8 cores cpu

[MightyNerdy93]

Hey guys , i took some time for myself to think , currently im coming from an old rig with 4 cores cpu ,
and im thinking on amd cpu for light gaming and some productivity , im not a streamer or video editor but i do want to do that in the future
so how much difference a guy with 4 cores cpu will feel with 8 cores cpu or do i need even 12 cores cpu if im planning to use this pc to last 10 years like my current rig

i would like to hear your thoughts please

 

[Apocalypsee]

Very hard to recommend anything without budget, and what sort of 'light gaming' game do you play or want to play really. Buying something like Ryzen 5700x or 5700x3D will be good for years to come. Mostly games reliance on how fast your graphics card is.

 

[MightyNerdy93]

my budget for a cpu is up to 550$ when i make a conversation from my currency

 

[dgianstefani]

Get a 9800X3D.

 

[Maxiaid]

my budget for a cpu is up to 550$ when i make a conversation from my currency

9800X3D is by far your best choice in every possible way.

 

[MightyNerdy93]

how the 9800x3d is dealing with productivity , video editing and streaming as well ?

 

[Princess Garnet]

Timing is interesting.

Right now, AMD's desktop Ryzen lineup consists of a 6 core (Ryzen 5), 8 core (Ryzen 7), 12 core (Ryzen 9 x900), and 16 core (Ryzen 9 x950).

AMD uses a non-monolithic approach (Intel does too now) where "chiplets" make up the CPU (Intel calls them tiles). The important part is that the cores make up what's called a "CCD" (core complex die), and these CCDs are currently 8 cores. This means the Ryzen 9 models get their core counts by using two CCDs. And the Ryzen 5 and the lower Ryzen 9 model in particular also have two cores each disabled.

So the lineup is as follows...

Ryzen 5 (6 cores)
Ryzen 5 (8 cores)
Ryzen 5 (6 cores + 6 cores)
Ryzen 5 (8 cores + 8 cores)

If any inter-core communication needs to happen, it has to go over the Infinity Fabric and a latency penalty is incurred. This doesn't matter much, if at all, for "infinitely thread scaling" productivity where "real time" results aren't necessary... but it matters for games. This is why "the Ryzen 9s are for productivity" is a saying. General use and gaming doesn't need such core counts. This is also why if you ever look at the performance of the X3D models, the Ryzen 9 x900 is almost always the least performing of the three SKUs (the Ryzen 7 x800 and Ryzen 9 x950 both outperform it, sometimes by a lot). That applies a bit less to the non-X3D models but sometimes it's still true there.

The ultimate thing to know here is choosing a model with more cores than you need now might be a detriment, and it's worse with the Ryzen 9 x900 due to it having smaller core count CCDs.

Now the caveat is you're asking about ten years. The counterpoint is that a mere four core CPU lasted you this long, I'd say an 8 core CPU will be able to do the same. Of course, Not with top end performance ten years from now, but that won't be due to core count.

So why did I mention timing above? It's speculated (key word!) that CCD counts may go up to 12 cores soon. Maybe next generation (or perhaps the following)? I know that does nothing for you now unless you are willing to to wait, and on an unconfirmed rumor. I'd hate to buy a 12 core part with a detriment only for the reason that detriment exists to be erased the following generation.

I'd simply buy a 8 core CPU now because even if it's not 10 years exactly, it will do the best until then, and by time it's 8 cores fall off, any 12 core model you buy today will also be struggling. Besides, games won't scale in core count forever. Most are still fine on 6 core CPUs. It depends a lot on what the consoles do next generation. $550 (at least in the US) gets you the 9800X3D anyway, which is the absolute best gaming CPU period and is no slouch in productivity either.

 

[inquisitor1]

5950x or 5900x. on sale from time to time invest more to gpu. buy used 3080 still a monster card

ram with am5 costs double.30% more for motherboards too.

