CPUs, cores, future of gaming [first time poster]

[TheConsiderateIlliterate]

Hey everybody. I wanted to take a spin on a discussion that's been mentioned hundreds of times - multiple cores and gaming.

We've all read it before, the FX 8350 has 8 cores but performs on par/sub par to the i5 3570k for gaming because single-core performance and what games currently utilize.

What I keep reading, but never find any supporting evidence for, is the common saying of "games won't be fully using multiple cores for years to come". Can anybody extract further on that? It seems like very speculative talk and I'm just trying to find some supporting evidence that is a little more definitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Crysis 3 already utilize 6 cores? I heard BF3 does as well, but I could be misinformed.

I've been playing Planetside 2 as of late. We all know the optimization is terrible. I'm not sure how closely you've been following lately, but SOE has launched "Operation: Make Fast Game", a project to increase the CPU utilization, with the first tentative patch coming out end of October, boasting a potential 30% FPS increase. They have been posting video blogs about their progress and updates. Point is, I feel like this may be sooner than many people think.

Thanks guys.

 

[Nitro192]

The rumors are true about games utilizing more in the future and the first glimpse of that is supposed to be Battlefield 4. You are correct though that Battlefield 3 utilizes up to 6 cores but only in multiplayer. After looking at the benchmarks from 6 core gaming situations such as BF3 multiplayer and BF4 multiplayer it seems the FX 8350 went from slightly behind in a 4 core situation to at par in a 6 core situation.

It wasn't much of an increase as expected but it was a step up. The rumors i heard were most games in the future will utilize 6 because 8 core processors are much more rare. If that's true then the 8350 will most likely continue to be on par with the 3570k but if some games use 8 cores it could be different.

The fps increase the 8350 got from using 4 cores to 6 was only about 3-4fps so using 6 to 8 most likely wouldn't be much of a landslide off that. As far as the next gen it's the GPU i think people need to worry about when it comes to raw performance.

i can easily say i'm not biased. i own an intel now but just 2 months ago i had the fx 6350 and was very satisfied with it.

 

[8350rocks]

Hey everybody. I wanted to take a spin on a discussion that's been mentioned hundreds of times - multiple cores and gaming.

We've all read it before, the FX 8350 has 8 cores but performs on par/sub par to the i5 3570k for gaming because single-core performance and what games currently utilize.

What I keep reading, but never find any supporting evidence for, is the common saying of "games won't be fully using multiple cores for years to come". Can anybody extract further on that? It seems like very speculative talk and I'm just trying to find some supporting evidence that is a little more definitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Crysis 3 already utilize 6 cores? I heard BF3 does as well, but I could be misinformed.

I've been playing Planetside 2 as of late. We all know the optimization is terrible. I'm not sure how closely you've been following lately, but SOE has launched "Operation: Make Fast Game", a project to increase the CPU utilization, with the first tentative patch coming out end of October, boasting a potential 30% FPS increase. They have been posting video blogs about their progress and updates. Point is, I feel like this may be sooner than many people think.

Thanks guys.

Crysis 3 already runs 8 heavy threads, and BF4 looks like it will run 7 heavy threads. You also have other games already running 6 threads out as well...

This trend will continue into the future, especially as more and more game engines become multiple core capable. Like the new Frostbite engine, CryENGINE 3.5, and several others already in the works. It will make a big impact as companies begin shifting toward the newer game engines.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

the biggest thing that will make multi-core happen in a big way is the PS4 and XBone, with their 8 x86 cores

 

[Aphala]

I think, no matter how many cores you have, it's always about optimization of software. you can have the best of everything but even an OS can wreck that 2K+ Rig. But I think jumping from 4 > 6 core seems to much of a jump until we can get a stable 4 core than runs without error (Don't lie there is always an error with Quads) even Duo's had there problems when they came out. But BF4 is VERY POORLY done. Running more CPU than GPU Also there ram allocation...1.5gb of ram?!? That is just silly....I don't even DICE....

 

[8350rocks]

I think, no matter how many cores you have, it's always about optimization of software. you can have the best of everything but even an OS can wreck that 2K+ Rig. But I think jumping from 4 > 6 core seems to much of a jump until we can get a stable 4 core than runs without error (Don't lie there is always an error with Quads) even Duo's had there problems when they came out. But BF4 is VERY POORLY done. Running more CPU than GPU Also there ram allocation...1.5gb of ram?!? That is just silly....I don't even DICE....

Erm, the newest version of Frostbite is amazing, and they're not taxing the CPU more than the GPU. Their engine is just very demanding.

 

[TheConsiderateIlliterate]

Thanks for all of your feedback guys. Right now I'm living in the past with my Phenom II x4 965 BE (OC'd 3.8) paired with two OC'd 5850s (which still isn't too bad!). I took a break from gaming for a while and now I'm starting to get back into it, realizing that I'm behind the curve and thinking it's about time to upgrade.

I don't see myself actually rebuilding for another six to 12 months, but I figured I should start following everything now so I know what I'm doing in the future. I'll likely be putting down at least $1,500 - $1,800 for a build when that time comes. I have no preference as to AMD/Intel or ATI/Nvidia. I just want what suits my needs.

 

[Nitro192]

Thanks for all of your feedback guys. Right now I'm living in the past with my Phenom II x4 965 BE (OC'd 3.8) paired with two OC'd 5850s (which still isn't too bad!). I took a break from gaming for a while and now I'm starting to get back into it, realizing that I'm behind the curve and thinking it's about time to upgrade.

I don't see myself actually rebuilding for another six to 12 months, but I figured I should start following everything now so I know what I'm doing in the future. I'll likely be putting down at least $1,500 - $1,800 for a build when that time comes. I have no preference as to AMD/Intel or ATI/Nvidia. I just want what suits my needs.

Yeah in another 6 months the world of pc gaming probably will have changed again and hopefully GTAV will be out for pc by the time you build. As for price even 1200 should be enough for putting together a great rig especially considering prices might come down even further by then.

 

[Heroesneverquit]

I want to bring something to light and it is the reason I went with an AMD FX 6300 rig when I decided to build a pc even after hearing that AMD will probably stop the line.

Multi tasking is better. If you are a streamer or run stuff int he background while gaming your going to want the cores. There was a comparison done with Intel Vs AMD while streaming on youtube. AMD wins in pretty much all situations. With the same setup in each rig just changing the Mobo and the CPU the AMD was winning. If I can find the video I will edit it in.

Budget gamers personally I say should still be going for fx builds. You just cant argue with the six core fx 6300 when its competition is a duo core I3. Personally I feel intel could be doing so much better if they made a version of their chips without the IGP. Which hopefully would lower the cost of the chip.