• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

These guys have no idea what they are talking about.

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
41,175
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
On the subject of playing games with a lot of background tasks and 8 core CPU's being better for that, or can be, not always but it can help.

These guys are so anti higher end components they will not even acknowledge the benefits of them, they are not even talking about 12 or 16 core parts, in which case i would agree that's probably not going to help, but they are talking about a Ryzen 5600 vs a Ryzen 5700X, its the tired old "you only need X number of cores" argument when all they do is test on clean installed Windows with nothing but the game running.

Before even making the argument that it makes no discernable difference they have to start, as these guys always do, by being pompous #### at the people posing this argument, like they are unreasonably hateful of it, they are... Suggesting they are only casual gamers who don't care about frame rates, which ironically contradicts their own argument, the fact that they want to keep up their frame rates while listening to Spotify and Youtube or having a stream running on a second monitor suggests their reasoning for having a CPU with that bit more resources is valid.

I am someone who will listen to Youtube while playing a game, i do it constantly, i was listening to them talk complete nonsense while playing Star Citizen, and boy am i glad i have an 8 core CPU.

I can't stand this type of tech journalism, a couple of talking heads poo pooing what the rest of the internet knows to be true from experience because "you only need 6 cores" like some ###### Marxist PC Leninism.

 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2009
Posts
3,119
Yeah it's annoying. It's as if people only game on a computer and do nothing else. In reality when I'm in a game I also have like 20 tabs open and I have a ton of other apps (messengers, Spotify, browser, random other software that's open all the time, background task that takes hours, etc), and I have other computers too! If I only had one computer I'd be doing a ton more.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
5,229
"chrome is not so much of an issue" - uhm, how much memory do you have, Tim? 64GB? :cry:

Steve is obviously biased against the argument for more cores (which he admitted himself), but he does acknowledge you might need 8 cores.

I suspect part of the reason for this, is that they just don't want to complicate their benchmarking processes. Steve has complained in the past about how much time it takes to do the benchmarking.

The "casual gamers" thing was obviously going to be an incendiary statement to make about a controversial topic, that Tim later said is a complex one, dependent on circumstances.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
41,175
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
"chrome is not so much of an issue" - uhm, how much memory do you have, Tim? 64GB? :cry:

Steve is obviously biased against the argument for more cores (which he admitted himself), but he does acknowledge you might need 8 cores.

I suspect part of the reason for this, is that they just don't want to complicate their benchmarking processes. Steve has complained in the past about how much time it takes to do the benchmarking.

The "casual gamers" thing was obviously going to be an incendiary statement to make about a controversial topic, that Tim later said is a complex one, dependent on circumstances.

The "casual gamers" thing was obviously going to be an incendiary statement to make about a controversial topic, that Tim later said is a complex one, dependent on circumstances.

Maybe they need to get out less and try different types of games :D there is a vivid potpourri of games out there, if you look beyond EA or any of the other accountant run publishers, there is more to PC gaming than running round shooting at others running around shooting, you can do that on a console.

One of the beautiful things about the PC is that its not a console.



 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
2 Jul 2019
Posts
1,903
You can't stand this type of journalism, yet you're glad you spent more money on a better CPU to watch it while doing something i guess you do like a bit smoother?
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
41,175
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
You can't stand this type of journalism, yet you're glad you spent more money on a better CPU to watch it while doing something i guess you do like a bit smoother?

I don't see the contradiction. To be clear i disagree with their premise. Hence why i have an 8 core, not a 6 core.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Posts
5,816
I agree I'd always want more cores available than just the minimum for the task in hand but there is also an optimum for the job. I wouldn't buy the best CPU for a task and then run loads of stuff in parallel on it. I'd buy a decent all-rounder and accept I wouldn't be getting the best performance.

Multitasking is always inefficient if you want to excel at one task. If you just play a game and want the best performance you don't need a 16 core CPU. If you want to do all those things as well and accept reduced performance that's fine. Different use cases. The disagreements are always because of differences in the original premise. Both are valid.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Jan 2022
Posts
112
Location
UK
It isn't a fact its a youtube video, its an opinion. They don't think 8C/16T is currently worth it over 6C/12T yet and I agree.

