Is 4 cores and 8 threads enough for todays computer,gaming in 2023

[gasolin]

Is 4 cores and 8 threads enough for todays computer,gaming in 2023 with games like horizon zero dawn ?

one said on a local forumd my 12100f is running games very smooth (rx 6600)

Was thinking how my 11600k would run at 4 cores and threads, disable 2 cores, oced (down clocked) to 4.3ghz and 4.0ghz on all cores (even 4.1ghz wouldn't bring scores up to the rated specs at cpu benchmarks, passmark https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-12100F&id=4670 )

100 euros for a cpu and also 100 euros for a cheap mb (130 ish euros for a nzxt n5 z690), why not try that ? (newer cpu generation and chipset)

 

[P4-630]

horizon zero dawn

System Requirements

• Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system.
• OS: Windows 10 64-bits.
• Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K@3.3GHz or AMD FX 6300@3.5GHz.
• Memory: 8 GB RAM.
• Graphics: Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 (3 GB) or AMD Radeon R9 290 (4GB)
• DirectX: Version 12.
• Storage: 100 GB available space

Not really a demanding game.

Was thinking how my 11600k would run at 4 cores

Makes it only worse, especially for newer/recent games..

 

[N/A]

Not if you are serious, then only a 14600K 13700K 12900K is enough. I mean you can try and torture yourself but that is masochistic.

 

[gasolin]

System Requirements

• Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system.
• OS: Windows 10 64-bits.
• Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K@3.3GHz or AMD FX 6300@3.5GHz.
• Memory: 8 GB RAM.
• Graphics: Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 (3 GB) or AMD Radeon R9 290 (4GB)
• DirectX: Version 12.
• Storage: 100 GB available space

Not really a demanding game.


Makes it only worse, especially for newer/recent games..

No

Horizon zero dawn is a very cpu demanding game, thats why i mentioned it

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

The most sensible/smart user on this forum is gaming happily with a 12100F and a 3060Ti.

Every time my lizard brain starts thinking about the next upgrade, I think of this user and how ridiculous I'm being.

a 12100 or a 12400 is more than enough for gaming with anything but the highest tier GPU.

*unless you're some uber-competitive high FPS gamer that want 240+ FPS

 

[P4-630]

Horizon zero dawn is a very cpu demanding game, thats why i mentioned it

System Requirements

• Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K@3.3GHz or AMD FX 6300@3.5GHz.

If you look at the CPU requirements, it doesn't seem that demanding...

 

[QuietBob]

Every time my lizard brain starts thinking

I knew it!

On topic, a modern 4c/8t CPU (Comet Lake, Zen 2 or newer) will run any game without a problem (unless you demand maximum frame rates). In 99% newer titles you'll be GPU bound before the CPU becomes a limiting factor.

 

[P4-630]

Also depends on your personal fps/resolution preference.

 

[Tomgang]

All that multi core talk makes me sick. Why are we even talking about it, when we all know very well that single core is more than sufficient even to this day.

More seriously. Quad-core can go for some games, but whit the pennelty of lower avg and minimum FPS and higher risk of lags. some games will make a 4 core/8 thread cpu run at 100 load and making the cpu a bottleneck. For modern games, i will never go for less than 6 cores/12 threads and for better future profing 8 core/16 threads. Quad-core is not optimal any more and i would never buy a new one today with the intension of using it for latest games and those only a few years old. specially not with a powerful gpu.

I do run my 5600X as a Quad-core to save some power and mostly only running older games where 4 cores a plenty. For the demanding games my 5950X takes the hit head on.

 

[Macro Device]

Your CPU is overqualified for pushing your 6700 XT to its limits. Especially in 1440p and higher resolutions. You don't need an i3-12100, you need an i5-15600K which is yet to happen. And you'd also want to upgrade your GPU in some future, in 2 years from now probably.

Jumping one step forward and three steps back to i3-12100 makes very little sense. In gaming, you're bottlenecked by your GPU as of now.

