Do quad-core processors finally die in 2019?

We are discussing quad-core processors today, especially their relevance in 2019. The last time we discussed this specific topic was in 2017, but since then, the discussion on quad-core processors has become much less relevant. plus a leading processor that only has four cores.

The most expensive quad-core sold today is the Core i3-8350K and we noted it the very day of its release. Currently selling for around $ 200, you'd be crazy to buy it at this price. Then at AMD we have the Ryzen 3 1300X that you can also ignore for the same reason, while the R3 1200 is more reasonable at $ 90, we suggest to PC builders on a budget to watch the Ryzen 3 2200G at 95 $, which adds a decent integrated graphics. Solution.

Those looking for a low-budget Intel processor would turn to the Core i3-8100, although at $ 120, the Ryzen 3 2200G is a much better option.

More specifically, this article explores whether these economic quad-cores are worth buying by the players, or if they died on arrival. But what does even death mean? For us, this means new games: a) refuse to load when you try to run with a quad-core processor, or b) you run so bad that the games are not playable.

So far, this first point had not arrived yet, all the games we are aware of would run and run on a quad-core processor. Regarding the second point, it is still quite rare to find an unplayable title on a quad-core, this is perhaps not the best experience, but it is almost always very playable. You certainly would not want to pay mid-range or high-end money for a 4-core processor, but as a basic game option, they are quite acceptable.

For this test, we will explore CPU scaling performance with Zen-based AMD processors. We have some games to finish and then we would like to take a closer look at different configurations using Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Please note that the GPU used for each test is indicated on the graph, as well as the resolution and quality parameters. Ryzen processors were tested with DDR4-3200 CL14 memory, while the Athlon 200GE used DDR4-2400 CL14 memory.

Marks

Starting with Rainbow Six Siege, we have the Ryzen 3 2200G representing 4-core / 4-thread processors and here we see some interesting things. At 1080p for those looking for high frame rates, the quad-core remains very punchy in this title, allowing 183 fps on average and more than 129 fps at any time. A dual-core with SMT enabled also enabled very playable performance.

Still, while we saw the 2200G behind the 2700X with 28% margin in 1080p, this figure was reduced to 13% at 1440p, then to 9% at 4K. Even the Athlon 200GE can offer a similar experience to 4K, although we are sure this will not be the case for every game. For example, let's take a look at Project Cars 2 …

Tests with Project Cars 2 show consistent performance gains as we increase the number of kernels. The quad-core R3 2200G still delivers 1080p playable performance, never going below 60 fps, but for a high-end GPU, this clearly creates a bottleneck.

We basically see the same scaling at 1440p and it is only in 4K that the RTX 2080 Ti becomes the limiting component for most of these configurations. At 4K, the dual heart Athlon 200GE can not keep up.

To test with Hitman, we used DX12 and selected a scene containing a lot of NPCs. This crushed dual-core to the point where it was unplayable, effectively killing it in this title. Then we have the 2200G quad and it's right on the edge with a minimum of 1% of 33%. However, we see a 70% difference between the low and medium frame rate of 1% with the 2200G, while the 2400G, which supports SMT technology, has only a variance of 31%. This means that the 2200G was not as fluid and that was the case.

Assassin's Creed Odyssey is another demanding title in processor. The dual-core Athlon 200GE struggles to deliver playable performances. The 2200G, although it was not ideal, offered playable performance and we found at 4K resolution that it was comparable to the 2400G 4-core / 8-wire, which made it slightly slower than the R5 2600.

We have deliberately included Forza Horizon 4 because, like many other games, it does not require a lot of CPU resources. This title plays perfectly well on a modest dual-core and we see it here.

The truth is that the vast majority of games do not require a lot of processor resources, especially the popular Esports titles. However, it is extremely demanding when you encounter processor-related scenarios, which is why players talk a lot about CPU performance.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider is a new title very demanding. Here we find the model 2200G quad-core at the limit and again, the difference between the average frame rate and less than 1% is much greater than what we see with the 2400G model. Even at 4K resolution, the 2200G dramatically limits the performance of the RTX 2080 Ti, suggesting that this processor will also limit the performance of graphics processors much lower.