Who's watching youtube and gaming at the same time? Sounds like those people need a game that's more engaging. Get a Threadripper, I don't think 8C is gonna be enough I have to do my taxes while gaming. I'm old school, before I do my gaming I close programs down first (Chrome, Tidal, iStripper, the usual), they run better coz I only have 6C/12T ;)

If a game comes out that needs it then I'll upgrade to 8C/16T. I kinda wanna time it for AM5, DDR5, ATX 12VO, Win 11 clean install get it all done at the same time.
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,146
Location
Notts
they done it because its just sorta swapping over from x6 cores being the range you want to be in.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Sep 2018
Posts
1,568
For best price to gaming value, that’s why a 12600/k is the winner of this generation. 6 pcores for your varied games and 4 ecores to handle background tasks.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2005
Posts
17,356
Location
Midlands
On the subject of playing games with a lot of background tasks and 8 core CPU's being better for that, or can be, not always but it can help.

These guys are so anti higher end components they will not even acknowledge the benefits of them, they are not even talking about 12 or 16 core parts, in which case i would agree that's probably not going to help, but they are talking about a Ryzen 5600 vs a Ryzen 5700X, its the tired old "you only need X number of cores" argument when all they do is test on clean installed Windows with nothing but the game running.

Before even making the argument that it makes no discernable difference they have to start, as these guys always do, by being pompous #### at the people posing this argument, like they are unreasonably hateful of it, they are... Suggesting they are only casual gamers who don't care about frame rates, which ironically contradicts their own argument, the fact that they want to keep up their frame rates while listening to Spotify and Youtube or having a stream running on a second monitor suggests their reasoning for having a CPU with that bit more resources is valid.

I am someone who will listen to Youtube while playing a game, i do it constantly, i was listening to them talk complete nonsense while playing Star Citizen, and boy am i glad i have an 8 core CPU.

I can't stand this type of tech journalism, a couple of talking heads poo pooing what the rest of the internet knows to be true from experience because "you only need 6 cores" like some ###### Marxist PC Leninism.


why didnt they use a 5600x vs a 5700x? why use just a 5600? that way clock speed difference would be taken out of the equation..

referring to this video:

 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2019
Posts
8,636
Location
Uk
I think the choice more comes down to how long you want to keep the CPU before upgrading.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
14,122
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
Bottomline, they cater to the value for money crowd.

I don't like how silo'd in thinking they are becoming, but whatever. I would have got a 5600x but got a killer deal on a 5800X, so that was the VFM winner.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2004
Posts
13,028
Bottomline, they cater to the value for money crowd.

I don't like how silo'd in thinking they are becoming, but whatever. I would have got a 5600x but got a killer deal on a 5800X, so that was the VFM winner.
Good points, I do feel that they do not hide the fact that they want us to get the best for our money and I quite like that. We have Linus and jay do the whole money no object side of things.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Jan 2003
Posts
1,769
Location
Bristol
For the most part you don't need 8c/16, over time that will change much it the same way you didn't used to need 4c/8t, it's no biggie, AMD made threads cheap, so they will get used more over time as the expectation will be that most will have some, particulalry when the lowest common denominator in gaming the console has 8/16 for future use and it is of similar power to a PC you can see where you might be going but for now, I agree no real need, for me at least from a games perspective it still disappoints me that modern games still struggle to use more than 4-6 threads.

I do use a touchscreen connected to my PC where I do browse etc whilst gaming, but I don't do any intensive multitasking when gaming beyond a browswer and HWInfo, still very minimal CPU impact. all that stuff worked find when I had a 3400G.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
14,122
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
The reality is IMO 6c/12t is generally enough for the large proportion of people. Those multi-tasking may see some benefit of going 8c/16t or better.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
21,677
Location
London
Why do you so badly want there to be a difference?

The 24 game average seems about right. I have owned a 5600X, 5800X and now a 5900X. I've noticed no difference in games with cards like the 2080 ti. I actually went from 3700X to a 5600X, and it used to make me laugh when in threads people would say to go for the old 8 core, "more future proof". The 5600X was and is so much faster and isn't gonna be overtaken by the 3700X anytime soon (or ever imo).
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Posts
1,633
Location
Oxford
There is no such thing as futureproofing
It is not the number of cores, its more about core architecture, per core performance
For games, money spent on higher tier CPU is better used for a higher tier of GPU

HardwareUnboxed are consistent in these opinions and I agree (at least from cost perspective).

Also, having Chrome open or watching a video is not multitasking.
Video encoding in background is. But then no amount of cores will be enough.
 
Top Bottom