7950x3d much slover than 13600k in starfield. And we all known about am5 socket burning, so you shouldn't buying any amd. I have 13700k and it works fine with 250W tdp under 280mm liquid cooling system with suprimX 4080. Never back to amd, i has a lot of driver issues on my r5-2500u+rx560 laptop.
@@MarkRUSSIA100I have a 5800x3d and haven't noticed any issues with the drivers. They might not have been installed/updated correctly if that is your issue. You also might have outdated parts, or a bad storage too.
@@MarkRUSSIA100 A poor comparison considering starfield doesn't work at all for so many components. My 5900x outperforms my buddies 12900k in almost every game, and CFD/FEA. AMD has clearly proved its ability to outperform Intel CPUs in gaming in recent years. Especially when the 7800x3d is benchmarking faster then 13700ks, but 13900ks aswell.
@@zackthegamerwolf7175driver issues have mostly been on and gpus not their cpus, but they have come a long way but I still wouldn’t recommend buying one until it’s been out for 1-3 months unless you’re fine with dealing/working around a couple kinks
People will treat this as obvious advice but a lot of them aren't sure what their own use case is. You don't need a higher end GPU if all you're playing is CS or most other multiplayer FPS. Most FPS multiplayers and nearly all Indie titles will run perfectly fine on a 4060 or RX6700. Hell, you shouldn't even look at Nvidia cards if you're mostly playing competitive FPS
It's not the clock speed! It's about PERFORMANCE PER CORE. There are plenty i7 Cpu's from a few years ago with high clock speeds that get blasted into bits by a 13th gen i3 because the performance per physical core is so much higher.
was gonna point it out but yea clock speed means nothing when you look at multiple gens of hardware from different brands, idk what bro is trying to say but plz stop misleading people if you don't know don't make videos about it
My thought exactly. It's funny that this guy wanted to be smart and cocky and just proved that he is almost as stupid as the guy who said core count matters for gaming 🤣🤣
Bandwidths of things, memory speeds on stuff, your processors ability to run through other background junk data.. the tuning done to things... Frigging architectural changes. Not to mention AMD and Intel are vastly different methods to get 'similar' results in how to make processors (architecture). And of course then "gaming" also means your gpu, and that means you need to know what pcie bus width they run, the version, and if your cpu can even push enough frame time through that gpu.... More frequency is most definitely not the only thing to look at.
He had a point, but as you said, theres a lot more too it. In a PC, and within PC components, everything is connected, and synergy is key. Thats how novice people get misledd into buying a "5ghz ultra gaming PC" with shit ram, a shit gpu, only 50 gigs of space, etc... I noticed those marketing tricks a lot in the past.
Even that won't work efficiently cuz most games use all the CPU cores and even if they don't the scheduler atleast passes the work among the cores. And that could make it inefficient. It's better to disable some cores for a particular game using task manager and use the remaining for the other game you boot
@@mikaela43523 I have nothing against it, its priced okay. But then you have this short come up making it look worse.... There's really no defense for it when you have a channel that comes in doing this to it.
@@profesercreeper no a 5500 has zen 3 5500 in terms of performance is on par with the 3600 both are decent cpus if you can find any of these cpus for lower than the other then get that cpu 5500 cheaper than the 3600? get the 5500 3600 cheaper than the 5500? get the 3600 also pcie doesnt impact the performance in games at all so dont mention "uM bUt whAt ABoUt pCie 4.0???" it doesnt do almost nothing besides maybe loading the textures or the game itself a second or 2 faster AND pcie 4.0 systems are more expensive if you want a full pcie 4.0 system you need to spend more money too
@@mikaela43523 go look at the cache, the 5500 has less than half the cache of the 3600. They are pretty equivalent but in some games the 3600 will perform much better.
@@phoenixwhiler943 not at once but i got core i7 bc it lasts longer then core i3's and i5's i had a 8year old core i3 laptop but i had to retire it so lets hope this one lasts even longer :D
Also the highest boost clock is for a single core.. for example i5 12400 has a max core clock speed of 4.5 Ghz but while gaming, the average core clock doesn't go above 4 Ghz, that's because only a single core/thread can reach 4.5 Ghz, not all of them. So the fastest core does help in gaming.
@@SnowTheKitsuneSo... so.. so fucking wrong. But the main reason why you are wrong, is because the turbo boost doesn't matter - the moment the system is loaded across more than one/two threads, the boost disables to the all core workload. Max turbo is the biggest lie in CPUs. You only see it when walking around the desktop or in browsers etc. Games don't use (1) core. You can go ALLLL the way back to the 4790k, worlds first 4ghz chip with a 4.4ghz boost!!! Amazing! Except the moment you do anything besides desktop activities or ancient/tiny games, you're locked to 4ghz, sometimes 4.1/4.2. on one or two cores for a split second.
@@ashryver3605Their is bios voltage duration settings that can be changed and then add a voltage offset and you can get it to boost across all cores i have a e5 2680 v2 10 core xeon that runs just shy of 3.7 all cores base and boosts to 4.3 across all cores in heaven benchmark its suppose to be a locked chip that runs at 2.8 base all cores and boost to 3.3 max it wasnt easy though there was alot of pissed off beeps and reboots involved in tuning it to run stable on air at 58c but you can definitly get the older intel chips to cook if you have a good enthusiast motherboard with a good bios and dont care about power consumption the xeons are only 115 watt tdp chips though so who cares if it wants all of it all the time 😁
Clock speed doesn't matter either, what matters is the IPC and per-core performance, cause under that clock logic an FX-9590 would beat both the 5500 and the 13100F
That such an understatement, if you want to talk about gaming performance you have to talk about RAM Speed and Bus Timings. It’s not that black and white because most of people don’t just run games and benchmarks they also have discord, multiple clients like steam and others in the background, maybe even parts of software they use for work running on the same machine. And in real world applications 2 more cores and 4 more threads can make the difference between good and bad frame times because of windows throwing performance out the window.
they used this 9900k paired with a gtx titan Xp to run the camera server in a place I used to work for the security, they literally had to install a separate AC inside the office during winter
Outside of clock rate and Instruction set. The cache sizes matter a lot as well. Specially L2 and L3 cache size that way the CPU isn't starving once instructions are sent to it. Pipeline stalls are a thing after all
IPC, clock speed and cache are all big factors in CPUs for gaming. A large cache can bring more performance, in some games, than higher IPC or higher clock speeds.
100%. 8 cores is the max amount a game can take but higher clock speed, IPC and cache are more important. But 8 cores is truly the sweet spot as you get slightly better gaming performance over 6 core while getting a nice 33.33% improvement in multicore workloads.
To add, depending on the game u NEED the extra cores. Especially some sim-esk games. Even minecraft if ur using big render distances with mods or just naturally Cpu cache is also another important factor
I’d recommend the higher cores for people that like or want to do gaming + some other stuff at the same time. Maybe you want to stream or record, or alt-tab into other stuff. Sure the game might only use 4 cores, but it doesn’t have to share them as much if you got 6 or 8 total cores.
