6P cores vs 8P cores. Does it matter for gaming?
Posted by Tee-hee64@reddit | buildapc | View on Reddit | 83 comments
I have an intel ultra 245k which is a 14 core CPU. 6 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores.
I always see debates about 6 cores and 8 cores but this is usually for AMD CPU's and not threads about intel. Does having 8 P cores actually matter for gaming, when you have 8 entire smaller cores that can handle your background tasks and help in productivity situations?
From my understanding there's still no games that will push all 6 cores and even if they did, I still have 8 in the reserve.
Any reason to choose 8 P cores for gaming?
TheKelz@reddit
Idk what people here are on about, Battlefield 6, for example, comfortably uses all performance cores as much as it can. Sure 6 cores are sufficient enough but that doesn’t mean you won’t benefit from more cores, some games will still use them.
maledis87@reddit
I have 5800x3d and it uses 80 to 90 percent of my cpu. Quite a few games are starting to now.
VersaceUpholstery@reddit
At 1080p?
I have a 7800x3d and the highest I’ve seen it go is around 75% at 1440p
maledis87@reddit
It's been a while I could be wrong slightly but my cpu is slightly slower so I think it may use more CPU. I'm on 1440p.
VersaceUpholstery@reddit
That makes sense, and I was more or less trying to confirm that the older 8 core would be strained more than the newer 8 core due to different architecture
maledis87@reddit
Ah I see, still doing good hope it doesn't die for a while
CuileannA@reddit
X3D CPU Architecture specifically forces the utilisation of all cores, it's more typical for games to utilize 1-2 cores unless a game has specifically been designed to utilize more cores
It makes sense to focus on single to dual core however because everyone has different systems, for example, I have a 16 core CPU, scaling a game to be designed around utilising between 2/4/8/16 cores would be far too much work and pretty redundant
maledis87@reddit
Nothing I could find online supported your explanation. Not all applications or games utilize all cores, only ones designed to do so.
CuileannA@reddit
Maybe I phrased it badly, X3D architecture adds more memory to a CPU, which reduces its idle time. Cores will go idle when they wait for data from RAM. X3D increases V-Cache, which means the CPU doesn't have to communicate with RAM as frequently and has faster access to the data it needs to complete a task
This allows X3D CPUs to outperform faster frequency CPUs, but it's still worth considering. A higher frequency CPU will complete a task faster; the limiting factor is the idle time if it needs to utilise RAM instead of V-Cache
Many games also primarily utilise 2 cores (they can still use other cores). The primary 2 cores are the "main thread" (core 0), which handles the main game loop, and the second most utilised core (core 1) is the render thread, which prepares the information to be sent to the GPU, when other cores are utilized, it's to check schedualed tasked from the two main cores and complete them if they're qued but not yet being processed to resolve the tasks faster, again with X3D CPU, because the cores have access to more V-Cache, the cores are utilized more efficently because they don't go idle while waiting for slower data to come from RAM, but frequency of cores is still important, it's just that X3D architecture is more efficient at using cores
I guess what I'm struggling to convey is, it's not necessarily that X3D by default is better or that more cores by default is better or that core frequency by default is better, it's more about how specific CPU architectures utilise available cores and threads
juhpopey@reddit
Not me just now learning why by CPU temp is so high when playing bf6!
LongMustaches@reddit
That dude is full of shit. Your CPU temps are high because you don't have pbo and perhaps your cooler is too small.
9600x, when properly set up, won't have high temps even if you run a stress test.
resetallthethings@reddit
I mean, mine is properly set up, with a 240mm AIO, and depending on how I have it "properly set up", I can have it barely touch 60c or thermal throttle at 95c fairly instantly
LongMustaches@reddit
That's true.
That said the difference between 9600x and 9700x is like 6% at 1080p, which is the most ideal scenario. 9700x is ~50% more expensive.
Ideally you'd see a ~33% fps I crease if it used all cores efficiently, but it doesn't.
It's not a very good game to choose if you want to make the argument of more cores=better, because 2 extra cores in bf6 make marginal difference.
Source: https://youtu.be/Q1WfzTodWMg?si=_sA9hG009X6Hev7s. Timestamp: 25:00
TheKelz@reddit
What you say is also correct. However, FPS difference is not the whole story, it’s also about the CPU utilization. We can see that 9600x utilization is nearing 80% in some cases, while 9700x is somewhere between 60 and 70, mostly sitting at 60%. That is a huge difference and actually makes it much more future proof for those who tend to upgrade less frequently.
LongMustaches@reddit
People have been future proofing with 8 core cpus since the 1700x came out. The future has come and we can see that most games still don't give much, if any, fps for having the extra 2 cores.
1700x aged out before those 2 cores were useful, and I don't see why it would be different for 9700x.
If someone wants future proof, they should buy an x3d chip, as those have actually proven to be the most future proof CPUs.
TheKelz@reddit
There is a 15-20% difference in CPU utilization. 9600x is closer to 100% than 9700x, meaning that once the time comes, it might chug at 100%, while 9700x is somewhere around 80%. This can cause difference.
I don’t understand why people only focus on FPS.
LongMustaches@reddit
Because CPU utilization is irrelevant? What's your goal? Getting better fps? Or a CPU that is idle?
There will be a difference in those few games that use all cores. But those are rare, despite 8 core CPUs being available for decades.
Do you have any reason to believe that it will change before 9700x ages out? Because I certainly don't.
And I don't see any reason to pay 50% extra for 6% performance boost in the best case scenario.
TheKelz@reddit
Have you ever seen people solving their freezing issues and stuff like not being able to run a program with a game simultaneously by upgrading to a 8 CPU? I have, many times.
Seems like you guys don’t want to see the full picture. I’m done explaining lol, yall only care about FPS or a CPU that is nearly at 100% thinking that it’s healthy when it’s not.
resetallthethings@reddit
without some sort of other hardware or OS/software issue going on?
No, never
and this is something I do for a living
LongMustaches@reddit
I've seen people replace faulty components and fix their issues. Just because someone has issues on a 6-core CPU doesn't mean the core count is the problem.
Dorennor@reddit
People are just used to the old point that only single-core performance matters and games cannot use more cores. And I won't say that this is full BS, because more than half of games are really like that. But in recent years, we've started to receive a lot of properly multi-threaded games. BF6, Cyberpunk, and even some UE5 games I saw could use more cores.
postsshortcomments@reddit
This. The perfect case and point is which is the better CPU: the 4-core 12100 or 8-core 3700x?. If it stumps your PC building friend who says the 3700x or answers the 12100f without at least wearing pants to the explanation, I wouldn't rely on them to make building decisions for your next build.
When quadcores first came out, they also did not matter. Obviously, you wouldn't buy a dual core in 2026. When 6-cores they came out they mostly did not matter. As I showed with the 12100 even some quad core 9th, 10th CPUs can still can be semi-viable super low-budget; eco-workhorse stepping stones when paired with DLSS-capable GPU when paired with realistic expectations for an almost 8 year old CPUs that were low-end in the first place. (No, I'm not suggesting buying 9th or 10th for a non-office build or viability for 3 year mid-tier gaming build.. but for already owners there are some highly situational budget-restricted scenarios where already owners, deal hunters, or minecraft/roblox machines may consider a hoopty with limited range and mileage left viable).
The 6-core logic has held true for quite some time... but now that everyone has a hex cores or better and 6-core developer integration has happened in some engines.. the next logical move is 8-core integration in mainstream gaming engines. We're currently seeing some fairly major signals that this is a focus.
By no means does that mean 6-cores are dead. I threw a 6-core AM5 into my most recent build. It just means that 8-cores are beginning to have performance boost relevance in some major engines. Typically, this will usually extend late-life CPU relevance. Was the release-day MSRP 3600 vs a 3700x was it worth it for a $129 difference? Probably not, given that 4 years later I could have at times almost bought a 5700X3D and a couple 5600's or a single 5600 now.
So cores do not matter.. until they do.. but when they do lower-cores are still viable at a slight performance loss.. and future-proofing for cores generally has lead to fairly poor price/performance; however the expected price/performance of an 8-core in 2026 vs. an 8-core in 2020 seems to have a better outlook; but your 6-core should still be perfectly fine.
((And, of course sarcastically from the dominant hivemind discussion.. anything besides something ending with AM4 or AM5 X3D is totally not even worth it and a bottleneck even if it's paired with a RX7600. /s))
Dorennor@reddit
You just compared 4-core with 8 core few generations older. Do you understand that this is already bullshit take and comparison, right?
