Are 4C/4T quads obsolete for gaming?

[Insert_Nickname]

I'm not primarily a gamer but do love the sparks to dial in games - I'm basically a Video Viewer and Encoder and it will take hell of a lot more to take my I7 2700K away.

Ryzen looks promising.

If you're doing anything video related, Ryzen really shines. Well worth the upgrade IMHO. I came from a 4.3GHz 3770non-K, and the performance increase on my 1700 is... impressive... even at stock.

 

[Donts00tmesanta]

Went from a 4460 to a xeon 1230v2, big difference in BF1 and GTA5 in terms of stutters. But also made my vm run better.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

No. 4 big fast cores still runs all but a couple statistical outlier games full tilt. 2 big fast cores are still not obsolete for gaming and will play the majority of games at acceptable levels.

 

[Christopher Bohling]

No. 4 big fast cores still runs all but a couple statistical outlier games full tilt. 2 big fast cores are still not obsolete for gaming and will play the majority of games at acceptable levels.

Sure, but many of those "statistical outlier" games are among the most technologically advanced games on the market, like Watch Dogs 2, Battlefield 1, and Total War: Warhammer. This suggests that the trend is towards favoring more than 4 threads.

As I've said on other forums, the many releases we're about to see this fall are going to be a pretty big indicator of the way CPU performance needs are changing for games. I'm interested to see how well games like Assassin's Creed Origins and The Evil Within 2 take advantage of the extra cores available on Ryzen and Coffee Lake.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Sure, but many of those "statistical outlier" games are among the most technologically advanced games on the market, like Watch Dogs 2, Battlefield 1, and Total War: Warhammer. This suggests that the trend is towards favoring more than 4 threads.

As I've said on other forums, the many releases we're about to see this fall are going to be a pretty big indicator of the way CPU performance needs are changing for games. I'm interested to see how well games like Assassin's Creed Origins and The Evil Within 2 take advantage of the extra cores available on Ryzen and Coffee Lake.

Agree but that does not make 4 core obsolete. The top tier enthusiast who loves his overclocked i7-7700k can rest easy. Only he can max out every slider in diminishing returns land. For the rest of us the games will run fine on medium settings.

 

[Christopher Bohling]

Agree but that does not make 4 core obsolete. The top tier enthusiast who loves his overclocked i7-7700k can rest easy. Only he can max out every slider in diminishing returns land. For the rest of us the games will run fine on medium settings.

Sure, as I said above I think "obsolete" is an overstatement. They're just not ideal for new builds if you have the money to spend at least $200 on your CPU.

 

[epsilon84]

I don't know if "obsolete" is the right word, but my experience moving from an i5-3470 to a Ryzen 7 1700 has been significantly positive enough for gaming that I don't recommend 4c/4t for gaming anymore unless you're on a strict budget.

Now I realize the Ryzen 7 is still not the ideal gaming CPU (and I didn't buy it just for gaming purposes) but the difference has been noticeable in games like Mass Effect Andromeda, where I would run into notably thread-limited situations in some of the more populated areas with my 3470 and get little drops and micro-stutter. With the Ryzen 7 those little issues are gone.

I realize that a newer i5 will do better than my old i5, but even looking at some 2017 open-world games it seems like those CPUs don't have much headroom, so I'd be worried for the future.

So basically what I'm getting at is that the overall experience with 8c/16t vs. 4c/4t - even for gaming, and even given Ryzen's meh single-core performance - has been enough better that I can't recommend 4c/4t for a new build unless you can't afford more.

Good post.

I guess I should clarify my OP slightly in that, I meant current level i5s (so Skylake/Kabylake 6000/7000 series) and upcoming i3s are still capable of running almost all games at a good level. Of course, older i5s will struggle more with lower clockspeeds and IPC.

Again, I'm not saying that 4C/4T quads are almost equal to higher core/thread count CPUs for gaming. But they provide approx 80 - 90% of the gaming performance of higher core/thread count CPUs and definitely still has its place in gaming machines (especially budget ones) going forward if you consider the price of the CFL i3s and Ryzen 3 chips.

People don't hate on lower end (and cheaper) GPUs just because they don't get the same framerates as higher end GPUs. I don't understand why the same logic can't be applied to CPUs as well? And the difference in actual gaming performance is far less between CPUs compared to GPUs. A 8700K would probably have ~20% better gaming performance than the 8350K for twice the price. A GTX 1070 will have about 100% better gaming performance compared to a 1050 Ti, at twice the price.

 

[maddie]

Good post.

I guess I should clarify my OP slightly in that, I meant current level i5s (so Skylake/Kabylake 6000/7000 series) and upcoming i3s are still capable of running almost all games at a good level. Of course, older i5s will struggle more with lower clockspeeds and IPC.

Again, I'm not saying that 4C/4T quads are almost equal to higher core/thread count CPUs for gaming. But they provide approx 80 - 90% of the gaming performance of higher core/thread count CPUs and definitely still has its place in gaming machines (especially budget ones) going forward if you consider the price of the CFL i3s and Ryzen 3 chips.

People don't hate on lower end (and cheaper) GPUs just because they don't get the same framerates as higher end GPUs. I don't understand why the same logic can't be applied to CPUs as well? And the difference in actual gaming performance is far less between CPUs compared to GPUs. A 8700K would probably have ~20% better gaming performance than the 8350K for twice the price. A GTX 1070 will have about 100% better gaming performance compared to a 1050 Ti, at twice the price.

Only on enthusiast dominated forums. Logic, what's that?

 

[Shmee]

I would say that a 4 core CPU is fine, but it should have hyperthreading. In other words, I would recommend 8 Threads minimum, and I would say that 4 core 4 thread CPUs are on the low end and if you are going to get a 4 core CPU, it should be a mainstream i7, or a ryzen with 8 threads.

 

[nickmania]

I think you should remeber the days that you need a new CPU just to run a new version of windows... With my Q6600 I still edit video, audio, make music, make 3d work, photoshop, surf the web and the last game I have played is Alien Isolation. So I would never call this CPUs "obsolete" specially when I remeber the days when you cannot load windows in an older system.

Been an entusiast is not only buying the new and pricely stuff, but be able to mantain a computer up to date and have the knowledge to prolong its life.

 

[whm1974]

I think you should remeber the days that you need a new CPU just to run a new version of windows... With my Q6600 I still edit video, audio, make music, make 3d work, photoshop, surf the web and the last game I have played is Alien Isolation. So I would never call this CPUs "obsolete" specially when I remeber the days when you cannot load windows in an older system.

Been an entusiast is not only buying the new and pricely stuff, but be able to mantain a computer up to date and have the knowledge to prolong its life.

I agree, if your older system is quite usable for your use case then you really don't have a need to replace it, or even if you did you can reuse for other things or pass it someone else to use instead.

 

[TheELF]

Sure, but many of those "statistical outlier" games are among the most technologically advanced games on the market, like Watch Dogs 2, Battlefield 1, and Total War: Warhammer. This suggests that the trend is towards favoring more than 4 threads.

Since when is terribad coding considered advancement?
Watch dogs 2 is the biggest hog on resources without any reason to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVy0ruj7miA
Did you ever actually play Total war?
The war part is still as single thread limited as ever resulting in incredibly low FPS.

They just fool people by only showing them the graphics part of the game.

The only decent game,from a code point of view,is bf1 where the i5's might be pushed to 100% all the time but still game without issues.
BF1 has the same problem as fallout 4 though,when scene complexity becomes too high they both drop frames like crazy,yeah there is a reason why 64player on a lot of maps is smooth but runs badly on amiens or others,too much stuff on screen.

 

[TheGiant]

I am going to give it my 2 cents

as a former q3a progamer (still missing the responsiveness and smoothness of a CRT monitor with 120Hz) I am super sensitive to any micro lags or stuttering and it all comes to this

people are more or less sensitive to fps and smoothness- I have friends that really do not see the difference between 30 and 60 fps and even there are people saying that human eye cannot see the difference between 25 fps and more

from the early 2000s I observed this:

GPUs are responsible for the general average performace- if the resolution or details are too high, in general even with the situation of player standing and looking at green field if the game is performing low it is dependant on the GPU power

CPUs are responsible for fights or situations with lots of objects moving or doing something and cpus determine the low fps and the micro lags and stuttering (what a q3a player cannot accept because it disturbs you from aiming correctly at that situation)

I tried BF64 MP and I can confirm what Krumme is saying all the time- for me its unplayable with i5-6600k at 4,4GHz because of the low fps at the most crucial situations...
Single player games are ofc less demanding.