@@Scott-fy4rz this is the first game of a list I'm trying to fill with "games that benefit with more cores". Good ones I mean, screw shattered horizon niche bs.
whats a no for 99,5 % of games. almost all have one main thread managing the stuff and one draw thread. the other stuff are all small side calculations but its always dependent and limited by these two main threads. games are heavily serial type tasks and its very limited what can be done in parallel, so for most games you cant effectively use more than 4-6 core cpu, what already have 8 to 12 threads. also what can be misleading to people: taskmanager shows time averaged values. so imagine this, one thread is used for 100% and is at limit, but it is swapped to another core every 0.25 second, but the taskmanager only gives an update once a second. the result is, that you wont ever see a core at 100%, it will show 4 cores at 25% each, what lets people think, they arent running at hardware limits. to actually see that, you need to check the software threads in eg performance monitor and not the hardware threads in taskmanger etc. you mot time will be limited by this but taskmanager wont tell you.
The thing is that 6 core CPUs have limited options with higher clocks or none at all, so if you want higher clocks, you have to go with the newest generation or buy the next tier up in the stack, eg Ryzen 5 to Ryzen 7.
I am happy with my Amd Ryzen 5 7600x. It does what I need it to do and that is gaming. I agree GHz is a little bit more important than cores to be honest.
I mean, 7600x is best price to performance CPU with newest architecture, not like you are running some mid-tier CPU from 5-6 years ago. 3600 and 5600 are still good cheaper options, since if you go for AM5 almost everything is more expensive.
@@petrinafilip96I wish they brought back the ryzen 3 for am5, would make a lot more sense for a budgetish build but to still get your foot into am5 without breaking the bank.
7600X Is obviously really good, but it will really prove it self once we see how it performs in the future, I have it aswell and very happy, especially with pbo
Same here. The video editing capabilities blew me away at first, coming from an 8th gen i5. Managed to play around with PBO and barely ever reaches 60°C.
It means nothing, what's important is performance. Would u rather buy R7 3700X 8core or R5 7600 6core if the six core has got a much better multicore performance? And especially much higher single core.
Never compare the speed of a CPU unless you're comparing it to the same family. Comparing the speed of a AMD chip to an Intel chip is insane. Ontop of that the 5500 is essentially 1 whole generation older than the 13100f. While i agreed in general that gaming does require too many extra cores a minimum of 6 is my go too since doing literally anything else while gaming takes a noticeable impact to performance. I would even say that 8 cores is ideal for most budgets.
Sweet spot 2-3 years ago was 6 cores but I can feel that soon 8 cores will be good to have. And just like you said in video there are other things that you should consider. Performance is most important. There are many tests with CPU for gaming so searching for right one shouldn't be a problem.
This is actually grossly wrong - performance per clock per core is the main factor. CPUs now prefer to do more work per cycle than just increasing the raw CPU speed, between a generation the speed might only change by a fraction of a Ghz, but each core will be doing ~20% more work per cycle. A new 6 core CPU will do more than a matching older chip with a slightly higher frequency. Also - games are beginning to take advantage of multi-core CPUs. We're moving away from a single core paradigm in favor of more modern, multi-core architecture. In fact - the main constraint in modern computers and gaming is memory bandwidth, a newer CPU with better memory management and cache will outperform pretty much any equivalent chip.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
How would a 8 core cpu perform in rendering in blender? or should I get a higher core cpu?
The value of extra cores is very variable depending on use case. Each core can perform its own calculations simultaneously, which could greatly increase performance IF your program needs multiple independent calculations. "Independent" is key - if the threads need to sync up very frequently, you may get a lot less value out of multiple cores. It also depends on the way the game was made and how much support was given for multi-threading. Some programs aren't well optimised for it and won't make much use of multiple cores even if it's theoretically possible. In the other hand clock speed basically always helps. Unless your lag comes from a slow GPU, internet latency or just an unresponsive game (surprisingly common).
I wouldn’t buy a quad core at all if you plan on playing aaa games, even on a budget build. You can get a 6 core r5 5600 for $140 these days that will smoke a 12100f
@@ukraineball953 its one thing to just stick with what you have, its another entirely to buy a 1050ti today. The fps per dollar of that card is abysmal no matter how you look at it. That card is borderline ewaste
I use a 13500 and it can pair up to a 4070 ti and I got it for $120 and Im not gonna upgrade for at least 5 years unless I need to change my motherboard or want to go full AMD
When you game, you tend to listen to music, be on discord, play games with AI and alot of things happening on the screen. So the lag spikes will be way more common with less cores. RA Tech proved this over and over.
@@tonyhakston536the argument for pushing a quad core over a six core stating pure benchmarks in gaming excludes anything running in the background, the man is preaching obsolescence.
@@tonyhakston536the ryzen 5500 is a six core but so is the 5600 the proformance difference between those 2 chips has little to due with core clock and everything to due with chip architecture.
@@RadarLeonwhy pay for more than you need? The new pentiums have pretty decent gaming performance that is fine for 75% of people and they are a dual core.
@@MrJord1994 because that little bit extra you pay for that better processor will last you more years than that budget pentium, that is why you pay more, plus you will have better proformance.
Not true. 1. The main thread is always the most important in a game. If the main thread is slow, it doesn’t matter how many other threads you have. 2. Most games don’t scale automatically with cores. They will usually be designed to utilise a set number of cores, meaning anything above that does not get properly utilised. 3. For games that actually do have proper multithreading scaling (which is extremely rare), about 80% of the operations are still done on the main thread. In a typical game, the only things that can really be done on a different core is loading, saving, rendering, audio and expensive math. Everything else in your game is still done on the main thread. 4. Even with games that are designed on special game engines that are made for multithreading (most ECS engines), the majority of the logic is still done on the main thread, but is a lot less than your typical game, about 50%.
@@DynamicalisBlue Nope, pretty much every new title it's using multicore power, for obvious reasons. Dont be and Inteltard and inform yourself before speaking, thanks.
@@Mallat871 Was referencing the fact that the FX cpus used to have the world record for overclocked speed but anyway. Couldn't do much with a clock speed that high. Too unstable
Remember though that at higher resolutions and refresh rates more cores can smoothen the experience. Ofc raw average fps goes up with higher boost clocks, but 1% lows are sacrificed with less cores (especially in demanding titles)
@@tbu_drachenkater5397 you still made a bad joke if someone else makes a bad joke that doesnt automatically make your joke any better its still shit haha sex funny!!! laugh now please coomer humour
Also depends on the game though. A lot of games only leverage 4 cores, but newer games can leverage more. City Skylines 2 for instance can fully leverage a threadripper.
