[NEW MERCENARIES] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
Intel has had the issue in their cpus dating back to 1995 tell me that they didn't know about it and just kept rolling them out until someone figured it out and they had to do something about it. Many companies do this kind of stuff because all they care about is your money. For Intel this looks very bad because it's the most basic form of security.
Basically the bigger the company the worse the company is when it comes to you the consumer and employees. I know this first hand I used to work for a very large company and let me tell you they get away with a lot of things you couldn't imagine.. now I'm not saying smaller companies don't do this, but they usually don't have the luxury because if they get caught they could go under easily. To make matters worse Intel's CEO will likely be investigated for the timing of selling off his stock.. I've owned both Intel and Amd, but after this fiasco I'll be passing on Intel at least for awhile. To tell you the truth performance in the real world I don't really see a noticeable difference in games between the two cpus, but anything else I do that isn't games the Amd ryzen system is noticeably faster for less money. Both cpus are great Amd just has the best performance for the money and are more secure at this time.
Was wondering if anyone know which AM3+ CPU to handle Vindictus at a constant 60 fps. I have a gigabyte amd based motherboard so dont tell me to switch to intel. I was thinking about this CPU AMD FX-8350 Black Edition Vishera 8-Core 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz Turbo). Is that any good? Also, I have a gtx 1070.
Besides having a asus motherboard this is my exact setup and yes it's fine I play many new games at basically maxed out settings at 1080p. Witcher 3, vindictus it all runs great. Vindictus you'll never see a locked 60fps but it handles it just fine.
I don't understand this intense fight over Intel vs. AMD. Both are vulnerable to reading from protected memory thanks to the speculative execution mechanism that delays the segfault trap (memory access violation). I won't put a github link here, but there are proofs that it works on AMD processors too when they increased the time threshold for cache hits from 80 to around 130. As for the Meltdown exploit, it's already fixed because that can be done on software level.
As for the question about the AM3+ processor. I recommend all of the FX-8xxx series. My brother has an FX-8120 that runs Division and other games just fine. But the FX-8350 is definitely better. Octa-Core will be an overkill but not useless for modern game engines that do thread pooling and intense physics calculations. However you will never get constant 60 fps in Vindi because the game is badly optimized.
It's not about AMD vs Intel, it's about Rezi making up complete BS. People like him are the reason why new PC gamers such as those on /r/buildapc end up with a $800 USD FX 6300 gaming computer in 2015 or i3 7350k gaming computer in 2017 when there were clearly better alternatives. Rezi can do whatever he wants as long as other PC users do not have to suffer. No advice is better than crappy advice, and Rezi is offering a lot of the latter.
Was wondering if anyone know which AM3+ CPU to handle Vindictus at a constant 60 fps. I have a gigabyte amd based motherboard so dont tell me to switch to intel. I was thinking about this CPU AMD FX-8350 Black Edition Vishera 8-Core 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz Turbo). Is that any good? Also, I have a gtx 1070.
Besides having a asus motherboard this is my exact setup and yes it's fine I play many new games at basically maxed out settings at 1080p. Witcher 3, vindictus it all runs great. Vindictus you'll never see a locked 60fps but it handles it just fine.
Intel has had the issue in their cpus dating back to 1995 tell me that they didn't know about it and just kept rolling them out until someone figured it out and they had to do something about it.
They said in the articles that they already knew about the source of the problem - in fact, the entire industry knew about it, and the entire industry felt it was worth the risk because they tested it over and over and over again and never found an exploit, and the source drastically increased CPU performance. So they felt it was worth the risk - not just Intel, but everyone. The tech experts didn't alert AMD/Intel/etc that the source existed, but rather that they had finally found an exploit. No one knew about the exploit itself until now.
I'm a woman. And FYI, I also use Asus. I would never buy the piece of **** hardware that you listed. You really have the propensity to pull **** out of your *** and come up with arguments based on material that you don't even read/watch/play.
Also, I lock at 60 FPS and I don't even have a custom, and I use Intel/Nvidia. So if we both have ASUS hardware, why do you think it is that you can't lock on 60 FPS in a game this basic?
You're just so close-minded you don't want to think your precious AMD has faults. But that's okay, it's your loss.
And FYI, I also use Asus. I would never buy the piece of **** hardware that you listed. You really have the propensity to pull **** out of your *** and come up with arguments based on material that you don't even read/watch/play.
What has Asus got to do with this?
