Caporegime
One of the age old questions.
"You only need 4 cores" A statement made by Intel back when AMD had pretty poor gaming performance and the highest core count CPU Intel would sell you on the mainstream was 4, Intel was competing with its self and didn't feel like it needed to tempt us with higher production cost 6 and 8 core CPUs in the mainstream, how true that statement actually was i'll leave for you to decide.
Move forward to 2016 when AMD launched its new and high cores count Zen architecture, Ryzen 1000, 4 to 8 cores with Simultaneous Multi-threading, Hyper Threading when talking about Intel, they are the same thing.
The IPC was up a massive 52% from Excavator and 70% from the dreadful Bulldozer / Vishera (FX series CPU's)
This forced Intel to released their first Coffeelake architecture, leading that pack was the 6 core 12 thread 8700K, a very good CPU and with higher clock speeds and IPC than AMD's Ryzen 1000.
in 2017 AMD improved the Zen architecture with Ryzen 2000, slightly higher IPC and clock speeds, this brought AMD's IPC to about 95% that of Coffeelake but still with lower clock speeds.
Intel reacted by refreshing Coffeelake giving us an 8 core 16 thread variant in the 9900K, but at around £500 it was much more expensive than AMD's £330 2700X.
In 2019 redesigned the Zen architecture again resulting in Zen 2, the clock speeds are again up slightly but this time with a 15% IPC up lift over the previous generation Ryzen 2000 (Zen+) that put AMD's IPC about 10% ahead of Coffeelake but with maximum clocks of about 4.4 to 4.5Ghz still about 12 to 14% behind Intel's 5Ghz, however the clock speeds and IPC differences pretty much cancel eachother out so the gaming performance difference while still slightly in favour of Intel are so close they are indistinguishable.
That's where we are at now, today we have so many options, from 4 cores without SMT to 12 and soon 16 cores with SMT.
I already have my personal view, that is 6 cores 12 threads minimum if you are on Mid range performance GPU's, to simplify that just looking at Nvidia: GTX 980TI / GTX 1070 / RTX 2060 or AMD equivalents.
So 8700K or Ryzen 3600/X.
That will give you a GPU upgrade path to something faster over the next couple of years when hopefully significantly higher performance GPU start coming down to more reasonable 'and mid range pricing' £300 to £350.
I honestly just don't think even a 6 core without SMT, like a 9600K is a good idea for a 2 to 3 years CPU.
Games these days are just not "single thread or only use upto 4 cores" that IMO has not been true for a long time, until more recently we just haven't had the GPU power to push CPU's that far, now we do, even in the higher mid range GPU's.
Below in the spoiler is what can happen when your GPU power far out strips your CPU power.
7600K 4 core 4 thread @4.2Ghz vs Ryzen 1600/X 6 core 12 thread @ 3.4Ghz.
From the video, looking up at the Sky Intel is faster, pan back down to the ground the i5 craters with massive stutter, while the Ryzen 1600/X remains smooth and is pushing near double the frame rates of the i5.
This is because the i5 doesn't have enough cores / threads to keep up with the GPU, with that the GPU stalls and stutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RMbYe4X2LI&t=308
Bottom right blue line = i5.
That's now quite old, and Crysis 3 is an even older game, 2012. You would never have seen that in 2012 with a 2012 GPU and a 4 core.
But this isn't 2012 and 'per core' performance has not moved that much since then, Moore's Law is hitting a wall, now its about "more cores"
So again, how many?
Testing Games just made a pretty handy little video that could help answer that.
He ran 5 games with an RTX 2080, so high end GPU, with 6 to 12 core CPU's with SMT off.
His results.
BFV:
4 cores: 96 FPS
6 cores: 149 FPS
8 cores: 167 FPS
10 Cores: 173 FPS
12 cores: 174 FPS
Rainbow Six:
4 cores: 269 FPS
6 cores: 315 FPS
8 cores: 329 FPS
10 Cores: 334 FPS
12 cores: 337 FPS
Assassin's Creed Odyssey
4 cores: 62 FPS
6 cores: 87 FPS
8 cores: 109 FPS
10 Cores: 116 FPS
12 cores: 119 FPS
HITMAN 2
4 cores: 93 FPS
6 cores: 108 FPS
8 cores: 113 FPS
10 Cores: 116 FPS
12 cores: 119 FPS
The Witcher 3
4 cores: 101 FPS
6 cores: 137 FPS
8 cores: 151 FPS
10 Cores: 154 FPS
12 cores: 158 FPS
As you can see in 4 out of 5 games there the RTX 2080 doesn't get to stretch its legs until 8 real cores are on the chip, i say 8 real core because 4 core 8 thread is very different to 8 cores 8 thread, on Intel Hyperthreading gains you about 25%, on AMD SMT gains you about 35%.
This is why i think for mid range a 6 core 12 thread CPU is needed, 8700K or 3600/X it really doesn't matter which they are the same performance.
If you are already on a 2080TI you need a 9900K or a 3700X / 3800X, or if you want real piece of mind a 3900X or later a 3950X.
