No, users should
not buy PCs with as many cores as humanly possible because unused cores are nothing but wasted money. People should always buy what's best for them (in terms of the bang for the buck) for their budget. I do understand that most TPU users are tech-enthusiasts who love to have overpowered PCs because you do it for boasting rights but that's not how the world works! Many people save on food and clothes to be able to buy a PC and you're insisting they should go e.g. buy something like Ryzen 7 3700X? Or companies which buy thousands of PCs for their workers? Why?? All these people will be just fine with Core i3 10300 for the next 15 years. Yes, 15, because I had an Intel Core i5 2500 based PC until August 2019 and it still works perfectly. I replaced it
not because I needed MOAR cores or speed but because I wanted a new PC for a change.
Also, please let me remind you about AMD FX-8000 / 9000 CPUs which had MORE cores but ran slower in absolute most tasks than Intel CPUs with twice as fewer cores. So, your argument about having MOAR cores goes out of the window.
And since we've just established that MOAR cores are not that essential we come back to square one.
- Old bad Sky Lake at 5.3 GHz performs faster than any non-OC'ed AMD CPU in existence in absolute most tasks.
- AMD does win when MOAR cores are getting used due to power throttling on the Intel side because you can go only so far with power hungry 14nm cores.
- Intel does have CPUs with much better IPC than Sky Lake: Ice Lake (~18% IPC uplift), Tiger Lake (+15% IPC uplift vs. Ice Lake).
Lastly many people say new games will utilize MOAR cores, which means slower but MOAR cores are better than faster but fewer cores. This is too often not true. Let me explain why:
- Most game engines have a master thread which synchronizes all other threads load and if this master thread becomes overutilized your additional cores are going to waste.
- CCX complexes in AMD CPUs mean there's a certain amount of delay in communication between cores which means games have to be specially coded which adds complexity and some game companies will simply not do this work because there's this vendor, which is being mocked at constantly, Intel, which doesn't have inter-CPU cores communication issues. AMD has actually realized that as well and Zen 3 is rumored to have 8-core CCX complexes which solves the issue.
- A lot of games don't actually need that many cores because they are not complicated enough and programmers have no tasks to run on additional cores. In fact less than 5% of games in 2020 fully utilize more than 6 cores which means Intel Core i9 9700 is doing its job just fine or most four-core CPUs with HT.
Over and out.
Are you following me?
Let me quote myself again: "And 3400G is quite slower CPU-wise than Core i3 10100 because it's Zen+, not Zen 2."
-Old bad Sky Lake at 5.3 GHz performs faster than any non-OC'ed AMD CPU in existence in absolute most tasks.
is this the slide we are looking for?
Do you also work for them?...
- Intel does have CPUs with much better IPC than Sky Lake: Ice Lake (~18% IPC uplift), Tiger Lake (+15% IPC uplift vs. Ice Lake).
Where? do they have a DESKTOP CPU with better IPC then AMD right now? will they have in the following year the year next to it?
If the answer is NO, then whats the point to even bring it up?, Zen 3 is around the corner, rumored to bring a big IPC lift once a gain after they refined the CCX/CCD layout, and with Zen 3 we are talking about September-October time frame.
If Rocket-Lake-S is lower core count, lower frequency but with higher clocks.. what performance benefit will "But my 5.3GHz CPU is best cuz Marketing to me so" crowed will see? they would definitely don't care about PCI-E 4.0 and better IGPU. "Tiger-Lake" when is that? Late 2020 on laptops and ~2021 on desktop? So it will compere with zen 4.....
-
All these people will be just fine with Core i3 10300 for the next 15 years. Yes, 15, because I had an Intel Core i5 2500 based PC until August 2019 and it still works perfectly. I replaced it not because I needed MOAR cores or speed but because I wanted a new PC for a change.
Sorry, but that's a funny comment. you base the fact a new CPU will be "good" for 15 years and you base that on the fact
you changed your CPU
after 9 Years stating it "wasn't because of performance".
You know what CPU were available 15 Years a go? Athlon 64 x2 and Pentium D, do you really want to use one of those on a modern operation system with a modern browser? not even gaming. the answer would be you don't. in another 6 years, people will look at your beloved i5 2500 the same way as people look today on a c2d, it old, slow and shouldn't be used.
You should also remember that for the most part software takes time to catch up to hardware. 4c/4t was the performance on the mainstream front for a long time, you would not want to target software for people running on 8c/8t CPU's when only 1% of people have those. so you target for the lower end. a 2500 is slower then a modern i3, if you don't game that's fine but lets not pretend that a 2500k is a "decent" gaming CPU in 2020. I had an i5 3470 from the moment it launched. I had it for several years until I changed it to an E3-1270v2 (~i7 3770) I grabbed for cheap on ebay, frame-times in games were much more consistent (and that's with a mid-range GTX970) after the swap.
Every few years the software catches up with hardware improvements. and it will happen sooner then later, in 2010 we said "games don't need more than 2 cores", 3 years later when I swapped my aging E8400 C2D to an i5 3470 (in late 2012 when it launched) the difference was night and day. today people repeat the broken record that games don't use more the 4c/8t, so in a year it would change again to "but games don't use more than 8c8t and so on". Technology is going forward and you can't expect any piece of hardware to stay relevant for ever. even when it comes to office pc's an i5 2500 is starting to show its age, believe me I know having the "pleasure" to use one inside an hp generic sff box on my work pc (thankfully with an SSD). and while it is performance are decent for its age. its nothing to write home about.
