PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds is now hexacore+ CPU optimised

[HEXUS]

Today's patch also features various bug fixes in this popular last-person-standing shooter.

Read more.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So that means one less reason to buy a 4C Core i5 7600K and just in time for the 6C Coffeelake CPUs!!

[MLyons]

Hopefully this will start to get other studious to do the same to their games.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Hopefully this will start to get other studious to do the same to their games.

Yeah,I mean the recent DF Ryzen 5 1600 vs Core i5 7600K article was very interesting indeed - in a number of newer games the Core i5 was getting bogged down during more intense scenes and then shooting ahead when stuff was less intensive on screen....!

Good to see the PUBG dev is actually trying to support the new mainstream AMD and Intel CPUs.

[aniilv]

gamers nexus did review of threadripper and they basically said its pointless for gaming unless you need INSANE multitasking like running multiple streams on slow x264 encoder + playing and such...

games are not at all using anything past 4 cores so, yeah...

[Tabbykatze]

gamers nexus did review of threadripper and they basically said its pointless for gaming unless you need INSANE multitasking like running multiple streams on slow x264 encoder + playing and such...

games are not at all using anything past 4 cores so, yeah...

You basically missed the whole point of multicore threading. There is a definitive curve right now that for a vast majority of scenarios having a low thread count will impact performance but then there is also a performance drop off curve that as you increase the core count you don't get more performance.

Using multithreading to distribute the processing requirements is getting more and more needed in applications and games, especially seeing as they've pretty much hit a frequency stability limit on the silicon semiconductors. So next is increase the core count.

Sure it's not going to use a 32 thread system now, but if we took that attitude we may still be in the medieval era xD

[EvilCycle]

I bet there are many AMD FX 8 and 9 series users looking smugly at their old tech right now!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I bet there are many AMD FX 8 and 9 series users looking smugly at their old tech right now!

I applaud the dev for doing this - even though I won't buy the game due to is early access nature yet,its most likely a buy when its officially released,and this looks like the icing on the cake.

I wonder how much of a boost our Core i7s will also get??

[Tabbykatze]

I bet there are many AMD FX 8 and 9 series users looking smugly at their old tech right now!

FX8350 and Sabertooth 990FX am bestest

[DanceswithUnix]

I bet there are many AMD FX 8 and 9 series users looking smugly at their old tech right now!

I paid something like £125, for my FX8350 all those years ago, and it has aged rather well. Still, it has definitely aged, so I do keep an eye out for what I would upgrade to. If I ever start working from home again in any big way then a low end Threadripper could certainly be on the cards.

[ByteMyAscii]

So that means one less reason to buy a 4C Core i5 7600K and just in time for the 6C Coffeelake CPUs!!

Not everyone has the budget, especially since those are thought to require new motherboards.
Personally my current upgrade route is very modest in comparison, a g4560.

I would be delighted with a 7600k were that an option, which at the moment even the g4560 due to lack of income is on hold for an unknown amount of time.

I think multi-threading is the future for a lot of games, though there are as said earlier diminishing returns as it is only realistic for a game to split its work up so much.
Lets just hope that it does trickle down to older hardware, that where multiple cores have been vastly under-utilised.
Improve accessibility with improved performance at the low-end.
That is going to improve sales more than eye-candy only the minority can see.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Not everyone has the budget, especially since those are thought to require new motherboards.
Personally my current upgrade route is very modest in comparison, a g4560.

I would be delighted with a 7600k were that an option, which at the moment even the g4560 due to lack of income is on hold for an unknown amount of time.

I think multi-threading is the future for a lot of games, though there are as said earlier diminishing returns as it is only realistic for a game to split its work up so much.
Lets just hope that it does trickle down to older hardware, that where multiple cores have been vastly under-utilised.
Improve accessibility with improved performance at the low-end.
That is going to improve sales more than eye-candy only the minority can see.

Well you should blame Intel for that - they are the ones who have made quad core so expensive and held back multi-threading in games. AMD offers quad cores from £100.

