Guys what do you think. Picking up 4 or 8 core cpu for gaming? Also is there any list of games that use more than 4 cores?
bf3/crysis use 8 cores ( not 100% sure) bf3 and bf4 do use all of them. Tbh right now if you have the money get a i7 4770k and OC it instead of an 8 core from amd,I got the fx 8320 OC to 4.5 and there are games where it struggles due to poor optimization and weaker single core performance. Most games use 2-4cores and intel really shines there,but when they're neck and neck like in bf3 full on 4 cores vs 8 it's near identical in performance.
BF4 uses more than 4 cores. It matters what cpu you are getting and your budget. If you want to spend 400-500 just get the 6 core amd processor. It is only 10 dollars more than the fx 4 core processor. If you want to know whether to get an amd 8 core or an intel 4 core I would say this: they are very similar in performance. The difference is when newer games start to take advantage of more than 4 cores. Also, a quad core intel beats out a quad core amd always. It doesn't matter. ALWAYS.
Multi-core support is an unsolvable Windows problem. Even with multiple cores, the cores are never used efficiently in Windows. Microsoft is never ever going to solve it, because the PC era is finished anyway, and there is no use. If Microsoft ever makes an operating system that does use multiple cores efficiently, it will be for mobile devices.
If you game in linux, and to an extent OSX and other *nix operating systems, you don't have that handicap. Wit linux kernel 3.15 now, the multicore performance is stepped up even more. In linux, there is no need for applications to be "optimized" for multi-core processing, the system does that by itself. It's however possible to optimize even further, and even use streaming processors, etc... without that much problems.
In fact, you can run Windows in a linux VM, and make Windows believe that it has 8 or more cores, even on a dual core or quad core processor, and if the Windows application, for instance a game, needs 4 or more cores, it will often run faster with Qemu in a linux VM than on a native system with 4 cores.
Ye I don't think I will go amd again. Have 1055t atm and I am not rly feeling good about it.
I didn't set a budget but I am not idiot to spend cash if I don't need to... I just want to know which games support more than 4 cores.
Okay you have just confirmed that you know jackshit about about kernels.
Windows kernel is like every other consumer kernel.
Kernel have little to nothing to do with multi-threaded applications, it is up to the software. Linux might have a compiler which have better standard for multi-thread.
What is a streaming processor?
If a kernel tried to split up a process to multiple cores, you will see issues with latency, cache misses, and registers not been in constant work which all is bad.
1055t actually have 6 full fledged cores. they still go for over $100. Get a after market cooler and crank that thing up, they can typically get up to 4.0Ghz.
Anyways also keep in mind that the 1055t and all thuban cpus are from before sandybridge intel cpus, they were released in 2010, almost 4 years ago. the 2500k was not released until 2011. To even say that a thuban has any kind of relevance shows that they had great staying power. In all honesty it has aged better than any first gen i-series cpus have, so don't feel bad about it.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-AMD-Phenom-II-X6-1055T
As you can see the 1055t had no bad single core performance, its just old. Like I said OC and you should see improvement in your single core performance as well as overall performance.
EDIT:
As for games that use more than 4 cores, their are a few atm, but I think we are going to see a shift either this year or early next year where games start using more than 4 cores, and core usage will dynamically scale based on the number of cores available.
Have nh-d14 but I took nvidia mobo so I could have sli and the only mobo they had was m4n98td evo which is just S***. Vdrop is just highest I have ever seen. So i have it at 3.7ghz. I feel bad about mobo. Second asus mobo I have and it is crap. Msi is the only brand I will buy.
Its not exactly a OC board from ASUS, so its not really their fault that it doesn't OC well. Your so down on your own hardware, lighten up, your system is something you should take pride in not something you constantly talk down to yourself about. New components come out everyday and perform better than then old ones, but if you can look at your system 4 years after you built it and and say "Its still relevant, I am still beating this" than you know that you did a good job, that your system had staying power, and that is something you can take pride in.
First thing that came up when I googled that board.
Q. I've increased the Vcore and/or CPU/NB voltage; but my monitoring software is showing it as a lower value than I set it. Is this a problem with the software or the board?
A. This is known as "Vdroop", and is a particular problem with this board. A rough estimate puts the average Vdroop for this board up to 7-8% under load. What happens is the CPU voltage regulation decreases the voltage according to some internal algorithm. This is normal behaviour for the board, a "feature", not a bug. The workaround is to just keep bumping up the voltage until the software shows it hitting your target value.
Even seeing this I still see lots of people OCed to 4.0 - 4.1 on the board.
Newer boards still do this V droop thing, but new features such as Load Line Calibration help to compensate.
The frostbite 3 uses 8 cores, so any frostbite 3 engine will use all 8. Crysis 3 actually is optimized to use 12 cores. So stuff like the 3930k, 3960x, 3970x, 4930k and 4960x will actually be fully optimized in Crysis 3. It's also important to realize that any new game going forward with a console port will have 8 core optimization because of the new consoles having AMD 8 cores inside. So wait a year, and you'll see every new title with 8 core optimization.
Well I searched for anything like LLC but there is nothing. Also I don't want to run more voltage at idle just so I can have overclock at load.
Thats why I would take 8 core cpu 3770k or 4770k whichever I would get cheaper. Maybe even 2600-700k if I can find for good price with good board.
Shouldn't be comparing number of cores but per-core performance. Also there are other architectural differences that can have an effect on how well a particular CPU performs in a certain game.
It's not as simple as saying "This CPU has 8 cores and therefore it will be twice as fast in an 8 core/thread optimized game." The truth is the 4 cores of an i5 can chew through the same 8 threads in roughly the same amount of time as an FX-8350 with 8 cores. The reason is IPC (instructions per cycle) in the Intel core i series CPUs is nearly twice that of the AMD FX CPUs.
So if the question is; what is better for gaming, 4 or 8 cores? The answer is; it depends on your budget and if you're going with Intel or AMD. For AMD I would say 4 cores minimum (Athlon X4 750/760K). For Intel, I would say 2 cores minimum (Pentium G3220/3420).
For optimum performance per dollar (if your budget allows); For Intel - Core i5-4570/4670/K (i7's hold no significant advantage or improvement over i5 performance in gaming, thus they are not worth the extra ~$100+ in cost for strictly gaming usage, IMO). For AMD - FX-8320(OC'd)/8350.
I know. And I was only talking about intel cpus. Because I know amd is s***. At least in my opinion. Was checking 2700k vs 3770k vs 4770k and there is just no enough differance in performance for games when they are clocked at same speeds. The only drawback is 2700k can't support pcie 3 which now I don't think is a big deal. But 4 years down the line I think it will be.
Why all the hate on AMD? They're quite good on a budget.
40770K all the way, or if you are looking to save a few bucks but still get the bang a 3770k would do just fine.
AMD isn't crap. They simply have gone a different route with their architecture and target a different portion of the market. They offer quite a wide range of very capable CPUs and APUs with really excellent price to performance ratios.
What they offer isn't necessarily suited for everyone, but that doesn't mean they are junk. Gaming, in general, does not require an overly powerful CPU. The budget-minded gamer who wants maximum performance for every hard earned dollar is better off building a system with a sub $100 quad-core 760K that can be easily overclocked to the moon and spend the rest of the budget on the most powerful GPU they can afford. With the advancements of Mantle (and DX12) on the horizon, CPU overhead in gaming is only going to decrease, making such a choice even more worthwhile. We will start to see (as we have already with Mantle) the ability to efficiently run more higher-end GPUs on more lower-end CPUs with less CPU bottlenecking.
I could go on, but my point is AMD CPUs/APUs have their uses and place in the market and they are certainly not crap. I'm running an i5 in my own gaming rig by choice, so I'm not an AMD "fanboy". I'm just looking at it objectively. It's not so much "which is better, period." but rather "which is best for each specific budget and build."
If you have a nice mountain of cash, sure, go for an i7. But the thing is the i7s hold no significant advantage, performance-wise, in gaming over the i5. Certainly not anywhere near enough to justify the $100+ price difference. The extra $100 can get you a lot more GPU power to play with, which is what really matters in gaming.
Unless you have the money or you will be doing other tasks/work on your PC that requires the extra CPU capabilities of the hyperthreading in the i7, it's really not worth it for a gaming rig.
I can get used 3770k for same price as new fx 8350. So I think I rather pick up intel than amd. And yes everyone that can will buy intel for sure. Thats why you bought intel and not amd.
Two times I bought Intel's lower-cost CPUs. To me there's nothing wrong with either Intel or AMD. For me is that I got tired of chasing the high price Intel CPUs. I went for AMD instead and performs good for me.
where?