So I wouldn't say that 4C/4T are dead- only for demanding players

For desktop use, the i5-6600k is and will be fine even in 5 years IMO and with all the bloatware the world can present to us

 

[maddie]

I think you should remeber the days that you need a new CPU just to run a new version of windows... With my Q6600 I still edit video, audio, make music, make 3d work, photoshop, surf the web and the last game I have played is Alien Isolation. So I would never call this CPUs "obsolete" specially when I remeber the days when you cannot load windows in an older system.

Been an entusiast is not only buying the new and pricely stuff, but be able to mantain a computer up to date and have the knowledge to prolong its life.

Someone who remembers what being an enthusiast meant. Just like amateur meant doing something out of love. Now it's a pejorative word.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

"For gaming, things are different. Here, the i5-8400 breezes past all AMD Ryzens thanks to its high per-thread performance and the boost clock of 4.0 GHz. I find it surprising that there is very little difference between the i5-8400, i5-8600K, and i7-8700K in gaming, even at the highly CPU-limited scenario of 720p. This suggests that today's games see limited gains from more than four cores. It is good news for gamers on a budget because a Core i5-8400 will be completely sufficient to not bottleneck even the fastest graphics cards." - W1zzard

excerpt from Techpowerup review on i5-8400

 

[VirtualLarry]

So, the i5-8400 is the new "budget Gamer king" CPU? How does it stack up to the Ryzen 5 1600X? That CPU can really hold its own in games, too.

 

[epsilon84]

So, the i5-8400 is the new "budget Gamer king" CPU? How does it stack up to the Ryzen 5 1600X? That CPU can really hold its own in games, too.

At CPU limited 720P, quite a lot better: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8400/18.html

Back on the topic though, and that is 4C/4T CPUs for gaming, the i3 8100 would slot in between the i5 7500 and 7600K, so approximately ~93% the gaming performance of the i5 8400 and ~88% the performance of the 8700K! Not bad for a $120 chip

 

[eddman]

So, the i5-8400 is the new "budget Gamer king" CPU?

No, that would be 8100. 8400 is the new "Bang for the buck King."

How does it stack up to the Ryzen 5 1600X? That CPU can really hold its own in games, too.

Umm... the reviews are already out, you know.

 

[tvdang7]

not really but if you are streaming ( which alot of individuals are really starting to my self included) then yes.

 

[Headfoot]

No, that would be 8100. 8400 is the new "Bang for the buck King."


Umm... the reviews are already out, you know.

The real comparison is 8400 to OC Ryzen 1600, since you can overclock that one to 3.9 fairly regularly and you cant overclock the 8400.

 

[eddman]

The real comparison is 8400 to OC Ryzen 1600, since you can overclock that one to 3.9 fairly regularly and you cant overclock the 8400.

1600X already runs at 3.7 GHz all-core boost. OCing it to 3.9 GHz will add about 5.5% more performance. Still not enough to beat 8400 in anything that does not benefit much from SMT. In heavily multi-threaded tasks 1600X would be faster.

EDIT: never mind. You meant the non-X. Still, it depends. If one does not play games or care how they perform, a 1600 would be better. For those who do, an 8400 is the clear choice.

 

[Headfoot]

1600X already runs at 3.7 GHz all-core boost. OCing it to 3.9 GHz will add about 5.5% more performance. Still not enough to beat 8400 in anything that does not benefit much from SMT. In heavily multi-threaded tasks 1600X would be faster.

EDIT: never mind. You meant the non-X. Still, it depends. If one does not play games or care how they perform, a 1600 would be better. For those who do, an 8400 is the clear choice.

I want to see the 1600 OC vs 8400 comparison though actually played out. Dollar for dollar performance, because that is the choice us enthusiasts actually face. If 1600 was about as fast overclocked but cheaper I'd buy that, vs 8400.

 

[R0H1T]

1600X already runs at 3.7 GHz all-core boost. OCing it to 3.9 GHz will add about 5.5% more performance. Still not enough to beat 8400 in anything that does not benefit much from SMT. In heavily multi-threaded tasks 1600X would be faster.

EDIT: never mind. You meant the non-X. Still, it depends. If one does not play games or care how they perform, a 1600 would be better. For those who do, an 8400 is the clear choice.

It still depends on the game (& the settings) though, for instance BF1 MP should favor 1600x & non X especially when OCed.

 

[epsilon84]

It still depends on the game (& the settings) though, for instance BF1 MP should favor 1600x & non X especially when OCed.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim?

 

[R0H1T]

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim?

Which part, the first one?

The 1600 & 1600x are running at stock, should be higher than stock 8400 when OCed close to 4GHz.