And yes, 4 cores is not enough if you want all the smoothness. i5-11600K delivers better frametimes and more impressive average framerates sometimes despite worse architecture.

If it was for energy efficiency then go ahead and grab an i5-13400. Will get obsolete gaming-wise by the time your RX 6700 XT will be considered what we now consider a... Radeon 7870?

 

[QuietBob]

I do run my 5600X as a Quad-core to save some power and mostly only running older games

Great idea! I'm running my backup rig as a "1.5 core" ATM with bus and RAM clocks at minimum, same for the GPU:

Just completed a fantastic retro indie game on it

 

[Veseleil]

The answer would be depends on the games you play. But that isn't really an answer. I personally wouldn't invest in a 4c/8t CPU nowadays. My E3-1241v3 (lga 1150) 3.9GHz single, 3.7GHz multi turbo (locked cpu) can always get a higher max fps than my 4.5GHz OC'd 3930k, but the latter destroys it in everything else, 0.1% lows, average fps. So nope, if you ask me.

 

[Tomgang]

haha yeah i remember that AMD bulldozer claim about being up to 8 cores, but do to that 2 core shared one funktion (can´t remember what is was called), so effectivly it ran as as 4 core with SMT. Hence why i think that´s the reason your 1,5 core claim

Well i have done more than just dissable 2 cores. It goes deeper than that. besides deactivated cores, i have set boost funktion out of funktion (so it only goes to its base clock of 3,7 GHz and not up to 4,6 GHz rated boost. Save power and heat hence also noise is lower). Besides that i can either use eco-mode or go to PBO and lower max watt and amp allowed the cpu to pull, i dit the last ting so run a manuel set max watt of 40 watt (stock is 76 watt) and max 40 amps for EDC exsample. Lastly i have set voltage to offset -15. That lower the voltage allowing for furher less watt pull , so i can lower wattage furher with out the cpu lower its coreclock do to power limits. Result at very efficient cpu that does not pull more than 40 watt (less than a powerfull laptop cpu, and at times way less). I can do the same with 5950X and do it. Configurate it for my needs and performance but with least power pull as possible. Right now i run it as a 8 core/16 thread with boost inactive and 1 CCD deaktivated and PBO setings of 60 watt and 60 amps. Very efficient cpu and voltage also at negative -15.

For GPU well my RTX A2000 is all ready if not the most efficient GPU´s, so one of the most efficeint. So i have done nothing to it besides raise og lower power target depending on game demands. So pulling between 45 and 70 watts at max.

RTX 4090 i have undervolt it to 0,900 MV (stock 1,050 MV) and locket gpu clock to 2600 MHz (stock is 2770 MHz). Saving me 100-150 watt with minimal performance loss. Can then furher lower power consumption by lower og raise max power target. So i can gp all from around 100 watt consumption to 600 watt when overclock and run at max power target.

So i have done and do my to saves some watts and my electricity bill.

My 5600X current configuration

My 5950X current configuration (just kidding)

 

[chrcoluk]

Depends on the games been played. framerate expectation as well.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Is 4 cores and 8 threads enough for todays computer,gaming in 2023 with games like horizon zero dawn ?

one said on a local forumd my 12100f is running games very smooth (rx 6600)

Was thinking how my 11600k would run at 4 cores and threads, disable 2 cores, oced (down clocked) to 4.3ghz and 4.0ghz on all cores (even 4.1ghz wouldn't bring scores up to the rated specs at cpu benchmarks, passmark https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-12100F&id=4670 )

100 euros for a cpu and also 100 euros for a cheap mb (130 ish euros for a nzxt n5 z690), why not try that ? (newer cpu generation and chipset)

As it turns out I've been testing older 4c4t and 4c8t parts for a few weeks now in Horizon Zero Dawn, AC:Ody, CP2077, SotTR and some other games that are CPU-limited in key parts (HZD, SotTR) or most (CP77, ACO) of the games and if you want 60FPS all the time, an i7-4790 will not do it any more. But that's an older 4c8t part and not overclockable plus I'm using a Dell Optiplex with it's 16GB Dell 1600 MHz CL11 DDR3 so an OC i7-7700K with fast DDR4 will get these games to 60FPS all the time. Which means IMO the i3-12100 should do the same with it's IPC increase and 4.1 GHz ACT.

