Do CPU Cores Affect Gaming Performance
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Do more CPU cores make a difference in gaming? I found a cool way to test this by disabling cores in Windows to see if it made a difference. My results are not what I expected.
Sponsored links
VIP-SCDKey.com
25% off discount code: CyberCPU
▬ Windows 10 Pro (16USD): biitt.ly/vbLzK
▬ Windows 11 Pro(23USD):biitt.ly/FAS2Z
▬ Windows 10 Home (15USD): biitt.ly/zKc1C
▬ Office 2019 Pro (49USD):biitt.ly/XL8Rj
▬ Office 2021 Pro (57USD): biitt.ly/2wSZd
Please Like this video and Subscribe to my channel
www.youtube.co...
My shirt from the video
www.cybercpute...
#Gaming #CPU #Tech
I can explain this...
There's several factors in play here: Sometimes thermals can play a part, but frequency is more importantly determined by active cores on modern CPUs... if you force park 2 cores, the CPU frequency lookup will just boost higher (Intel is easier to demonstrate because it's definitively set, but AMD works pretty much the same but is more floating based on thermals too, however in gaming thermals are seldom the issue; for example, i7 12700k, 1 core 5.1ghz, 2 core 5ghz, 3&4 cores 4.9ghz, 5&6 cores 4.8ghz, 7&8 cores 4.7ghz (or something like that))... when playing games, even if they only use 4 cores max in the actual game engine, Windows will run background tasks in one or two extra cores so they never actually park, so the CPU downclocked slightly for those extra cores running background tasks... when you limit the number of cores in windows, then those tasks are moved to logical threads of your active cores, and the extra cores are actually parked, therefore the CPU will boost slightly higher... this frequency boost largely accounts for your improved average FPS. The fact that the background threads have now been moved to hyperthreading/SMT logical cores also accounts for the typical slight REDUCTION in 1% lows/frametiming, because the game threads can now occasionally end up waiting on a background task to complete on the logical core corresponding to that game thread's physical core.
Many games still only use 4 cores, max, so for those, 4 active cores is the sweet spot, extra cores causing a CPU downclock, and fewer cores hindering the game engine. Further to this, game engines which are correctly programmed will use physical cores first, then use logical cores afterwards if they can utilise more... for example if a game CAN use 8 cores, but you have a 6 core CPU with HT/T, then it will use 6 physical cores and 2 logical cores... poorly optimised game engines can get this wrong, famously for example, GTA5 on release was incorrectly optimised and would just use the next available thread, so turning off hyperthreading in bios could give you a good 30-50% improvement in framerate... this has of course been patched now, but it was a relevant tweak on release.
As I mentioned earlier, most games still use 4 cores or less, with only a few exceptions off the top of my head, notably CP2077 with the newest patch (but not the earlier version, and this is why you're getting better in game performance now, compated to previously), and also RDR and RDR2 can use 8 cores plus (although there are severely diminishing returns above 8 cores)...
What is interesting is that even those games that do use 8 cores or more, do all have very diminished returns above 8 used corrs/threads. That is why I actually semi-cripple my 8p-core CPU for daily use/gaming, by turning off hyperthreading in BIOS but also overclocking it (I do have a second profile saved in BIOS with HT enabled, for when I want to do some workstation workloads)... if im playing a 1-4 core game, I'm definitely only using physical cores, and without the strain of running logical cores, the power consumption and temperature are reduced, which means I can run a higher overclock on more cores, which means that for 4 core or less games, its not even downclocking... for 8 core plus games, with my overclock it is running 4.9ghz, which is about a 4% increase over stock, and offsets any advantage that enabling HT but reducing clocks might give.
PS. As well as being overclocked, it's also slightly undervolted, and in this configuration it uses about 3W at idle, 5W watching UA-cam, and 145W under full load in R23 (compared with 7W, 15W and 190W at stock)... as a result, it runs exceptionally quiet as I have targeted fan speed for 67C operation (29C at idle)
A bit long winded for a educated but stab in the dark explanation. He needs to redo the testing controlling for some variables.
So he needs to rerun the test
- matching frequencies
- turn off HT in bios and test 8 core 6 core 4 core and 2 core. HT is out of the picture then
Windows will always run background tasks no matter what. But you think the core parking app is not really disabling 2 cores? Maybe true, seems if it turns of 2 cores the HT twins would be off too (so 2 real cores + 2 HT cores should be off) are you assuming they won't or do you know for sure on both AMD and Intel cpus?
@@Physics072 @Physics072 yeah it did get a bit long winded 😅... But having re read it myself, I'm struggling to make it more succinct.
I'm not referring to the core parking app... I assumed that was working correctly and disabling the cores... I was talking about how windows uses the physical and logical cores that are available, after any cores have been disabled.
Yes. It would help to run the test with and without a fixed the all core, and run the test with and without HT enabled... That would allow him/us/you to see the effects that I previously verbosely tried to explain.
@@aaronjones4529 You can leave it as is but maybe summarize your main points at the end, put it in a nutshell as the saying goes. Do you let the cpu ramp up and down via speedstep or do you turn off HT and lock all the cores at one fixed speed?
@@Physics072 it's not my video... I was responding to the unexpected result in the video...
It's a bit of a hot take, there's evidence to support but also refute my personal decision... I have 12700k, so I have 8 p cores with ht ability, and 4 e cores... I personally leave the e cores enabled, but disable ht... I figured 8 cores is enough for gaming, with very few games that actually scale in performance with more available threads... I run the cpu undervolted but also overclocked to 5.0ghz on upto 4 p cores, and 4.9ghz on 5 to 8 p cores. My cache and e cores are at stock speed. I was specifically targeting 150w max power consumption whilst getting the highest gaming performance for the least power consumption too...
(I could overclock to 5.1ghz all core, but the framerate gains were negligible and I also had to run the cooling fans faster and loud. I want my system silent. Gaming power comes out at between 40W and 60W max depending on the game... I have a sff case, so I'm limited on cooling capacity, especially as I want it to be silent, even whilst gaming. Gpu is aftermarket water-cooled 3080 10g, also undervolted with a slight overclock too. 340W stock, 175-220W in game with my undervolt of 867mV at 1950mHz)
@@aaronjones4529 I was just curious forgot about the E cores. I had read some place they can get in the way as well in some games. Sounds like you tweaked the system as well as you can, I would do the same on disabling HT if it helps. I leave HT on AMD X3D as I cant much of a difference either way and my games run just fine. I cant tell the difference unless I looked at bench numbers, feel wise just not worth it to me. But you gained some decent power savings and cooling and worked long and hard tweaking it.
I run a Ryzen 9 3950X with 16 cores. RTX2080 super and 64GB RAM. I use it for CAD work, but occasionally run a couple games. When Flight Simulator came out Task Manager showed only 8 threads being used, but now after many updates it shows 28 to 30 being used and my GPU is down from 100% to 70% being used at 3840x1600 resolution. I had a similar situation with Cyberpunk 2077, but it's never used as many threads as Flight Sim. Ratchet and Clank seems to use about 15 threads and 80% GPU. Granted this is very half assed, but I don't do much with games. I think it is about how the game or program is optimized for the specific hardware. I don't think all systems will run best in the exact same configuration. I don't think that is possible with so many different options now days. Good video as usual. Thanks.
Honestly, It's stupidly funny in retrospect. The magic number is 4 logical cores (Be 2 HT cores, or 4 ST cores). Mostly because AAA gaming had been stuck on that montra for over a decade, and literally only recently within like 5-6 years have developers been attempting to use more core counts in the system. We literally have about 15+ years worth of AAA games that were soft optimized for 4 threads overall, and that kinda ignores the increase in power overall with processors.
Notice how only the most recent game CS2 had expected scaling? Ya.. that's an entirely brand new engine built for a age with your average low thread count being 8 with the normal being 12-16.
The big boy problem is ... we've still got to wait for game engines & games to really take advantage of it... and only the newer games (1-2 years) really can because their game engines now support it. That's also to point a reminder that ... there is less optimization being done for higher core count because of the insane growth in power for CPUs in general... which means the soft magical number is 6 or 8, only because of diminishing returns overall.
The secondary problem is ... programs (be it games or whatever software) don't get optimized for more power & processor count unless they kind of need it. Sure uber FPS is great... but if a dev is AAA dev is seeing 120+ fps on say 6 threads, sure it might scale a bit more with 8 or higher but they aren't going to be any resources given to that from the publisher or overhead.
-- Games aren't like video editors, where the better the usage of the CPU/GPU... the better the product. Games have this 'good enough' point where any more dev time or resources used on it is effectively wasted money for them.
All great points.