Thank you for reading, comment as you like
"You only need 4 cores" A statement made by Intel back when AMD had pretty poor gaming performance and the highest core count CPU Intel would sell you on the mainstream was 4, Intel was competing with its self and didn't feel like it needed to tempt us with higher production cost 6 and 8 core CPUs in the mainstream, how true that statement actually was i'll leave for you to decide.
Move forward to 2016 when AMD launched its new and high cores count Zen architecture, Ryzen 1000, 4 to 8 cores with Simultaneous Multi-threading, Hyper Threading when talking about Intel, they are the same thing.
The IPC was up a massive 52% from Excavator and 70% from the dreadful Bulldozer / Vishera (FX series CPU's)
This forced Intel to released their first Coffeelake architecture, leading that pack was the 6 core 12 thread 8700K, a very good CPU and with higher clock speeds and IPC than AMD's Ryzen 1000.
in 2017 AMD improved the Zen architecture with Ryzen 2000, slightly higher IPC and clock speeds, this brought AMD's IPC to about 95% that of Coffeelake but still with lower clock speeds.
Intel reacted by refreshing Coffeelake giving us an 8 core 16 thread variant in the 9900K, but at around £500 it was much more expensive than AMD's £330 2700X.
In 2019 redesigned the Zen architecture again resulting in Zen 2, the clock speeds are again up slightly but this time with a 15% IPC up lift over the previous generation Ryzen 2000 (Zen+) that put AMD's IPC about 10% ahead of Coffeelake but with maximum clocks of about 4.4 to 4.5Ghz still about 12 to 14% behind Intel's 5Ghz, however the clock speeds and IPC differences pretty much cancel eachother out so the gaming performance difference while still slightly in favour of Intel are so close they are indistinguishable.
That's where we are at now, today we have so many options, from 4 cores without SMT to 12 and soon 16 cores with SMT.
I already have my personal view, that is 6 cores 12 threads minimum if you are on Mid range performance GPU's, to simplify that just looking at Nvidia: GTX 980TI / GTX 1070 / RTX 2060 or AMD equivalents.
So 8700K or Ryzen 3600/X.
That will give you a GPU upgrade path to something faster over the next couple of years when hopefully significantly higher performance GPU start coming down to more reasonable 'and mid range pricing' £300 to £350.
I honestly just don't think even a 6 core without SMT, like a 9600K is a good idea for a 2 to 3 years CPU.
Games these days are just not "single thread or only use upto 4 cores" that IMO has not been true for a long time, until more recently we just haven't had the GPU power to push CPU's that far, now we do, even in the higher mid range GPU's.
Below in the spoiler is what can happen when your GPU power far out strips your CPU power.
7600K 4 core 4 thread @4.2Ghz vs Ryzen 1600/X 6 core 12 thread @ 3.4Ghz.
From the video, looking up at the Sky Intel is faster, pan back down to the ground the i5 craters with massive stutter, while the Ryzen 1600/X remains smooth and is pushing near double the frame rates of the i5.
This is because the i5 doesn't have enough cores / threads to keep up with the GPU, with that the GPU stalls and stutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RMbYe4X2LI&t=308
Bottom right blue line = i5.
That's now quite old, and Crysis 3 is an even older game, 2012. You would never have seen that in 2012 with a 2012 GPU and a 4 core.
But this isn't 2012 and 'per core' performance has not moved that much since then, Moore's Law is hitting a wall, now its about "more cores"
So again, how many?
Testing Games just made a pretty handy little video that could help answer that.
He ran 5 games with an RTX 2080, so high end GPU, with 6 to 12 core CPU's with SMT off.
His results.
BFV:
4 cores: 96 FPS
6 cores: 149 FPS
8 cores: 167 FPS
10 Cores: 173 FPS
12 cores: 174 FPS
Rainbow Six:
4 cores: 269 FPS
6 cores: 315 FPS
8 cores: 329 FPS
10 Cores: 334 FPS
12 cores: 337 FPS
Assassin's Creed Odyssey
4 cores: 62 FPS
6 cores: 87 FPS
8 cores: 109 FPS
10 Cores: 116 FPS
12 cores: 119 FPS
HITMAN 2
4 cores: 93 FPS
6 cores: 108 FPS
8 cores: 113 FPS
10 Cores: 116 FPS
12 cores: 119 FPS
The Witcher 3
4 cores: 101 FPS
6 cores: 137 FPS
8 cores: 151 FPS
10 Cores: 154 FPS
12 cores: 158 FPS
As you can see in 4 out of 5 games there the RTX 2080 doesn't get to stretch its legs until 8 real cores are on the chip, i say 8 real core because 4 core 8 thread is very different to 8 cores 8 thread, on Intel Hyperthreading gains you about 25%, on AMD SMT gains you about 35%.
This is why i think for mid range a 6 core 12 thread CPU is needed, 8700K or 3600/X it really doesn't matter which they are the same performance.
If you are already on a 2080TI you need a 9900K or a 3700X / 3800X, or if you want real piece of mind a 3900X or later a 3950X.
Thank you for reading, comment as you like
Last edited:
I would like to see overclocked 8700k vs overclocked 3700x. benchmarks.