Also, I lock at 60 FPS and I don't even have a custom, and I use Intel/Nvidia. So if we both have ASUS hardware, why do you think it is that you can't lock on 60 FPS in a game this basic?
For a start, Anuran has an i7 8700k at 5.1GHz and they "still have to tune down some of the ingame video setting to maintain 60fps despite having a monster overclock." They have a GTX 1070 too.
You're just so close-minded you don't want to think your precious AMD has faults. But that's okay, it's your loss.
I'm trying to remain very unbiased here. I really don't care what company I buy from. If AMD makes good products, I buy them. If Intel makes good products, I buy them. I jump ship all the time. I'm a consumer, I buy what's good for me. You're just grasping at splinters, trying to make AMD look bad because from what I can tell, you're just mad AMD isn't hit as hard as Intel.
From 2011 to early 2017, 90% of the computers I built for my friends had Intel CPUs because AMD's CPUs were crap. When Ryzen launched the opposite happened because Ryzen CPUs were superior. Now CPUs from both companies are mostly equal so it's a toss up. I do this because I want the best products for my friends. How can I justify an i5 7600k purchase when a Ryzen 5 1600 offers more performance for less money? Are you saying all those reviewers that were recommending the AMD CPU over the Intel counterpart were wrong?
At this point I'm convinced you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
1. You don't know the difference between a CPU and GPU, as OP asked for a CPU recommendation and you suggested Nvidia.
2. Let's assume you do know the difference between a CPU and GPU. You think the only requirement for a good gaming computer is a strong GPU.
3. You think a single-core Hyper-threaded CPU is enough for 2018 games even if the computer has the fastest GPU and RAM on the market.
4. You think benchmarking demanding games is the wrong way to test graphics cards and CPUs.
5. You think Hyper-threading is some kind of magic that increases performance for all applications, even single-threaded applications.
6. You think too many cores is a bad thing. Please explain how the i7 8700k beats the i7 7700k in all applications clock for clock. Yes, even single threaded applications.
7. You think Asus is magic or something.
If this was a tech forum, you'd been banned after your second comment for being an idiot.
1. You don't know the difference between a CPU and GPU, as OP asked for a CPU recommendation and you suggested Nvidia.
2. Let's assume you do know the difference between a CPU and GPU. You think the only requirement for a good gaming computer is a strong GPU.
3. You think a single-core Hyper-threaded CPU is enough for 2018 games even if the computer has the fastest GPU and RAM on the market.
4. You think benchmarking demanding games is the wrong way to test graphics cards and CPUs.
5. You think Hyper-threading is some kind of magic that increases performance for all applications, even single-threaded applications.
6. You think too many cores is a bad thing. Please explain how the i7 8700k beats the i7 7700k in all applications clock for clock. Yes, even single threaded applications.
7. You think Asus is magic or something.
1. Yes, I do. I even told you earlier in this thread that the reason I replied Nvidia was because the OP said they currently had an Nvidia, so I figured they were the ones confusing CPU and GPU and actually wanted a GPU recommendation.
2. Never, ever said that. I always check to see how much each core can handle before I buy a CPU. I don't waste my time and money making customs, so I buy consumer, and since I use gaming laptops I tend to end up with Quad Cores. But what matters to me is how much each core can handle, and I take that information seriously when choosing a product.
3. It is, if it has two threads. I already told you the guy's video was biased and left out a lot of factors. His system must have been shite if he can't even run GTA V on max settings without a problem on a custom PC if I can on a consumer laptop which is about 4 years old.
4. ................. So what, you think it's better to test games that don't stress the hardware at all?
5. I never said that at all. If anything, you're the one who implied it. I stated multiple times that hyper-threading barely matters for a process that isn't designed around it.
6. Are you suggesting that multiple cores helped increase the performance of a single-thread game? You do realize that a single-thread process only runs on one core, right? What helps single-thread processes is when one has a thread mainly to itself while other processes are handled by other threads. But unless you're running too many processes, you don't have to worry about that.
7. Never said that, either. You said you use ASUS hardware (motherboard), and I said I did, too. We obviously both think ASUS has great hardware. I never said it was magic.
Long thread short, 60 FPS depends on a lot of factors, not just having a certain CPU. If you absolutely have to get a new CPU right now, then you can take the advice of people on this thread. However, I highly suggest not getting a brand new CPU if you don't have to, until AMD actually releases a CPU that is truly immune to both exploits. If they won't fix the CPUs set to launch, you'll have to wait for the next batch.