BL3 is almost 5 years old and you're really gonna want more than 4 threads if you want it to run well. Either that, or do what you can in the settings to try and make it GPU bound, or just lock it to 30 fps. Otherwise, it will just stutter a lot.
I recently tested several games with an i5-3570S with a few GPUs. You need, at a minimum, a 4c8t CPU for newer games and in a lot of cases, a 6c12t CPU is advisable. Beyond 6 cores, you aren't really getting much help. I have also seen some recent benchmarks which suggest that a 6c single thread CPU is struggling in recent games.
If you took a current gen flagship and ran it with a 4c8t CPU, you're probably going to be leaving some performance on the table in the latest games, even at 4k. An X3D might be an exception, say, if you turn off the CCX without the V-Cache, because it is probably just fast enough to keep up.
most game engines are coded to use no more than 2 threads, that's why.
so you need 1 core for Windows and background tasks, and 1-3 cores for the gaming app.
if game only used 1-2 cores it's faster with less extra cores because the system doesn't need to do the overhead work of switching operating cores.
Test 2 cores 4 threads against 4 cores 4 threads!
This means you would have to disable the hyperthreading in the CMOS setup.
The difference between a virtual core and a real core is that the virtual HT cores run on a real core. The idea behind Hyper Threading is that normal programs are not running an optimal instruction mix to keep all the resources of the core active at all timmes. So by allowing two threads to sun at the same time on the same core you could have, for instance one thread executing a floating point instruction at the same time as the other thread is doing integer math. Fetch instructions from ram can be run at the same time as the instruction decoder handles a instruction from the other thread and so on. To enable this the CPU registers are doubled up and some other parts that have a very high utility rate are also doubled, but a lot less is added to the silicon so it's no where near as "expensive" in area added as adding an entire core.
Another effect is that running two distinct threads on a single core using HT does not double performance. There will still be occasions when both threads need to access the same resource in the core at the same time. When that happens one thread will simply have to wait.
However adding real cores is almost linear. Adding a second core for a second thread there will be no sharing of the core resources. No waiting on the FPU to become available or anything like that. Memory access can still collide, but it's still faster than when you have two threads on the same core.
So it would be interesting to test both 4 cores 4 threads and 2 cores 2 threads to see how much of a difference Hyper Threading makes. Heck if you do this why not give 3 cores 6 threads and 6 cores 6 threads a go? More data is fun!
Did some Tests with Ashes of the Singularity. (It´s only a small sample but still interesting I think)
My System:
MSI MEG x570 ACE
Ryzen 5900X
ASUS TUF RTX 4090
32GB RAM 3600 CL16
To make sure the CPU is at 100% the bottleneck, I also set the graphics to the low preset.
But I only have the AVG. FPS (The built in Benchmark unfortunately does not show 1% Low)
I didn´t bother going below 6 Threads though, since the game really uses 24 Threads and scales well up to 12.
For these results I set the core limit in Windows like you did in your video:
24 Threads: 41.34 FPS AVG
12 Threads: 40.25 FPS AVG
6 Threads: 29.55 FPS AVG
But here comes the interesting part.
For these I additionally deactivated SMT in the BIOS :
12 Threads SMT off: 44.84 FPS AVG
6 Threads SMT off: 38.33 FPS AVG
For this one I deactivated one of the CCDs but turned SMT on:
12 Threads SMT ON: 40.00 FPS AVG
And for this one I deactivated one CCD and turned SMT off:
6 Threads SMT OFF: 37.23 FPS AVG
I think these results confirm my theory with the temperature and the clocks.
SMT uses unused functions of a CPU core in a separate thread. That additionally heats up the core.
Deactivating a CCD means the load isn´t spread across two chips anymore, but concentrated in one.
Less surface to dissipate the heat.
With that the fastest configuration is 2 CCDs and no SMT.
Nice review. Yes they always have.This is well known especially to old players who've played with tech since Win98.
Agreed, thermals and threads do play an important part, but its mostly a software thing, how the cpu relays information between RAM and GPU and the actual coding itself. That's why a too slow cpu can cause a bottleneck for games too. Its all a balancing act.
It was a huge hype when Quad cores came out after i2 Dual core cpu's, which improved games massively. After that release, game developers stopped focusing on cpu and put all their effort into GPU cards and shading. That's why XEONs or dual cpu's on MOBOs aren't better either. When the i7 hex cores came out, people found out quickly then that game developers basically but not entirely, stopped writing code to support more than 1 single cpu with 4 cores for games and any excess cores were utilized then more for networking, sound etc to disperse load.