 

[Hyderz]

isnt the 9800x3d abit overkill for light gaming as mentioned by op?
the 9700x will be plenty and if needed amd has another generation of cpu coming for am5 so if needed extra horsepower could always upgrade
but op also mention wanting the pc to last 10 years and 9800x3d isnt so bad after... kinda conflicting choices

 

[Ruru]

5950x or 5900x. on sale from time to time invest more to gpu. buy used 3080 still a monster card

ram with am5 costs double.30% more for motherboards too.

Agree, 3080 is still more than capable when not playing new AAA titles at 4K maxed out.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

isnt the 9800x3d abit overkill for light gaming as mentioned by op?
the 9700x will be plenty and if needed amd has another generation of cpu coming for am5 so if needed extra horsepower could always upgrade
but op also mention wanting the pc to last 10 years and 9800x3d isnt so bad after... kinda conflicting choices

Whats fast today will be slow tomorrow.

8 cores pure fast 9800X3D. If the budget allows, this is top pick.

Hey guys , i took some time for myself to think , currently im coming from an old rig with 4 cores cpu ,
and im thinking on amd cpu for light gaming and some productivity , im not a streamer or video editor but i do want to do that in the future
so how much difference a guy with 4 cores cpu will feel with 8 cores cpu or do i need even 12 cores cpu if im planning to use this pc to last 10 years like my current rig

i would like to hear your thoughts please

It's not exactly the amount of cores. It's the performance increase per core as well.

I have no idea what you currently have. Lets say a 4th gen. 4690K maybe. It will get completely smashed by any current platform. Significant gains in the 100 to 150% per core gains. Even if you had a 1080 ti, it would get really nice fps uplift eliminating mostly all cpu bottleneck for that card. Since a lot of older games are cpu bound, it'll be a big difference.

10 years is a long time. Let's hope windows 16 by then supports 10 year old hardware..... who's to know.

 

[MightyNerdy93]

guys , im so sorry that i didn't wrote it , my current rig :
i7 6700
980ti
h170 d3h

 

[Outback Bronze]

Nothing wrong with this cpu, Brian seems to think so anyways : )

Edit: 7900 prob not a bad idea with 12 cores. Any point going 9900x or higher?

 

[inquisitor1]

Agree, 3080 is still more than capable when not playing new AAA titles at 4K maxed out.

it will be some years before I consider 4k. I just got into 1440p last year and mixed feeling with that, but 3080 is still killer. Otoh, im very happy with 60fps but im a weirdo haha

 

[Macro Device]

9800X3D is without a doubt THE processor but 7800X3D is 100+ USD cheaper on average and it's not that much slower. The difference in real gaming is insignificant, the difference in work is also nothing to write home about.
7700 non-X does cost a lot less and it's still a mighty CPU if you're not doing anything oddly specific. 7950X is also cheaper and destroys 9800X3D in MT tasks.

So, OP, you have 4 options:

A. 9800X3D. That is if you're not doing anything that seems to reasonably utilize more than 8 cores and your main goal is sheer gaming edge.
B. 7800X3D if it's 100 or more $ cheaper. Essentially the same CPU, just a little slower and a little harder to cool.
C. 7700 non-X. A lot cheaper but does non-gaming tasks very similarly to 9800X3D, only losing about 15 percent in the worst case scenarios. In gaming, it depends on what games you play and what framerates you target. If you're a 60 to 90 FPS gamer then X3D is irrelevant for you.
D. 7950X. This is your guy if you're about to work with something where there's no such thing such as enough cores. It almost doubles the 9800X3D's performance in such tasks.

Options B, C, and D are very feasible on the 2nd hand market, too, if you can trust the sellers. They come with a considerable discount.

 

[JustBenching]

how the 9800x3d is dealing with productivity , video editing and streaming as well ?

The 9800x 3d is frankly the worse choice of cpu you could ever do for your use case. Get a 7700x or - if you actually going to be doing productivity a lot look at the 7950x. I'm not suggesting any intel chips cause people will go crazy.

 

[Maxiaid]

9800X3D is without a doubt THE processor but 7800X3D is 100+ USD cheaper on average and it's not that much slower. The difference in real gaming is insignificant, the difference in work is also nothing to write home about.