2. Never, ever said that. I always check to see how much each core can handle before I buy a CPU. I don't waste my time and money making customs, so I buy consumer, and since I use gaming laptops I tend to end up with Quad Cores. But what matters to me is how much each core can handle, and I take that information seriously when choosing a product.
Then please tell me why you think a single-core Hyper-threaded CPU is enough for 2018 gaming. Even your 2014 gaming laptop has a quad core CPU because a lot of games run like crap if they only have two threads to work with.
3. It is, if it has two threads. I already told you the guy's video was biased and left out a lot of factors. His system must have been shite if he can't even run GTA V on max settings without a problem on a custom PC if I can on a consumer laptop which is about 4 years old.
Did you watch the second video I posted? In case you didn't, he ran an i7 6700k at 4.4 GHz with 1 core and 2 threads. It was paired with a GTX 1070 and 16 GB RAM too. It ran like crap, here's the video:
The reason why your laptop can run GTA 5 properly is because your laptop has 4 cores and 8 threads. If you don't believe me, disable 3 cores but keep Hyper-threading and see how the game runs. Overclock it to 6GHz if you want, I guarantee you it still won't beat the stock configuration in GTA 5. You might even notice a difference at 2 cores and 4 threads depending on the rest of your components.
4. ................. So what, you think it's better to test games that don't stress the hardware at all?
You were the one making a big deal about ACU and how it doesn't represent the industry. I never said it did and it's why reviewers benchmark a range of games and they're usually fairly demanding. ACU is demanding and scales well so it's used by DigitalFoundry.
5. I never said that at all. If anything, you're the one who implied it. I stated multiple times that hyper-threading barely matters for a process that isn't designed around it.
You said
Hyperthreading itself - just hyperthreading - increases performance.
Please show where I implied what you think I implied.
6. Are you suggesting that multiple cores helped increase the performance of a single-thread game? You do realize that a single-thread process only runs on one core, right? What helps single-thread processes is when one has a thread mainly to itself while other processes are handled by other threads. But unless you're running too many processes, you don't have to worry about that.
No, but more threads do not hurt performance. From what I can tell, you think a CPU with more threads reduce performance. Assuming equal architecture and GHz, this is false.
7. Never said that, either. You said you use ASUS hardware (motherboard), and I said I did, too. We obviously both think ASUS has great hardware. I never said it was magic.
That was not me. I think Asus hardware is pretty good though.
Long thread short, 60 FPS depends on a lot of factors, not just having a certain CPU. If you absolutely have to get a new CPU right now, then you can take the advice of people on this thread. However, I highly suggest not getting a brand new CPU if you don't have to, until AMD actually releases a CPU that is truly immune to both exploits. If they won't fix the CPUs set to launch, you'll have to wait for the next batch.
I don't want to sound rude, but you game on a laptop... Anyone who knows about computers isn't buying a laptop to game on because they simply can't perform as well as desktops do due to the confined space and thermals..
Long thread short, 60 FPS depends on a lot of factors, not just having a certain CPU. If you absolutely have to get a new CPU right now, then you can take the advice of people on this thread. However, I highly suggest not getting a brand new CPU if you don't have to, until AMD actually releases a CPU that is truly immune to both exploits. If they won't fix the CPUs set to launch, you'll have to wait for the next batch.
Um what? You'll never get a locked 60fps in Vindictus period. Vindictus is poorly optimized and uses about 4% gpu of my 1070. It uses about 30-50% of my FX-8350 OC to 4.6ghz.(depending on what I'm doing what raid map etc or what I have in the background.) The game runs fine but I can't and won't ever get a locked 60fps because it's not possible. Op asked about what AM3+ socketed cpu is worth switching to since he doesn't want Intel or a new mobo. So yes the simple answer is compared to what he has the 8350 is a significant upgrade and will definitely run vindictus smoother. As for the exploit, Amd only suffers from spectre which is basically irrelevant and fixable by software means anyway. Intel suffers from the higher risk Meltdown and as far as I know the next 2 gens of Intel will have this problem and won't be fixed until they come out with new architecture.
Then please tell me why you think a single-core Hyper-threaded CPU is enough for 2018 gaming. Even your 2014 gaming laptop has a quad core CPU because a lot of games run like crap if they only have two threads to work with.
No, but more threads do not hurt performance. From what I can tell, you think a CPU with more threads reduce performance.
I never said that more threads reduce performance; I said that if each thread can't handle a single-threaded process due to the process being larger than the thread, then those many threads are only good for processes that can hyperthread with an absurd number of threads.