Amazing fast and multi cored hardware is not all the magic either. Software, as simple such as DirectX which is built into the OS can make games look and run amazing. i.e. if you run an old game on DX6 which has an ocean (the old win98 graphics platform) the water will look square & choppy sort of like minecraft. If you run that same old game on DX12 (the new win11 platform) it'll look fluent like real water and a million bucks. Essentially, if you want better looking (and sometimes) faster depending how the game was written, responsive game play (to a point), just upgrade your OS.
Random UA-cam example -> ua-cam.com/video/BgdT3VgwqzA/v-deo.html
*edit: To see what version you're running:
Click start. Type: dxdiag and run the builtin tool
Just shows that PC games today play on older machines with less CPU cores. This is because they have to sell as many copies as possible, and making the game accessible to 4-6 year old PC's help them do that!
Remember that most games are usually made with the consoles in mind first. As we all know the consoles lost the power to the PC but are more affordable for the masses so hence games get built around the hardware used in the consoles. Also cross play support. Yes I know PC games can still have some extra graphic treats that the consoles wont get.
I wish you could use all cores in gaming....then those Threadripper's would be the coolest 😎
Pretty sure some overclockers will disable cores to maximize stable speeds on one core. Pretty cool stuff. I've done this in Linux to save power when the battery is running close to dry, but I never knew Windows could too.
thanks for test sir, so far SMT off/HT OFF usually more performance, if 8 thread better, i think 8 core cpu, SMT/HT off, would be sweet.
Another thing to think about is power delivery.
More cores in sleep means less power to the CPU, which means lower temperatures and higher clocks for a longer time.
Also same amount of L3 cache for less cores.
I have a 5900X. I wanted to test something like that for quite some time now.
Especially with Ashes of the Singularity, which claims to use 16 cores or 24 threads.
Good points.
@@CyberCPU Not really. This is only valid on MB which are ...'sub par', and if your MB can't effectively deliver enough power to run your system at full throttle properly... It's a bad motherboard.
Further more, Given you've watercooled your system, and I'm willing to bet still have thermal overhead room (if your cpu could tolerate more juice) still, and all that would show is that the cooling system isn't as taxed.
-- Which doesn't matter, since it wasn't fully taxed to begin with and the thermals were not an issue before hand even under unrealistic synthetic loads.
@@DePhoegonIsle
Using all cores ALWAYS has lower clock rates than using individual cores.
With less cores being used it´s automatically using less power, which produces less heat.
You can have the beefiest cooling ever.
It still takes time to transfer the heat trough the chips inside to it´s surface.
And just a few more degrees inside the chip means slightly lower clocks.
You could also disable Hyper Threading from the BIOS. You will notice improvements in games. Some game engines just don't know what to do with so many cores & threads. I just upgraded my PC with a 4080 RTX 16Gb & a Xeon 2696 v3 18 cores with Turbo Boost upto 3.Ghz. I disabled Hyper Threading and my Port Royal score improved. Also I wont to experiment with turning off some cores because 18 cores is way to much for most games. Also my CPU is 145w TDP bound. So it will be hard for it to run 3.8Ghz all cores with Turbo Unlock. Also I won't to the "resize BAR" mode. I also unvervolted my CPU to help with its 145w TDP. Also I remember you saying why people turn on all the CPU cores & threads in MSI Afterburner this is exactly why you can analyse how each game engines uses the CPU. You will find games that utilise well the core counts or you will see only 1 core use in really old games. PS: also I can explain why less core/threads gave you in some titles better results its just that the game engine doesnt know what to do with nay cores & threads so wheb you give it less cores & threads it just utilizes it more. In RDR2 the game engine knows that you have a good CPU & it knows how to use all the threads & cores. Although I tell you try disabling the Threads on your CPU.
you partly right about master core. Also Windows Manage Cores to be best used from XP and up. To get a more reliable result is to run the game, go to task manager and mark what cres the game can use without windows determining which ones to optimize. I can't get this to work on windows 11 and I am not sure its on windows 10 but it is possible on windows 8.1 and below.
It should also be noted that coding techniques can also allow specific parameters to take advantage of CPU or GPU power and capabilities.
But these tests do ask some questions that should open up more user testing to see if they can get better gameplay from using reduced cores, which may also mean using less energy to achieve better things too.