Original commenter had a point. Games these days are being designed and optimized with the current gen consoles in mind. Which makes the minimum bar for a smooth gaming experience an 8c16t Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) CPU. Windows has more CPU overhead than consoles and having less than 8 AM4 cores does not cut it and will affect your 1% lows in a noticable way. If you're going with a 150-300$ GPU paired with a 60hz display, 6c12t is fine, but if you're trying to hit above 100fps in your games, unless you're playing League of Legends, 8c16t is where the bar should be set.
The most powerful current console: the Xbox Series X has 1 core innaccessable for gaming, it's permanently reserved for the OS. That leaves 7 cores at 3.8 GHz, or 7 cores 14 threads at 3.6 GHz, this configuration can't be swapped on the fly by the game, it has to be loaded at launch. The overall most powerful configuration is 7 cores, 14 threads at 3.6GHz at Ryzen 3000 IPC, A 5600X has significantly higher IPC, monstrously higher clockspeed, and only 1 core, 2 threads less, that's not even mentioning something like a 6 core, 12 thread Ryzen 7600. Measuring something in cores is next to meaningless.
@@thedandyp you aren't accounting for Windows services overhead on the CPU. Meaning a PC needs those extra 2 cores to max an Xbox Series X's CPU performance. Thanks for validating my point while pointing out my unaccounted for factor. 👍 But yeah a 7600 would be sufficient. 5600G/X no
also depends on what resolution is being run. 2k or 4k a 5600x will do just fine. but if you want all the frames in 1080p then yes something with a higher clock rate and ipc is what you want. but whence direct storage is fully implamented it wont matter anymore. all that will matter is the drive spped as well as the gddr speed on the graphics card itself@@travisholt92
My first CPU was a 6 core unlocked AMD CPU back in 2012, which I watercooled and overclocked to 4.2GHZ. Despite that and running with a GTX 550 Ti, Arma 3 multiplayer ran at like 30 FPS max, and on average 23FPS. Upgraded a few years later to an i5 4440 with 4 cores and 3.2GHZ locked, and Arma 3 multiplayer did 60 FPS just fine with the GTX 550Ti as well.
Id love to go into details, but yes for single thread performance clock speed is one of the most important factors. But there are so many more. Cache size, pipe instruction size, jump predicting, cache miss handling, psgefile handling, weather cache is shared or independant, instruction set compatability and handling. There are so many factors that just picking one, or even just one benchmark, is about as usefull as throwing a dart at a board in a pich black room. Heck i have personally eritten code which performed extreamly well 9n amd and poorly on intell, then recoded ssme code for the oppsite effect. Sometimes, just the compiler used for the game can make all the diffrence.
More cores just means more tasks that can be done simultaneously. But, it's definitely not something you should skimp out on. If you do things like, streaming or video editing, more cores is what you need.
I love your content man, you give some factual info. And this is coming from someone who does a ton of research into making computers and helping others at times. Something important to mention is that speed can be as good as it is. But if your pc is bloated beyond belief, you can necessarily get the full utilization of all you have to use Because the bloating takes up a bit of that performance. Yes you can ignore it, that's concluding if you'd like to ignore all the performance you're missing
Ipc (instructions per cycle/clock) is a pretty big factor as well. 2 CPUs could be running at 5ghz but have vastly different ipc, giving the higher ipc cpu the advantage.
If you value your money, you want your purchase to be a minimum future proof. There's already software that benefits from more than 6 cores, having few cores isn't gonna give you better performance over time. People recommending 6 cores cpus now are the same people who were fine with 8 GB VRAM on gpus 12 months ago and got a sudden reality check.
Guild wars 2 is my favourite game to play and it relies heavily on single core clock. It doesn’t even fully utalise the 6 cores all at once. I upgraded recently from a 3.2 Ghz CPU to the Ryzen 5 7500f which can clock up to 5 Ghz and the game runs soooooo much more smoothly. Fps is consistent throughout whilst other people always complain about how their Fps drops during big invame events. Granted I play on medium settings, but with the same settings my previous CPU always had that fps and performance drops during the bug events where 100s of players are in one place for the boss fight etc.
6 core is the new 4 core of yesteryear. It's basically the minimum to have a fluid PC and gaming experience. 8 cores isn't the minimum for that level of performance... yet
minimum for what? minimum for the most intensive AAA games that dont even make 0.1% of all games that exist? yeah you assume everyone plays the same games as you?
@@skyblock_mouse define hard core gaming to me every single person plays different games and each one of them will perform differently if you need a strong cpu with a lot of cores then go ahead buy that cpu but what im saying is that for 99.9% of games you dont need more than a 4 core cpu which is the truth if you want me to elaborate further on this i can
Maybe if you're gaming older games, new games have been optimized to make use of multicore/thread and your cpu will allocate heavier load to your performance cores while moving lower priority to efficiency cores.
Games generally are going to use the amount of cores that were common in machines at the time they came out. And they weren't great with splitting load equally
For my use case my i5 9600k has been really good for many years now (6 cores 6 threads) and ive managed to overclock it to 4.9Ghz. But I've noticed that with modern games it has started struggling a bit especially since I have discord with multiple streams from my friends open along with my browser and other background apps. I'm sure that a more modern 6 core would run into less issues running the same stuff but that shows that the difference is also in the newer silicon and not only the core count and Ghz. I also do some unity gamedev so I've considered getting a ryzen 5900x cause i found a really good deal for it.
Is *More Core* or *Higher Clock Speeds* important on tasks like Office Programs (Word, Excel, Libre Office, Outlook) and Web Surfing (TH-cam, Electronic Part WebSites etc.)? (Mosty on older hardware. OS: Windows 7, Windows 10. Software: Office 2003, 2019) (We have spare old (like old old) pc's, still working no problems, we are thinking making them backup pc's in case of some problems happens on the main pc.) Thank You 😄
The most important thing is actually instructions per second. You get this by looking at instructions per cycle, and then multiply that by the clock rate
I like my 16 cores 32 threads. It's not Threadripper, but I like to think of it as a Shelby Cobra. A hot little fast car that's got it where it counts.
IPC is pretty good measure, but more cores in games like spiderman are great. Whats going on is the industry is catching on to parallelization, and gaming may often include watching your friends on discord, while streaming to them. When people say "i dont stream" they mean they dont do twitch, but would like to stream to their friends. That is why I always say go for the 8 core over th 6 if possible
Depends on the platform honestly. If you are going amd it doesn’t matter, you can just upgrade later on as needed. If you are on intel tho then you are stuck with that CPU for a LONG time as an upgrade means a new motherboard and possibly even new ram so getting 8 cores to future proof is a good idea
Here's the thing, for the most part yeah clockspeed is important along with other factors. However, I regret not going for a high core count because there are too many newer games that are optimized for 8 cores, not 6, and while the games do run, they have noticeable issues.
so here's the main things that go into high performance core count (obviously) clock speed IPC (Instructions Per Clock), most important and the specific architecture some games are very optimized for a certain architecture and run best on that. the single most important factor is usually IPC
I had the Ryzen 5 3600 and it was fine for 2K gaming as well as Editing, BUT...Now that I've upgraded too a Ryzen 7700X with DDR5 instead of DDR4. I noticed a Bit more performance from the switch too.