Either-Cry5555@reddit
You mean Reddit users don't actually know what they are talking about? Shocked!
xisytenin@reddit
I wouldn't go quite that far in this specific case, 6 core CPUs are completely fine for gaming and you don't actually need 8 cores even for games that are capable of utilizing all 8 cores
karmapopsicle@reddit
Very few games actually deliver tangible performance benefits from the extra cores, and in most reviews the small differences between 6 and 8 core chips of the same architecture are almost always attributable to the small clock speed differences or cache differences between the chips.
However, those tests are always on the controlled, clean environment of a test system, not a typical user’s system loaded up with all kinds of shit in the background. That’s where those extra cores actually show some tangible benefit.
Either-Cry5555@reddit
I meant more the ones that still claim single core is all that matters.
xisytenin@reddit
Fair
NapsterKnowHow@reddit
Yeah and some are mixed. Like they will use all core but the first 2-4 cores are slammed so badly it doesn't matter.
I_Love_Cape_Horn@reddit
For a hobby about benchmarks and testing the latest and greatest, people sure are stuck in old thinking all the time.
T2_daBest@reddit
I gotta test out my BF6. I haven't played since I went from a 225f to a 270k plus. If someone reminds I tell you the difference I see between them
mdred5@reddit
its a great cpu for combo of gaming and workstation tasks at that price
T2_daBest@reddit
I haven't looked at specific core workloads to see how many are being used. I went from a 225f (6p) to a 270k plus (8p) and a lot of games I just noticed slight better 1% lows and very very small better GPU performance in benchmarks. I haven't tried BF6 or cyberpunk since I swapped but I noticed a decent small difference in Minecraft and some other small indie games and a very slight difference in ue5 games. Most other games not much of a difference. And I play at 1440 and 4k. Probably a bigger difference in 1080p but eww honestly 😂
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Hi there! Thanks for the comment.
We ask that posts and comments be in English so they can be understood by as many people as possible. Translations on Reddit are client-side, and not all apps or browsers support auto-translate. Currently many users (and moderators) aren’t able to read your comment.
Could you please submit a new comment in English?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Westerdutch@reddit
With everything else being equal more cores is better, how much better and if you will ever notice it depends on multiples things (other hardware/settings/games you play etc).
If you have nothing to complain about right now then stick with what you have, no need to fomo yourself into thinking the grass could be greener.
nesnalica@reddit
yes. modern games will utilize 8 nowerdays.
battlefield is the prime example.
but dont get 12c or 16c CPUs
dual ccd is still a problem
Plebius-Maximus@reddit
No it isn't. This is nonsense, coming from a 9950x3D owner. The issues that the dual ccs 7000 x3D range had are no longer a problem.
Or the dual CCD x3D chips wouldn't be trading blows with the single CCD chips. The only chip faster than a 9950x3D is sometimes a 9800x3D. But not consistently, sometimes the 9950x3D beats it.
However in titles that can use all the cores like cities skylines 2 as someone else mentioned, SIM time is less with a 9950x3D than a 9800x3D, so while FPS doesn't differ as much, your city runs more smoothly as more objects are simulated per cycle etc
nesnalica@reddit
thank you for the insight! I havent seen any good news about this issue yet.
it was annoying with the 3950X, 5950X and even 7950X that I was able to personally test out. those 3 CPUs basically became paperweights for gaming with the same issue.
Plebius-Maximus@reddit
I wouldn't say they were paperweights. The 5900x/5950x weren't much slower than a 5800x for gaming purposes as per most benchmarks you'll find.
Obviously the 5800x3D was way faster, but then it demolished the regular 5800x in the same manner
nesnalica@reddit
until u get stuttering and game freezes for a moment.
everytime the game data gets lost and jumps between the game will freeze for a moment.
thats just unplayable
Plebius-Maximus@reddit
I had a 5900x and 7900x before my 9950x3D. Games are certainly not unplayable on either. They play very well. The 5900x was literally top 5 CPU's in gaming benchmarks for a while after it's release, look up HW unboxed benchmarks from the time if you don't believe me
There is a bigger difference on the dual CCD x3D chips when you get tasks jumping over CCD's because they have different speed cache on one Vs the other, which can cause more noticeable frame dips etc.
asperatology@reddit
I can't wait to see some proper Cities Skylines 2 benchmarks doing comparisons with the upcoming 9950X3D2 chip. I sometimes wanted to know whether simulation games would have slight boosts in overall performances with dual CCDs, and I could never get answers when people compare 16-cores and 8-cores.
saldas_elfstone@reddit
Try Cities Skylines 2
Old_Information_8654@reddit
Or Microsoft flight simulator 2024
Beginning_Anxious@reddit
Yes lol plenty of games use 8+ cores. Battlefield and COD/WZ for example.
Tai9ch@reddit
Sure. Current gen consoles have 8 AMD cores, which means lots of games are optimized for running on exactly 8 identical cores.
More broadly, you should expect to find PC games with three difference performance profiles:
Pajer0king@reddit
Me gaming with 4 cores 😅
Supergun1@reddit
Apologies for the long rant, but I think its important to understand. TLDR: Yes, in select games that utilise proper architecture, amount of cores does matter. Most traditional benchmarking games, usually not so much. Find out the situation for the games and programs you use.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, the reason why people say that the amount of cores doesn't matter for gaming is because games tend to utilise poor software architecture for multithreading purposes (largely thanks to the poor legacy of Object oriented programming/OOP). A lot of modern games have started moving away and more into the Data-Oriented Design (DOD), which can be a lot more cache and multithreading friendly, but it's of course hard to do such a large refactor at once for everything, so games tend to utilise it at the more select systems, where they notice the bottlenecks.
Now, games like Cities Skylines 2, are built ground up with Unity DOTS (just their naming for the tool stacks to develop with DOD), which basically allows you to multithread the whole game simulation. Unity DOTS basically allow you to use as many cores as you just have available, which in a game like Cities Skylines 2 is way more important than cache and single-core performance, as you can essentialy split processing for a million entities for an 8 core cpu so that each cpu processes (in parallel) only 125 000 entities.
The data oriented design part, with an Entity component systems (ECS), also allows you to essentially ignore much of the advantages from a larger cache size, where AMD X3D chips tend to have the lead in the traditional "benchmark" games. This comes down to how the data is organized in memory. In traditional OOP-style games, data is often scattered and thus making it hard for our hardware (prefetcher) to try to predict and stream data in on its own, without the CPU explicitly asking for it. So, the answer with X3D is to just fit as much of it in a large L3 cache, to avoid going to RAM for it. With a DOD and ECS style, you can organise the data predictably, which allows the prefetcher to simply stream the data in to the cache in parallel. An example:
If your game/program doesn't utilise this sort of predictability with its data (most games), the prefetcher cannot do its job in parallel, and the CPU has to always:
With data predictability, we can just do the asking and waiting once, as the prefetcher notices the request pattern:
...until we hit the end of our current system, and move to the next system. This does benefit single core processing as well, but its especially useful for multithreading.
But this is specific for these sort of games, that just kind of have to build the game with Data oriented design in mind from the start, where as other games can get away with a more efficient and easier to understand development with OOP, but that makes it A LOT harder to figure out multithreading without race conditions=bugs.
VictoryMotel@reddit
I would say this is AI slop, but ai might not confuse many concepts like memory locality and multi threading. This is like someone played telephone with someone who knew what they were talking about.
Supergun1@reddit
I'm sorry, what are you mad about?
I didn't choose to only talk about multithreading, since I wanted to also talk about how the AMD X3D cache advantage played into this, hence why I also felt the need to talk about memory layout. I'm not (intentionally) conflating them, they just go very much hand in hand when we want to talk about scaling multithreading, we can't just have expect instant performance increase when the cores anyway have to constantly wait for the data to arrive from RAM.
If there is a part that is written in way that is confusing, you can tell me and I can edit it. I did not spend much time reviewing it.
VictoryMotel@reddit
No they don't, they are two orthogonal issues. Being able to use multiple cores and having good memory access patterns are totally separate. Your post is mostly nonsensical mashing of various terms that do make sense in ways that don't make sense.
It's not confusing, it's just not right.
Essentially you can if you have two different threads. That's what hyper threading is actually about, two threads switch back and forth while waiting on memory access.
Supergun1@reddit
You're again not providing anything concrete, any examples of where exactly I'm wrong and why from the original post. You're not explaining how I'm conflating memory locality and multithreading.
Again, they are different things, but they go hand in hand in this. If you want to scale multithreading to utilise all of your cores, you need to maximise the memory bandwidth given to you as well, which also means that you want every single cache line pull to be filled with just the right working data, which is where you need the proper memory layout, to keep your cores fed, to maximise the bandwidth. Otherwise with an OOP style memory layout you're just pulling in random trash that anyway needs to be evicted to make room for the next data pull.
