VIDEO More Cores vs. More Cache, What Boosts Gaming FPS?

More Cores vs. More Cache, What Boosts Gaming FPS? In a recent video from Hardware Unboxed, an analysis of how CPU core counts and cache size affect gaming performance was presented. The discussion centers on the common misconception that more cores directly translate to better gaming FPS. This topic remains particularly relevant to PC gamers looking to optimize their setups for increased performance, especially in the evolving landscape of gaming hardware in 2024.

Understanding Core Counts and Performance​

The video begins by addressing the debate surrounding the minimum number of CPU cores necessary for modern gaming. Traditionally, many have advocated for six to eight cores as the standard for optimal performance, often citing console specifications as a benchmark. However, the host clarifies that it's less about the quantity of cores and more about the overall performance capabilities of the CPU. Notably, while quad-core CPUs are often still viable, they may struggle with demanding games. The host contends that performance is ultimately dictated by the CPU architecture, efficiency, and cache size rather than merely counting cores. For instance, a modern six-core processor, like the Intel Core i5-11600K or AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, can significantly outperform older eight-core models, such as the Ryzen 7 2700X, in gaming scenarios.

Core Count vs. L3 Cache​

A particularly interesting point raised is the performance scaling when comparing CPUs with varying core counts and L3 cache sizes. Through rigorous benchmarking with several Intel CPUs, the results indicated that increases in L3 cache often yield more substantial performance gains than simply increasing the core count. For example, in titles like "Rainbow Six Siege," everything else being equal, switching from a six-core to an eight-core CPU provided a marginal FPS increase compared to the gains observed from an increase in cache size. The analysis highlighted that, while the extra cores contributed positively to overall performance, the additional cache offered more significant performance improvements, particularly in CPU-intensive scenarios. The tests conducted revealed that at 1080p resolutions with high-end GPUs like the RTX 3090, the games became CPU limited, further intensifying the debate over whether buying more cores or investing in higher cache CPUs is the smarter choice.

Real-World Implications​

This discussion has real implications for gamers considering upgrades. Upgrading from something like a core i7-8700K to a newer core i7-10700K or i9-10900K results in improved performance, yet the gains can often be attributed more to increased cache rather than core count. The video also advises that potential buyers should take a personalized approach to their CPU choices based on how they utilize their computers. For example, a gamer running high-intensity applications needing heavy multitasking might benefit more from higher core counts. In contrast, those who primarily game may find a competent six-core CPU will suffice, allowing for savings that can be redirected toward a stronger GPU for enhanced graphical performance.

Conclusion​

The discussion initiated by Hardware Unboxed serves as a reminder to evaluate CPU specifications critically rather than relying solely on traditional metrics like core counts. With gaming technology advancing rapidly and the rise of hardware like the Ryzen 7000 series and Intel's upcoming generations, understanding the nuances of how cache and cores affect performance is essential for making informed purchasing decisions. For those engaged in this community, what are your thoughts on the evolving dynamics of CPU performance in gaming? Have you found a significant difference between core counts and cache size in your own gaming setups? Let's hear your experiences!