Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

  1. #1
    Senior Member cptwhite_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    489
    Thanked
    620 times in 425 posts
    • cptwhite_uk's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450i Gaming plus Wifi
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb DRR4 Trident Z 3200 C16
      • Storage:
      • Adata XPG SX8200 Pro 1Tb NVME SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • RX 6800 16Gb
      • PSU:
      • Corsair SF600 Gold
      • Case:
      • Ncase M1 v6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF (2560x1440 144Hz Nano IPS)
      • Internet:
      • Bt 500 Mbps

    Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

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


  2. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (18-08-2021)

  3. #2
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,806
    Thanks
    3,834
    Thanked
    5,114 times in 3,946 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

    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).

  4. #3
    Senior Member cptwhite_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    489
    Thanked
    620 times in 425 posts
    • cptwhite_uk's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450i Gaming plus Wifi
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb DRR4 Trident Z 3200 C16
      • Storage:
      • Adata XPG SX8200 Pro 1Tb NVME SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • RX 6800 16Gb
      • PSU:
      • Corsair SF600 Gold
      • Case:
      • Ncase M1 v6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF (2560x1440 144Hz Nano IPS)
      • Internet:
      • Bt 500 Mbps

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

    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.

  5. #4
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,806
    Thanks
    3,834
    Thanked
    5,114 times in 3,946 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

    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.

  6. Received thanks from:

    cptwhite_uk (18-08-2021)

  7. #5
    ALT0153™ Rob_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    6,275
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked
    751 times in 519 posts
    • Rob_B's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Biostar X370GTN
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5 2600X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3200 (16-15-15)
      • Storage:
      • 1TB WD SN550
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI 1070 Armor OC
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION SFX-L 650W
      • Case:
      • NZXT H1 V1

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    ....
    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)

  8. #6
    Senior Member cptwhite_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    489
    Thanked
    620 times in 425 posts
    • cptwhite_uk's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450i Gaming plus Wifi
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb DRR4 Trident Z 3200 C16
      • Storage:
      • Adata XPG SX8200 Pro 1Tb NVME SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • RX 6800 16Gb
      • PSU:
      • Corsair SF600 Gold
      • Case:
      • Ncase M1 v6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF (2560x1440 144Hz Nano IPS)
      • Internet:
      • Bt 500 Mbps

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob_B View Post
    Soooo...a 6C/12T with 256MB cache then?

    Bingo!

  9. #7
    ALT0153™ Rob_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    6,275
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked
    751 times in 519 posts
    • Rob_B's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Biostar X370GTN
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5 2600X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3200 (16-15-15)
      • Storage:
      • 1TB WD SN550
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI 1070 Armor OC
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION SFX-L 650W
      • Case:
      • NZXT H1 V1

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

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

  10. #8
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,874
    Thanks
    1,833
    Thanked
    3,336 times in 2,680 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

    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.

  11. #9
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,151
    Thanks
    295
    Thanked
    186 times in 145 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial P5 1TB (boot), Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION+ 560P
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob_B View Post
    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

  12. #10
    ALT0153™ Rob_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    6,275
    Thanks
    381
    Thanked
    751 times in 519 posts
    • Rob_B's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Biostar X370GTN
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5 2600X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3200 (16-15-15)
      • Storage:
      • 1TB WD SN550
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI 1070 Armor OC
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION SFX-L 650W
      • Case:
      • NZXT H1 V1

    Re: Cores vs Cache - which improves gaming performance?

    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •