How well would this work?

Off-Topic Games, Gaming and Hardware
61

We were at 4/4 for over a decade where it was fine, and only now 4/8 is barely enough. In 2017, we came into the 6 and 6/12 mainstream world. It is gonna be 5 years before 8/16 becomes needed for most people.

62

Wonder if the Google Stadia farms will use Vulkan. Good possibility next consoles might as well, you might be onto something pyrofilia.

I definitely disagree there Salgeron, there’s very little reason to stay at 6/12 mainstream.

63

MS will only ever use DX on their systems, so that’d be a hard sell on that.

PS4 uses a modified opengl so Vulkan could definitely work for them there.

1 Like
64

Then it defeats the purpose of buying a high end chip if they all become unlocked

All chips unlocked is more of an AMD thing

:joy:

65

What? Were you not around during the Core 2 Duo/ Core 2 Quad days? Back then all cpu’s were unlocked. It wasn’t until Sandy Bridge (i7 2600k) that Intel decided to start locking their cpus.

66

uh… lolwut? 10-12 programs running in the background for an average user? In what world?

67

Gotta make room for Bonzaibuddy

68

The problem is “can use 12 threads” and “needs 12 threads to perform well” are two entirely different things.

Its called “pointless performance”. If a game can get well over 100fps on a 4-core CPU, then getting 300 on a 12 core CPU is pointless.

Its meaningless and its pointless overspend for the average consumer.

And, really, other than games and specific production applications, the trend is for websites/web apps/daily driving apps to get faster and lighter on hardware consumption, as it moves to the web. Stuff has to be tuned to run on phones.

Its something thats been talked over before on this sub forum. No one posting here represents the “average joe” playing games.

Most people, even most “PC Gamers” dont build their own systems. They dont care if they have a 8/16 CPU that only sits at 20% when theyre gaming. They just buy a premade (probably with a 4/8 or 6/12 Ryzen or a 6-core locked Intel chip) and a midrange GPU and just play.

69

I don’t know why you guys assume programs won’t use more cores, when even Intel (industry leader) is pushing for higher core counts now. It’s not like programmers will just ignore all the additional head room.

70

This is why games are going to take a long time to “need” more than 6 cores:

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

You make games that cater the the largest market. You can make them run better on everything else, but you can’t alienate nearly 60% of the playerbase.

71

i just told you why. Because the trend is for applications (other than production-heavy applications, which obviously need as much horsepower as you can throw at them) to get LESS resource intensive because computer use is heading ever-more towards low power portable devices.

And what those devices have is not headroom.

Also, theres this thing called “history”. The “moar cores!!1!1!?!!1” crowd has been screaming that “youll need MOAR CORES any day now!!!” for literally a decade.

And yet, here we are, in an era where the average consumer can do all of their daily computing on a low-power, Core m3-powered, dual-core, 4 thread, 1.6ghz Chromebook. You can still get well over 80-100fps in AAA games on a locked 4 core i3. Hell, you can still get 60fps in those games on dual-core + HT Celeron!

All of it.

And no, apps like Discord, et al, are not going to be programmed to make use of “additional headroom” - for the exact reason Sal pointed out. You cant alienate more than half your potential user base and make money. AND almost ALL of those apps, right down to Twitch, have to maintain feature and performance parity with their mobile versions.

The average user, even the average gamer who isn’t building his own rig, does not need a 12 thread system. They do literally NOTHING that uses it.

I swear (someone else mentioned this over at MMO-champ) - its like all of a sudden everyone who doing just fine on 2/4 and 4/4 CPUs just six months ago all of a sudden overnight turned into a Twitch-star pro streamer, video editor and production magnate.

No, no you didn’t. You didn’t need to upgrade to that 6 core/12 thread CPU to do what you were doing. There is no game out there that is properly programmed that requires 6+ cores/threads to run well. There wont be for years.

72

But what about badly programmed ones with evil evil Denuvo/VM Protect?? :rofl:

They are the outliers but yeah, 4/8 is a smoother experience than 4/4 on those games.

With the abundance of inexpensive 6/12 options out there, I think it’s the perfect balance of headroom for bloat and not overkilling with pointless performance. In no way am I advocating going out and grabbing a 16/32 for gaming specifically, keep in mind.

That’s my opinion, anyway.

73

6 cores is already a bottleneck in certain games.

74

lolwut?

No it isn’t.

Go ahead and post up some benchmarks that prove that, though. Dont worry, well wait.

Edit: and before you go and post a benchmark of a game getting 300fps with 8cores+, and “only” 150-200 on six cores… .that’s not a bottlenecking issue, or at least, not a meaningful one in any way. Wow, ill just have to live with “only” getting 150fps at 1440p with max settings.

However will i survive the horror?

75

Also… higher resolutions require less from the CPU anyway, you’re not going to bottleneck at the cpu, even something like an 8400.

Do some games run better with more cores? Yes, div 2 loves more cores.

Can it run on a 4 core just fine? Yup.

76

Division 2 on my 8700k with YouTube running in chrome + background apps is like 40% utilization

77

If Intel had its way we would be on limited cores for another 10 years. Thank AMD ryzen for improving that dire situation.

78

It would have gone that way anyway. AMD was just the one who did it.

IIRC, Intel was the first to release consumer quad cores. So at that period in time, Intel was the innovator.

Right now we are at a ceiling in single thread performance and parallelization is the next developmental step.

It’s going to take time it either mfg would have gone with it one way or another.

79

I had one of the first quad core processors, hell I upgraded from a dual core not even a year after I got the dual core lol

I also had the first iteration of SLI, man did that work like garbage… though since SLI is dwindling its not much better now.

80

No Intel would have milked 4 core 4 threads for longer if it weren’t for Ryzen :rofl:

After Sandy Bridge vs Bulldozer, they knew they had it in the bag easily

So from 2600k to 6600k they had it easy, they weren’t expecting Ryzen till the last minute

Why you think coffee lake was rushed early

Coffee lake came out like October 2017 and kaby lake only had 9 months of being the latest thing

Coffee lake was planned to be January 2018 but got hit with shortage :joy:

Not to mention screwing over kaby lake owners being stuck at 4 core 8 threads

Meanwhile b350s, b450s, x370s and x470s are getting 12 core support and likely 16 cores coming after