Resolved query.
Resolved query.
This isn’t a disruptive inquiry, so please avoid provocative answers. I’m interested in understanding why console manufacturers like Sony invest heavily in eight-core processors when games are increasingly being built for lower core counts or single-core performance. The PlayStation 4 Pro uses an eight-core processor (though it's relatively weak), and the PlayStation 5 is specified with a Zen 2 eight-core processor, which is believed to resemble a Ryzen 7 3700x – I’m unsure how they plan to create a budget-friendly console using this technology.
I also suspect Microsoft dedicates significant resources to eight-core CPUs. Considering this substantial investment, wouldn't an eight-core CPU naturally be the most sensible choice for a future-proof processor?
While PCs aren't consoles, and some might suggest simply purchasing a gaming system, I’m drawing these comparisons because I believe developers will need to account for them when designing games moving forward. I wanted to pose this question here, hoping to connect with individuals who have observed industry trends over time.
I completely concur.
The importance of individual thread speed remains significant; for instance, if one considers a comparison between a 9600K and a 3600X, the 9600K will consistently demonstrate a marginal advantage due to its superior single-core capabilities. Nevertheless, when evaluating cost-effectiveness, the situation shifts dramatically, as the 3600X can…
What source did you use for this data? Frequently, modern developers are attempting to optimize the use of multiple processor cores. However, it’s incredibly challenging because each CPU varies significantly, and so do every game—requiring them to leverage several cores in diverse methods and at varied moments.
I'm typically just going from my understanding of the Intel > AMD argument where single core or quad core performance are better than multi-core for gaming. This is an argument I seen thrown around a lot online by users and "professionals" alike. (I air-quoted professionals because I'm sure what counts as professional online can be easily put up for debate).
My view is single core is still as important, you are not going to drive high FPS without strong single core performance. If single core performance was less important then old CPU’s like the FX8350 would still be relevant but reality is they can struggle to hold a minimum of 30fps in modern AAA games.
It is more the importance of more cores has increased but it has not offset the importance of single core performance.
I completely concur with this assessment.
The importance of individual-core speed remains significant; for example, when evaluating a 9600K against a 3600X, the 9600K will typically provide a slight advantage due to its strong single-core capabilities. However, considering value, things change considerably – often, the 3600X can be found at a comparable or even lower cost. Yet, it delivers substantially better multi-core performance and marginally improved gaming results. Consequently, for the same budget, you receive roughly equivalent gaming experiences while experiencing a notable increase in productivity tasks.
This trend applies broadly across Intel versus AMD systems.
AMD is currently dominating the value proposition, and I find this highly positive as it’s prompting Intel to accelerate its development (even if they maintain dominance in standard CPU sales). Developers continue to strive for enhanced multi-core utilization, but this remains a challenging endeavor.
This dynamic also explains the frequent comparisons between the 3600X and the 2700X – primarily because third-generation Ryzen has dramatically reduced the value of second-generation processors. Nevertheless, the 3600X still holds an edge in single-core performance for gaming purposes. However, when undertaking any kind of multitasking or professional work, you can often acquire the 2700X at a similarly affordable price.
Pay close attention to the age of these assertions. Parallel processing has dramatically increased in significance over the past three years.
I recently watched a JayzTwoCents and Gamers Nexus collaboration video, published about a month ago, which continues to imply (if my interpretation is correct) that this viewpoint remains pertinent now. Once more, this could potentially stem from their own preconceptions, though I wanted to acknowledge that possibility.
Over the past ten years, it appears that almost exclusively small, independent developers create games intended for single-processor systems. Presently, you rarely find new computers or mobile devices offering only a single processor; most utilize multiple cores. The gaming industry shifted its emphasis to multi-core game development roughly a decade ago.
However, the number of cores utilized in development varies considerably. Dual-core and quad-core designs have been prevalent for quite some time. I can’t recall a recent major release that didn't include support for multiple cores – perhaps Fallout 3, though this was often an optional setting introduced in 2008.
When comparing single-core versus multi-core performance, single-core speed remains prioritized due to the continued existence of software reliant on a single processor. Moreover, games frequently don’t fully leverage all available cores. A game might be optimized for four cores while a system possesses eight with Hyper-Threading; only four cores will actively run the game, and the remaining ones could potentially assist with background operations without directly impacting gameplay.
The additional processing power becomes particularly valuable when a game is specifically designed to utilize all eight cores, allowing an 8-core processor—even one with less robust single-core performance—to outperform a 6-core processor if the latter’s extra cores are not fully utilized. This isn't always guaranteed, though.
Do you genuinely believe they hadn't indicated that individual core speed is becoming a less significant distinction between current AMD and Intel processors, given that both now possess robust single-core capabilities? Furthermore, what metric are you utilizing when assessing performance? I’ve observed evaluations where the i5 9600k demonstrates greater average frame rates compared to a comparable Ryzen processor; however, the Ryzen with an increased number of threads achieves higher minimum frame rates, which could be argued to provide a more favorable gaming experience.