If you have a single core where each thread can only handle a value of, let's say, "300" - and you have a quad core where each thread can only handle a value of 300, then OBVIOUSLY the quad core is better if each core has two threads, since 300+300=600 can hold a lot less processes than 300+300+300+300+300+300+300+300=2400. That's basic math. But if a single core thread can handle 1200, and a quad core thread can only handle 300, then both cores handle 2400 - and if both cores can hyperthread, then the performance is the same*.Again, simple math.
What matters is how much each thread can handle. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If I buy a consumer gaming laptop and it happens to have Quad Core, but its competitors have Single Core, yet the TOTAL amount that the Quad Core's threads can handle is more than the competitor's Single Core, then I'll get the Quad Core. But if the Single Core can handle more, I'll get the Single Core. Minus factors considered with other hardware, what matters for a CPU is how much it can hold, and whether or not it can hyperthread in the first place. The number of threads doesn't matter - only the sum total amount that can be handled by all threads combined. And the more free room each thread has, the better the performance - *if you hyperthread thirty-two threads and you're pushing each thread to its limit, you're not going to get a performance increase, because you're stressing the CPU.
Then please tell me why you think a single-core Hyper-threaded CPU is enough for 2018 gaming. Even your 2014 gaming laptop has a quad core CPU because a lot of games run like crap if they only have two threads to work with.
No, but more threads do not hurt performance. From what I can tell, you think a CPU with more threads reduce performance.
I never said that more threads reduce performance; I said that if each thread can't handle a single-threaded process due to the process being larger than the thread, then those many threads are only good for processes that can hyperthread with an absurd number of threads.
If you have a single core where each thread can only handle a value of, let's say, "300" - and you have a quad core where each thread can only handle a value of 300, then OBVIOUSLY the quad core is better if each core has two threads, since 300+300=600 can hold a lot less processes than 300+300+300+300+300+300+300+300=2400. That's basic math. But if a single core thread can handle 1200, and a quad core thread can only handle 300, then both cores handle 2400 - and if both cores can hyperthread, then the performance is the same*.Again, simple math.
What matters is how much each thread can handle. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If I buy a consumer gaming laptop and it happens to have Quad Core, but its competitors have Single Core, yet the TOTAL amount that the Quad Core's threads can handle is more than the competitor's Single Core, then I'll get the Quad Core. But if the Single Core can handle more, I'll get the Single Core. Minus factors considered with other hardware, what matters for a CPU is how much it can hold, and whether or not it can hyperthread in the first place. The number of threads doesn't matter - only the sum total amount that can be handled by all threads combined. And the more free room each thread has, the better the performance - *if you hyperthread thirty-two threads and you're pushing each thread to its limit, you're not going to get a performance increase, because you're stressing the CPU.
That is not really how this works. Multitasking more threads is better because it spreads out the work load over 2 synthetic cores vs the actual core as one. Now threads are in no way better than cores. If the cores are able to be utilized a 8 core will far surpass a 4 core 8 thread processor for example. Physical cores are better than threads. So obviously a Single core processor can never compete with Dual core. It's as Rezi said "simple math" More physical cores = better performance if they are able to be used. I think Rezi is confused on what Threads actually are and how they function. Threads are logical or virtual cores that only work for multitasking because it schedules and prepares data to go into that single core. Like when you swing a bat. You can swing it with 1 hand and hit a baseball, but you're sure as hell going to swing the bat faster and hit the ball harder using 2. (Bat = core and Hands = threads.) Threads are not equal to a real physical core. Just like you can't throw a baseball further than you can hit it with a baseball bat. Hyper threading literally does nothing for games. This is why if a game uses 4 cores total and you're running a dual core cpu with 4 threads it will get smoked by a 4 core processor regardless of threads. It's about what the program can use. Threads can never compete with the true core on single tasks and that's what games are. Games are not easy to design to split the work load up across multiple cores as it is because of the way games work. Games work in a specific order or in response to the gamer, so it makes it much, much harder to split the work load up. More cores and threading only make things faster because it can basically split up problems that don't have to be done in a specific order, for example say you want to find out what 4x5x5x2 is. Well a Single core would first multiply 4x5 and get 20, then it would multiply 20 by 5 and get 100, then multiply that by 2 to finally get 200. A dual core would assign each part into a core. One core would work out 4x5 to get 20 while the other is working on 5x2 to get 10, and then it would multiply 20x10 to get the final answer of 200, much quicker right. Well since it doesn't have to be done in specific order to get that answer of 200 it can be easily split into more cores. Now say you wanted to find a math problem that's double length.(AxBxCxDxExFxGxH) A dual core with 4 threads would work the same way. Splits it up into 2 parts AxBxCxD and ExFxGxH on each core, 1 part per thread AxB on one thread and CxD on the other thread. It then schedules when and feeds it back to the cores. If it were a Quad core it would complete the task faster since it could work on each part as one individual part and then multiply the sum. So for core 1.) AxB core 2.) CxD etc and then it would multiply the sum of each core to get the final answer. Since games have to operate in a specific sequence that can't be broken up like the math problems it makes optimizing for more cores difficult and the use of threading not existent really unless the game can use more cores than what you have but you have enough threads. Which is obviously slower than a true core. Currently most games are not optimized to use anything over 4 cores and/or a couple threads although the future will use more cores (Battlefield 1 for example.) However older games this is not the case and is why Vindictus tends to run better on quad cores with higher clock speeds.
