Prioritise single-thread or multi-thread performance in 2024?

[[SQ]Noname]

Quick question for the community:

I am thinking about upgrading my CPU soon, and wondering whether I should go for one with a better single-thread rating or one with more cores and higher multi-thread rating, according to CPU Mark.

A few years ago the consensus seemed to be that since games rarely use more than 2 cores it's no use to get a CPU with a high number of cores. Has that changed recently? Are there games that can make proper use of more than 6 physical cores?

Thanks for any insight.

[Omega]

There is not much choice on this front. On consumer chips both tend to increase the higher tier hardware you buy. With the exception of the very top tier stuff which may sacrifice single core for multi core.

Nowdays most games have no issues utilizing over a dozen threads. And the general recommendation for a good all-around gaming experience is 6 core or better.

[Andrius227]

I would say 8 cores are the sweet spot. 6 cores cpus are fine too, but that could change after a few years so to be safe i would buy 8 cores.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Most modern games can handle multiple cores so for gaming should aim for good 8-core like Ryzen 7 7800X3D (pretty much best you can get for gaming at the moment).
Something like this:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/tYrgDq

With the mess and problems with Intel 13th and 14th gen CPUs I would avoid these currently, 12th gen is still safe though and i5-12600KF is decent smaller budget option:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DR9Hsh

With small budget can go for AM4 socket with Ryzen 5 5600, 5800X or 5700X3D and B550 board:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/qnTvzf

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/w4Pmh3

[Illusion of Progress]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SQNoname:

I am thinking about upgrading my CPU soon, and wondering whether I should go for one with a better single-thread rating or one with more cores and higher multi-thread rating, according to CPU Mark.

If you're doing gaming at all, I'd ignore Passmark's CPU core metrics because they don't reflect the difference cache makes at all. They will show what an X3D performs like in the worst case scenario, which might be the case for productivity stuff, but not games. You should ultimately be using real world results, not a single synthetic metric that has known "does not always reflect reality" issues.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SQNoname:

A few years ago the consensus seemed to be that since games rarely use more than 2 cores it's no use to get a CPU with a high number of cores. Has that changed recently? Are there games that can make proper use of more than 6 physical cores?

A few years ago was 2021, and anyone suggesting that anything more than a dual core was useless at that time was giving very poor advice.

That being said, single core speed still matters regardless of how threaded a game is, because you're still going to be limited as soon as one of those threads is fully utilized.

The good thing is, both brands give good single core performance now. It's not 2014 anymore; AMD has caught up, and then exceeded, Intel at one point, and since then, they've been trading back and forth at who has the better value and who has the best performance. Intel arguably has a slight edge in core performance this at the moment outside games, but it's slight, whereas AMD (at least on X3D CPUs) tends to have the advantage in games, but again, it's slight. And the caveat here is that this is only really in favor of Intel with their Raptor Lake CPUs (13th/14th generations), which are problematic, so if you ignore them as look at Alder Lake (12th generation) as Intel's best viable option, then AMD exceeds them everywhere. That said, the 12600KF, if around $150, and the 12700KF, if around $200, can be stellar budget options for their value. Other than that, I think AMD is where you'd be looking, either AM5 for a more expensive, but more performant/longevity platform, or AM4 if you want the lowest cost option (the aforementioned LGA 1700 CPUs give these tough competition though, so AM4 makes the most sense if you're already on it).

[Introverted Gamer]

Depends though. For Emulation, Single Core is still King.

[_I_]

for games, single thread performance
as long as the cpu has more cores than the game needs

[A&A]

Balance.

Multi-thread
-Since you can buy a 16 or 24 core with ht chip you have to ask yourself, can you use them?

Single-thread
-You can buy the CPU with the best single core performance and it achieves it by boosting 1-2 cores at the maximum. In reality, these cores will boost to 6.2GHz or stay at 5.7GHz, it doesn't matter, unless you are running something like a dual-core or quad-core, and no one will use such a processor looking for maximum performance in games, and they are already more energy-efficient oriented ones.

-You have the third category AMD with their X3D L3 cache CPUs which does a good job.

Basically, if you look, the differences between the high end CPUs, they are very small.

[Iron Knights]

Depends what you do with your PC. If you use it professionally for work, multi-thread like AMD Threadripper. For gaming, they still struggle to use 4 cores, most developers don't even use 8 cores, AMD still has the highest speed single thread vs Intel FailCores.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

If you choose a decent cpu you don't even have to question or worry about this issue. Any modern Intel (12th Gen i5 or better) or AM5 based Ryzen 5 or 7 series or better would have decent single and multi core performance. Although for gaming,.

For Professional work you have the Intel i9, Ryzen 9 and AMD ThreadRipper series of CPUs.

[r.linder]

Don't pick based on either, pick based on both as an overall picture, your selection should have good single and multi core performance with high instructions per clock

[[SQ]Noname]

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I am certainly going for an AMD CPU, and this is for gaming only. Excluded the 7800X3D so far because it's expensive, power-hungry, and gave no better CPU Mark ratings than other models, but I did not consider the impact of L3 cache. Now that I look at the gaming-specific performance chart though I might give the 7800X3D another thought...

[Ralf]

7900X3D, best of both worlds and not as power hungry as 7800X3D.

[r.linder]

7800X3D isn't even that power hungry, it can use as little as 50W while gaming, and Ryzen 9 will pretty much always use more power whenever you use more than 8 cores simultaneously

[Illusion of Progress]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ralf:

7900X3D, best of both worlds and not as power hungry as 7800X3D.

It's not the best of both worlds.

It's slower in gaming than a 7800X3D (due to the multi-CCD factor plus less cores with cache) and slower in productivity than a 7900X (due to lower clock speed and cache not helping there).

What you might mean is that it's a compromise of both.

It's better in productivity than a 7800X3D and better in gaming than a 7900X.