Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

[cptwhite_uk]

Just thought I'd share this - really interesting video from Steve @ Hardware Unboxed comparing performance gains:

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well at least for Zen2/Zen3 the reduction in L3 cache in the APUs compared to the CPUs,did affect gaming performance. This is despite the APUs having much better latency than the CPUs,and probably why the V-cache seems to boost performance a lot(according to AMD).

[cptwhite_uk]

Obviously there's a sweet spot and gains due to increased cache will level off at a certain point. 32Mb in the 5000 series does seem to be a good balance. It's interesting to revisit the 11900K review, not exactly glowing obviously, but it is Intel's highest IPC chip with 8 cores and 20Mb(?) L3 cache, vs the Ryzen 5600K with 6 cores / 32Mb cache...

They're basically level over a 10 game average (based on 1080p , highest settings):

Go to 11 min mark for 10 game averages



So that's a £240 CPU (Ryzen 5600X) matching a £540 CPU (11900K), at least in a terms of gaming performance.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have a feeling Zen3 can probably scale better with even more L3 cache.



That is with 192MB of L3 cache over 12 cores,which is twice the L3 cache per core of the Ryzen 5 5600X,which like the Ryzen 9 5900X,has the most L3 cache per core of the Zen3 parts.

Once the V-cache parts arrive,it might be possible to start mucking around with core and cache configurations to see how things work out.

[Rob_B]

....
Once the V-cache parts arrive,it might be possible to start mucking around with core and cache configurations to see how things work out.

Soooo...a 6C/12T with 256MB cache then?
But seriously surely that *could potentially make reducing cores & increasing cache a possibility? (but I imagine it would go against marketing)

[cptwhite_uk]

Soooo...a 6C/12T with 256MB cache then?

Bingo!

[Rob_B]

Die space wise I wonder what the tradeoff would be? If it was so simple then surely they'd have done it already?...surely??

[kalniel]

Isn't this very old news? I remember this from yonks ago and pretty sure we've had gaming specials way in the past that came with an extra bit of cache.

As ever though, it's a trade off with diminishing returns especially for different workloads.

[Xlucine]

Die space wise I wonder what the tradeoff would be? If it was so simple then surely they'd have done it already?...surely??

Hence V cache

[Rob_B]

True, but cores + vcache = more materials/lower yeilds with a new tech.

I'm interested in the likelyhood/performance of a lower core count with the space/materials going towards "ye olde cache", a budget option vs the vcache "high end". I would assume that's 'easier' but then again I'm far from knowledgeable on the subject.