VictoryMotel@reddit
I literally quoted you and explained why it's wrong.
I literally did that, they aren't linked and you're saying they have some sort of dependency on each other.
I said that already.
Now you're conflating bandwidth with utilizing cores. Memory bandwidth is substantial and only comes into play after optimizing memory access patterns and multi threading. This is separate from the memory latency issues you were conflating with multi threading.
That can be done with prefetching, but optimizing for bandwidth is more about doing as much as possible with the data you have. If you run through a vector and add two numbers, them run through arrays to multiply two numbers, you aren't going to get cache misses because of prefetching but you are going to be using a lot of memory bandwidth.
It's much more about prefetching than cache lines
The problem is really about pointer chasing and indirection that causes cache and TLB misses, not about cache lines being underutilized.
The problem here is that you sort of have an idea but you're way too confident in your cloudy knowledge of these subjects. If you read and practice and time some programs you can tighten it up.
Supergun1@reddit
You came into this thread straight up with some oddly placed insult, now you're leaving a vital part of my comment of what you're trying to quote:
Now, for your argument:
Exactly? And prefetching is possible thanks to a good memory layout, which also tends to lead to good cache line utilisation. Without the layout, you don't utilise the prefetching.
Pointer chasing can lead to cache lines being underutilised just as well, thus cache polluting and constant back and forth between RAM and cache.
Its like you're saying exactly what I am saying now, but just needing to pull the arguments to your direction now. You're not making any sense anymore.
VictoryMotel@reddit
You're conflating two things again. You could pointer chase and access the entire cache line and it would still be a big speed hit. Not using a cache line doesn't really have anything to do with it. Memory access can take 100ns or more, which can be 500 cycles, and TLB misses factor in too.
The original part that made no sense was saying there is some relation between good memory access patterns being needed to multi thread something. They are two different completely orthogonal concepts. Either one can happen with or without the other happening, they don't affect each other.
Supergun1@reddit
I don't think I really made this dependency as you thought I made it. From the original post:
Not really a hard dependency. But fine, I don't really care to go on anymore about this.
VictoryMotel@reddit
I quoted you at first and your own quote here is not true. Multi threading is about data dependencies and synchronization. If anything it's actually easier to do it with pointer chasing because you can atomically read and write pointers.
Wide-Wrangler3375@reddit
It's a matter of what you are playing: Try Cities Skyline 2, Flight Simulator, DCS World Simulator, Cyberpunk and many UE 5 games use multithread in a good way. 12 and 16 core CPU are still overkill if you don't do heavy workload like photo/video/audio editing, you use multiple virtual machine or do data analysis/data simulation. An 8 core CPU is a solid pick at 360 right now
JonWood007@reddit
I mean, for example, the 12900k uses 8 p cores but they're slightly lower clocked than say, the 13600k's 6 p cores. The two cpus perform the same.
Clock speed offset this extra benefits of the extra p cores.
On the intel side I dont think it matters a whole lot. As long as your cpu has enough threads to run a game and enough power behind those threads the difference is relatively minimal. I do think having 8 p cores helps, I mean look at say, the 13700k vs the 13600k, but its a relatively minor difference. Its not as bad as whatever bottleneck you'd get on the amd side because at least the ecores can help offset that somewhat.
With the 245k, your big issue is latency. The p cores are very powerful and the ecores are a lot more powerful than on raptor lake/alder lake. Howefer gaming performance is crippled by the architecture itself.
Honestly you're better off looking into the newer 250k for $199 than the older one, or a 270k. Looking at the two, it looks lkke the 8 core 270k does get slightly better performance, like up to 10% or so. Not sure if that is due to the extra e cores p cores, or clocks but yeah.
All in all I would say 6 does make games perform a little worse but its not a make or break experience.
Obosratsya@reddit
I have a 13700k in my desktop and a 12700h in my laptop. Both have 8 e-core but one has 8p amd the other 6p.
I:e not found much difference so far. If I limit the 13700k to 45w, outide of arch improvements and the extra cache, perf is largely the same.
So 6p cores are def fine. In games it at most 4 threads that need fast cores, the other threads are fine even on an e-core.
Fmeister567@reddit
The tech power up review may help you. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-5-245k/ I like their reviews because you can see all resolutions and they have individual game fps listed as well. I understand why major reviews use 1080p I just do not agree with that since practically a lot of people use 1440p and 4k and the higher you go the less the cpu matters. Thanks
bblzd_2@reddit
Knowing the a actual performance of a CPU in gaming is preferable to testing CPU performance with a bottleneck.
I understand wanting to know how a CPU will perform within the constraints of your particular GPU and resolution right now but that's not set it stone and will change with every new game released, new GPU or new monitor purchase.
Eventually the actual performance of the CPU will matter and that's what you want to know when purchasing one.
cakemates@reddit
It matters for few games, like cyberpunk.
bir_iki_uc@reddit
No actually. I have restricted Cyberpunk to a single core, 2,3,4,6 and 8 cores with project lasso on 7950x3d. Obviously extreme stutters on 1 and 2 cores, on 4 cores it became stable, there was just a few fps difference between 4 and 6 cores. There was absolutely no difference between 6 and 8 cores. So overall even 4 cores are enough and more than 6 are not utilized for Cyberpunk 2077. And I suspect this is true almost all modern games .
PsyOmega@reddit
Yes.
E-cores are bad for games, but great for fluffing cinebench scores.
OttawaDog@reddit
Depends on the game but in general very little difference.
HWUB tests on BF6 (everyones best case argument), with 8 vs 6 core AMD, which doesn't have E-Cores to hand background tasks, and there is very little in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR9V8RTvVcM
kamikad3e123@reddit
Most games want strong single-core more than just their quantity
WizardMoose@reddit
I suggest 8 cores if it makes sense within your budget, but 6 is fine. Even for newer games that utilize 8 cores, they run fine on 6 cores.
AnnieBruce@reddit
It shouldn't be a huge difference on most titles, maybe a small one on some of the better multithreaded games.
The biggest difference comes in how much stuff you run in the background. If your game uses 6 cores, 8 cores wouldn't make the game run any faster, but even something as simple as Discord might slow it down a little where an 8 core CPU would have hte cores to spare for other stuff. This is a bit simplified- OS processes for instance could make a difference here and I ignroed them- but the general point would stand even if the details get messier than this.
SaunaApprentice@reddit
Depends x999
Blue-150@reddit
Older games utilized 1 core, newer games utilize multiple cores. Some games it will matter others only care about that single core performance.
Elitefuture@reddit
Depends on the game.
Many popular games have 1-2 main threads which can hold back the rest - this is more important when people are looking at the CPU + GPU utilization at 50% or something thinking that something is wrong.
However, as others have noted, there are games that scales very well across many threads. There are definitely games that can push all 6, there are games that can push all cores regardless of the number(very rare but they exist).
Honestly, the best way to figure out CPU performance differences is just looking up tests with the specific CPU + GPU and the games you want to look at. Core count alone doesn't matter. Like a 12 core 10 year old xeon will get destroyed by a modern 6 core CPU.
AceLamina@reddit
Depends on the game, but games usually use 4 cores from what I can tell 8 cores would be if you want even more performance while multitasking
FewEstablishment4099@reddit
Games are single thread bound. This means that all the other threads are gonna wait for the main thread to complete. This is why in testing (every competently designed one), the gains from 6 to 8 cores are minimal. There's also the issue of effective memory bandwidth. This is where victim cache size helps a lot with, as it reduces the chances a gaming process will have to fetch a piece of info all the way from RAM, momentarily idling the core.
Revolutionary_Ad7262@reddit
It depends on a game. Some games runs on a single core (a lot of old one and indies), some (like modern Doom) can really eat all of them. Most of the games are somewhere in the middle: they can utilize some cores, but the performance scaling may be bad for more than few cores
combovertomm@reddit
I always prefer running a cpu with the most cores possible
Careful-Nobody3193@reddit
I don't think modern games use more than 4 cores, unless you're coding- training AI using CPU (some libray still use CPU), rendering, streaming I think 6 cores is enough
Dorennor@reddit
Lmao, this is bullshit. I partially can agree about 6 beffe cores but cmon - this is pure BS. 4 cores today even not a fucking minimal requirement for a big bunch of big and popular games.
Alive_Vermicelli4688@reddit
Which gpu do u use with 245k
Alive_Vermicelli4688@reddit
Can u share your speedometer 3.1 score
deTombe@reddit
I've only ever used 6 cores and each CPU upgrade performance went up significantly. I think there are other factors that are more important when it comes to gaming.
ComprehensiveOil6890@reddit
Nope what is important is cache