Here is a great quick video on what Hyper-threading is and more or less how I explained it.
my argument is that thirty-two threads is bad for general programs and games that aren't designed around hyperthreading, because there's too many cores/threads.
From what this sentence, you're saying there's a performance hit for having 32 threads. No, the threads will simply idle. No performance hit assuming the same GHz and architecture.
If you have a single core where each thread can only handle a value of, let's say, "300" - and you have a quad core where each thread can only handle a value of 300, then OBVIOUSLY the quad core is better if each core has two threads, since 300+300=600 can hold a lot less processes than 300+300+300+300+300+300+300+300=2400. That's basic math. But if a single core thread can handle 1200, and a quad core thread can only handle 300, then both cores handle 2400 - and if both cores can hyperthread, then the performance is the same*.Again, simple math.
Also, do you know the difference between cores and CPUs?
What matters is how much each thread can handle. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If I buy a consumer gaming laptop and it happens to have Quad Core, but its competitors have Single Core, yet the TOTAL amount that the Quad Core's threads can handle is more than the competitor's Single Core, then I'll get the Quad Core. But if the Single Core can handle more, I'll get the Single Core. Minus factors considered with other hardware, what matters for a CPU is how much it can hold, and whether or not it can hyperthread in the first place. The number of threads doesn't matter - only the sum total amount that can be handled by all threads combined. And the more free room each thread has, the better the performance -
Ok I think I know where the problem is. You think CPUs can't be good at both multithreaded and single-threaded tasks. CPUs can't be the best at both, this is true, however, there are CPUs that are very good at both. Take the i7 8700k for example. It has the fastest single core performance on the market and its multithreaded performance is absolutely monstrous, rivaling Ryzen 7s due to its sheer GHz advantage. Clock for clock, the i7 8700k beats or matches every CPU on the market in pretty much all single-threaded workloads. It really has no compromises as long as you're not doing stuff like weather forecasting.
Let's take a look at another example, AMD's Ryzen 7 and Threadripper CPUs, specifically the Ryzen 7 1800x and the Ryzen TR 1950X.
It is well known the Ryzen TR 1950X is basically two Ryzen 7 1800Xs glued together.
What's the difference? Single-threaded performance is identical and the 1950X has about double the multithreaded performance as expected.
*if you hyperthread thirty-two threads and you're pushing each thread to its limit, you're not going to get a performance increase, because you're stressing the CPU.
What do you mean by stressing the CPU? CPUs are meant to do work. If your workflow is using all 32 threads of your CPU, you should be happy because you're not wasting resources.
I never said any of that. You take everything I say, and somehow read something completely different through some kind of mental filter. You ignore basic math, and link things you don't even read/watch/play. There's obviously no way to get common logic through to you, so I'm done.
I never said any of that. You take everything I say, and somehow read something completely different through some kind of mental filter. You ignore basic math, and link things you don't even read/watch/play. There's obviously no way to get common logic through to you, so I'm done.
Everyone here has been trying to help you understand. You're trying to make your opinions facts... no one can get through to someone like that so I'm glad to hear you're done. Everyone is exhausted trying to get through to you.