Adding the RTX 2060 and GTX 1060 6GB to the mix, please note that all GPUs are tested at different resolutions: the 2080 Ti has been tested at 4K, the RTX 2060 at 1440p and the 1060 6GB at 1080p. What is interesting to note here is that the frame rates Athlon 200GE and Ryzen 3 2200G are limited in all areas.

That's why we are testing processors with high-end graphics processors to eliminate them as a potential bottleneck. Indeed, even if the pairing of the 2200G with the 2080 Ti is not realistic, it better informs you of the limits of the processor and the chances that it will At the end of the GPU, you will always find these limits with quality parameters well adjusted. What we see here is that overall, the Athlon 200GE and Ryzen 3 2200G limit performance and the same goes for the 2400G.

For an additional test, we took the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti and advanced at 1440p using the lowest, medium and highest quality presets, only in the very demanding Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The purpose of this test is to illustrate how difficult it is to cover this subject, even with several hardware configurations.

Using the highest quality, the margin between the 2700X, 2600X and 2400G is relatively small. The 2200G is well suited to the average frame rate, but as we have seen many times, it is late for the minimum of 1%. This is, of course, reviewed with the medium quality preset and is then overstated with the lowest quality preset.

Even though we can increase the GTX 1660 Ti's average scroll speed performance by 48% with the 2200G from the lowest preselection to the lowest quality, the 1% performance, which is strongly limited by the number of processors, has only been improved by 27%. In the case of the 2600X and 2700X, we see a consistent scaling for 1%, low and medium frame rates because we are not bound by the processor for these configurations.

pack

Have quad-core CPUs died in 2019? It seems like a simple question, but we do not want to oversimplify it. We can all agree that high-end, even mid-range quad-core processors, even those with SMT support, are dead, without the fact that neither AMD nor Intel have produced or sold them for more than a year. a year, but because they can limit performance in a number of modern titles, as we just saw.

Current mid-range Intel offerings are 6-core / 6-threaded components, while 6-core AMD packs feature 12 threads. That means the $ 240 i5-7600K in 2017 is a thing of the past and we think for the current market, the $ 100 quad-hearts are perfectly acceptable. For those who play with a RX 560, 570, GTX 1050 up to 3GB 1060, a cheap quad-core will pass you.

We suggest, as far as possible, to target 165 Ryzen 5 2600 dollars. But we can also understand that spending this extra money is not an option for everyone. In general, those who buy graphics cards over $ 300 do not try to pair them with a $ 100 processor, or at least that's not the norm.

Coming back to the Core i5-7600K for a moment, we realize that the quad-core performance of this article does not quite reflect what Intel's fourth-generation Kaby Lake quad-core piece can offer. We have seen in the past that the 7600K spoiled the 2200G, but they cost twice as much, so no surprises. Even in this case, there are titles such as Battlefield V where the 7600K begins to struggle. Even if a heavy overclock and a decent memory should still be enough to avoid you real trouble at the moment.

Not all quad-cores are created equally, some can be overclocked at around 5 GHz, offer high CPI and low latency. Others are running at much more modest clock speeds, maybe they do not support the same memory bandwidths, latency, and so on.

When it comes to games and quality settings, if you're playing mostly titles that do not require a lot of CPU resources, such as Forza Horizon 4, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Fortuna, DiRT 4, For Honor, World of Tanks – probably also Metro Exodus, Dirt. From our first tests, Rally 2.0 and Apex Legends: a modern quad-core endowed with a mid-range graphics processor will fit perfectly.

However, if you play games such as Battlefield Multiplayer, Hitman, Assassin's Creed or Shadow of the Tomb Raider, an average low-end quad-core processor such as the Ryzen 3 2200G will struggle or operate at levels a little less than desirable.

In the end, quad-cores are perfect as entry-level pieces and, fortunately, today is all they sell. You can say that they are already "dead" halfway and beyond. Ideally, you will want at least a 6-core / 12-thread processor, probably for the next few years.

Business Shortcuts: