So, what's the point behind cores anyways?
Most games only use a couple cores at most, and there's the rare ones that use up to four, why does intel and amd keep pushing more and more of the 'MUH CORES' meme?
Is there even a single game in existence that uses more than four cores?
>inb4 they're not for gaming
Why are they advertised as such then?
>Is there even a single game in existence that uses more than four cores?
Multithreaded RSX option on RPCS3 emulator only works on 8 core or higher CPUs.
Wasn't this thing basically just a techdemo to show that using more cores is possible?
And was it good?
FFXIV will happily use as many cores you got since it's a MMO and those are CPU intensive.
More cores and multi threading is a good thing in general just because it allows for better multitasking. Usage of those cores and threads varies from program to program (or game to game in this case).
But that doesn't go against my point, it's not like you're going to run cpu intensive programs in the background while gaming anyways, right?
And anything that you will usually use in the background can easily run on a single or at most two cores, so using a modern 16 cores (or god forbid a 32 one) then that leaves you with 10 cores doing jack shit in the background?
user, my gf play ff14 on some budget laptop she bought three years ago running an amd apu, I don't see it (or any other mmo on the market right now) requiring more than a couple cores as well, those games are made to run on toasters after all
>Most games only use a couple cores at most, and there's the rare ones that use up to four,
It's not 2007 anymore nigga, most games use multiple cores since current gen consoles use multiple cores. Shit is pretty scalable nowadays.
Your gf clearly is a casual that does 4 man dungeons instead of 144man eureka or hunt trains. more people on screen fighting = more cpu usage
threadrippers and not advertised for gaming, retard
Every demanding Unreal Engine 4 game uses more than 4 cores.
When vulkan becomes more commonly used as the graphics API for games you’ll see more and more games take advantage of multiple cores due to the relative ease of submitting work to the gpu from multiple threads that the API provides in comparison to other APIs. Blah blah blah concurrency blah blah
We are in a transitional period. When you design an engine, unless it's particularly good at being parallel, making it heavily threaded makes it inefficient. i.e.: Pretend you have a 5Ghz single core cpu. Your engine can skip loads of code for locking, transactions, state tracking, queuing, despatching, etc. etc. So if you have a dual-core 2.5GHz it won't be as fast because it has to handle all this thread synchronising code too. However, if you have a QUAD-core 2.5GHz all that inefficient threading code is now massively outweighed by having double the theoretical instructions per clock.
Since PC users stuck by dual-core long after the consoles went 6-core, then it should be no surprise that most engines are still optimised for low core counts.
But now those engines are being replaced by ones that are designed for quad-core minimum, 8-core standard and higher. And so you'll suddenly see people with "pointless" 32-core threadrippers owning the benchmarks out of the blue.
Exactly. And this is why you tend to see cross-hatching and dithering making a comeback because transparency requires a rendering order be adhered to which puts a big brick wall in your thread race. Temporal dithering with opaque pixels can fake transparency well enough at 4K whilst still being rendered in arbitrary orders leading to massive speedups.
Notice the 1% fps lows. Quad cores will dip below to the 40s often while an Eight core will still be at 100fps consistently.
>Most games only use a couple cores at most, and there's the rare ones that use up to four
Objectively wrong in 2020.
BF1 already raped quad cores, BFV is almost unplayable on a quad core.
MW runs much better on six or eight core CPUs.
Plenty of games use more cores.
Stop coping, get rid of that 2500K, and join the modern era.
>Most games only use a couple cores at most, and there's the rare ones that use up to four
why do retards still talk like it is 2010 or something?
>my gf play ff14 on some budget laptop she bought three years ago running an amd apu
and this is what it runs like for her if she tries to do anything with lots of people
ask the chinks that optimized mhw
If they are using their own system for evidence they probably don't realise that just because it says 99% 99% 60% 10% in the CPU usage doesn't mean they've got room to spare, it just means that the particular threading characteristics of that engine are not able to fully utilise that CPU because of very complicated things best not got into on the 4chins.
If they dropped an 8-core into it they'll see it suddenly manage to fill 6 of the 8 cores at 99% and start asking hard questions about their old machine not being 99% on all cores all the time.
Have you actually played games released this year
>expecting the average Yas Forumstard to understand anything about CPU utilisation
I agree, why are we bothering to improve things? They're already good enough right now.
fair enough, I mean we do have a thread up right now that tries to defend the 2500k even though it's a stuttery mess in anything that uses more than 4 cores.
If I upgraded to a 2700x last year, should I worry about upgrading in the near future at all?
>See CPU utilization go over 50%
>Get nervous
Anyone else get this feeling?
All CPU are fucking memes when top gaming chips barely outperform 5 year old ones. There’s a reason Intel said “no, you go ahead and conquer the nothingburger market” to amd. There’s no technological benefits to be had.
Okay user, go and try to play Doom Eternal maxed out on an i5-2500k. You can overclock it to 4.0ghz easy.
This image is absolutely melting my mind. How are japs so incompetent? This is unbelievable.
It's nice being a comfy 8 core user.
>Why are they advertised as such then?
Because gamers are retards.
>Most games only use a couple cores at most
This is the biggest bullshit meme invented by faggots with shilling their i5 2500k.
Most of the AAA game require more than 4 core to run properly, even Crysis 3.
>But that doesn't go against my point, it's not like you're going to run cpu intensive programs in the background while gaming anyways, right?
I do. I have a DAW open almost 24/7 since I'm usually working on a project or two. When I feel like taking breaks I'll boot up a game for an hour or so. The DAW will use up to 8 cores/threads on average when I take VSTs and plugins into account.
I keep it open because there's always a chance of that 'a-ha!' moment when I take a break and I don't want to wait for it to start up again.
>so using a modern 16 cores (or god forbid a 32 one) then that leaves you with 10 cores doing jack shit in the background?
it's better to have more than necessary. If you only game and they only utilize 1 core it's still better to have more because background tasks/your entire OS still need to run. The more "free cores" the more space there is to spread the processing power.
I'm no expert but that's what I've noticed by monitoring core/RAM performance when operating multiple heavy application.
Incompetent for adding in multicore support?
Lazy PC devs have been relying on the better performance per core on Pc because current gen consoles use shitty netbook Cpu's but the next gen systems are coming with better Cpu's than what most current Pc gamers have right now. I think things are about to change big time for Pc gaming.
Also the reason Intel and Amd keep adding more cores it's because it's easier to expand wider than raising clockspeeds due to heat. The materials they are using right now are nearly at their limits. So they either start using better and much more expensive materials or start thinking about new and better ways to cool down their shit.
>Xbox one can do 4K $400
>try to build 4K pc
>600 dollars
I really want to join pc but it’s just cheaper being a consolefag
>Lazy PC devs have been relying on the better performance per core on Pc
This isn't true at all.
PC devs optimize their games for consoles which use 7 cores (1 core for the OS).
Incompetent for wasting all of that processing power on putty with particle effects, and still only running at 60.