Great Video and question......... From what i understand threads act like cores but you have to divide the core MHZ because it's basicly doing 2 task at once. The problem is a 8 core programs want 8 threads, so a 4 core system with out smt would be missing objects in the program.
I'm not a gamer but I am a consultant for business networks. I wonder if the results you got is related to the thing we have seen on VMware servers. Sometimes if you give a VM too many processors or cores it will slow the VM down because it is spending so much time switching between cores. We have noticed this a lot with SQL servers because SQL will try to use all the cores available to it. I'm not sure if this is right but it feels similar.
I don't think this was a very good selection of games to produce a result that is valid in 2023. Cyberpunk is moderately demanding on a CPU but really more as a function of needing a high single thread score, as opposed to needing more than 4 threads. Everything else you tested is light on the CPU.
When testing Wonderlands recently on an older i5, I pretty much had to lock it to 30 fps to avoid stutter at 1080p. Maybe a very recent CPU could cope because of the single thread score being way higher. But it really isn't a valid argument because if someone is trying to game on a 4 thread CPU in 2023, it is going to be a few generations old.
The question you are really asking here is 'how many CPU threads does a gaming PC need in 2023'. This is a common question from people looking to build a PC. This is very important when building a budget PC and asking someone who tested the premise on a current gen CPU by disabling cores really isn't going to give a helpful answer.
The simple answer is that you need a 4c8t CPU and a 6c12t would be advisable if you want it to play new releases for more than a year. Even the very first 4c8t i7 can still game as long as you don't need AVX2. But almost any 4 thread CPU is going to run into problems often. Even a non-HT 6 core is a bad idea. Stutter is a very real possibility when running unlocked. If you just want a 30fps experience, it will work but that's all I would expect because anything more will be a bonus.
One thing I can be fairly sure of is that it will be awhile before you really need an 8c CPU for gaming. All of the focus seems to be on improving graphics right now. Part of why the new releases all run like crap is that they are just dumping massive textures into ancient game engines.
Another thing to consider which I didn't hear you mention is frame pacing. The fewer the threads and the weaker those threads get, the harder it will be for the CPU to maintain consistent frame pacing. This can lead to microstutters and eventually full on frame drops. You also have latency go up. Low latency and consistent frame pacing are what produce a good gaming experience, not absolute framerate.
Might be an idea to turn off Hyper-threading and run the tests again. HT threads are not as powerful as Core threads.
Cores seems to be just holding some points in the gamea computation I think, but it is becoming much more evident that cores are mattered as these games have taken the advantage of it. Cpu clock also matters in the recently demanding games, but as the newer game assets came into the point, the picture again changes. I assume how this is progressing really.
On my Threadripper Pro 3975WX with 32C/64T, in-game benchmarks significantly decreased when set for 4C/8T in FarCry6, Hitman3 & CP2077. Certainly not a mainstram CPU, but an interesting datapoint nonetheless.
I have seen cores turned off in the bios before, but never through the OS. A great video.
Yeh I turned off my 8 efficiency cores n bios just to use my 8 performance cores for wz i7 13700k
From your testing any games before 2020, and some after are most likely programmed for a max of 4 cores. I was getting bite by the computer building bug, and found enough parts to build a i3 3rd Gen Intel with a GT1060, saved my money and plays Dirt Rally super well.
TLDR; Yes, they absolutely matter if you care about playing modern, and soon to be released games.
This isn't really new info? The majority of games don't really use more than four cores, but many do and slowly, but surely the average core count is rising for modern games. Cyberpunk is a great example as to why something like the 9600K and its six cores just doesn't cut it for the Phantom Liberty DLC. The performance hit is drastic going from the base game to the DLC if using a processor with less than eight cores. The games where cores really matter more than ever are those that are either simulation based, or are trying to use a lot of game AI.
The comparison you use in this video is just odd. You're comparing two processors (or the same with cores disabled) with low core counts to one another instead of one with a lower core count to a more modern CPU. More powerful chips that have more than 4/6 cores blow them away. Cyberpunk is *heavily* dependent on CPU cores, and it's especially noticeable in Phantom Liberty. DLC that was designed solely around current-gen systems.
he he, you've also got to take into account that ....that will be tempered with performance numbers during development. Like they aren't going to optimize for 16, when 8 gives them 120 without breaking a sweat. They're going to focus on the lower hanging fruits.