Kommentare
Basically the bigger the company the worse the company is when it comes to you the consumer and employees. I know this first hand I used to work for a very large company and let me tell you they get away with a lot of things you couldn't imagine.. now I'm not saying smaller companies don't do this, but they usually don't have the luxury because if they get caught they could go under easily. To make matters worse Intel's CEO will likely be investigated for the timing of selling off his stock.. I've owned both Intel and Amd, but after this fiasco I'll be passing on Intel at least for awhile. To tell you the truth performance in the real world I don't really see a noticeable difference in games between the two cpus, but anything else I do that isn't games the Amd ryzen system is noticeably faster for less money. Both cpus are great Amd just has the best performance for the money and are more secure at this time.
Besides having a asus motherboard this is my exact setup and yes it's fine I play many new games at basically maxed out settings at 1080p. Witcher 3, vindictus it all runs great. Vindictus you'll never see a locked 60fps but it handles it just fine.
As for the question about the AM3+ processor. I recommend all of the FX-8xxx series. My brother has an FX-8120 that runs Division and other games just fine. But the FX-8350 is definitely better. Octa-Core will be an overkill but not useless for modern game engines that do thread pooling and intense physics calculations. However you will never get constant 60 fps in Vindi because the game is badly optimized.
Besides having a asus motherboard this is my exact setup and yes it's fine I play many new games at basically maxed out settings at 1080p. Witcher 3, vindictus it all runs great. Vindictus you'll never see a locked 60fps but it handles it just fine.
Here is some good information regarding the meltdown design flaw software fix.
They said in the articles that they already knew about the source of the problem - in fact, the entire industry knew about it, and the entire industry felt it was worth the risk because they tested it over and over and over again and never found an exploit, and the source drastically increased CPU performance. So they felt it was worth the risk - not just Intel, but everyone. The tech experts didn't alert AMD/Intel/etc that the source existed, but rather that they had finally found an exploit. No one knew about the exploit itself until now.
I'm a woman. And FYI, I also use Asus. I would never buy the piece of **** hardware that you listed. You really have the propensity to pull **** out of your *** and come up with arguments based on material that you don't even read/watch/play.
Also, I lock at 60 FPS and I don't even have a custom, and I use Intel/Nvidia. So if we both have ASUS hardware, why do you think it is that you can't lock on 60 FPS in a game this basic?
You're just so close-minded you don't want to think your precious AMD has faults. But that's okay, it's your loss.
What has Asus got to do with this?
For a start, Anuran has an i7 8700k at 5.1GHz and they "still have to tune down some of the ingame video setting to maintain 60fps despite having a monster overclock." They have a GTX 1070 too.
I'm trying to remain very unbiased here. I really don't care what company I buy from. If AMD makes good products, I buy them. If Intel makes good products, I buy them. I jump ship all the time. I'm a consumer, I buy what's good for me. You're just grasping at splinters, trying to make AMD look bad because from what I can tell, you're just mad AMD isn't hit as hard as Intel.
From 2011 to early 2017, 90% of the computers I built for my friends had Intel CPUs because AMD's CPUs were crap. When Ryzen launched the opposite happened because Ryzen CPUs were superior. Now CPUs from both companies are mostly equal so it's a toss up. I do this because I want the best products for my friends. How can I justify an i5 7600k purchase when a Ryzen 5 1600 offers more performance for less money? Are you saying all those reviewers that were recommending the AMD CPU over the Intel counterpart were wrong?
At this point I'm convinced you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
1. You don't know the difference between a CPU and GPU, as OP asked for a CPU recommendation and you suggested Nvidia.
2. Let's assume you do know the difference between a CPU and GPU. You think the only requirement for a good gaming computer is a strong GPU.
3. You think a single-core Hyper-threaded CPU is enough for 2018 games even if the computer has the fastest GPU and RAM on the market.
4. You think benchmarking demanding games is the wrong way to test graphics cards and CPUs.
5. You think Hyper-threading is some kind of magic that increases performance for all applications, even single-threaded applications.
6. You think too many cores is a bad thing. Please explain how the i7 8700k beats the i7 7700k in all applications clock for clock. Yes, even single threaded applications.
7. You think Asus is magic or something.
If this was a tech forum, you'd been banned after your second comment for being an idiot.
1. Yes, I do. I even told you earlier in this thread that the reason I replied Nvidia was because the OP said they currently had an Nvidia, so I figured they were the ones confusing CPU and GPU and actually wanted a GPU recommendation.
2. Never, ever said that. I always check to see how much each core can handle before I buy a CPU. I don't waste my time and money making customs, so I buy consumer, and since I use gaming laptops I tend to end up with Quad Cores. But what matters to me is how much each core can handle, and I take that information seriously when choosing a product.