Agreed. Clock speed is by far the most important unless youre exclusively playing Cities Skylines, or something like that. But that ALSO doesnt mean ONE SINGLE CORE at teraherz is a good thing either.. P.s. honestly tho if that were possible i would love to see a side by side test. Like a single core processor running at exactly 1 teraherz vs dual core both running 500gigahz and so on. That would be interesting
This reminds me when people used to argue over 2 or 4 cores at a time when most games struggle to work fine using 2 threads. Even some games recommended disabling ht on cpus that supported it. 8 threads is the standard for games nowadays and it wil keep on being like this for a few years. Most next gen games are based on engines originally developed for last gen consoles. Until developers strat to realese their games on next fen emgines like ue5, but is not something will happened short term. Specially knowing that about 50% of playstation gamers are still playing on a PS4
Same exact thing was said by everyone in 2017 so I built my first pc with an i5 7500 instead of a r5 1600 because gaming performance is what mattered to me. It still does, and now I wish I had gone the other route anyway. Games now use more cpu than ever and 6 cores is the new minimum. Comparing modern benchmarks the r5 1600 fares much better nowadays. Get just a little more than you need if you want your pc to last more than five years.
It's kind of more of a combination of core speed core instructions per clock And Speed of cache And amount of cache. But within the same relative generation of product core speed makes the biggest difference.
I got a 4600g for my gaming pc. It is my first build. What house should I get in the future for an upgrade. Edit: It autocorrected gpu to House somehow LOL.
Rx 6600 or arc a580 for now but in the future it’ll be cheaper so if you’ll upgrade to a gpu after like 2 years I will recommend None only time will tell what will be the best at that time
Houses don't affect the performance of a PC, But, 4600g is a good processor in meanwhile of getting your GPU or when it dies you could use your integrated graphics to still play games and yes you'll have to turn down the graphics to run it well.
Had a 7 1700X. In my financial state, going to 5 5600G was a HUGE improvement even for rendering, not just gaming. But switching to 7 3700X? Gaming wise - it even got a little better. Rendering wise - oh my God from 3 minutes to 1 to render a 4K 3D scene with denoiser is ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE. I can render an entire 10 seconds 30fps clean animation in 4K in approximately 5 hours, and it took me 9 to render just 4 seconds before!
Honestly for me core amount matter mostly on softwares that actively require strong multi core processing but for gaming yeah more core doesn’t change much
Architecture also is just as important.
Exactly for example 'Bulldozer'.
IPC. The main factor is IPC.
@@Haxogonewhat's that
@@M1szSInstructions Per Cycle
@@sadatislamkhan3707try 'Kaveri' still using it till this day 😂🤟
CPU Cache is also just as important as Clock speed, as proven by the X3D chips
I was thinking about getting an X3d chip then found out it wasn't worth it at all over my current CPU. It wouldn't make much or any difference at all
7950x3d much slover than 13600k in starfield.
And we all known about am5 socket burning, so you shouldn't buying any amd.
I have 13700k and it works fine with 250W tdp under 280mm liquid cooling system with suprimX 4080. Never back to amd, i has a lot of driver issues on my r5-2500u+rx560 laptop.
@@MarkRUSSIA100I have a 5800x3d and haven't noticed any issues with the drivers. They might not have been installed/updated correctly if that is your issue. You also might have outdated parts, or a bad storage too.
@@MarkRUSSIA100 A poor comparison considering starfield doesn't work at all for so many components. My 5900x outperforms my buddies 12900k in almost every game, and CFD/FEA. AMD has clearly proved its ability to outperform Intel CPUs in gaming in recent years. Especially when the 7800x3d is benchmarking faster then 13700ks, but 13900ks aswell.
@@zackthegamerwolf7175driver issues have mostly been on and gpus not their cpus, but they have come a long way but I still wouldn’t recommend buying one until it’s been out for 1-3 months unless you’re fine with dealing/working around a couple kinks
The best advice when buying PC hardware is to buy according to your budget and needs/use case.
Great advice. I'd love to expand if saving money is an issue.
Nah bro just buy the one with the fanciest RGB
@@zwenkwiel816I love it when my CPU lights up, I can't get it to become a colour other than orange though...
@@zwenkwiel816 sarcasm if fun until you see a DDR3 apu inside of an RGB case.
People will treat this as obvious advice but a lot of them aren't sure what their own use case is.
You don't need a higher end GPU if all you're playing is CS or most other multiplayer FPS. Most FPS multiplayers and nearly all Indie titles will run perfectly fine on a 4060 or RX6700. Hell, you shouldn't even look at Nvidia cards if you're mostly playing competitive FPS
*pulls out Pentium 4 overclocked to 7.132Ghz*
*FX-8350 OC’D TO 8.1GHZ HAS ENTERED THE CHAT*
@@AlcoholicJesus69 FX was trash af
@@crassusmaximus5879 i know, it was dogshit, but OC potential it had was insane. I used to have one myself lmao
@@crassusmaximus5879yeah, but can your fx4300 cook an egg as well as mine can?
What is your cooling solution like 🤣
It's not the clock speed! It's about PERFORMANCE PER CORE. There are plenty i7 Cpu's from a few years ago with high clock speeds that get blasted into bits by a 13th gen i3 because the performance per physical core is so much higher.
was gonna point it out but yea clock speed means nothing when you look at multiple gens of hardware from different brands, idk what bro is trying to say but plz stop misleading people if you don't know don't make videos about it
My thought exactly. It's funny that this guy wanted to be smart and cocky and just proved that he is almost as stupid as the guy who said core count matters for gaming 🤣🤣
Bandwidths of things, memory speeds on stuff, your processors ability to run through other background junk data.. the tuning done to things... Frigging architectural changes.
Not to mention AMD and Intel are vastly different methods to get 'similar' results in how to make processors (architecture).
And of course then "gaming" also means your gpu, and that means you need to know what pcie bus width they run, the version, and if your cpu can even push enough frame time through that gpu....
More frequency is most definitely not the only thing to look at.
@@cstappzsad TH-cam removed dislikes, I bet this video has quite a bit, if you want to be the "actually" guy, you should at least do it correctly
He had a point, but as you said, theres a lot more too it. In a PC, and within PC components, everything is connected, and synergy is key. Thats how novice people get misledd into buying a "5ghz ultra gaming PC" with shit ram, a shit gpu, only 50 gigs of space, etc... I noticed those marketing tricks a lot in the past.