That also said, there is going to be a lower number than most expect really as game engines & features kind of solidify what that magic number is, and unless there is a really good compelling reason for the development of that game/software, they aren't going to optimized for higher counts when it makes no sense to do so.
i need help about windows 10 and 11 drivers update , i have and old dell laptop (dell inspiron N11510) when i put any windows of them all drivers gets updated and installed by windows update easily and if go into the (device manger) and tried to update any of them its all good and no need for those driver to get updated and Microsoft downloaded the good drivers for this laptop , but when i use any (third party) app its says there are more new updates and needed to be downloaded .
the question is : 1- do i download those updates or not on this type of old laptop or not ?
2- if yes which is the best third party app do you advice to use to download them so i don't get any malwares or viruses ?
sorry for talking so much 😅😅
You can disable cores for individual programs in the task manager chief
I agree with that assumption that core 3 became more dominant with running threads but I am also thinking that on top of that less cpu cores active makes them have more L1 and L2 cache Ram between themselves and this could be another efficiency improvement plus less thermal or power throttling allowing cores to run slightly at higher average clocks all the time, I have just disabled 1/2 cores on my potatoe laptop that has 2 cores 5 threads (intel i5-7200u) 😀and it`s just running fine on 1 core 1 thread watching youtube and doesn`t feel sluggish at all and is super cool and quiet and I just love it knowing that if I ever need long battery life or especially now in hot Aussie summer I can just disable 1/2 cores and it`s all going to run just fine.
HUB tested various Intel CPUs with cores disabled and showed performance was affected more by cache size than extra cores. Chips and Cheese found games were experiencing low IPC below 1 on 5600x which is 6 wide, so perhaps having SMT threads isn't a real performance hit in these games.
A lower active core count may have allowed higher boost or working sets to fit within L3
mine showed 16 processors so i put it at 8 and saw a huge jump in fps 120 to 180..windows 11 msi rtx 3070 32gb i7-10870h laptop ..is there any danger in doing this?
No. Turning off a few cored via the OS will cause 0 damage.
At best, this will only sorta sucn if you edit or multitask heavily, but if not, you'll be more than fine running a few less cores 👍
Great video ty
Very interesting, but my questions is, what about cpu temp, any effect?
I changed mine now my computer is completely not running good at all. What did I do and how to I fix it
Erm yes it does, even the FX 8350 does better now compared to the competing i5/i7s of the time
I have an old desktop I built in 2016 with an 8320e at 4.4Ghz and a GTX 1650. It is still able to run modern games with around low/medium settings at 30-40fps stable. It definitely has surprised me. I don't game on it much since I have newer machines but still test new games and post the performance videos on here.
test planetside 2, pretty cpu intensive game in the large battles. also, your 3440x1440 might be a little too high, leaving most the work to be done by the gpu?
I did all the testing at 1080 as well and had the same results. Different numbers of course but the same weird results. I left them out just to make the video not go too long.
These results make perfect sense to me, you're testing older games/engines that at the time of their developement, were built and tested using cpus with lower core/thread count than modern processors, thus causing them to run better. Older games were optimized for duo/quad core cpus since thats what was available at the time.
As you tested more new/modern performance intensive AAA games (eg: rdr2) you start to get opposite results since more modern games like rdr2 were built and tested on modern hardware (cpus with more cores/threads, multi/hyperthreading)
Also could be amds cool n quiet feature that automatically and dynamically boosts the clock frequencies of only cores that are under load. A feature that helps with older games that lack multicore/multithreading capabilities, or basically only utilize a few cores. This can improve cpu bottlenecking and could also be another possibilty to explain your test results.
If an older game utilizes only 2 cores and 1 thread per core and your cpu has 6 cores and 12 threads (2 threads per core/multithreaded) then cool n quiet will boost only those 2 cores past the frequency you would get on each core if you had all 6 of them being utilized.
Maybe there is also a point where the process threads are filled, while reduced core to manage that efficiently regardless of IDLE state
Sir i have dell e7470 . I purchased refurbished from amazon i have bill... I wipe data from bios and my hard drive got locked. I never set passwords on hard drive ... I tried all file systems of usb my usb and hard drive not showing in uefi mode plz help I don't have enough money im stressed from last month plz help🙏 dell costomer service dont help me because my laptop dont have warranty
These games are designed to run on PS / Xbox which are 4 core CPUs.
