More cores, higher speeds of whatever, it's easy to get horny about numbers, but it doesn't always make things better. I just got a ryzen 5 3600 for cheap, no, it's not the latest tech, but be honest 99% of us don't 'need' it, we 'want' it, big difference. This CPU does everything I want it do including gaming, buying a whatever super-duper system of 1000s of dollars would not give me more than what I have now.
My inital plan was to buy the 7600 as a placeholder until the 7800X3D arrived, but i'm so happy with the performance that i ended up just keeping the 7600.
I literally did the same thing, I bought the 7600x but can't find a reason to purchase a 7800x3d now. I was worried about bottlenecking my 7900xt but at 3440x1440 that's never going to happen.
Depends on the game. RT-heavy games like Spider-Man can bottleneck it, and of course you have unoptimized titles like Jedi Survivor. TLOU Part 1, while vastly improved, is also still heavy on the CPU side. I have a 5800X and 4070 Super and hit CPU bottlenecks there
From all the bench marks I have watch the 7600x,12600k,13600k are all very powerful and efficient cpus that don’t require a lot and they offer far more fps than those above it so my next upgrade is 7600x already running Vega 56 with 9600k.
6 cores is more than enough, they just need more cache. Where is the 7600X3D, because the 7700(x) are pointless between the 7600 ($193) & 7800X3D($340). Would fit snuggly at $299, because 7700(x) won't cut it at $293/301, they need to go down to $250.
In the UK a 7700 is 50% more expensive than a 7600. My friend recently upgraded and I suggested the 7600 and the £100 saved not getting an 8 core means a better GPU.
This depends on specific price range, some time ago in my country there was 6700xt for 350€ and next meaningfull GPU was 600€+ and in that case extra 100€ would not give you better GPU. And yeah +30% cores +50% price is not going to give you +30/50% performance, maybe 15-20%.
Yes, especially the 5600x3d and 7600x. Doubly so for the latter since once its too old to use you can upgrade to whatever the best x3d chip on am5 at the time is for a kick ass boost
It should unless you play cpu hog singleplayer games like factorio, cities skylines , teardown, transport fever 2, x plane 12, mostly management simulation games or tycoon, and flight sim aside mfs since it have dlss 3
What would you reccommend if you wanted to begin to dabble with ai ? I'd install it directly to my pc no cloud BS. Can I get away with budget or mid gaming PC ? I'm on the fence of building one or finding a used one that's close enough in specs. What should I be on the look out for. I'm not finding much in the way of budget AI builds. Seen one and they spent 7k and it said it was mid tier.
dont switch to ddr5 you will gain about 5% preformance for what 200 - 300 = waste of money. your cpu can handle a 4070 or 7800xt without bottleneck i would just get a decent graphics card instead and maybe a power supply if you have a crap 1
My R5 5600 drives my RX 6800 just fine in the majority of titles I play. I am planning to upgrade to a 5700X3D soon for a few specific games, but I'll be keeping the 5600 to use in a build for my partner, because it's still a great CPU.
For gaming, the cheapest and most efficient and upgradable system you can build right now is a b650 and a ryzen 7600 with 32gigs of ddr5. 1- it's not that much more expensive than an am4 complete system with 8 cores and 32gigs of ram or intel equivalent. 2- it's around 25% faster single core wise and despite being 6 cores, it crushes all 8 core variants of the previous generation in both single and multi threaded tasks, it's way more snappier, it's also the new socket so you can upgrade your cpu in the future which is great. Also it performs about the same as 5800X3D in gaming if you overclock it a bit, and 7600 is a good overclocker. And also if you're building a futureproof system, big upgrades are coming in the future generations so you'll wanna upgrade anyway, I find it rather unnecessary to pay the extra 70ish dollars for the 8 core variant of the zen4 chip (at least that's how much more expensive it is right now in where I live) because I could very well sell this cpu for like 150 dollars when next gen ryzen is released and then I could buy a 6 core by adding that 70 dollars and maybe another 70 later on and that cpu will be faster than the 7700.
Im more than happy enough with my 5800X3D paired with an asus TUF RTX 3060 Ti OC v2 Gaming , and ofcpurce the 5800x3d is undervolted per core -30 , cant complain tbh
There should be a distinction between 6/6 and 6/12 type of cores since, on equal grounds, the 6/12 can handle double the workload (or close to), compared to the 6/6.
the 6-core ryzen 7500f provides almost the same performance as the 5800x3d in most games. in terms of the 7600x, the 7500f is so disgustingly similar in performance in gaming and synthetic benchmarks. very lucky to have one for $180
There is nothing inherently useful about having more cores. In fact, it's generally better to have fewer more powerful cores than more less powerful cores. Just look at how well a 3700X performs against a 5600 today. More often than not, a 5600 will outperform a 3700X in games because the CPU cores, and the architecture more generally, are just faster.
It was maybe 2015 when I finally ditched the Core 2 Quad Extreme, overclocking extended the life of that thing pretty well. I had a Core 2 Duo on an IBM board but it didn't play nice with OC. I had a GTX 570 though and 8GB RAM, eventually I threw a GTX 950 in there I think.
@@Ladioz Hmmm. Could be the bus bandwidth, it's a bit lower on the new GPUs (that aren't extremely high end). Not that you made a bad decision, you're definitely getting more FPS than me.
Only game my 5600x ran into constant 100% CPU usage is: The Finals. It does not bottleneck my 7900 XT in 1440p, hardly at all. I play Apex Legends, Fortnite, Warzone III, Gears of War 5, at 95% GPU usage. Would you ever upgrade to a faster 6 core when already own one? .. No Are they still relevant for 1440p builds? .. Yes. Are they priced cheap enough to compete with say the 7600X? .. No. Are they something you want to lowball on the used market? .. Yes.
For what u play it's hard to neck it. As soon u use lets Say some upscaling in a strong aaa title things start to get weird. And not even fsr but also native. There is slight bottleneck for me in 1440p rdr2 / Spiderman miles morales/ god of war. The difference is that i have a 5600 non x but for 1440p we have seen b4 the difference is minimal to not observable.
@@Ladioz not everybody has $300 laying around e.g i wanted a 5800x3d money was tight so i got a 5700x for $140 does great at 1440p with my 7700xt . but op if you do have $300 spare itwould make a big difference
@@ant5963 I guess the 5700X gives less stuff to worry about. I dont think the 3D cache will make you happy if you are already getting the FPS you need. I also have a 7700XT so we have similar builds :)
6 core cpus still can easilly overjump higher core count cpus which was visible with r5 7600x vs 12900k or vs 13600k&14600k in gaming and those others as 14700k,14900k are better thanks to higher frequency only but with zen5 r5 9600x would beat again with 6/12 intel 14900k in gaming
Six cores is still plenty for gaming. As long as we’re talking modern cores of course. Even while it’s not uncommon for eight cores to inch just a wee bit above six architecturally equivalent cores in a decent number of current games, it’s never anything back-breaking at all. It’s definitely diminishing returns for the price disparity, but still just enough that I consistently pay the surplus for the full eight cores. But if any of them happened to be six would I find it worth fretting over? Nah.
6 cores have amazing dollar per performance value the problem is im the kinda guy where I just know im gonna regret not getting the 8 core cpu even if the 6 core is more than enough.
May I suggest reframing the 'cores count' question into a discussion of the multi-dimensionality of CPUs? There are always several factors influencing performance within a computer and the number of cores is only a single element. The real issue here is that people are attempting to boil down overall performance to a single metric to make it easier to understand, not that I blame them, but that's the marketing and ignorance at play. I don't mean ignorance in a pejorative way, it's merely that similar to the PC being an amalgamation of parts, so too is the CPU an assembly of cores, cache, clocks and throughput (all within a package with power and thermal requirements). Additionally, synthetic benchmarks are NOT real world performance and very few people are actually multi-tasking in a way which creates the need for more cores. Yes, some production workloads do benefit from the additional cores, but that's not the use case I'm referring to when it comes to gaming and core count. It's the same with the model names... 9 is more than 5, so a 14th gen i5 has to be slower than a 9th gen i9, right?!?! They don't even consider PCIe and memory bandwidths, let alone clock speeds, power efficiency or instruction sets... We need to collectively educate one another. EDIT: This is why I prefer multi-dimension radar charts for comparing CPUs, they show you in which areas the CPU excels and the total area of the chart reflects overall capability, which can then be optimized per attribute (dimension, i.e.- power, cost, etc.)
An out of touch question for sure. Not all cores are made equal. It's not just about the numbers. If that is the case, the older Intel Xeon CPUs would be selling like hot cakes.
why is ryzen 7600x so expensive like 220$, i bought my 6 core am4 cpu for 160$ short after release. they keep spamming with new silicon nm tech like 4nm tech and then parts are too expensive
My 11400f can't even xmp. Well not working yet so no need for a beefy high latency latest system. Dropping for instruction sets and intel gatekeeping features to sell xeons is such a rip off.
Tbh a 5600/x/x3d is really all you need fir gaming. If you look at the steam requirements for games, you will see that most (if not ALL) will say 3.x ghz i3-i5 or and Athlon cpu which is basically either a fast intel 6 core (when they made JUST 6 cores and not 24 DISGUISED as a 6 core) or an older 4c/8t and cpu. So 6 is DEFINITELY enough for gaming. Now if you have ADHD or are super mega ultimate hyper active.... Then get a THREADRIPPER, LMFAO
Gotta disagree. I think if you have a 6 core cpu already, like a 3600X, 5600X or 7600X, you're fine. You are capable, more than capable even, of having a decent computer experience. But if you're buying new moving forward, I think 8 core is really the new entry level. Especially if you are doing any kind of multitasking. Even more, with the rumored removal of hyperthreading in future CPUS, having more cores will be even more important. If for that alone, I wouldn't buy anything less than 8 cores.
Moving forward there will be faster 6 core CPUs at a good price, imagine a 7600 X3D or 9600 X3D, no reason not to manufacture those if the profit margin is decent.
Ryzen 7 5700X3D is $241 to $249 USD brand new, is it possible to get a brand new PS5 or a Xbox Series S/X for $250 USD (excludeing possible sales where the Series S may drop down in that price range)?
@@letto18 When I said new, mostly meaning on the AM5 platform, Series S $500 Australia dollars, Ryzen 7 7700. I buy second off eBay all the time, and in my newest build have a Ryzen 3 3300x, but someone needs to buy 7000 series CPUs. But your right..
I went from a Xeon 5670 (6c/12t) cpu to a Ryzen 3600 (6c/12t) and then to a Ryzen 5600x(6c/12t) and then to a 5800x3d. (8c/16t). The 8 core feels "smoother" in games and multitasking. (B550 Motherboard, gen 4 nvme drive & 64gb ram are the same as 5600x) Has anyone else experienced this? I don't know someone would benchmark that. I am not looking to start a flame war, run the cpu you want to for whatever reason you want to.
Just faster CPU having the same number of cores (like 5600x to 3600), but also more cores; cache; more and faster ram all smoothen frametime, percieved smoothness. AVG+percentile graphs don't show it due to their averaged nature, but with clips of CPUs benchmarked side by side with frametime graphs you will easily notice the tendency.
Mainly basic use and decade old games. I have 2x core 2 systems sitting around that I plan on selling, one is a HP from 2007 with a Q6600 with 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2 & Radeon HD 7750 1GB that's pretty much ready to go and should be capable of 720p 30FPS average in most games from 2013-2014 (60FPS in others such as Tomb Raider (2013)), the other is a Slim/SFF Acer with a Pentium E6600 & 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3, I have a Q9400 I could put in and upgrade the RAM to 8GB (2 slots only so 2x4GB unless I go big and get 2x8GB for 16GB) and for a GPU would need to be low profile so perhaps something like a RX 640, if not then maybe a GT 1030.
I just upgraded my entire system from a 8700k to a 7800x3d. People there is almost no difference in the high end if you don't upgrade your GPU. The 1% lows are better but that's about it. It would seem the 7800x3d even does worse in games like Apex Legends. With everything at lowest settings I used to get 360 fps with the 8700k now with the 7800x3d I struggle to keep 240.
Yep, I have 9600kf non oc, which is pretty similar to 8700k in most cases. There is no need to upgrade yet. Perfect combination with my 1070 and 16gb ram
Hi, I must say, the quality of your said video is truly amazing! GEEKOM would love to do a paid partnership with you, did you check out the email we sent you?
This is what Tech Deals sprooks, should change his channel name to Tech No Deals since he's always harping on for people to spend more money but I find him the least annoying when compared to that numpty Framechassers.
My i7 8700K is still chugging away perfectly fine for everything I throw at it. Not used for playing games but does media encode/transcode at a speed that is more than adequate with the help of QuickSync. The i7 4770K that it replaced was functioning perfectly fine as well unti it was replaced by this machine in December (only because the 8700K became surplus as a main machine for me or my wife). Would I like more cores & would they help? Sure, but not actually required here. Hell, still using a 8th gen i3 2C/4T laptop which does the job perfectly fine still for what it is used for.
I rather understand what you meant, at first glance it seems he's following what good old Jensen's favourite line "The more you spent, the more you save". But when you look deeper, there are 2 types of consumers in the PC market, (A) the one that does system upgrade frequently (every 2-3 years), (B) those that do upgrade ones in a while (5 years+). For those that fall under (A), i would say getting a i5 or Ryzen 5 with 6 Core for gaming ONLY is already enough. However, if you do any CPU intensive task such as content creating, Handbrake encoding etc. you would need 8 cores minimally. For those under (B) it would be better to buy a stronger CPU to last 5+ years. For example, during the period of 6 years: Option A: Spend $500 (not taking discounts/bundle deal into the equation) to buy 2 Ryzen 5/i5 6 core CPU ($250 each, one in year 1 and another in year 4) not taking into account of selling the first CPU in the second hand market. Option B: Spend $350 to buy a Ryzen 7/i7 and use it for the whole 6 years.
@@Kiwing827 Yes this would fit if this video wasn't referring to gaming specifically. For gaming you don't need more than 6 fast cores, this is coming from someone that owns 16 core Ryzen processors. I do more than just gaming but as it stands you don't need more than a 7600x for gaming and Steve's test showed exactly that in his other video. Games aren't multi core dependant, majority of them are relegated to 4x cores. In the future if this changes then there would be a case for it but by that time your old 8 core wouldn't have the IPC to cut the mustard anyway. Its honestly smarter to have bought the 1600, 2600, 3600, 5600 and now 7600 over buying the 1700, 2700x, 3700x, 5800x and now 7700x because its saves you money and you are on the latest greatest IPC processor node every gen. I could have bought the 1600, 2600, 3600, 5600, 7600 for what it cost to buy a 14900k and z790 board and keeping it for 3-5 years. Instead of keeping the 14900k for 3-5 years I can upgrade to the latest IPC every generation. My next gaming machine I'll be going with a 6 core and putting the cash into my GPU because that would net me a better gaming experience. Its cheaper to just upgrade to the latest 6 core processor than it is to buy the 8 cores and above specifically for gaming. If you require more cores for specific workloads then this conversation isn't about gaming specifically. Example: I could have done without the 7950x because I have a 1950x and 3950x, I regret not just buying a 13600k or 7600x on a cheap B650 board or cheap z790 board because I find myself doing more work on the 3950x. Is what it is now though, that's not to say the 7950x is a bad processor which its not its an excellent processor. For gaming its just not required.
@@Kiwing827 but in many cases new i5/R5 CPUs surpass the old i7 or even i9 CPUs. Imagine someone buying a 12900k and then the 13600k comes out for a fraction of the price for pretty much the same performance across the board😅😂
the question should be "Is there a place for 4 Core CPUs anymore?"
In short yes.
A bit longer is it is there for the budget gamers who only play older or smaller newer titles.
@@theemperorofmankind3739 New i3's go pretty hard in gaming
@@IceBreakBottle They do, they are quite the nice little chips.
my brother has the i3 10105f and my dad has the i3 10100 does the job for what they need
Add to that that nowadays its more and more possible to avoid CPU bottelnecks with frame generation
More cores, higher speeds of whatever, it's easy to get horny about numbers, but it doesn't always make things better.
I just got a ryzen 5 3600 for cheap, no, it's not the latest tech, but be honest 99% of us don't 'need' it, we 'want' it, big difference.
This CPU does everything I want it do including gaming, buying a whatever super-duper system of 1000s of dollars would not give me more than what I have now.
My inital plan was to buy the 7600 as a placeholder until the 7800X3D arrived,
but i'm so happy with the performance that i ended up just keeping the 7600.
If it's anything like AM4, wait a few years and drop in a 9800X3D 😂
Is that a 6-Core?
@@_____alyptic 7600 is a 6 core yes.
@@erwark 9600X3D will be enough for me ;)
I literally did the same thing, I bought the 7600x but can't find a reason to purchase a 7800x3d now. I was worried about bottlenecking my 7900xt but at 3440x1440 that's never going to happen.
I'm using one right now and it's working just fine (7600x for anyone wondering). Feeds my 6900xt just fine.
7600x are faster then 12900k or 13600k,14600k in gaming and this cpus have more then 6 cores
My Ryzen 5600 keeps my 3090 pegged at 100% usage while using less than 50% of its own capacity. I'm a gen behind and I still have headroom for days.
Depends on the game. RT-heavy games like Spider-Man can bottleneck it, and of course you have unoptimized titles like Jedi Survivor. TLOU Part 1, while vastly improved, is also still heavy on the CPU side. I have a 5800X and 4070 Super and hit CPU bottlenecks there
From all the bench marks I have watch the 7600x,12600k,13600k are all very powerful and efficient cpus that don’t require a lot and they offer far more fps than those above it so my next upgrade is 7600x already running Vega 56 with 9600k.
6 cores is more than enough, they just need more cache. Where is the 7600X3D, because the 7700(x) are pointless between the 7600 ($193) & 7800X3D($340).
Would fit snuggly at $299, because 7700(x) won't cut it at $293/301, they need to go down to $250.
Don't forget the 7500f at 170
@@KadiusFTW7500F is $204 where I'm at if I can even find it.
$370 for 7700x 32gb ram and motherboard combo
That smoky unboxing was cool to watch
In the UK a 7700 is 50% more expensive than a 7600. My friend recently upgraded and I suggested the 7600 and the £100 saved not getting an 8 core means a better GPU.
This depends on specific price range, some time ago in my country there was 6700xt for 350€ and next meaningfull GPU was 600€+ and in that case extra 100€ would not give you better GPU. And yeah +30% cores +50% price is not going to give you +30/50% performance, maybe 15-20%.
Yes, especially the 5600x3d and 7600x. Doubly so for the latter since once its too old to use you can upgrade to whatever the best x3d chip on am5 at the time is for a kick ass boost
I have a 7600x paired with a 4080 super, working absolutely fine on 1440p
It should unless you play cpu hog singleplayer games like factorio, cities skylines , teardown, transport fever 2, x plane 12, mostly management simulation games or tycoon, and flight sim aside mfs since it have dlss 3
What would you reccommend if you wanted to begin to dabble with ai ? I'd install it directly to my pc no cloud BS.
Can I get away with budget or mid gaming PC ? I'm on the fence of building one or finding a used one that's close enough in specs. What should I be on the look out for.
I'm not finding much in the way of budget AI builds. Seen one and they spent 7k and it said it was mid tier.
I’m using a 7600x and I’m happy with the performance at 1440p. I was using a 5820k for almost a decade until it died on me last September.😳
Rip 5820k
RIP 😔
I still have a couple of Ryzen 2600 machines still going just fine. Depends on usage.
Got a 12600 kf/ 3060 ti combo and it's doing me pretty solid for the past two years. Will move over to ddr5 build come 2025.
dont switch to ddr5 you will gain about 5% preformance for what 200 - 300 = waste of money. your cpu can handle a 4070 or 7800xt without bottleneck i would just get a decent graphics card instead and maybe a power supply if you have a crap 1
@@ant5963 750 gold fully modular lian li to replace 650 gold fractal design that was for a 3700x/ 2060 combo.
@@Neo_X90X Skip DDR5 and get *DDR6* instead which will be releasing this year or early next year.
@@2hotflavored666 that makes no sense when ddr5 only been around just two years.
I don't see ddr6 till 2027 at the earliest.
DDR5 has been around for 4 years.
My R5 5600 drives my RX 6800 just fine in the majority of titles I play.
I am planning to upgrade to a 5700X3D soon for a few specific games, but I'll be keeping the 5600 to use in a build for my partner, because it's still a great CPU.
i was using triple core athlon x3 425
I've game in 4k with my i3 12100F with a 3090 kingpin for a year. had no issue running any game at max.
For gaming, the cheapest and most efficient and upgradable system you can build right now is a b650 and a ryzen 7600 with 32gigs of ddr5. 1- it's not that much more expensive than an am4 complete system with 8 cores and 32gigs of ram or intel equivalent. 2- it's around 25% faster single core wise and despite being 6 cores, it crushes all 8 core variants of the previous generation in both single and multi threaded tasks, it's way more snappier, it's also the new socket so you can upgrade your cpu in the future which is great. Also it performs about the same as 5800X3D in gaming if you overclock it a bit, and 7600 is a good overclocker. And also if you're building a futureproof system, big upgrades are coming in the future generations so you'll wanna upgrade anyway, I find it rather unnecessary to pay the extra 70ish dollars for the 8 core variant of the zen4 chip (at least that's how much more expensive it is right now in where I live) because I could very well sell this cpu for like 150 dollars when next gen ryzen is released and then I could buy a 6 core by adding that 70 dollars and maybe another 70 later on and that cpu will be faster than the 7700.
4 cores = budget build, 6 cores = mid range or average gaming build, 8 or more cores = high end gaming to pro work pc.
Im more than happy enough with my 5800X3D paired with an asus TUF RTX 3060 Ti OC v2 Gaming , and ofcpurce the 5800x3d is undervolted per core -30 , cant complain tbh
There should be a distinction between 6/6 and 6/12 type of cores since, on equal grounds, the 6/12 can handle double the workload (or close to), compared to the 6/6.
Hyperthreading normally only adds about 40% throughput at most, but for a lot of games (and obviously single core loads) it does little to nothing.
So upgrade to 7600X from 5700X isnt worth it?
the 6-core ryzen 7500f provides almost the same performance as the 5800x3d in most games. in terms of the 7600x, the 7500f is so disgustingly similar in performance in gaming and synthetic benchmarks. very lucky to have one for $180
There is nothing inherently useful about having more cores. In fact, it's generally better to have fewer more powerful cores than more less powerful cores. Just look at how well a 3700X performs against a 5600 today. More often than not, a 5600 will outperform a 3700X in games because the CPU cores, and the architecture more generally, are just faster.
well thats only assuming its a choice between more cores and more powerful cores
@@stephenallen4635it usually is the choice tho. For example people are usually torn between and older i7/R7 vs a newer I5/R5
@@theanimerapper6351 it sometimes is the case and "there is nothing inherently useful about having more cores" only applies to that case
I have an i7 8700k and it plays games just fine. Try gaming on a Core 2 Duo, a Geforce 210, and 6GB of RAM.
It was maybe 2015 when I finally ditched the Core 2 Quad Extreme, overclocking extended the life of that thing pretty well. I had a Core 2 Duo on an IBM board but it didn't play nice with OC. I had a GTX 570 though and 8GB RAM, eventually I threw a GTX 950 in there I think.
Love 6 core CPU's.
I'm loving my 5800X3D
Me watching with a 4790 🫡
3770 & FX6300
My Intel i7 8700K is running Tarkov, Apex, State of Decay 2, Baldurs Gate 3 etc very well thx. My 3080 does some of the work to of course :)
I had the 8700k and it caused micro stutters in cyberpunk and last of us. i replaced it with the 5800X3D
@@Ladiozit causes microstutter because the 8700k is old 😂. A 13600k or 7600x wouldn't have those problems. 6 cores is fine for the games you named
@@Ladioz Running a 5820K with an ARC A750, no stutters in CP2077. What GPU?
@@nimrodery RX 7700XT
@@Ladioz Hmmm. Could be the bus bandwidth, it's a bit lower on the new GPUs (that aren't extremely high end). Not that you made a bad decision, you're definitely getting more FPS than me.
Watching this on my quadcore
Cities Skylines 2 is an exception, it can eat all the cores you throw at it but otherwise your good with 6 cores.
Yes, there is. Also works great for emulation but the faster the cores, the better.
Only game my 5600x ran into constant 100% CPU usage is: The Finals.
It does not bottleneck my 7900 XT in 1440p, hardly at all.
I play Apex Legends, Fortnite, Warzone III, Gears of War 5, at 95% GPU usage.
Would you ever upgrade to a faster 6 core when already own one? .. No
Are they still relevant for 1440p builds? .. Yes.
Are they priced cheap enough to compete with say the 7600X? .. No.
Are they something you want to lowball on the used market? .. Yes.
For what u play it's hard to neck it. As soon u use lets Say some upscaling in a strong aaa title things start to get weird. And not even fsr but also native.
There is slight bottleneck for me in 1440p rdr2 / Spiderman miles morales/ god of war. The difference is that i have a 5600 non x but for 1440p we have seen b4 the difference is minimal to not observable.
Why not just get a 5800X3D and be done for the next 5 years
@@Ladioz not everybody has $300 laying around e.g i wanted a 5800x3d money was tight so i got a 5700x for $140 does great at 1440p with my 7700xt . but op if you do have $300 spare itwould make a big difference
@@ant5963 I guess the 5700X gives less stuff to worry about. I dont think the 3D cache will make you happy if you are already getting the FPS you need. I also have a 7700XT so we have similar builds :)
@@Ladioz i just did that like a few days ago. 5800x3d îs on his way. I have a 7800xt.
6 core cpus still can easilly overjump higher core count cpus which was visible with r5 7600x vs 12900k or vs 13600k&14600k in gaming and those others as 14700k,14900k are better thanks to higher frequency only but with zen5 r5 9600x would beat again with 6/12 intel 14900k in gaming
Depends on what you're doing. I run a lot of VM's so the more cores the better. Computing is not just about gaming.
Six cores is still plenty for gaming. As long as we’re talking modern cores of course. Even while it’s not uncommon for eight cores to inch just a wee bit above six architecturally equivalent cores in a decent number of current games, it’s never anything back-breaking at all. It’s definitely diminishing returns for the price disparity, but still just enough that I consistently pay the surplus for the full eight cores. But if any of them happened to be six would I find it worth fretting over? Nah.
Agree, i never seen a game which fully loaded 6 core 12 thread cpu
6 cores have amazing dollar per performance value the problem is im the kinda guy where I just know im gonna regret not getting the 8 core cpu even if the 6 core is more than enough.
In short, yes.
May I suggest reframing the 'cores count' question into a discussion of the multi-dimensionality of CPUs? There are always several factors influencing performance within a computer and the number of cores is only a single element. The real issue here is that people are attempting to boil down overall performance to a single metric to make it easier to understand, not that I blame them, but that's the marketing and ignorance at play. I don't mean ignorance in a pejorative way, it's merely that similar to the PC being an amalgamation of parts, so too is the CPU an assembly of cores, cache, clocks and throughput (all within a package with power and thermal requirements). Additionally, synthetic benchmarks are NOT real world performance and very few people are actually multi-tasking in a way which creates the need for more cores. Yes, some production workloads do benefit from the additional cores, but that's not the use case I'm referring to when it comes to gaming and core count. It's the same with the model names... 9 is more than 5, so a 14th gen i5 has to be slower than a 9th gen i9, right?!?! They don't even consider PCIe and memory bandwidths, let alone clock speeds, power efficiency or instruction sets... We need to collectively educate one another. EDIT: This is why I prefer multi-dimension radar charts for comparing CPUs, they show you in which areas the CPU excels and the total area of the chart reflects overall capability, which can then be optimized per attribute (dimension, i.e.- power, cost, etc.)
Paired my 5600X to a 6950XT and for the most part, theyre doing fine.
An out of touch question for sure. Not all cores are made equal. It's not just about the numbers. If that is the case, the older Intel Xeon CPUs would be selling like hot cakes.
R5 9600x with 6/12 c/t will be faster then 14900k with 24/32 c/t at 6ghz are now in gaming while r5 9600x would costing around 300$
why is ryzen 7600x so expensive like 220$, i bought my 6 core am4 cpu for 160$ short after release.
they keep spamming with new silicon nm tech like 4nm tech and then parts are too expensive
Because it's a new platform. New platforms are always expensive and come with early adoption costs.
I'm still running a 4 core 10100
My 11400f can't even xmp. Well not working yet so no need for a beefy high latency latest system. Dropping for instruction sets and intel gatekeeping features to sell xeons is such a rip off.
8700k in baldurs gate 3
The question is rather about 6 or 12 threads, as i believe 6 cores and 6 threads has a vastly different vibe than those with 12 threads.
6 core cpu's are ideal for gaming
intel and amd still want to charge more for 8 cores so they are not mainstream
Me with a 5300g still at 4 cores
when cpu benchmarks are good it doesnt matter how much cores
most of the people in the world are buying 6 cores for gaming/office work because its the most go to budget and worthy
Me with a i3 12100f :- hmmm interesting....
Here I'm amazed my CPU has 6 cores, instead of 4.
Amd 7500F more then enough
6 cores ain't mainstream still and you guys are questioning this (?
One thing that will obliterate your CPU even with 128 cores
Compiling chrome
"They're not that cheap." A 12700kf is $200
watching this looking at my 3300X on my right
Tbh a 5600/x/x3d is really all you need fir gaming.
If you look at the steam requirements for games, you will see that most (if not ALL) will say 3.x ghz i3-i5 or and Athlon cpu which is basically either a fast intel 6 core (when they made JUST 6 cores and not 24 DISGUISED as a 6 core) or an older 4c/8t and cpu.
So 6 is DEFINITELY enough for gaming.
Now if you have ADHD or are super mega ultimate hyper active.... Then get a THREADRIPPER, LMFAO
Threadripper sucks for gaming lol
With cards up to 3070/ti on 1080p
mine lap is i5 4th gen 🥲
There are a lot of actual games that dont utilize more than 4 cores, jedi survivor uses 1 lol
Me who uses dual core i3 7100 watching this.
7700 is pretty expensive compared to a 7600 for gaming
Gotta disagree.
I think if you have a 6 core cpu already, like a 3600X, 5600X or 7600X, you're fine. You are capable, more than capable even, of having a decent computer experience.
But if you're buying new moving forward, I think 8 core is really the new entry level. Especially if you are doing any kind of multitasking.
Even more, with the rumored removal of hyperthreading in future CPUS, having more cores will be even more important. If for that alone, I wouldn't buy anything less than 8 cores.
Moving forward there will be faster 6 core CPUs at a good price, imagine a 7600 X3D or 9600 X3D, no reason not to manufacture those if the profit margin is decent.
@@nimrodery Simply being faster and having slightly higher IPC isn't enough.
@@ElladanKenet for what?
A new 8 core CPU costs more then a gaming console???
Ryzen 7 5700X3D is $241 to $249 USD brand new, is it possible to get a brand new PS5 or a Xbox Series S/X for $250 USD (excludeing possible sales where the Series S may drop down in that price range)?
@@letto18 When I said new, mostly meaning on the AM5 platform, Series S $500 Australia dollars, Ryzen 7 7700. I buy second off eBay all the time, and in my newest build have a Ryzen 3 3300x, but someone needs to buy 7000 series CPUs. But your right..
AMD could revive Ryzen 3 with 6 core CPUs....if they weren't pretending that market sector didn't exist.
I went from a Xeon 5670 (6c/12t) cpu to a Ryzen 3600 (6c/12t) and then to a Ryzen 5600x(6c/12t) and then to a 5800x3d. (8c/16t). The 8 core feels "smoother" in games and multitasking. (B550 Motherboard, gen 4 nvme drive & 64gb ram are the same as 5600x)
Has anyone else experienced this? I don't know someone would benchmark that. I am not looking to start a flame war, run the cpu you want to for whatever reason you want to.
of course its an 8core with 3d Vcache (5800x3d) and higher L3 cache its smoother in games
HU couldnt really verify this in their multi-tasking gaming benchmark in fps. Not sure what people mean by that
May also be due to the v-cache.
Just faster CPU having the same number of cores (like 5600x to 3600), but also more cores; cache; more and faster ram all smoothen frametime, percieved smoothness. AVG+percentile graphs don't show it due to their averaged nature, but with clips of CPUs benchmarked side by side with frametime graphs you will easily notice the tendency.
Hey James do you keep the 5800X3D at default settings in bios?
And the question is: "Is there a place for 2 Core CPUs anymore?"
Mainly basic use and decade old games. I have 2x core 2 systems sitting around that I plan on selling, one is a HP from 2007 with a Q6600 with 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2 & Radeon HD 7750 1GB that's pretty much ready to go and should be capable of 720p 30FPS average in most games from 2013-2014 (60FPS in others such as Tomb Raider (2013)), the other is a Slim/SFF Acer with a Pentium E6600 & 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3, I have a Q9400 I could put in and upgrade the RAM to 8GB (2 slots only so 2x4GB unless I go big and get 2x8GB for 16GB) and for a GPU would need to be low profile so perhaps something like a RX 640, if not then maybe a GT 1030.
For gaming, sure but only on old games maybe mewer indie games , as long it is at least 2 core 4 thread.
I just upgraded my entire system from a 8700k to a 7800x3d. People there is almost no difference in the high end if you don't upgrade your GPU. The 1% lows are better but that's about it. It would seem the 7800x3d even does worse in games like Apex Legends. With everything at lowest settings I used to get 360 fps with the 8700k now with the 7800x3d I struggle to keep 240.
Yep, I have 9600kf non oc, which is pretty similar to 8700k in most cases. There is no need to upgrade yet. Perfect combination with my 1070 and 16gb ram
I thought Apex was capped at 300fps?
Future gaming u only need 2 P core 4 E core 🤣
the real question should be is there a place for CPU's anymore
Stop answering the damn question then! Omg every 6 months you do thiis and still whine about it.
Hi, I must say, the quality of your said video is truly amazing! GEEKOM would love to do a paid partnership with you, did you check out the email we sent you?
This is what Tech Deals sprooks, should change his channel name to Tech No Deals since he's always harping on for people to spend more money but I find him the least annoying when compared to that numpty Framechassers.
My i7 8700K is still chugging away perfectly fine for everything I throw at it. Not used for playing games but does media encode/transcode at a speed that is more than adequate with the help of QuickSync. The i7 4770K that it replaced was functioning perfectly fine as well unti it was replaced by this machine in December (only because the 8700K became surplus as a main machine for me or my wife). Would I like more cores & would they help? Sure, but not actually required here. Hell, still using a 8th gen i3 2C/4T laptop which does the job perfectly fine still for what it is used for.
@@OliverQueen1974 I had an 8700k and tbh wish I kept it, totally agree with you, 6 cores is sufficient.
I rather understand what you meant, at first glance it seems he's following what good old Jensen's favourite line "The more you spent, the more you save". But when you look deeper, there are 2 types of consumers in the PC market, (A) the one that does system upgrade frequently (every 2-3 years), (B) those that do upgrade ones in a while (5 years+).
For those that fall under (A), i would say getting a i5 or Ryzen 5 with 6 Core for gaming ONLY is already enough. However, if you do any CPU intensive task such as content creating, Handbrake encoding etc. you would need 8 cores minimally. For those under (B) it would be better to buy a stronger CPU to last 5+ years.
For example, during the period of 6 years:
Option A: Spend $500 (not taking discounts/bundle deal into the equation) to buy 2 Ryzen 5/i5 6 core CPU ($250 each, one in year 1 and another in year 4) not taking into account of selling the first CPU in the second hand market.
Option B: Spend $350 to buy a Ryzen 7/i7 and use it for the whole 6 years.
@@Kiwing827 Yes this would fit if this video wasn't referring to gaming specifically. For gaming you don't need more than 6 fast cores, this is coming from someone that owns 16 core Ryzen processors. I do more than just gaming but as it stands you don't need more than a 7600x for gaming and Steve's test showed exactly that in his other video.
Games aren't multi core dependant, majority of them are relegated to 4x cores. In the future if this changes then there would be a case for it but by that time your old 8 core wouldn't have the IPC to cut the mustard anyway.
Its honestly smarter to have bought the 1600, 2600, 3600, 5600 and now 7600 over buying the 1700, 2700x, 3700x, 5800x and now 7700x because its saves you money and you are on the latest greatest IPC processor node every gen. I could have bought the 1600, 2600, 3600, 5600, 7600 for what it cost to buy a 14900k and z790 board and keeping it for 3-5 years. Instead of keeping the 14900k for 3-5 years I can upgrade to the latest IPC every generation.
My next gaming machine I'll be going with a 6 core and putting the cash into my GPU because that would net me a better gaming experience. Its cheaper to just upgrade to the latest 6 core processor than it is to buy the 8 cores and above specifically for gaming. If you require more cores for specific workloads then this conversation isn't about gaming specifically.
Example: I could have done without the 7950x because I have a 1950x and 3950x, I regret not just buying a 13600k or 7600x on a cheap B650 board or cheap z790 board because I find myself doing more work on the 3950x. Is what it is now though, that's not to say the 7950x is a bad processor which its not its an excellent processor. For gaming its just not required.
@@Kiwing827 but in many cases new i5/R5 CPUs surpass the old i7 or even i9 CPUs. Imagine someone buying a 12900k and then the 13600k comes out for a fraction of the price for pretty much the same performance across the board😅😂