Kenpachii
Member
Read what i said. I explained it in there.
Probably best. 3930k probably has some fuel left in it. Specially with next gen boxes not being out just yet.
PC with 4 cores steamrolled the 8 cores on PS4.
PS5 with 8 cores ryzen steamroll 4 cores on PC.
See the difference?
PS5 with its 7 cores will equal a 10600k at maximum overlock. There is no room left here anymore and aspecting people to have a 10600k at 5ghz isn't something devs want to focus on. So either they drop the quality on PC in comparison towards what consoles could deliver on the CPU front, or they simple code for any 8 core newer generation CPU and call it a day which is far more likely.
6 cores will probably be fine once amd shifts to 5nm and intel shifts to lower nm then what they got now to get 30% or whatever boost in performance again. This is why i stated there is no point in getting anything but 8 cores in the current climate if you upgrade, and even for the next series of cpu's. Because they will comfortable outmuscles consoles through pc having far less overhead on the CPU front then consoles next generation that will also help a bit out here.
They indeed don't typically optimize for a specific CPU and that's exactly why buying into a CPU that could theoretically push PS5 performance isn't the smartest thing to do. Basically buying a 6 core top end cpu at this point. This is why u need to buy something that can comfortable run something without much bottlenecks in the future which is a 8 core cpu, as the entire marked will revolve around it at first to compete with consoles.
Further down the line we could see even a core reduction on usage because cpu's will outmuscle consoles massively as result core for core performance wise through natural progression on cpu tech. which makes more cores even less likely being used then 8 or needed. Also a reason why buying 8 core 1700 ryzen was kinda useless when it released.
There is a massive difference between ryzen 1 and 2 and frankly with zen 2 being such a rollercoaster of performance output much like what ryzen 1000 was when it released and stupid as cpu benchmarks that showcase you stuff like this.
"look everythign is the same, nobody plays 1080p anymore guys, so yea all cpu's are the same" ( the same dumbass logic people are using today with validating CPU's they buy because they are utterly clueless on how CPU bottlenecked current games already are let alone next gen ).
Then a year later this happens.
And low 40's with stutter on odyssey, sure makes you think twice about the current 3000 series when next gen games arrive and ryzen 5000 series are on the table. With intel 7700k / 8700k and 9900k all being less then 5 fps away from eachother in current games.
Yet with intel:
While the benchmarks are trash so don't look at the outcome, the reason i post them is that stability in performance with older chips on intel is far more solid then what AMD is currently doing. The way they release every single year a new cpu series that drastically improves also invalidates there old cpu's far more faster to the point its a rollercoaster of performance output. Even benchmarks today don't bother with ryzen 1000 anymore but yet have no issue reporting on intel cpu's out of that time period as result.
That's why i mentioned i would not remotely upgrade towards the 3000 series anymore at this point unless u can get it cheap, either buy a 10700k ( basically 8 core ryzen 4000 ) which will have stable performance all throughout next generation or wait on the 4000 series cpu's to launch for a better architecture that is getting supported for a bit longer as result becasue when next gen games come out 5000 series is probably with its new motherboards and architecture on the market from AMD already and the 3000 will not be even looked at anymore remotely as result. They are pretty much 1000 ryzen chips. And if they age better then the 1000 series? who knows. But it sure doesn't look in favor for them. Intel however that 10700k will run games perfectly fine when the 11700k is on the market.
Last edited:
