# You probably don't need a six core Intel CPU for gaming



## AshleyAshes (Dec 31, 2013)

So Runefox was nice enough to hook me up with a monster i7 4930K.  A primo six core Ivy Bridge-E which I've used to rebuild my workstation for doing more computer animation work and such.  I'm working on overclocking it and once it reached 4.3ghz, the same speed as the i7 3770K that I'd just swapped out, I ran 3DMark 2011 and Vantage, having previously run them with the 3770K yesterday.  While this is a new Mobo and CPU (And PSU and cooler) it's the same install of Windows, Radeon HD 7950, hard drives, and RAM, so it's an interesting test.

*3DMark 2011:*
i7 4930K P8928
i7 3770k P8947

*3DMark Vantage:*
i7 4930K P35996
i7 3770K P32180

Underwhelmed? 

So, if you've ever considered getting one of those big expensive 'Enthusiast' CPUs, spend the price difference on a better graphics card instead.   Me?  Imma use this sucker on Cinema 4D, Nuke, After Effects and stuff like that, so it'll be well utilized.

P.S. I -also- have an AMD A8-3870K (Basically a 3ghz Phenom II x4) I was tempted to test the 7950 in, but in that case, it wouldn't fit due to the HDDs currently in it so I was like 'Screw dat.'


----------



## Runefox (Dec 31, 2013)

You're paying for the threads and the cache. :V


----------



## zamorapaw (Jan 1, 2014)

I have a i7 3970X in my main rig.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 2, 2014)

zamorapaw said:


> I have a i7 3970X in my main rig.



What do you even do with that? Are you rendering video or something? I mean, a Xeon is a better buy at that point.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 3, 2014)

To be honest from a strictly gaming stand point you don't really need anything that even has hyper threading, hence the popularity of the xx50k cpus.


----------



## BRN (Jan 3, 2014)

AMD Athlon X6 II here - six cores of beautiful AMD. The shit's old now, but it still runs everything I throw at it. Video rendering and music editing simultaneously.~

Much recommend. Very satisfy.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 3, 2014)

BRN said:


> AMD Athlon X6 II here - six cores of beautiful AMD.



It's not really six cores; This is something I've been complaining about for a while now. AMD really needs to cut the false advertising.


----------



## BRN (Jan 3, 2014)

Runefox said:


> It's not really six cores; This is something I've been complaining about for a while now. AMD really needs to cut the false advertising.



For real? 

Damn. Virtual cores?


----------



## Runefox (Jan 4, 2014)

BRN said:


> For real?
> 
> Damn. Virtual cores?



Yeah, something like that. Basically, the 6-core is really a 3-core and a bit. Essentially it breaks down into what AMD calls modules; These being two integer units and one floating point unit each. The floating point unit is most useful for games and multimedia, while integer is great for general use. What this means is that a 6-core AMD processor (even today) is actually a triple core (or triple module) with three extra integer units. That's not to say these don't make a difference (general responsiveness stays high), but they don't make up whole cores. Floating point math (again, for heavier work like games, movies, encodes, compression, etc) can only be done on three cores. Again, doesn't make it bad, it's just massive false advertising.


----------



## BRN (Jan 4, 2014)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, something like that. Basically, the 6-core is really a 3-core and a bit. Essentially it breaks down into what AMD calls modules; These being two integer units and one floating point unit each. The floating point unit is most useful for games and multimedia, while integer is great for general use. What this means is that a 6-core AMD processor (even today) is actually a triple core (or triple module) with three extra integer units. That's not to say these don't make a difference (general responsiveness stays high), but they don't make up whole cores. Floating point math (again, for heavier work like games, movies, encodes, compression, etc) can only be done on three cores. Again, doesn't make it bad, it's just massive false advertising.



Thanks, this does help me understand the hardware. 

Still, I have to recommend the item... but I now feel like I'm totally out of whack for my contribution to this thread.  Ah rass. My bad. I spoke in ignorance.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 4, 2014)

BRN said:


> Thanks, this does help me understand the hardware.
> 
> Still, I have to recommend the item... but I now feel like I'm totally out of whack for my contribution to this thread.  Ah rass. My bad. I spoke in ignorance.



Don't worry about it. It's super confusing for no good reason and AMD should be ashamed of themselves for it. Still, it's hard to beat their APU's for value, but Intel owns the high end.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 4, 2014)

Ahem, actually, while this is true for CURRENT AMD processors, the older Phenom II x6 processors and that entire series had true complete cores.  The x6 had six K10 cores.  This also remained true up to and including the Llano series APUs which also used the K10 architecture.  This didn't happen until the whole Bulldozer architecture and everything based on it that followed.

So yes, your x6 was really a six core.  That said, my i7 4930K is an entirely different beast than a Phenom X6.  Far more powerfull and far more efficient.  I have an HTPC A8-3870K which is basically a Phenom II x4, four K10 cores at 3.0ghz.  It's the slowest computer in my render setup, even slower than my 2.0ghz quad core Sandy Bridge laptop.  K10 is sorta old.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 4, 2014)

I'm not too sure right now, but wasn't it pretty much always true that investing in a "decent" CPU  and pumping the saved money into a better GPU and RAM is the best option for gaming?

But yeah, that thing is really gonna shine when it comes to other tasks^^


----------



## xAngelStormx (Jan 4, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I'm not too sure right now, but wasn't it pretty much always true that investing in a "decent" CPU  and pumping the saved money into a better GPU and RAM is the best option for gaming?  But yeah, that thing is really gonna shine when it comes to other tasks^^


 Actually, this is where I went wrong... I bought an AMD FX8350 for my first PC. At the time, it was the best AMD CPU but I had no money left for the GPU so I had to get an HD 5450 >.>


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 4, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I'm not too sure right now, but wasn't it pretty much always true that investing in a "decent" CPU  and pumping the saved money into a better GPU and RAM is the best option for gaming?
> 
> But yeah, that thing is really gonna shine when it comes to other tasks^^



Certianly but it's fun to demonstrate it practically and right infront of my eyes.  As for other tasks, yes.  Right now I'm rendering a test visual effect of an MD-11 smashing into the ground, it's pretty bare bones bit collision and deformation are being used in a physical renderer with motion blur.  So the i7 4930K is happily chewing on that for the time being.  ...Though even though it's just 180 frames, it will take the i7 4930k 15hrs to do the job, so it's being helped out in a team render by an i7 3770K.  ...And an i7 3770... And an i7 2630QM... And an A8 3870K. >_>;  I figure that with these five powers combined, something will become Captian Planet. D:


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 4, 2014)

Yay! 

[video=youtube;tepiEFH8odw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tepiEFH8odw&amp;feature=youtu.be[/video]


----------

