Budget 90k+ Why just core count isn’t the best metric to determine “future proof”-ability for gaming CPUs

Stronk

Stronk

Level G

Addresses a lot of concerns and statements such as “3700X will be better than 5600X for future proofing,” “you need more cores than the minimum to account for background processes” etc.

worth watching the full thing IMO, and will clear a lot of doubts about cores, cache and CPU.
 
Mann said:
Thread count?
Click to expand...
I think it's assumed that all CPUs for gaming, going forward, will have some form of hyperthreading. In any case, the discussion here is likely to assume "8 cores" only, since we had the 11700K and I have seen people on various forums actually recommend that over a 5600X to people purely because "8 cores".
But again, not 100% sure, and altho the above scenario of 8c8t vs 8c16t sure applies, based on the CPUs Steve is talking about, that seems a fair assumption to make (that multithreading is a given). In any case, multithreading, in its current form of dual threading, is bound to be better than a non multi threaded CPU with same no of cores, but this will, as mentioned in the video, depend on many other factors such as architecture's efficiency and power, core count, thread count.
Th thread count argument might become even more complicated in the future, with the advent of quad threading. But whatever happens, the future does look exciting!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top