What do higher core counts mean for gaming? A lot of new and

File: intel vs AMD CPUs, i3 - i7 vs AMD.png (256KB, 620x649px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 620x649px

>>379053974
Very little.
Most games benefit A LOT more from strong single-core performance, as in higher clockspeeds.

A simple 3Ghz 2-core processor from 2009 literally BTFO of a 1.5ghz 4-core from 2014.
Pic quite related.

Yes, devs will have to start adapting for increased corecounts + hyperthreading at some point. That is, unless quantum computing seriously becomes a mainstream thing in the next 10 years like some docs claim.

File: 1491835275725.png (234KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 882x758px

>>379053974
NOTHING

YOU ONLY NEED 4 CORES

DONT LISTEN TO THESE FUCKING AMDBULLS

Programmers have to code in the use of multiple threads for the multi core thing to actually matter.

I mean most of the stuff game does outside of graphics processing and advanced AI is basically just scripting. It could make it possible to have more advanced AI or better graphics processing, but it won't revolutionize the industry.

Name ONE (1) game which requires more than 1 (one) core.

Well, what is it? Nothing? Thought so, kid.

File: Intel-core-i9-2[1].jpg (226KB, 1280x608px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1280x608px

>>379054275
Why is Intel coming with a new line of 8+ core chips then? These are not meant for the server market at all. They are targetting consumers. High core count in the mainstream market is the reality in 2017.

>>379054513
Could you please delete this post?

You don't need more cores. Why would you EVER buy an Ryzen 1600 instead of a i5, goy?

File: 1496376180478[1].png (307KB, 915x678px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 915x678px

>>379054618
i5 is a freaking corelet!

>>379054397
More cores can easily be utilized for better AI. It's one of the things that scales naturally with more threads.

File: 1484810739554.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>379055005
And physics. But alas, devs these days don't want to make dynamic game worlds anymore.

>>379053974
>What do higher core counts mean for gaming?
Nothing. Most devs are too lazy to utilize more than two cores.

>>379055416
Well that's because most people do have only two cores, maybe 4 at best. With current consoles having a lot of cores, devs are forced to program for parallelism. If the pc market moves to 6 and more cores, I believe the devs will have to respond too.

Better performance

>>379053974
Very little most of the time.
Pretty much all games are GPU capped anyways.

>>379054214
IPC growth a shit and frequency scaling died over a decade ago. Quantum computing isn't going to be used for general computing, it's only faster than conventional processors in certain algorithms, and will be slower in others due to the complexity their operation entails. At best you'd see it as an addon card, or a discrete component on a CPU ala media encode hardware.

Pic is outdated btw, Ryzen is damn close to Intel at the same frequencies. Some Linux devs are actually treading over the line that it's fast than Intel per clock when you compile for the processor specifically.

>>379054508
Killer is Dead.

In fact it needs 4 or you can't get past the second level.

I still have an i5 4430, would now be the time to consider getting an i7?

>>379054508
Everything released in the last 4 years
Good luck running any modern game on a single core
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS_sVz-8gUk

>>379057154
nah