3. It is, if it has two threads. I already told you the guy's video was biased and left out a lot of factors. His system must have been shite if he can't even run GTA V on max settings without a problem on a custom PC if I can on a consumer laptop which is about 4 years old.
4. ................. So what, you think it's better to test games that don't stress the hardware at all?
5. I never said that at all. If anything, you're the one who implied it. I stated multiple times that hyper-threading barely matters for a process that isn't designed around it.
6. Are you suggesting that multiple cores helped increase the performance of a single-thread game? You do realize that a single-thread process only runs on one core, right? What helps single-thread processes is when one has a thread mainly to itself while other processes are handled by other threads. But unless you're running too many processes, you don't have to worry about that.
7. Never said that, either. You said you use ASUS hardware (motherboard), and I said I did, too. We obviously both think ASUS has great hardware. I never said it was magic.
Long thread short, 60 FPS depends on a lot of factors, not just having a certain CPU. If you absolutely have to get a new CPU right now, then you can take the advice of people on this thread. However, I highly suggest not getting a brand new CPU if you don't have to, until AMD actually releases a CPU that is truly immune to both exploits. If they won't fix the CPUs set to launch, you'll have to wait for the next batch.
Then please tell me why you think a single-core Hyper-threaded CPU is enough for 2018 gaming. Even your 2014 gaming laptop has a quad core CPU because a lot of games run like crap if they only have two threads to work with.
Did you watch the second video I posted? In case you didn't, he ran an i7 6700k at 4.4 GHz with 1 core and 2 threads. It was paired with a GTX 1070 and 16 GB RAM too. It ran like crap, here's the video:
The reason why your laptop can run GTA 5 properly is because your laptop has 4 cores and 8 threads. If you don't believe me, disable 3 cores but keep Hyper-threading and see how the game runs. Overclock it to 6GHz if you want, I guarantee you it still won't beat the stock configuration in GTA 5. You might even notice a difference at 2 cores and 4 threads depending on the rest of your components.
You were the one making a big deal about ACU and how it doesn't represent the industry. I never said it did and it's why reviewers benchmark a range of games and they're usually fairly demanding. ACU is demanding and scales well so it's used by DigitalFoundry.
You said
Please show where I implied what you think I implied.
No, but more threads do not hurt performance. From what I can tell, you think a CPU with more threads reduce performance. Assuming equal architecture and GHz, this is false.
That was not me. I think Asus hardware is pretty good though.
I don't want to sound rude, but you game on a laptop... Anyone who knows about computers isn't buying a laptop to game on because they simply can't perform as well as desktops do due to the confined space and thermals..
Um what? You'll never get a locked 60fps in Vindictus period. Vindictus is poorly optimized and uses about 4% gpu of my 1070. It uses about 30-50% of my FX-8350 OC to 4.6ghz.(depending on what I'm doing what raid map etc or what I have in the background.) The game runs fine but I can't and won't ever get a locked 60fps because it's not possible. Op asked about what AM3+ socketed cpu is worth switching to since he doesn't want Intel or a new mobo. So yes the simple answer is compared to what he has the 8350 is a significant upgrade and will definitely run vindictus smoother. As for the exploit, Amd only suffers from spectre which is basically irrelevant and fixable by software means anyway. Intel suffers from the higher risk Meltdown and as far as I know the next 2 gens of Intel will have this problem and won't be fixed until they come out with new architecture.
I never said that more threads reduce performance; I said that if each thread can't handle a single-threaded process due to the process being larger than the thread, then those many threads are only good for processes that can hyperthread with an absurd number of threads.
If you have a single core where each thread can only handle a value of, let's say, "300" - and you have a quad core where each thread can only handle a value of 300, then OBVIOUSLY the quad core is better if each core has two threads, since 300+300=600 can hold a lot less processes than 300+300+300+300+300+300+300+300=2400. That's basic math. But if a single core thread can handle 1200, and a quad core thread can only handle 300, then both cores handle 2400 - and if both cores can hyperthread, then the performance is the same*.Again, simple math.
What matters is how much each thread can handle. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If I buy a consumer gaming laptop and it happens to have Quad Core, but its competitors have Single Core, yet the TOTAL amount that the Quad Core's threads can handle is more than the competitor's Single Core, then I'll get the Quad Core. But if the Single Core can handle more, I'll get the Single Core. Minus factors considered with other hardware, what matters for a CPU is how much it can hold, and whether or not it can hyperthread in the first place. The number of threads doesn't matter - only the sum total amount that can be handled by all threads combined. And the more free room each thread has, the better the performance - *if you hyperthread thirty-two threads and you're pushing each thread to its limit, you're not going to get a performance increase, because you're stressing the CPU.
