Required processor power for current gaming experiences is high.
Required processor power for current gaming experiences is high.
I explored recent discussions on forums about whether quad-core processors are suitable for gaming today. I performed a casual search for titles launched in 2020 and compiled a list below. For each, I checked the suggested minimum and recommended CPUs. If you think I overlooked a major title that should be included, please let me know. Minimum Recommended Recommended Intel AMD Intel AMD Cyberpunk 2077 i5-3570k FX-8310 i7-4790 R3 3200G Microsoft Flight Simulator i5-4460 R3 1200 i5-8400 R5 1500X Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War i3-4340 FX-6300 i5-2500k R5 1600X Assassin's Creed Valhalla i5-4460 R3 1200 i7-4790 R5 1600 Watch Dogs: Legion i5-4460 R5 1400 i7-4790 R5 1600 DOOM Eternal [email protected] [email protected] i7-6700k R7 1800X On the Intel side, it’s clear that a quad-core CPU with no hyper-threading is the absolute baseline. For CoD still, dual-core remains an option. AMD presents a more varied picture. We have several FX series chips, each with noticeably lower efficiency per core, ranging from 4c4t to 4c8t. The recommended lineup tends to be higher-end, like the 6c6t for Intel and 8c16t for AMD. Generally, a 6c6t CPU should outperform a 4c8t under similar conditions. On AMD, we see a shift from FX to Ryzen across the board. Thread count matters too—Cyberpunk leans toward a less aggressive thread design compared to others, which may reflect a preference for speed over sheer quantity. In short, modern demanding titles can run on quad cores, though at a minimal level. At four cores, switching to eight threads often bridges the gap to recommended performance and provides more headroom. The challenge is whether developers will gradually raise these thresholds, and by how much. From a raw throughput standpoint, the jump from 4c4t to 4c8t is modest—often just a few percent. If a shift occurs, it might jump further, perhaps toward 6c12t or higher. Personally, my current systems (both 6c12t) are still adequate for gaming, though I’m always looking for ways to improve. The bigger question is: if graphics aren’t the bottleneck, what performance could these CPUs deliver? That’s something I’d need to investigate further.
This discussion is really long—what a thought! It makes me wonder why CPUs with the same specs don’t always deliver the same performance. Could it be age, or maybe other parts are affecting speed? The increase in graphics and complex engines raises questions for budget players: if a game runs smoothly on a powerful setup, fewer people would want to buy it because they can’t handle it. Developers might not care, but what if they had to change the engine or graphics? It’s a tricky balance—making a great game while keeping it accessible is a real challenge.
a 4C 8T similar to the 7700k paired with something like a 2080ti (or 3060 ti if it really exists) will be at most 10 fps slower in 1080p. The greater the GPU focus, the smaller the impact of the CPU as long as it's reasonably recent. There are exceptions like RDR2 where you can notice this gap. Overall, CPUs are becoming less noticeable in gaming. It's clear that cores and threads significantly affect other applications, but in games the difference is minimal nowadays. It would be fascinating to observe how this evolves, yet 6C is now as affordable as it was for 4C. If the minimum cost requirements rise, it won't be a major issue for gamers wanting to play the latest titles. Just consider this—i5 9400f is a 6C (yes, only 6T, but it still delivers amazing performance). The key isn't that the i5 9400f is powerful, but that in my country you can buy it for 100 euros. Seeing people on a budget get this CPU at such a price is really great. I used to pay 200 euros for an i5 6500, showing how much prices have dropped.
core values and frequency aren't everything; IPC (instructions per clock) is also important, indicating how many tasks the CPU can complete each clock cycle. Most CPUs have seen better IPC over the past decade than higher clock speeds.
This only touches the beginning of the subject. If I were a professional reporter I could explore much further than this. A mix of both. In general, the latest generation CPUs can handle more tasks per clock cycle. Updates from the platform also bring additional enhancements. For instance, the older CPUs mentioned earlier are from the DDR3 era, usually reaching about 1600 MHz in mainstream systems (up to 2400 at very high-end). Switching to the DDR4 era increased the baseline speed to 2133 MHz, with 3000 MHz common even on higher-end models early on, and now we see around 3600 MHz. The graphics processor handles the workload, but ultimately it's the game developers who decide how much resources they need. They can adjust as much as they wish, often changing settings. This explains why some applications run smoothly on lower hardware while top-tier systems perform better. The real issue is determining where the threshold should be. That’s the main point being discussed here.
Yes, it's possible for a game to need high performance like a GTX 1080 even if it runs well on a less powerful GPU such as the Intel HD Graphics 1000.
The question is about performance optimization and system scaling. It explores whether a game performs well on Intel iGPU and can be improved by increasing its resolution to 1080p. The response confirms it is possible and emphasizes that balance between components changes with settings and games. The discussion also touches on the decline of quad-core processors in gaming hardware over time, noting past popularity without current dominance.
Ah yes the old days. I had pc with 2c2t cpu and I was pretty fine running 1080p, reaching 60fps was easy. Than one day I decided to upgrade, because I wanted to play a game and the game literally can't run on dual core. (*cough* R6 Siege *cough*) I decided to go AMD because Ryzen has risen and the prices have fallen (or were low already). Oh the point of story? I bought 4c4t and the price was slightly cheaper than the previous cpu. (bought it on discount, but still). "I bought roughtly 2x faster (if not more) CPU for similar price" Makes you think that we "could" "one day" reach a point where we could get these (low end) things for free or for a price of as cheap as grocery shopping...