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D or 7900? hmmm
Dont forget more cores can make more stable and smoother performance. As the other cores are working your background tasks and some games now can use 6 cores. Like baytleifled 2042
I knew about this before ryzen existed as a whole
when ryzen came about older games on steam had trouble with the core count
and you needed to disable some cores to play specific games
one explanation is that less cores can boost higher and if the game is ipc depended then you see a difference , the other is the cache and how is utilized if 4 cores have increased cache vs 6 cores then cache misses are lower and thus games run better
I wonder if there's a way to selectively disable cores, like disable only performance cores and use the system only on efficiency cores on intel for maximum battery when on the go, intel laptop's are known to be worse than AMD when it comes to battery performance.
I have seen teste done where they disabled the E-cores, not sure if you can disable the P-cores.
I’d like to see this too
In bios you can disable effeicent cores and use only performance . What I did on an i7 13700k for warzone only running 8 performance and cut off the efficent cores .. actaully runs smoother bc i think sometimes it chose to use the efficwnt cores at times onstead of the performance cores.. btw you can turn off p cores also
Do u think that 4 cores is the general sweet spot or its relative depending on the number of cores you have
From 6c-12t to 4c-8t all the tests were within margin of error because all those games came out in a time where 4c 8t was mainstream. Except for cyberpunk 2077, that game can use more cores.
Now if the game can utilize more cores then it would be better to go with a higher core cpu. Yes clock speed/cache does matter too but it’s usually the bigger core count cpus that have higher clocks/cache. Unless you’re a good at overclocking 🤷🏻♂️.
Are those windows keys time unlimited, or they expire after some time?
Can you go from 6 to 5 core?
I still run a 7th gen board with a pentium cpu. Still waiting for the price of secondhand parts to go down before upgrading. I'd be happy just to get 10th gen stuff.
Rich, testing MSFS 2020 would have been interesting
Less cores may mean less heat. Ryzen cpu will boost higher with less heat. Forcing off the 2 cores making it use core 3 more often at higher boost may be why performance goes up.
1% lows go down as back get task now are being run in cores running the games thread.
Depends on the type of work being done
I was hoping that you would test voxel based games like Minecraft and 7days to die ( vanilla and modded versions ) or maybe Vintage Story that have procedural generated maps. I always see the same games being tested and very few testing of voxel games. otherwise very interesting results.
I would think that performance with background tasks active would be worse with fewer cores/threads
it depend on the game,try to play last of us with 4cores and 8thread compare to 6core and 12threads,you will see the difference
by disableing cores you lower temps and voltage it could be its boosting a little higher due to more head room giving those results
how about to test the same but w/o hyperthreading
What is 1%low
Check out my latest video. I make a good explanation of it.
you could have dropped the cpu down to 3 cores to see if the lack of power used by the disabled cores is affecting the dominant core's boost performance translating into the game speed boost CyberCPU Tech to see if the performance loss is from loosing core 3 your dominant core by not trying 3 cores you don't know if the sweet spot was 4 cores or 3
The results would be better with a better card installed as you are hitting a gpu bottleneck which has a massive effect on results.
I think this was already covered on Gamers Nexus I think due to windows Scheduler insonsistencies on workload distribution and CCD load on the ryzen if memory serves me right.
In this case there is just one CCD so no switching of threads or data between CCDs and no problem with scheduler or CCD load.
@@blahorgaslisk7763 true, but there have been cases of binned 5800? your point still valid though should be one but the issues with the windows scheduler still remain I think.
Did your wattage drop?
That should be Affect not Effect. Effect is a noun.
That could be:
"Do CPU Cores have an Effect on Gaming"
"Affect" is commonly used as a verb, meaning to influence or produce a change. "Effect" is primarily used as a noun, representing the result or consequence of an action. However, "effect" can also be used as a verb, meaning to bring about or accomplish something.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
NO! I am not an English major. 😮
Interesting video though.
super
do a video with nvlddmkm error fix
May the developers use all the cores😂
na na disabling cores wouldnt perform as 4 core cpus
your test methodology is erroneous, you didnt mention system specs or games graphics settings and you are doing the tests at high res instead of low and that setting is crap, you disable cores from bios 🤦
What about emulations example ps3 emulators
Core count and singlethread matters. i7-12700K destroys the i9-11900K.
@@saricubra2867 base on the core count??
how did my pc able to shout down my town internet how can a man walk through a wall he the son of satan anti christ you can turn waki tolki into a cb radio there a way you can pick up air planes on a radio you know i can you a foot stall to track people in my hall way and i can use my bathroom wall as way to know if there people in the building a nes game you can skip to end level in every game you can have as many life as you want also in all games use 24 cores for gaming it's over but try it anyway for fun can your pc play blackwake you can do a lot if you put your mind to it great video life is a test as well
*affect
Your windows buying site sets off my Antivirus.....
