heard from a different source that amd uses some technology to spread the load out among all the cores. Which is correct?
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2013 3:29:08 PM

what is your exact hardware configuration? but to answer your question; maybe, true, and no
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2013 4:24:43 PM

No upgrading to 6 six core will not as there is no game which uses more than 4 core.but we have to know your specs?
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2013 5:27:18 PM

ASHISH65 said:
No upgrading to 6 six core will not as there is no game which uses more than 4 core.but we have to know your specs?



Hi :) 

Sorry but that's wrong...

BF3 can use at least 6 cores.... like my AMD 1100T (6 core)

All the best Brett :) 
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 2:14:05 AM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

Sorry but that's wrong...

BF3 can use at least 6 cores.... like my AMD 1100T (6 core)

All the best Brett :) 



Does it actually use all six cores evenly? Or does it use 4 cores for just the game and the rest for system processes?
a c 105 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 3:18:07 AM

it wont give better performance than 4cores. if thats ur question

a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 3:19:14 AM

pyr0_m4n said:
Does it actually use all six cores evenly? Or does it use 4 cores for just the game and the rest for system processes?

bf3 rarely utilize 4 cores.it can load 6 core but it will never utilize 6 core! See here - http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...
a c 105 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 3:27:51 AM

it needs 4 cores to run properly.

;P


a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 1:53:38 PM

pyr0_m4n said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Thats the amd processor.

I'm currently running the intel 3570k. ive been wanting to switch to amd for other unrelated reasons. I'm just wondering if any game would take advantage of the cores


moving from the intel 3570k to an AMD FX-6300 is a downgrade for several reasons
1- games like cores that can process a lot of information quickly, this is an area where AMD can not compete with intel. It allows modern intel dual core processors to keep up or outpace modern AMD quad cores. The gap only widens when you move up to an intel quad core. think of it as a two moving companies where one has four vans and the other six yet the one with four vans can take the highway yet the other guys have to use back roads the whole time.

2- the intel is far more power efficient allowing for better OC which once again widens the performance gap between the two chips.

3- while the FX-6 has six cores, they share resources which is one reason for its slow core vs core performance against intel.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 2:29:46 PM

better overclocks not true. also the 6300 is 120$# and the 3570k is 210-215ish.

like 100$ difference.

a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 2:37:05 PM

iceclock said:
better overclocks not true. also the 6300 is 120$# and the 3570k is 210-215ish.

like 100$ difference.


he already owns the i5 so its actually more expensive to go with AMD and yes it intel gives better OC performance since highest GHZ does not always equal best OC performance. there are other factors

You will need a massive cooler and quality mobo to get to that sort of overclock, but it shows how competitive the Piledriver chip can be made. Especially considering it's only just over £100.

That said you don't really need to have an overclocking mobo to push the Core i5 up over 4.5GHz and gaming performance will quickly outstrip the AMD chip. Still, as a budget alternative, the FX-6300 is a very capable CPU offering decent multi-threaded performance, even at stock speed for use in productivity-related tasks and improved gaming performance too.


http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/p...

if the OP was starting from scratch and was looking for his best bang for buck, then this would a different conversation
a c 105 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 2:37:51 PM

oh i talt he dint have a cpu. derp. than ya i5 is the way to go. if u already have it.

ud actually be downgrading as dirty ferrz said.

a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 3:11:23 PM

I am litle shocked that op want to upgrade the i5 3570
a c 105 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 3:19:42 PM

i think he got the wrong information

a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 5:27:55 PM

ASHISH65 said:
I am litle shocked that op want to upgrade the i5 3570


It's not an upgrade for the cpu. i wanted a board with a chipset that could run more graphics cards in sli. the z77 chipset on my board has 16 pcie lanes while the 990fx chipset from amd has 40. i know that most cards dont use all the lanes currently, but this is future planning for when they do.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 5:33:32 PM

u only need 2 16x or 2 times 8x lanes. for sli

a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 10:39:08 PM

iceclock said:
u only need 2 16x or 2 times 8x lanes. for sli


z77 chipset can only handle 1 set of 16x lanes. it can do 8x 8x, but i wanted two 16x. and only the x79 intel or amd 990fx can do that.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 11:19:30 PM

i said for sli. also 8x-8x or 16x-16x doesnt mean jack in real world performance



a b à CPUs
February 10, 2013 11:23:18 PM

ice is right, on PCI-E 2.0 a lane of x16 or x8 makes little difference in the real world
a c 105 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2013 11:28:01 PM

yup

!