Quad-core/ 6 cores

[The Magician]

I was browsing cpus to upgrade to (AMD), and I noticed the Ryzen 5s have 6 cores compared to most cpus having 4, is there any negatives to having 6 cores over 4?

[vadim]

Messaggio originale di Kaihekoa:

Take a look at this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review

I discovered a new rule: anyone who claims that Rysen better than i5 always refers to the Digital Foundry.

[tacoshy]

Messaggio originale di vadim:

@OP: if I were you and I'd use solely Windows (really things directly opposite) I'd choose Ryzen 1600 over i5-7600k. Yes, Ryzen is slower in some tasks (games, MS Office), but much faster in many other applications.

Messaggio originale di vadim:

Its difficult for me to say anything about MS Office - I'm pure Linux user (used other *nices in the past).

So actually you have no idea what you talking off and just quoting some magazines?

Also OP cleary said he only want the PC for gaming nothing else...You wont feel a difference in other applications as they also only depend mostly on singlecore performance. You will however see a difference if you do heavy multitaksing like have a browser open with 50+ tabs, musicplayer, youtube, all clients open like arc, origin, steam, uplay, teamspeak, discord... everything at the same time.

For normal using (no streaming or rendering) you wont even get close to needing 6 cores.

[Kaihekoa]

Easy there, fanboy vadim. I haven't had an AMD cpu in 10+ years, but Eurogamer/Digital Foundry's testing does appear to be legitimately valid. Show me your benchmarks where a 4C/4T i5 is so much better at gaming than a 6C/12T R5.

[Astraea Kisaragi]

The idea is if a Ryzen 5 is not enough good for a certain game then most likely the i5 will be not enough either.
Games are GPU dependant anyways, of course this doesnt means any crap CPU is enough.

[tacoshy]

well Ryzen gets better in multicore stuff while i5 is betetr in singlecore stuff. In fact Ryzen is about 70% better in muticore while intel about 25-30% in singlecore stuff. I think we all know this and dont need to discuss this further.

So in the end 70% more in multicore stuff sound really great but how many games can use the 2 extra cores and 8 extra threads at all? Star Citenzen, Battlefield 1... So in the end as PC games going to continue to be optimized mainly for quadcores and their singlecore performance it is in games the better choice.

[Arya]

Messaggio originale di tacoshy:

well Ryzen gets better in multicore stuff while i5 is betetr in singlecore stuff. In fact Ryzen is about 70% better in muticore while intel about 25-30% in singlecore stuff. I think we all know this and dont need to discuss this further.

So in the end 70% more in multicore stuff sound really great but how many games can use the 2 extra cores and 8 extra threads at all? Star Citenzen, Battlefield 1... So in the end as PC games going to continue to be optimized mainly for quadcores and their singlecore performance it is in games the better choice.

That assumes that AMD and Intel continue to support quadcores as their main gaming chips. They may decide to force the market's hand by shifting their midrange CPUs to 6 core models. And oddly enough the Coffeelake i5 CPUs are all hexacores.

[tacoshy]

Messaggio originale di Wolfıe:

Messaggio originale di tacoshy:

well Ryzen gets better in multicore stuff while i5 is betetr in singlecore stuff. In fact Ryzen is about 70% better in muticore while intel about 25-30% in singlecore stuff. I think we all know this and dont need to discuss this further.

So in the end 70% more in multicore stuff sound really great but how many games can use the 2 extra cores and 8 extra threads at all? Star Citenzen, Battlefield 1... So in the end as PC games going to continue to be optimized mainly for quadcores and their singlecore performance it is in games the better choice.

That assumes that AMD and Intel continue to support quadcores as their main gaming chips. They may decide to force the market's hand by shifting their midrange CPUs to 6 core models. And oddly enough the Coffeelake i5 CPUs are all hexacores.

Well even not then. Games will go for multicore when the largest majority goes for such CPU's. As the game producers want to sell to many as possible to maximize their profit they will continue with quad cores for a long time to reach more ppl. So even if tomorrow Intel and AMD decide to sell only hex or octa cores the produicers would still wait until about 75% upgrade to such a core too and then start devloping for it.

[vadim]

Messaggio originale di tacoshy:

You wont feel a difference in other applications as they also only depend mostly on singlecore performance. You will however see a difference if you do heavy multitaksing like have a browser open with 50+ tabs, musicplayer, youtube, all clients open like arc, origin, steam, uplay, teamspeak, discord... everything at the same time.

Sorry, but your claims make no sense. How can I "not feel the difference" in applications where high single-threaded performance gives advantage? I posted link to test where Intel has 79% more performance than Ryzen. Yes, That was old test and difference can became less since April. But do you really think Ryzen became almost twice faster in 4 monthes?

Messaggio originale di Kaihekoa:

Easy there, fanboy vadim. I haven't had an AMD cpu in 10+ years, but Eurogamer/Digital Foundry's testing does appear to be legitimately valid. Show me your benchmarks where a 4C/4T i5 is so much better at gaming than a 6C/12T R5.

Do not you think that repeating 10 times links to the same resources, about which it has already been said that they are not trusted, not too smart?
And claim "fanboy" someone who does not convince repeated repetitions of the same links is also very stupid.

Have you noticed that even according to this "Digital Foundry" tests i5 has better gaming performance than Ryzen 1600X which in turn has better performance than Ryzen 1600? Despite games set biased in favor of Ryzen.
(They added to the set the ONLY game in which Riesen has a 30% advantage)
And what they said in conclusion? They claimed slowest CPU as winner. This is laughable.

You asked about other tests? There are dozens of them. This one, for instance: https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_amd_ryzen_3_1300x_blizej_core_i3_czy_core_i5?page=0,10
(I got first from google output)

[The Magician]

My pc will be used for gaming, but I often have discord open in the background.

[vadim]

Discord doesn't create any noticable CPU load.

[SmollBrain 🏹]

Single core performance is more important, typically in programming using lots of cores is avoided for good reasons. It's a lot of work just to get multicore usage working properly and efficient, especially with more than 4 cores. Even then it is often not worth it