12 cores 24 threads so you can play multiple games at the same time is the peak gamer move
E5 2670 v3 ❤😍
Sorry, i have only 1 Brain 😂
@@MakeMyDay366dam, time to upgrade and attach a second head😅
@@terminator7137 yes.😁
Even that won't work efficiently cuz most games use all the CPU cores and even if they don't the scheduler atleast passes the work among the cores. And that could make it inefficient. It's better to disable some cores for a particular game using task manager and use the remaining for the other game you boot
cpu cache is important too, the 5500 has really low L3 cache
its still a decent cpu
people just like shitting on the 5500 because how dare amd make a lower end ryzen 5 cpu
@@mikaela43523 I have nothing against it, its priced okay. But then you have this short come up making it look worse.... There's really no defense for it when you have a channel that comes in doing this to it.
@@mikaela43523just get a 3600, 5500 is basically a 3600 but with less cache
@@profesercreeper no a 5500 has zen 3
5500 in terms of performance is on par with the 3600
both are decent cpus
if you can find any of these cpus for lower than the other then get that cpu
5500 cheaper than the 3600? get the 5500
3600 cheaper than the 5500? get the 3600
also pcie doesnt impact the performance in games at all so dont mention "uM bUt whAt ABoUt pCie 4.0???" it doesnt do almost nothing besides maybe loading the textures or the game itself a second or 2 faster
AND pcie 4.0 systems are more expensive
if you want a full pcie 4.0 system you need to spend more money too
@@mikaela43523 go look at the cache, the 5500 has less than half the cache of the 3600. They are pretty equivalent but in some games the 3600 will perform much better.
i have a core i7-12700H laptop and i use it both for uni work and for gaming and digital art so the extra cores is nice
And i3 can run games just as well
@@dickeditsya, the i3 12100f does a solid job and the 13100f is good as well
I picked up a used i9 9900k for 230
You do all that at once?
@@phoenixwhiler943 not at once but i got core i7 bc it lasts longer then core i3's and i5's i had a 8year old core i3 laptop but i had to retire it so lets hope this one lasts even longer :D
Bro really just called him dumb💀
Meanwhile bro is the dumb one.
I laughed so hard!!!! Lmao
Also the highest boost clock is for a single core.. for example i5 12400 has a max core clock speed of 4.5 Ghz but while gaming, the average core clock doesn't go above 4 Ghz, that's because only a single core/thread can reach 4.5 Ghz, not all of them. So the fastest core does help in gaming.
Most games utilize only single core for games. And intel no matter what is still way better in that.
World/render thread, baybeeeee!
@@SnowTheKitsuneSo... so.. so fucking wrong. But the main reason why you are wrong, is because the turbo boost doesn't matter - the moment the system is loaded across more than one/two threads, the boost disables to the all core workload.
Max turbo is the biggest lie in CPUs. You only see it when walking around the desktop or in browsers etc. Games don't use (1) core.
You can go ALLLL the way back to the 4790k, worlds first 4ghz chip with a 4.4ghz boost!!! Amazing! Except the moment you do anything besides desktop activities or ancient/tiny games, you're locked to 4ghz, sometimes 4.1/4.2. on one or two cores for a split second.
@@SnowTheKitsunedawg it's 2023 not 2003
@@ashryver3605Their is bios voltage duration settings that can be changed and then add a voltage offset and you can get it to boost across all cores i have a e5 2680 v2 10 core xeon that runs just shy of 3.7 all cores base and boosts to 4.3 across all cores in heaven benchmark its suppose to be a locked chip that runs at 2.8 base all cores and boost to 3.3 max it wasnt easy though there was alot of pissed off beeps and reboots involved in tuning it to run stable on air at 58c but you can definitly get the older intel chips to cook if you have a good enthusiast motherboard with a good bios and dont care about power consumption the xeons are only 115 watt tdp chips though so who cares if it wants all of it all the time 😁
Clock speed doesn't matter either, what matters is the IPC and per-core performance, cause under that clock logic an FX-9590 would beat both the 5500 and the 13100F
He didn't say that clock speed is what you should exclusively focus on
@@tales527 He 100% ignored the IPC... so you are wrong.
he said multiple times that they're are ton of differrent factors that go into in-game performance@@Bialy_1
@@Bialy_1 yeah and he didnt talk about 50 other factors cause this is a short, so take you "actuallyyyyyyyyy" somewhere else
@@Bialy_1 He literally said "there are other factors" and this is a youtube short
That such an understatement, if you want to talk about gaming performance you have to talk about RAM Speed and Bus Timings.
It’s not that black and white because most of people don’t just run games and benchmarks they also have discord, multiple clients like steam and others in the background, maybe even parts of software they use for work running on the same machine.
And in real world applications 2 more cores and 4 more threads can make the difference between good and bad frame times because of windows throwing performance out the window.
fun fact: the 13100F is similar in performance to a 9900K
they used this 9900k paired with a gtx titan Xp to run the camera server in a place I used to work for the security, they literally had to install a separate AC inside the office during winter
Outside of clock rate and Instruction set. The cache sizes matter a lot as well. Specially L2 and L3 cache size that way the CPU isn't starving once instructions are sent to it. Pipeline stalls are a thing after all
IPC, clock speed and cache are all big factors in CPUs for gaming. A large cache can bring more performance, in some games, than higher IPC or higher clock speeds.
100%. 8 cores is the max amount a game can take but higher clock speed, IPC and cache are more important. But 8 cores is truly the sweet spot as you get slightly better gaming performance over 6 core while getting a nice 33.33% improvement in multicore workloads.
this is just wrong, borderlands 1 when loading uses 100% of my 13900k, linus just did a vid where city skylines used 50 cores,@@lachlanB323
To add, depending on the game u NEED the extra cores. Especially some sim-esk games. Even minecraft if ur using big render distances with mods or just naturally
Cpu cache is also another important factor
I’d recommend the higher cores for people that like or want to do gaming + some other stuff at the same time. Maybe you want to stream or record, or alt-tab into other stuff. Sure the game might only use 4 cores, but it doesn’t have to share them as much if you got 6 or 8 total cores.
For gaming its also a matter of "is your Game able to use those cores?"
yes like how on cyberpunk there is a significant jump in performance with performance core count
@@Scott-fy4rz this is the first game of a list I'm trying to fill with "games that benefit with more cores". Good ones I mean, screw shattered horizon niche bs.
whats a no for 99,5 % of games.
almost all have one main thread managing the stuff and one draw thread. the other stuff are all small side calculations but its always dependent and limited by these two main threads. games are heavily serial type tasks and its very limited what can be done in parallel, so for most games you cant effectively use more than 4-6 core cpu, what already have 8 to 12 threads.
also what can be misleading to people: taskmanager shows time averaged values. so imagine this, one thread is used for 100% and is at limit, but it is swapped to another core every 0.25 second, but the taskmanager only gives an update once a second. the result is, that you wont ever see a core at 100%, it will show 4 cores at 25% each, what lets people think, they arent running at hardware limits.
to actually see that, you need to check the software threads in eg performance monitor and not the hardware threads in taskmanger etc.
you mot time will be limited by this but taskmanager wont tell you.
