Upcoming processors featuring over eight cores on a single ring or chip from Intel or AMD are on the horizon.
Upcoming processors featuring over eight cores on a single ring or chip from Intel or AMD are on the horizon.
It appears that 8 cores might be sufficient for gaming, though it comes with certain limitations. AMD’s Zen 5 still supports up to 16 cores, which could mean two 8-core CCDs. However, this setup introduces latency issues and negatively impacts performance during gaming. Intel is capping itself at 8 P-cores and relying heavily on e-cores, which often leads to poor gaming results. Their Xeon X24000 and X3400 chips use Golden Cove cores, but their IPC and latency are not as strong as desktop alternatives, making them less ideal for high-performance gaming.
The W790 platform is relatively unknown and requires ECC memory, adding complexity that may not benefit gaming much. Compared to older generations like HEDT Haswell and Broadwell E, which offered more cores without ECC requirements, the current offerings seem less optimal. The mesh architecture also introduces latency problems, especially when compared to a traditional ring design.
Beyond cost, the platform’s limited recognition and the need for specialized components could be drawbacks. While some believe 8 cores are adequate—especially with modern GPUs like the RTX 4090—the reality is that gaming demands more than just a modest core count. Many still recommend going for more cores to ensure smooth performance.
The situation becomes even trickier when considering future upgrades. High-end builds often require more than 8 cores, and even then, the trade-offs in latency and power consumption remain significant. While opinions vary, the consensus leans toward prioritizing strong core counts over sheer quantity for gaming purposes.
Uncertain if more than eight processing units on a die justifies the extra cost from makers; only certain games benefit, without requiring many high-speed threads. Performance drops from CCD communication in parallel tasks aren't major. It also complicates chip fabrication (smaller silicon parts help) and cooling challenges—Intel already handles up to 400W on an eight-core setup.
There were whispers about LGA 1700 launching another iteration (notably Barlett Lake) featuring up to 12 cores, but it's uncertain if this will happen. With the 7800X3D leading the scene and consoles offering just 8 cores, I strongly believe a 12-16 core single chip won't appear anytime soon.
These would be categorized as high-performance gaming titles. Keeping more than eight cores on a single ring or CCD offers a seamless experience without latency issues, especially with dual CCDs. A system with over eight P cores on a single ring or CCD handles both scenarios efficiently, either automatically or through predefined settings. Games that rely on fewer than eight cores can be managed manually by locking them to specific resources, while those that scale well don’t need such restrictions. Using Process Lasso or similar tools is unnecessary for top-tier performance, as long as the setup supports it without CPU affinity constraints.
I've heard about the Bartlett Lake rumor and I'm hoping there are 12 P core variants available on a ring bus, not just Xeon W5-2455X or 3425 mesh ports in an LGA 1700 chip if that's accurate. It would be simple for Intel to modify the existing Xeon dies, reducing them to fit into LGA 1700 and inserting W5 2455X or W5 3425 which are mesh or tile-based, then market them as 12 P core units. That wouldn't appeal to gamers or me. It must be the Raptor Cove ring bus with e-cores removed and replaced by four additional P cores for me to be excited about.
These: Those are all massive, demanding single-player titles. They need to use multiple cores to work, and don't suffer any negative consequence from higher latencies. There is no competitive edge to gain or lose via a few ms or ns of latency difference. The games where it matters aren't using 8 or more cores, heck I can't think of a fast-paced e-sports title that isn't well known for being single-threaded. Maybe league? I can't remember if it scales with a few cores or no. Certainly nothing that scales noticeably past 8. Lots of old titles are also single-threaded because it's simpler. And they aren't so demanding that they need to run a bunch of stuff in parallel to be playable. See the older Bethesda games. OS/game developers can do that themselves. As big/little chips or multiple CCDs have become standard we've seen both improve their handling of CPU core usage, and they will continue to do so. Ball is already rolling, stopping it would sacrifice a lot for... what gain? Again, games that will suffer from higher latencies aren't using more than 8 cores to begin with. That type of game usually only cares about single-core performance, which is decided (mostly) by IPC x Clock. Up the cores per ring/CCD -> that brings density up -> chips get hotter -> scale back voltage/current to bring temps down -> chip cannot clock as high -> lower single-core performance -> lower performance in those games.
The strange thing is I have tested some of those games on an 8 core 7800X3D and CPU usage never exceeded much more than 60 to 70 percent even in most CPU intensive parts of those games except in Shader compilation LOU of course takes 100% CPU but that is temporary until you start playing. Where is this Bencher guy getting all these numbers from? And Hardware Unboxed seems to think there is practically no benefit in any games of more than 6 cores let alone 8. Why are results all over the place and what is the real truth? I have heard rumors that some games like Starfield show lots of CPU usage and taxing way more than 8 cores, but in reality it is just doing it to be wasteful and it has no need or benefit to do so but rather to make people think all those extra e-cores or more than 8 AMD cores are benefitting??? That thread above seems to argue on that and while I tested LOU Part 1 and Cyber Punk have not ever played nor tested Starfield nor Spiderman Remastered/Miles Morales? Yes they can but they often do not. Games are often buggy. If there was a more than 8 core on single ring/CCD on single arch covers all cases as no games are going top benefit form 16 cores. Very few even benefit from more than 8, but some do maybe though evidence is contradictory?