What is more important for gaming: CPU with more cores/threads or more clock speed?

[NeuroAtypical]

What do you think?

[Ogami]

Depends entirely on the games.
Some games can utilize a ton of cores so having a lof of them is good.
Some games only use a few cores and prefer higher core clock speeds.
And so on.
There really is no universal answer. But generally the trend goes to more cores being used at the same time and away from super high clock speeds.

[Satoru]

Generally spaking with games a higher max sustainable CPU frequency will be better

[Tristin]

Both. As already said, it depends on the game. But generally, average core count and high frequency is the way to go IMO.

[nullable]

Buying any current CPU that's not low end or bottom half of midrange should be sufficient. CPU's are so complex now, as are all the possibilities for every game released that trying to boil it down to "this or that" is trying to oversimplify the problem and misses the point.

All you need is a decent CPU and you can expect decent performance most of the time, even if the competitors CPU, or a more powerful CPU might be a bit better in some cases.

[lsdninja]

I generally stay far enough away from the bleeding edge of gaming that it doesn’t matter to me, personally. Buy the hardware you can afford and tailor your gaming experience around that instead of falling in to the trap that is the other way around.

[Start_Running]

Cores are generally better. To a point. THe diminishing return point is a lot lower than most people think.

MOst games don't address cores specifically and those that do don't generally go beyond 4 cores.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by NeuroAtypical:

What do you think?

Well, a cpu with one core and high clock speed is pretty much useless nowadays, so...

[grizzlyyy]

Higher frequency has always been and still is better than core count for games. Games nowadays use more cores than they used to in the past but most modern processors have way more cores than what games utilize. Cache is very important for performance as well which is why AMD processors such as the R9 7950X3D and R7 7800X3D are outperforming even the latest offerings by Intel such as the i9 13900K and 14900K in games. As with anything, you can reach a frequency in which going any higher doesn't have any further positive effect on gaming, which is the point we're at now and why when you hit that cap, cache becomes a deciding factor.

[Muppet among Puppets]

Dont forget the other aspects, do not just buy for cores or frequency.

If the "best for you" cpu has more cores or better frequency, then its a plus.
But not necessarily each on its own otherwise.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

For FPS or GPU heavy games, the GPU is more important. Having more cores and threads for multitasking or running more tasks/programs at once is more important then. Most people prefer having more multitasking power also, especially if you surf the web often.

For CPU heavy games it has been proved times and times again that older CPUs with less cores and threads and highest hertz possible win out over even modern CPUs with more cores and threads which are supposedly equivalent in term of numbers.

[Mad Scientist]

Originally posted by Muppet among Puppets:

Dont forget the other aspects, do not just buy for cores or frequency.

If the "best for you" cpu has more cores or better frequency, then its a plus.
But not necessarily each on its own otherwise.

The most realistic answer right there.

For pure gaming, many would say single core performance.
For people that stream, many would say multi core.
For people that edit/render videos, many would say multi-core, multi-thread.

Really comes down to knowing what's best for your setup & budget, so for me it's more core & thread count because of my main tasks, whereas gaming is secondary so I dont focus on main frequency as much though still prefer moderate to high frequency.

[AustrAlien2010]

Depends. Check the recommended system specifications for your software.

[Tohran]

It is entirely down to how the cores/threads are utilized by the title/game you are playing. For example. I have a Xeon E5-2650 v4 (2.2GHz) with 12 Cores (24 threads) and a 3050. I also have a i7-4790 (3.7GHz) with 4 cores (8 threads) with a 1050. In Minecraft (Java) + Optifine where the core engine is mainly single threaded the i7-4790 gets a noticeable increase in frame rate (20+) over the E5-2650 v4. Whereas in DOOM Eternal the CPU optimization is so incredible that on the E5-2650 v4 ALL 24 threads are utilized and even if I put the 1050 with it the FPS is 100+ over the i7-4790.

I have recently purchased a E5-2667 v4 which only has 8 cores (16 threads) but has a higher clock speed of 3.2GHz over the E5-2650 v4 of 2.2GHz. This means a single thread performance increase of about 20%, so should mean I get a better FPS in Minecraft but could also possibly mean a small decrease in FPS in DOOM Eternal due to being 4 cores 8 threads less. I have yet to test this.

There is also CACHE to consider here though. In my many years building computers I've always said that "cache in king". Enterprise CPU's have always had more cache than there commercial equivalent and cache is not really something game developer optimize for as it is a hardware cache of the CPU to put frequently accessed instructions and data closer to the CPU. More cache can have a dramatic effect on what the CPU can do within a given number of clock cycles allowing it to do more in less time.

[D. Flame]

Faster cores, with a minimum of 4. Most games are not great with multiple core utilization.

[Garry]

This thread was quite old before the recent post, so we're locking it to prevent confusion.