Sure, newer 4-core CPUs are definitely sufficient for gaming.
Sure, newer 4-core CPUs are definitely sufficient for gaming.
I used GTX 980 ti, GTX 1080 and GTX 1080 ti. I also had a GTX 1080 tis in SLI with the i9 9900k, which I’m still using now. I only removed it when it reached the RTX 2080 ti. For games that didn’t work well with SLI, I switched them off. My video issues seem linked to CPUs with more cache. How many 4-core processors have high cache counts? The i7 7700k had 8MBs too, while the Ryzen models had less. Why weren’t the Ryzen 4 cores highlighted? Moving from an i7 6700k to an i7 8700k didn’t noticeably improve performance at 1440p and 4K—it mainly affected immersion. If the i7 6700k had a big cache, it might have been better, but tests showed Windows and background apps were the main culprits. My take has been more like the Tech Deals videos regarding cores. He claims the 5900X is perfect. I gave the video a thumbs up because I really liked my i9 10900k, and after passing it on to my son for video work, I missed it so much that I built another one with an i9 10900f.
I plan to upgrade to an i5-11600k or kf eventually so the system can handle 4K at 60Hz. The 11th generation is also a viable choice, possibly offering a solid performance lift. It might provide just the boost needed. I already have the board ready. The CPU is listed on the support list in BIOS F20 on my Gigabyte B460M DSH3 V2 motherboard. I’m aiming for an i5-11600K or K with a robust heatsink. My BIOS F21 supports a wide range of processors. Running at 3.9 to 4.9 GHz on an i5-11600k or kf, I expect around 4.7GHz. The chipset has 6 cores and 12 threads, supporting up to 2993 and 3200 MHz RAM. I’ll check if the motherboard supports speeds up to 2666 MHz. Of course, the i5-11600K will have a much higher TDP of 125 watts compared to the standard i5-11600’s 65 watts.
Quad processors with hyperthreading appear sufficient for gaming. My I3-10100F paired with a GPU and a GTX 1660 works fine at 16GB RAM and 2666MHz. It handles it well. Newer titles may be challenging, but it should run smoothly in medium settings.
The more you increase your resolution, the less focus you should place on the CPU. You likely won’t see a noticeable difference between 10100f and 11600K in this scenario. If your CPU is constrained, you can generally stick to higher settings without significant performance loss. The KF is identical to the K but includes built-in graphics. Without a dedicated GPU, this can offer substantial benefit, though with your 1660 it’s probably unnecessary—choose the more affordable option.
But not much... My genuine response is yes, four cores are sufficient, though generally more cores are preferable (especially at comparable speeds) as they also offer better future readiness. Many people now claim six cores are enough, but I think that's too limited. For multitasking, having more cores definitely helps—not just in the long term but right away. In short, four cores work, with some exceptions, but it's not ideal. I’d recommend a modern processor with at least six cores and twelve threads.
I believe this setup isn't tailored for maximum core utilization. Here are my findings with an i9-10900K and an i7-8086K running at 5GHz all cores. The game doesn't rely on the recommended Intel cores to power the GPU. Cores 1 and 2 perform best, reaching around 5.3GHz. AC:Valhalla utilizes core 6 (thread 11) which maintains a steady 4.9GHz whenever the game starts.