That is not really how this works. Multitasking more threads is better because it spreads out the work load over 2 synthetic cores vs the actual core as one. Now threads are in no way better than cores. If the cores are able to be utilized a 8 core will far surpass a 4 core 8 thread processor for example. Physical cores are better than threads. So obviously a Single core processor can never compete with Dual core. It's as Rezi said "simple math" More physical cores = better performance if they are able to be used. I think Rezi is confused on what Threads actually are and how they function. Threads are logical or virtual cores that only work for multitasking because it schedules and prepares data to go into that single core. Like when you swing a bat. You can swing it with 1 hand and hit a baseball, but you're sure as hell going to swing the bat faster and hit the ball harder using 2. (Bat = core and Hands = threads.) Threads are not equal to a real physical core. Just like you can't throw a baseball further than you can hit it with a baseball bat. Hyper threading literally does nothing for games. This is why if a game uses 4 cores total and you're running a dual core cpu with 4 threads it will get smoked by a 4 core processor regardless of threads. It's about what the program can use. Threads can never compete with the true core on single tasks and that's what games are. Games are not easy to design to split the work load up across multiple cores as it is because of the way games work. Games work in a specific order or in response to the gamer, so it makes it much, much harder to split the work load up. More cores and threading only make things faster because it can basically split up problems that don't have to be done in a specific order, for example say you want to find out what 4x5x5x2 is. Well a Single core would first multiply 4x5 and get 20, then it would multiply 20 by 5 and get 100, then multiply that by 2 to finally get 200. A dual core would assign each part into a core. One core would work out 4x5 to get 20 while the other is working on 5x2 to get 10, and then it would multiply 20x10 to get the final answer of 200, much quicker right. Well since it doesn't have to be done in specific order to get that answer of 200 it can be easily split into more cores. Now say you wanted to find a math problem that's double length.(AxBxCxDxExFxGxH) A dual core with 4 threads would work the same way. Splits it up into 2 parts AxBxCxD and ExFxGxH on each core, 1 part per thread AxB on one thread and CxD on the other thread. It then schedules when and feeds it back to the cores. If it were a Quad core it would complete the task faster since it could work on each part as one individual part and then multiply the sum. So for core 1.) AxB core 2.) CxD etc and then it would multiply the sum of each core to get the final answer. Since games have to operate in a specific sequence that can't be broken up like the math problems it makes optimizing for more cores difficult and the use of threading not existent really unless the game can use more cores than what you have but you have enough threads. Which is obviously slower than a true core. Currently most games are not optimized to use anything over 4 cores and/or a couple threads although the future will use more cores (Battlefield 1 for example.) However older games this is not the case and is why Vindictus tends to run better on quad cores with higher clock speeds.
Here is a great quick video on what Hyper-threading is and more or less how I explained it.
From what this sentence, you're saying there's a performance hit for having 32 threads. No, the threads will simply idle. No performance hit assuming the same GHz and architecture.
Once again, this is completely wrong. Cores and threads do not scale linearly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
Also, do you know the difference between cores and CPUs?
Ok I think I know where the problem is. You think CPUs can't be good at both multithreaded and single-threaded tasks. CPUs can't be the best at both, this is true, however, there are CPUs that are very good at both. Take the i7 8700k for example. It has the fastest single core performance on the market and its multithreaded performance is absolutely monstrous, rivaling Ryzen 7s due to its sheer GHz advantage. Clock for clock, the i7 8700k beats or matches every CPU on the market in pretty much all single-threaded workloads. It really has no compromises as long as you're not doing stuff like weather forecasting.
Let's take a look at another example, AMD's Ryzen 7 and Threadripper CPUs, specifically the Ryzen 7 1800x and the Ryzen TR 1950X.
It is well known the Ryzen TR 1950X is basically two Ryzen 7 1800Xs glued together.
What's the difference? Single-threaded performance is identical and the 1950X has about double the multithreaded performance as expected.
What do you mean by stressing the CPU? CPUs are meant to do work. If your workflow is using all 32 threads of your CPU, you should be happy because you're not wasting resources.
E: Fixed some typos.
Everyone here has been trying to help you understand. You're trying to make your opinions facts... no one can get through to someone like that so I'm glad to hear you're done. Everyone is exhausted trying to get through to you.