Debatable. I made the switch from 7800X3D to 9800X3D and if you play CPU-intensive games, it is remarkably better (about 20% faster on average with significantly better frame pacing). Better for production workloads as well, but I agree, nothing to write home about. I would obviously not suggest most people do this kind of upgrade, but if you're upgrading from something old, it's a no-brainer. Especially if you have a $550 budget like OP stated. This will always boil down to personal choice, but settling for lesser performance for the next 10 years for the sake of saving ~$100 doesn't add up in my book.

The 9800x 3d is frankly the worse choice of cpu you could ever do for your use case.

This is just nonsense.

 

[A Computer Guy]

D. 7950X. This is your guy if you're about to work with something where there's no such thing such as enough cores. It almost doubles the 9800X3D's performance in such tasks.

On ebay 7950x is dipping toward $320 range now making them really good aftermarket deals. In a sub $400 cpu budget given the choice between $300 5950x vs. $350 7950x choose 7950x as it will be totally worth it even when paired with B650 $150-ish motherboard. Hot on it's heals 9950x is dipping toward $450 to $500 rather fast since 9950X3D was released.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I'll let the others get into specifics.

light gaming and some productivity , im not a streamer or video editor but i do want to do that in the future

A big mix there.

You need to define what you mean by productivity. Typically, it means creating and editing "information" such as Word documents, Powerpoint presentations, Excel worksheets, databases, charts, graphs and such.

With that definition in mind, productivity, light gaming, and streaming takes very little CPU horsepower. With a nice chunk of RAM (8GB minimum, 16GB preferred, 32GB even better) and a SSD for your boot drive and the drive that houses your page file, you could even go with a 1/2 way decent motherboard that supports integrated graphics and NOT experience any latency issues.

However, if by "productivity", you include digital painting, creating electronic music or digital videos, a little more horsepower and a nicer graphics card would be wise (along with lots of storage).

if im planning to use this pc to last 10 years like my current rig

If only we could see the future.

"Lasting" 10 years is NOT a function of the number of cores the CPU has. How long something "lasts" (before it dies) is a function of initial reliability, durability, and the amount of abuse it is forced to endure. By abuse, with electronics I mean (1) heat and (2) power anomalies (e.g. surges and spikes).

The problem with predicting the future with computing electronics is there are dozens of players/entities shaping it. Remember, IT is industries within industries. And each of these industries are advancing and evolving (often independently) the "state-of-the-art" at their own pace and methodologies. And many these involve developing their own protocols and standards that often require new hardware to support it.

These various "standards" include but are not limited to,

ATX Form Factors,​

Bluetooth,​

PCIe,​

Memory (DDR4, DDR5, DDR6, etc.),​

Video (HDMI, DP, etc.),​

USB,​

WiFi,​

BIOS/UEFI,​

and more.​

Then there are operating systems which often influence hardware requirements

And last but not least (and occasionally the greatest influence) is the bad guys and how their malicious activities force consumers, hardware makers and OS developers to implement changes.

My point? Plan on 5 years of use and cross your fingers it will support your needs that long. If you get 10 years of productivity out of it, consider that extra 5 years a bonus.

 

[Macro Device]

about 20% faster on average

When I was testing those it's been closer to 9% advantage on average. At 670 and 390 USD (you can guess who's who), 9800X3D is definitely not a no brainer in my location. No idea where you did get this +20% from. Smells like something was wrong with your Zen 4 CPU.

 

[Maxiaid]

When I was testing those it's been closer to 9% advantage on average. At 670 and 390 USD (you can guess who's who), 9800X3D is definitely not a no brainer in my location. No idea where you did get this +20% from. Smells like something was wrong with your Zen 4 CPU.

This is my own testing.

There was nothing wrong with my Zen4 CPU. Wild assumption you did there: "it doesn't align with my testing, therefore this guy's hardware must have been defective". Rust is CPU-bound to a great extent. This apparently translates to Escape from Tarkov and other games developed in the Unity engine. It all depends on what games you play and what level of performance you find acceptable, but OP explicitly said he wants his machine to last for the next 10 years. Getting a 9800X3D is definitely a much more solid bet in that regard.

