How many CPU cores do games need?

With stuff like threadrippers on the market and PS6 to be rumored to have 22 threads, I wonder how many threads/cores a CPU is actually required to have these days?

I think 4 is too low for modern games, but what about 6 or 8?

Probably around 12. My 4 cores are already being saturated. 8 is just fine too, and even 6 can perform just as well as the current gen.

The programmers probably try to code their games to take advantage of the high end cpus of the time, so by the time the game comes out, that high end cpus is standard.

So i would say mid range level of cores will always be the sweet Spot for game performance.

Many games still don't take full of advantage of multi-threading but it is getting better. 8C/16T is still the ideal setup for gaming. So, the focus will be on IPC, clock speed, and cache size/architecture for getting more performance.

For productivity and heavy multi-tasking, the more cores the better. That is when you will see an actual benefit from CPUs with more than 8 cores.

From what I gather, 6 cores 12 threads will have you covered. If you have a high end gpu and want to play the latest stuff at max settings, you'll probably need to bump that up to 8/16 in a couple years. But most people will be fine with an i5 or Ryzen 5 for a while yet.

But I game on a GTX 1650, so maybe you don't want my advice.

I'm gonna go into full details as I'm running R9 5900X (12core/24threads) with an RTX 3070Ti and here's what I'll say.

In general today, 4 cores are probably a minimum and 4 multithreaded cores is better. That said, game developers are shifting based on the changing ecosystem. Multicore CPUs are the norm even on budget CPUs like Celeron and Pentium and gaming systems today tend to have 8 or more cores. And that's outdated data garbage, to be frank LOL.

Generally speaking, 6 cores/12 threads are usually the optimal number of cores for gaming in 2022.

4 cores can still cut it but would hardly be a future-proof solution, and 8 or more cores might provide a performance improvement, though all this depends mainly on how a particular game is coded and what GPU/CPU would be paired with it.

Picking the right GPU for gaming is really what's more important IMO. All you need to do is check some benchmarks, decide what kind of performance you can get for the kind of money that you’re willing to spend, and you’re good to go is really the main factor in what CPU you wanna pair with.

Still, there’s one CPU spec that stands out most of the time, and it’s the core count. So, how many CPU cores do you need for gaming in 2022 & beyond, and is a core count even that important? Only you can make a decision and what is it for? Pure gaming or workstation/gaming at the same time? My PC is often used as a workstation since I'm using 5900X for those cores & threads meaning stable workflow is my concern while gaming is a plus side for those cores as well.

I can tell you know threadrippers as of now are BS! R9 like the 5900X & 5950X have now replaced threadrippers in terms of ghz & price-wise.

@davillain: Threadripper is not BS when it comes to productivity. A high end Threadripper still beats a 5950X by a large margin for productivity. However, it is not as good for gaming. 5950X does both well and that is why most people don't buy Threadripper as much. However, for a pure workstation build, Threadripper is still superior.

Games like BF 2042 take advantage of 8 cores and you will see a benefit over 6 cores when targeting high fps for competitive gaming. That is why I recommend 8C/16T CPU as the ideal CPU for gaming. 6 cores already has limitations for high end gaming and will only get worse. You also have to take RAM into consideration at that point to avoid bottle-necks. The speed and timings come into play as well as dual rank vs. single rank. Your GPU can only work as hard as the CPU and RAM allow it. If the CPU and RAM can not feed the GPU quick enough, it will be bottle-necked.

6 cores 12 threads seems to be the sweet spot, especially if your primarly focused on singler player based games.

Like others have said IPC and clockspeed are the more important factors. For example i'd rather own a quad core i3 12300 then literally any 8/12 core ryzen 1000, 2000, or 3000 series CPU.

this thread has me remembering when intel dual core was a big freaking deal lol

I recently upgraded from a fairly old quad-core i7 (6700k) to a new 12700k (8 power cores/4 efficiency cores/20 threads), while using the same GPU (RTX 3070).

Even though a bottleneck calculator suggested my old CPU was only slightly bottlenecking that GPU, I found the upgrade resulted in massive performance gains in CPU hungry games like BF2042 and Chivalry 2. More than doubled the FPS in those two.

A bit harder to explain is Elden Ring, which apparently only was using 60-80% of my old CPU, but I still had FPS drops into the 40's in the big open areas. It now stays at 60fps.

so as important as GPUs are, I'm learning that I definitely waited too long to upgrade the CPU as well.

Many games still hang on 1 core, so I would say clock speeds are the most important, but I do start to see smarter game devs that do utilize more than just 1 core to make more efficient resource balance in their games.

Ryzen 5 and i5 have 6 cores, so I would say 6 is the sweetspot.

@BassMan: What does "productivity" mean to you?

Rendering, compiling, encoding on the fly for a live stream, etc.. CPU heavy tasks.

I don't think those are "productivity" tasks though. Usually when the word productivity is used on PC, I thought they were referring to office related software. I've never heard of those tasks you mentioned as being refereed to as productivity.

Not going to argue that you're wrong, but are you sure? Those sound closer to workstation tasks to me. Also, doesn't the GPU handle live streaming tasks on the fly? I thought streamers used their GPU for that. I thought encoding was hardware accelerated as well. I know they benchmark CPUs with those as well, but I thought GPUs were also used to assist some of these tasks.

@HalcyonScarlet: CPU and GPU excel at different things, but there is overlap for certain workloads. It's all productivity related though. You will often see CPU reviews with benchmarks for these tasks listed under productivity. Anyway, like I said before, 8 cores is ideal for gaming. Any more cores and you want to be using the CPU for productivity or it is just a waste.

If you're getting a new computer, 8/16 CPU makes sense. That should do PC gaming for maybe the next 8 years or so. If you have a 6/12 CPU, you'll be good for the foreseeable future, because developers won't want to alienate most PC gamers. 4/8 CPU is just about doable, but the newest AAA games are coming away from that fast, but there's still many games released that will work on a 4 core or 4/8 core CPU.

But in general for the majority of people, 8/16 CPU should do for most PC tasks. Unless you're making a living out of what you're doing and you can justify the extra on a higher core CPU. Even a 8/16 CPU is between £250 - £300 in the UK.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!

I ask this because most games run on single-thread. Why do gamer PCs have processors like i7 or i9 instead of i3 of a newer generation, if multiple cores aren't commonly used when gaming?

Look up CPU benchmarks of current games. 8/16 is the best performer in most cases with lower core/thread CPUs starting to trail.

A 6/12 CPU should be considered the minimum with consoles using 8/16 CPUs with decent clock speeds now.

@ghostofgolden said:

@satavkupa said:

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!

I ask this because most games run on single-thread. Why do gamer PCs have processors like i7 or i9 instead of i3 of a newer generation, if multiple cores aren't commonly used when gaming?

Look up CPU benchmarks of current games. 8/16 is the best performer in most cases with lower core/thread CPUs starting to trail.

A 6/12 CPU should be considered the minimum with consoles using 8/16 CPUs with decent clock speeds now.

were these benchmarks run on the same core microarchitecture / frequency though where the only difference is strictly count? could performance gains also be coming from core improvements?

@comp_atkins: there's too many variables going on but 6/12 with latest ipc should be good. The lower Intels stack is confusing but the lower rung models has less efficiency cores and lower clock they're modern day budget 4 core 6 core types.