Remember these are 2020 and older CPU-demanding games and newer ones have even higher CPU usage.

For those interested in older 4c 1080p gaming:

In HZD at the Hunter's Gathering camp before the Proving, a 4c4t i5-3570 at 1080p dips to the low 40s with all the NPCs on screen and feels notably choppy. But during the first Corruptor encounter shortly after that point in the game, with 6 bots and a dozen NPCs around, the FPS rarely dipped into the upper 40s and it felt OK, not where I found the lag to be a problem. Replaying the Corruptor fight on the 4c8t i7-4790, I noticed no slowdown at all though it slipped to the high 50s on occasion. So that minimum i5-2500K will keep it above 30fps, probably 40 if you can tolerate that. Out of towns the FPS are pegged at 60.

In AC:O, on the i5-3570 it dips into the mid 40s around Kephallonia when looking at the whole town with all the NPCs and pegs at 60 when you're in the less populated countryside. An i7-3770 gets that in-town dip up to the higher 50s. An i7-4790 keeps it at 60fps in town almost all the time.

In SotTR, the i5-3570 does well enough in the benchmark that runs through 2 crowded town areas with minimums in the mid 50s whereas in the same town (Paititi) in-game I could get it to the lower 50s when changing directions quickly. i7-3770 gets those benchmark and in-town tests minimums to the mid 60s and seems completely smooth in town at 60fps. Same for the i7-4790 of course.

In Cyberpunk I lean on the benchmark more as I'm not far into the game and can't drive worth a damn though that's what reduces FPS/hits the CPU the most. i5-3570 minimum 20 FPS (yeah not playable at all), i7-3770 minimum 38 FPS (not good enough either) and apparently I haven't tested on the i7-4790 yet but I doubt it'll be over 45 FPS. Also not good enough. I wonder if an OC i7-7700K or the i3-12100 could peg CP2077 at 60fps when driving. Maybe they can't.

But even with dips into the 50s, all these now slightly older games play very well. It's newer games that continue to need more CPU resources and the rumored 6c (12t?) i3-14xxx CPUs play very well to those demands.

Edit: to toss in an example of performance in a non-CPU limited game: Forza Horizon 4 1080p: i5-3570 90fps min, i7-3770 96fps min. Depending on the game's CPU demands, even relatively recent but good games can still run like champs on older quad cores.

 

[Hyderz]

i guess it depends on your budget really and how much you can tolerate few dips in frames here and there
but overall its not bad for 1080p (that said its title dependant) older games yeah you will be okay
here's an example on my old 6700k with 1070ti playing battlefield v single player.... overall 95% it was smooth
there was some jitters when i tried to turn 180 degrees real quick sorta went into a blurry mess and half a second later it was good again..

now more modern 4 cores and 8 threads should fair alot of better than my old 6700k but if you want something long term
i guess this rig is for somebody else since you mention you have a 11600k, you be better off eyeing on 6 cores systems my 2cents

 

[dgianstefani]

It's fine.

You have to have a good quad core with HT like i3 12/13100 though.

Still faster than hexa core 8700K/3600X etc.

 

[Sithaer]

The most sensible/smart user on this forum is gaming happily with a 12100F and a 3060Ti.

Every time my lizard brain starts thinking about the next upgrade, I think of this user and how ridiculous I'm being.

a 12100 or a 12400 is more than enough for gaming with anything but the highest tier GPU.

*unless you're some uber-competitive high FPS gamer that want 240+ FPS

Yeah I wouldn't go as far as to put me and smart in the same sentence but yea thats me I guess.
I've had no issues playing any game I was interested in with my 12100F since I have it/2022 February and till this day I have a hard time finding a proper reason to upgrade it. 'its just the upgrade itch that happens sometimes but I try to ignore it with reasons'

I've also finished Horizon Zero Dawn with a R5 1600X/GTX 1070 system with no issues to speak of and this 12100 runs circles around that CPU so yeah..

That being said I'm not a competitive gamer and I'm only using a 75 Hz monitor and don't care about higher FPS 'I have it capped' and for that this CPU is still enough.
Enabling RT can stress it a lot but I'm still mainly GPU bound in pretty much any modern-ish demanding game. 'Finished Cyberpunk with Ultra settings + Ultra RT/DLSS Quality and medium crowd density'

I might upgrade to a 14100 or a 14400 but I'm not in a hurry at all/gonna wait for the reviews and the prices in my country and then decide.

 

[gasolin]

Seems like newer 4 core 8 thread cpus are about 50% faster then the older top gaming cpu i7 6700k and 7700k

As one mentioned another place,site a 12100f is as good as an i7 9700k do to ips improvements

Playing projectcars 2 my 11600 with 4 core and 8 threads has the samne up to 180 fps as when it has 6 cores and 12 threads

i rare cases you can oc an i3 12100f to 5.2 ghz https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i3-12100f/22.html

 

[P4-630]

I went from an i7 6700K @ all-core 4.5Ghz to a i7 12700K @ all-P-core 5Ghz in some games/situations I got sometimes double the fps now vs before, still with the same GPU.

 

[Veseleil]

It's not about how much faster are the new 4c8t cpus compared to the old ones, but do the games demand more than 4 cores to play smooth. Again, not the max fps, but lows and average fps. My example of a sandy bridge 6 core overclocked cpu vs. a haswell 4 core locked cpu from earlier. Same story was about ryzen 3300x vs. 3600, where the former had better max fps, but lost in everything else to the latter.

 

[Macro Device]

I wonder if an OC i7-7700K or the i3-12100 could peg CP2077 at 60fps when driving. Maybe they can't.

7700K can't.
12100 can, unless you run at stock. ~10 percent deficite on its part and it's fully resaturated via overclocking it beyond 4.6 GHz (which is impossible on most motherboards though).

Tested with 6700 XT at 1080p High no RT no FSR. RAM (2x8 GB) has been clocked to 3400 MHz (16-16-16-34 CR1) on both systems. The game was ver. 1.61DLSS3 on a SATA SSD.

 

[chrcoluk]

I be surprised if a 6 core 12/13 gen is slower than say a 9900k, I would expect a comfortable win. Going down to 4 cores, in many games the 12/13 gen would win out as well I think, but maybe a few really thread heavy games something like the 9900k would still come out on top.

 

[Assimilator]

If you manually disable cores on your CPU for anything except extreme benchmarking, you're literally retarded because CPUs do this for you. It's called "core parking".

As for the topic, 4c/8t is probably enough for games since the consoles use 8 cores, but it won't leave you very much headroom for anything more. 6c/12t is the realistic minimum if you want to run other processes on your PC while gaming.

 

[Vayra86]

Also depends on your personal fps/resolution preference.

The reqs target 30 fps... not 60

On a 8700K I push >100 in hzd on a 7900XT.
HT threads simply arent as good. 4c8t is not enough for solid minimum fps.

6c12t is the new minimum. If you have a gpu faster than a 6700, you will see gains from more recent, higher IPC 6c12t in a general sense. 8c16t is preferable, but not necessary just yet. Outliers exist, but this is a good rule of thumb in 2023. With my current CPU I never fall short for a good experience, but there are major gains to be had depending on your gpu. In TW Warhammer 3, I lose over 40% perf situationally already, and also land below 60 fps on occasions.

HZD is not a Dx12 game either. DX12 benefits massively from sufficient core count. 11 mainly benefits from IPC and Ghz, the primary thread is still vital for the base performance increase, not so much the core count.