That sounds like I’m contradicting my own argument right off the bat, but once again, it’s first and foremost about overall CPU performance.Ĭase in point, there isn’t a single quad-core CPU in existence that can match the performance of a modern 6-core/12-thread processor, such as the Core i5-11600K or Ryzen 5 5600X. Having said that, most modern and demanding games don’t run well on quad-cores, even if they support SMT (simultaneous multi-threading). For example, games no longer run properly, or at all, on dual-core CPUs, so in that sense you require at minimum a quad-core to game. It’s also easier to dump down system requirements to core count, because it’s a quick way to dismiss a wide range of CPUs.
And while that should be a fairly easy concept to understand, there’s a surprising amount of pushback.
We’ve addressed these "core" misconceptions before, explaining that overall CPU performance is all that matters, rather than how many cores a CPU has. Typical examples include “6 is more than enough cores,” or “you need a minimum of 8 cores for gaming,” due to some misguided notion that consoles have 8 cores and therefore that’s what PC gamers will require moving forward. At some point you may have heard someone say that for gaming you need X amount of cores.
0 kommentar(er)