What are you using as an antivirus?
It seems to me you are GPU bound......run everything at 1080 medium settings and I would expect the CPU to matter more
As I mentioned in the video, I did. It gave me the same results.
Understood, I think the core of the results centers around the old game engines.....which was demonstrated when you started switching to newer titles.....either way, good video!@@CyberCPU
An 8 core processor was better for this test.
Counter strike 2 heavy on processor side I think😂
Damn pc you confusing
Lol i knew the i3 cpus are the best gameing cpu u can have. You whats funny if the game does not uses more the 1 or 2 core i does matter how strong is you cpu, get owned
explanation might be quite easy cores boosting for longer and higher when you have spare power budget in situation your game don't need more cores and never uses tham anyway
i just had an interesting result when i tried this out. i have a three year old MSI GS75 Stealth, and when i set the cores to 12 (it was at 1) my framerate jumped by 20 in Starfield. in New Atlantis i usually averaged between 30 and 40 FPS. now i'm getting between 50 and 60. i'm going to try this out in Forza Horizon 5, and i think i will be getting the same result.
Can't imagine that you would have the right results as I'm on Intel and we all know that Intel is the gaming king. With Intel CPU you would get more performance out of the box regards games than AMD since you are running an older 5600x Also, you did not test or explain its single overclocked core or overclocked for all cores/threads. Your CPU is running at 4.4 I see? but my CPU is OC at 5.1ghz and so many new and older CPUs can run higher than 5.1 so is your 5600X Overclocked to 4.8?
Then test results are different. Then it's the game and software, not all games might be made that well,
I was SURPRISED it took so LONG for a USELESS INTEL FANBOY to appear. I don't care what you say AMD is STILL THE BEST!!!!! You couldn't give me that INFERIOR CHIP!!!!!
@@robertsmida9601 Nope, I'm on intel doesn't mean I'm an fanboy by any means. I used to use AMD from my older system, Not stating that AMD is the best or intel the best, both are very much equal, AMD is the best regards rmulticore and multi-tasking :) like video and heavy work loads and makes video readuering times super fast. meanwhile Intel processors have several advantages, including being optimized for high-performance gaming, greater flexibility and compatibility with other components. So end of the day depends really for each person.. what they want
From mypost above, what's the results if any CPUs end up being the same with less or morecores bt being overclocked or not overclocked?
Hmmmmmm
@@Empire24453 What a disappointment. I was hoping you were a fanboy. I haven't had an Intel cpu since the early '90's. When I seen the extra cost for them I switched to AMD. I still don't see any reason to buy an INTEL chip. One time I even bought 2 laptops one was AMD and the other was an INTEL cpu. My friends daughter was going to school and wanted a laptop. Since I had the money I bought them. She choose the Intel laptop. The AMD always beat the INTEL laptop. But to be fair it came with double the ram and was still cheaper. I told her she chose the wrong one. But she ended up with mine because her power jack broke. I'm very brand loyal.😂😂😂😂😂
@@robertsmida9601 AMD has always been a cheaper option over Intel, the newest and top AMD has a high price thought, partly because of all the cores they have, more cores than Intel. Since the 90s Intel has changed big time, maybe one day you might get an Intel system to try out :P Gotta love shopping around for the best deals and getting more out of your bucks. I know a guy who owns a Ryzen9 5950X and its OC, Where I'm on 10th gen Intel, But at the end of the day it's not always about getting the best and greatest newest model
@@Empire24453 I just built my last computer last year. I know it's their fastest Ryzen9. Built it a month before AMD came out with their new socket. And no I will never give INTEL a chance. Like you said it's depends on the person and from what I seen from the tests no one will ever really notice a difference no matter which brand they buy. One gets faster here and then the other catches up. I have always had good luck with my AMDs. I still have my very 1st build sitting in a box, one day it will be put back into a tower so I can play my 30 year old train game I built it for. And that game is on steam but it always freezes, I think I don't have my computer set up right somehow. I just haven't taken the time to figure it out.
Does this video prove that intel big little architecture is a joke for most mainstream gamers?
No, my i7-12700K is a monolithic chip and it's smoother when i have the e-cores enabled even when running a console emulator.