@@ezecskornfancities skylines 2 can load my 5900x stupidly hard as well… all 24 threads at 80%+ usage
@@nachtnebel15408 has minor improvements over 6 but anymore than 8 does nothing. At which point only clock speed, IPC and cache matter.
Only TikTokers would believe that 6 core is not plenty.
nah on his tik tok nobody agrees with the commnet
many cases where 8 are noticeably better.
@@nostrum6410yep especially for emulation
smh 96 cores is the MINIMUM for running a 1080p game
CPU rendering? 😂
ok this is epyc
if you wanna go 1440p you need a minimum of 256 cores and 4k needs like 512-756@@AziDoesQuestionableThings
The thing is that 6 core CPUs have limited options with higher clocks or none at all, so if you want higher clocks, you have to go with the newest generation or buy the next tier up in the stack, eg Ryzen 5 to Ryzen 7.
linus tech tips made a video ''why CPU clockspeed doesnt matter''
let me guess, he is talking about ipc and that 2015 cpus with 5 ghz are losing against todays cpus with 4 ghz
I am happy with my Amd Ryzen 5 7600x. It does what I need it to do and that is gaming. I agree GHz is a little bit more important than cores to be honest.
I mean, 7600x is best price to performance CPU with newest architecture, not like you are running some mid-tier CPU from 5-6 years ago. 3600 and 5600 are still good cheaper options, since if you go for AM5 almost everything is more expensive.
@@petrinafilip96I wish they brought back the ryzen 3 for am5, would make a lot more sense for a budgetish build but to still get your foot into am5 without breaking the bank.
@@aP1ckle never even thought about it tbh. But it would make a lot of sense. Maybe with 8000 series of CPUs
7600X Is obviously really good, but it will really prove it self once we see how it performs in the future, I have it aswell and very happy, especially with pbo
even through my amd ryzen 5 5600g is 3 years old still good on performance
I do some editing, gaming, rendering (ai upscaling) so I bought a r9 7900x. Great cpu. Gets up to 5.6 to 5.8ghz on all 12 cores
Same here. The video editing capabilities blew me away at first, coming from an 8th gen i5. Managed to play around with PBO and barely ever reaches 60°C.
Im finally starting to get into the whole PC building world. Looking to upgrade my PC and this was very insightful. Thanks
6 cores is fine in most cases but the industry is quickly moving towards 8 cores
That’s why hyper threading is important
@@MrJord1994 and why 15th gen intel not using hyperthreading is a problem
@@nostrum6410 wasn’t aware of that
It means nothing, what's important is performance. Would u rather buy R7 3700X 8core or R5 7600 6core if the six core has got a much better multicore performance? And especially much higher single core.
What cpu would you recommend for the 2080 please make a video
Never compare the speed of a CPU unless you're comparing it to the same family. Comparing the speed of a AMD chip to an Intel chip is insane. Ontop of that the 5500 is essentially 1 whole generation older than the 13100f. While i agreed in general that gaming does require too many extra cores a minimum of 6 is my go too since doing literally anything else while gaming takes a noticeable impact to performance. I would even say that 8 cores is ideal for most budgets.
Sweet spot 2-3 years ago was 6 cores but I can feel that soon 8 cores will be good to have. And just like you said in video there are other things that you should consider. Performance is most important. There are many tests with CPU for gaming so searching for right one shouldn't be a problem.
This is actually grossly wrong - performance per clock per core is the main factor. CPUs now prefer to do more work per cycle than just increasing the raw CPU speed, between a generation the speed might only change by a fraction of a Ghz, but each core will be doing ~20% more work per cycle.
A new 6 core CPU will do more than a matching older chip with a slightly higher frequency.
Also - games are beginning to take advantage of multi-core CPUs. We're moving away from a single core paradigm in favor of more modern, multi-core architecture. In fact - the main constraint in modern computers and gaming is memory bandwidth, a newer CPU with better memory management and cache will outperform pretty much any equivalent chip.
How would a 8 core cpu perform in rendering in blender? or should I get a higher core cpu?
Instructions per clock is even more important
Both are equally meaningless without the other.
The value of extra cores is very variable depending on use case. Each core can perform its own calculations simultaneously, which could greatly increase performance IF your program needs multiple independent calculations. "Independent" is key - if the threads need to sync up very frequently, you may get a lot less value out of multiple cores.
It also depends on the way the game was made and how much support was given for multi-threading. Some programs aren't well optimised for it and won't make much use of multiple cores even if it's theoretically possible.
In the other hand clock speed basically always helps. Unless your lag comes from a slow GPU, internet latency or just an unresponsive game (surprisingly common).
Damn it was personal 💀💀
I have a 8C 16T 32GB RAM computer for heavy animating and it is fast.
That guy got roasted in 69 different languages 💀
Or… C++?
@@TheOofaloofarust
what about "Threadripper PRO 7995WX" vs "Core i9-14900KS"?
Me with my 24 Core I9 - 👁️👄👁️
I mean, it’s overkill, but more games are at least TRYING to start making use of every or most cores in systems like Cyberpunk 2077.
Its not overkill just means you have enough headroom I bet your games never stutter
Number of transistors matters, micro-architecture matters, etc, etc
That moment when a 12100F is a quad core and still a good budget CPU:
I wouldn’t buy a quad core at all if you plan on playing aaa games, even on a budget build. You can get a 6 core r5 5600 for $140 these days that will smoke a 12100f
It’s basically just an old school i7 on steroids
@@SteveDonevI don’t play AAA games, I’ll stick with my 3600 and 1050ti.
@@ukraineball953 its one thing to just stick with what you have, its another entirely to buy a 1050ti today. The fps per dollar of that card is abysmal no matter how you look at it. That card is borderline ewaste
I use a 13500 and it can pair up to a 4070 ti and I got it for $120 and Im not gonna upgrade for at least 5 years unless I need to change my motherboard or want to go full AMD
Most games don't use more than 4 cores anyways
Bro has a pop filter on a mic with on built in 😂
When you game, you tend to listen to music, be on discord, play games with AI and alot of things happening on the screen.
So the lag spikes will be way more common with less cores. RA Tech proved this over and over.
Also not only ghz
Cache also matter
And many more...
I hope TH-cam never recommend me this again
Why’s that?
@@tonyhakston536the argument for pushing a quad core over a six core stating pure benchmarks in gaming excludes anything running in the background, the man is preaching obsolescence.
@@tonyhakston536the ryzen 5500 is a six core but so is the 5600 the proformance difference between those 2 chips has little to due with core clock and everything to due with chip architecture.
@@RadarLeonwhy pay for more than you need? The new pentiums have pretty decent gaming performance that is fine for 75% of people and they are a dual core.
@@MrJord1994 because that little bit extra you pay for that better processor will last you more years than that budget pentium, that is why you pay more, plus you will have better proformance.
ME CHILLIN' WITH 2 CORES I7 LAPTOP!
That one guy who wants some attention.....while he wasn't know anything....
Which CPU do you recommend with a GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 3070?
In case you didn't know, tons of games relies on multicore operations (example, cyberpunk) so yes, having more cores is better. Always.
Not true.
1. The main thread is always the most important in a game. If the main thread is slow, it doesn’t matter how many other threads you have.
2. Most games don’t scale automatically with cores. They will usually be designed to utilise a set number of cores, meaning anything above that does not get properly utilised.
3. For games that actually do have proper multithreading scaling (which is extremely rare), about 80% of the operations are still done on the main thread.
In a typical game, the only things that can really be done on a different core is loading, saving, rendering, audio and expensive math. Everything else in your game is still done on the main thread.
4. Even with games that are designed on special game engines that are made for multithreading (most ECS engines), the majority of the logic is still done on the main thread, but is a lot less than your typical game, about 50%.
@@DynamicalisBlue Nope, pretty much every new title it's using multicore power, for obvious reasons. Dont be and Inteltard and inform yourself before speaking, thanks.
You need at least 6 for gaming. Minimun.
Bulldozer architecture shows up
@@Mallat871 Was referencing the fact that the FX cpus used to have the world record for overclocked speed but anyway. Couldn't do much with a clock speed that high. Too unstable
@@Mallat871 Well they weren't fake cores, just the way they were made was different.
Remember though that at higher resolutions and refresh rates more cores can smoothen the experience. Ofc raw average fps goes up with higher boost clocks, but 1% lows are sacrificed with less cores (especially in demanding titles)
Remember: size doesn’t matter
Wait, what were we talking about?
haha funny porn joke!!! thats so funny!
@@mikaela43523 Then make a better joke. Come on, I’m waiting
@@tbu_drachenkater5397 you still made a bad joke
if someone else makes a bad joke that doesnt automatically make your joke any better
its still shit
haha sex funny!!! laugh now please
coomer humour
Also depends on the game though. A lot of games only leverage 4 cores, but newer games can leverage more. City Skylines 2 for instance can fully leverage a threadripper.
Original commenter had a point. Games these days are being designed and optimized with the current gen consoles in mind. Which makes the minimum bar for a smooth gaming experience an 8c16t Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) CPU. Windows has more CPU overhead than consoles and having less than 8 AM4 cores does not cut it and will affect your 1% lows in a noticable way. If you're going with a 150-300$ GPU paired with a 60hz display, 6c12t is fine, but if you're trying to hit above 100fps in your games, unless you're playing League of Legends, 8c16t is where the bar should be set.
The most powerful current console: the Xbox Series X has 1 core innaccessable for gaming, it's permanently reserved for the OS. That leaves 7 cores at 3.8 GHz, or 7 cores 14 threads at 3.6 GHz, this configuration can't be swapped on the fly by the game, it has to be loaded at launch. The overall most powerful configuration is 7 cores, 14 threads at 3.6GHz at Ryzen 3000 IPC, A 5600X has significantly higher IPC, monstrously higher clockspeed, and only 1 core, 2 threads less, that's not even mentioning something like a 6 core, 12 thread Ryzen 7600. Measuring something in cores is next to meaningless.
@@thedandyp you aren't accounting for Windows services overhead on the CPU. Meaning a PC needs those extra 2 cores to max an Xbox Series X's CPU performance. Thanks for validating my point while pointing out my unaccounted for factor. 👍 But yeah a 7600 would be sufficient. 5600G/X no
+Ddr5 ram
ddr5 is no better then 4 atm when it comes to actaul latency in the system@@farcry3940
also depends on what resolution is being run. 2k or 4k a 5600x will do just fine. but if you want all the frames in 1080p then yes something with a higher clock rate and ipc is what you want. but whence direct storage is fully implamented it wont matter anymore. all that will matter is the drive spped as well as the gddr speed on the graphics card itself@@travisholt92
Bro probably lost their mind when the epyc line came out 😂😂😂
My first CPU was a 6 core unlocked AMD CPU back in 2012, which I watercooled and overclocked to 4.2GHZ. Despite that and running with a GTX 550 Ti, Arma 3 multiplayer ran at like 30 FPS max, and on average 23FPS. Upgraded a few years later to an i5 4440 with 4 cores and 3.2GHZ locked, and Arma 3 multiplayer did 60 FPS just fine with the GTX 550Ti as well.
Id love to go into details, but yes for single thread performance clock speed is one of the most important factors. But there are so many more. Cache size, pipe instruction size, jump predicting, cache miss handling, psgefile handling, weather cache is shared or independant, instruction set compatability and handling.
There are so many factors that just picking one, or even just one benchmark, is about as usefull as throwing a dart at a board in a pich black room.
Heck i have personally eritten code which performed extreamly well 9n amd and poorly on intell, then recoded ssme code for the oppsite effect. Sometimes, just the compiler used for the game can make all the diffrence.
More cores just means more tasks that can be done simultaneously. But, it's definitely not something you should skimp out on. If you do things like, streaming or video editing, more cores is what you need.
6 cores at the time are kind of the suit spot for gaming+ discord, etc
I love your content man, you give some factual info. And this is coming from someone who does a ton of research into making computers and helping others at times.
Something important to mention is that speed can be as good as it is. But if your pc is bloated beyond belief, you can necessarily get the full utilization of all you have to use
Because the bloating takes up a bit of that performance. Yes you can ignore it, that's concluding if you'd like to ignore all the performance you're missing
Ipc (instructions per cycle/clock) is a pretty big factor as well. 2 CPUs could be running at 5ghz but have vastly different ipc, giving the higher ipc cpu the advantage.
If you value your money, you want your purchase to be a minimum future proof. There's already software that benefits from more than 6 cores, having few cores isn't gonna give you better performance over time. People recommending 6 cores cpus now are the same people who were fine with 8 GB VRAM on gpus 12 months ago and got a sudden reality check.
Something I needed to know.. thanks 👍🏾
Guild wars 2 is my favourite game to play and it relies heavily on single core clock. It doesn’t even fully utalise the 6 cores all at once. I upgraded recently from a 3.2 Ghz CPU to the Ryzen 5 7500f which can clock up to 5 Ghz and the game runs soooooo much more smoothly. Fps is consistent throughout whilst other people always complain about how their Fps drops during big invame events. Granted I play on medium settings, but with the same settings my previous CPU always had that fps and performance drops during the bug events where 100s of players are in one place for the boss fight etc.