I bought the 9800X3D for 550€ less than a month ago in Spain. Apparently that converts to around 595 USD, so my bad for just assuming a 1 to 1 conversion. 7800X3D is going for 500€, so about 541 USD. That fits the budget more tightly, but quite frankly, I wouldn't skimp. Don't give in to scalpers, sure, but if you can get it anywhere close to MSRP I'd say you buy it.

 

[A Computer Guy]

I'll let the others get into specifics.


A big mix there.

You need to define what you mean by productivity. Typically, it means creating and editing "information" such as Word documents, Powerpoint presentations, Excel worksheets, databases, charts, graphs and such.

With that definition in mind, productivity, light gaming, and streaming takes very little CPU horsepower. With a nice chunk of RAM (8GB minimum, 16GB preferred, 32GB even better) and a SSD for your boot drive and the drive that houses your page file, you could even go with a 1/2 way decent motherboard that supports integrated graphics and NOT experience any latency issues.

However, if by "productivity", you include digital painting, creating electronic music or digital videos, a little more horsepower and a nicer graphics card would be wise (along with lots of storage).


If only we could see the future.

"Lasting" 10 years is NOT a function of the number of cores the CPU has. How long something "lasts" (before it dies) is a function of initial reliability, durability, and the amount of abuse it is forced to endure. By abuse, with electronics I mean (1) heat and (2) power anomalies (e.g. surges and spikes).

The problem with predicting the future with computing electronics is there are dozens of players/entities shaping it. Remember, IT is industries within industries. And each of these industries are advancing and evolving (often independently) the "state-of-the-art" at their own pace and methodologies. And many these involve developing their own protocols and standards that often require new hardware to support it.

These various "standards" include but are not limited to,

ATX Form Factors,​

Bluetooth,​

PCIe,​

Memory (DDR4, DDR5, DDR6, etc.),​

Video (HDMI, DP, etc.),​

USB,​

WiFi,​

BIOS/UEFI,​

and more.​

Then there are operating systems which often influence hardware requirements

And last but not least (and occasionally the greatest influence) is the bad guys and how their malicious activities force consumers, hardware makers and OS developers to implement changes.

My point? Plan on 5 years of use and cross your fingers it will support your needs that long. If you get 10 years of productivity out of it, consider that extra 5 years a bonus.

I would add in addition to this something often overlooked for long term builds is needs often change overtime. One may need to take that into account depending on their use case and how long of a time period one's budget needs to cover. For example needing to add more storage later. Let's say your planning on building a 10yr PC but your budget needs to cover 2ys worth of service not anticipating additional needs during that time. You might factor in that cost either to include the extra storage right away or reserve the cost for later within that 2yr period if needed until the next budget cycle.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I'm not suggesting any intel chips cause people will go crazy.

Nah, I would suggest Intel if

A. Core Ultra had HT instead of just 8 P cores
B. LGA 1700 wasn't already near EOL.

AM5 will have a successor to 9000 series CPU on the same platform. These are the only reasons for consideration while the OP has a budget large enough to pretty much get any Fast CPU he likes.

He's also using a GTX 980ti. We should be asking if he plans to upgrade the GPU and to which one?

 

[dirtyferret]

so how much difference a guy with 4 cores cpu will feel with 8 cores cpu or do i need even 12 cores cpu if im planning to use this pc to last 10 years like my current rig

fan boys talk about cores, tech people talk about CPU performance. So the question is what kind of CPU performance do you need not how many cores. If it was just about cores, no one would have upgraded since the AMD Phenom II x6 and bulldozers

 

[Assimilator]

Given that you're already on a CPU that handles 8 threads, it's unlikely you'll notice a massive improvement going to 6c/12t and up. If however you are looking for a CPU that will last as long as possible then IMO going for the highest core count makes most sense.