6 core is the new 4 core of yesteryear. It's basically the minimum to have a fluid PC and gaming experience. 8 cores isn't the minimum for that level of performance... yet
minimum for what?
minimum for the most intensive AAA games that dont even make 0.1% of all games that exist?
yeah you assume everyone plays the same games as you?
@@mikaela43523 the most popular and most played games* if u are doing ACTUAL hard-core gaming a good cpu is needed
@@skyblock_mouse define hard core gaming to me
every single person plays different games and each one of them will perform differently
if you need a strong cpu with a lot of cores then go ahead buy that cpu
but what im saying is that for 99.9% of games you dont need more than a 4 core cpu which is the truth
if you want me to elaborate further on this i can
Am I being bottle necked by having a i3 13100 and a rtx 3060
This video is very helpful 🙏
Maybe if you're gaming older games, new games have been optimized to make use of multicore/thread and your cpu will allocate heavier load to your performance cores while moving lower priority to efficiency cores.
Got my R5 3600 clocks at 4,6ghz and little bit undervolting at the bios. And its been stable and been a Budget beast for me 😁
How many percent worse are gaming laptops with the same components, for example an I5 13th generation with an RTX 3060
As a guy who constantly uses multithreaded software that uses 80% of every core my CPU has, I like the explanation
Games generally are going to use the amount of cores that were common in machines at the time they came out. And they weren't great with splitting load equally
For my use case my i5 9600k has been really good for many years now (6 cores 6 threads) and ive managed to overclock it to 4.9Ghz.
But I've noticed that with modern games it has started struggling a bit especially since I have discord with multiple streams from my friends open along with my browser and other background apps. I'm sure that a more modern 6 core would run into less issues running the same stuff but that shows that the difference is also in the newer silicon and not only the core count and Ghz. I also do some unity gamedev so I've considered getting a ryzen 5900x cause i found a really good deal for it.
Is *More Core* or *Higher Clock Speeds* important on tasks like Office Programs (Word, Excel, Libre Office, Outlook) and Web Surfing (TH-cam, Electronic Part WebSites etc.)?
(Mosty on older hardware. OS: Windows 7, Windows 10. Software: Office 2003, 2019)
(We have spare old (like old old) pc's, still working no problems, we are thinking making them backup pc's in case of some problems happens on the main pc.)
Thank You 😄
The most important thing is actually instructions per second. You get this by looking at instructions per cycle, and then multiply that by the clock rate
I like my 16 cores 32 threads.
It's not Threadripper, but I like to think of it as a Shelby Cobra. A hot little fast car that's got it where it counts.
IPC is pretty good measure, but more cores in games like spiderman are great. Whats going on is the industry is catching on to parallelization, and gaming may often include watching your friends on discord, while streaming to them. When people say "i dont stream" they mean they dont do twitch, but would like to stream to their friends. That is why I always say go for the 8 core over th 6 if possible
Depends on the platform honestly. If you are going amd it doesn’t matter, you can just upgrade later on as needed. If you are on intel tho then you are stuck with that CPU for a LONG time as an upgrade means a new motherboard and possibly even new ram so getting 8 cores to future proof is a good idea
Here's the thing, for the most part yeah clockspeed is important along with other factors.
However, I regret not going for a high core count because there are too many newer games that are optimized for 8 cores, not 6, and while the games do run, they have noticeable issues.
i3 cpu's got slept on quite often, but there were some really decent i3 chips for really good prices
My i3 3rd clocked at 3.80 ghz 💀🤝💀
so here's the main things that go into high performance
core count (obviously)
clock speed
IPC (Instructions Per Clock), most important
and the specific architecture
some games are very optimized for a certain architecture and run best on that.
the single most important factor is usually IPC
My little i5-11400f is still pumping out decent numbers
It also depends on the game. Some games are better at multithreading so core count counts more. Same thing is valid for caches.
I had the Ryzen 5 3600 and it was fine for 2K gaming as well as Editing, BUT...Now that I've upgraded too a Ryzen 7700X with DDR5 instead of DDR4. I noticed a Bit more performance from the switch too.
Agreed. Clock speed is by far the most important unless youre exclusively playing Cities Skylines, or something like that. But that ALSO doesnt mean ONE SINGLE CORE at teraherz is a good thing either..
P.s. honestly tho if that were possible i would love to see a side by side test. Like a single core processor running at exactly 1 teraherz vs dual core both running 500gigahz and so on. That would be interesting
This reminds me when people used to argue over 2 or 4 cores at a time when most games struggle to work fine using 2 threads. Even some games recommended disabling ht on cpus that supported it. 8 threads is the standard for games nowadays and it wil keep on being like this for a few years. Most next gen games are based on engines originally developed for last gen consoles. Until developers strat to realese their games on next fen emgines like ue5, but is not something will happened short term. Specially knowing that about 50% of playstation gamers are still playing on a PS4
Clock speed doesn't matter, go based off single core performance and high amount of cache.
Same exact thing was said by everyone in 2017 so I built my first pc with an i5 7500 instead of a r5 1600 because gaming performance is what mattered to me. It still does, and now I wish I had gone the other route anyway. Games now use more cpu than ever and 6 cores is the new minimum. Comparing modern benchmarks the r5 1600 fares much better nowadays. Get just a little more than you need if you want your pc to last more than five years.
Can you explain threads as well?
Between the 5800x and X3d model the 3d cache makes a difference but has lower clocks
It's kind of more of a combination of core speed core instructions per clock And Speed of cache And amount of cache. But within the same relative generation of product core speed makes the biggest difference.
I have my i5 2500k overclocked to 4.8ghz
I got a 4600g for my gaming pc. It is my first build. What house should I get in the future for an upgrade.
Edit: It autocorrected gpu to House somehow LOL.
I don't think moving out from your home would improve your PC's performance lol
Rx 6600 or arc a580 for now but in the future it’ll be cheaper so if you’ll upgrade to a gpu after like 2 years I will recommend
None only time will tell what will be the best at that time
Houses don't affect the performance of a PC, But, 4600g is a good processor in meanwhile of getting your GPU or when it dies you could use your integrated graphics to still play games and yes you'll have to turn down the graphics to run it well.
@@frozenturbo8623by far the funniest shit I read today 😂
Thanks for the daily doze of laughter
this is why i went with a ryzan 5 3600 instead of something more expensive at the time. It very much runs everything i need it to with power to spare.
Had a 7 1700X. In my financial state, going to 5 5600G was a HUGE improvement even for rendering, not just gaming. But switching to 7 3700X? Gaming wise - it even got a little better. Rendering wise - oh my God from 3 minutes to 1 to render a 4K 3D scene with denoiser is ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE. I can render an entire 10 seconds 30fps clean animation in 4K in approximately 5 hours, and it took me 9 to render just 4 seconds before!
Honestly for me core amount matter mostly on softwares that actively require strong multi core processing but for gaming yeah more core doesn’t change much