The AMD CPUs have some of the best stock coolers ever made.

To put it in context the Core i5 7600k has no cooler so by the time you add one it would be CHEAPER for people to buy a Ryzen 5 1400 and a motherboard.


I mean thats just mad:

https://www.cclonline.com/product/22...oxed-/CPU0447/
https://www.cclonline.com/product/23...-DDR4/MBD2164/

I haven't even gone for a cheapo motherboard - so with a decentish stock cooler the total is under £230 and it can be overclocked.

Look at the Core i5 7600K:

https://www.cclonline.com/product/21...oxed-/CPU0429/

By the time you add even a £20 to £30 cooler to it,it ends up costing more than a 4C/8T CPU from AMD.

The Ryzen 5 1600 itself is cheaper at just under £190 than buying a £216 Core i5 7600k plus the cost of even a basic cooler:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Ryzen-1...s=RYZEN+5+1600

The Core i5 7600K is £216 on Amazon,so add the cost of a basic cooler at £20 to £30,its basically £45 to £55 more expensive.

Even a locked Core i5 7500 is like £175.

It's a massive ripoff - the only reason Intel priced the G4560 low was to push people onto an overpriced platform. A fantastic budget CPU by any metric to the extent apparently Intel started limited production:

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu...ove_i3_sales/1

The Core i5 7600k should be well under £200 now.

Intel is so arrogant they still price the CPU so high even after reviews like this:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...5-7500k-review



Look at games like The Witcher 3.

They are crap company - I started with a core i3 in my current system.

I upgraded to a sub £200 Xeon E3 1230 V2 which is basically a Core i7 3770,when I had more dosh.

The Xeon E3 series was basically a Core i7 for Core i5 money,and I was one of the first on UK forums to talk about them when they started to go on sale here.

It was a better upgrade path than a core i5 k series and would work fine in a normal motherboard.

Did a few builds with it and suggested is as an upgrade to several people who were on slower CPUs,instead of getting a Core i7.

You know what Intel did after like many years?

They artificially locked it off from being used on consumer motherboards and invented a new commercial chipset which was basically a rebadged consumer chipset to run it in.

So you wanted 4c/8t you needed to pay £220+ for one. Look at how much a Core i7 7700 non-K costs today for example??

Also with Skylake you could get overclocks of locked CPUs fine.

They then made sure they released kabylake which "fixed" the "issue".

They segment everything now.

Do you know that Coffeelake uses the same socket as your CPU? That is meant to finally mean Intel actually starts charging sane prices for 4C/4T CPUs again.

It might work in SKL/KL motherboards but apparently it might be locked out(ASRock says it won't work) unless a company tries a workabout(leaks showing ES working in a current motherboard).

I mean look at Kaby Lake and Skylake,it was totally pointless releasing another chipset and making sure older motherboards would not work out of the box with a Kaby Lake CPU.

[Ravens Nest]

Well you should blame Intel for that - they are the ones who have made quad core so expensive and held back multi-threading in games. AMD offers quad cores from £100.

The AMD CPUs have some of the best stock coolers ever made.

To put it in context the Core i5 7600k has no cooler so by the time you add one it would be CHEAPER for people to buy a Ryzen 5 1400 and a motherboard.


I mean thats just mad:

https://www.cclonline.com/product/22...oxed-/CPU0447/
https://www.cclonline.com/product/23...-DDR4/MBD2164/

I haven't even gone for a cheapo motherboard - so with a decentish stock cooler the total is under £230 and it can be overclocked.

Look at the Core i5 7600K:

https://www.cclonline.com/product/21...oxed-/CPU0429/

By the time you add even a £20 to £30 cooler to it,it ends up costing more than a 4C/8T CPU from AMD.

The Ryzen 5 1600 itself is cheaper at just under £190 than buying a £216 Core i5 7600k plus the cost of even a basic cooler:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Ryzen-1...s=RYZEN+5+1600

The Core i5 7600K is £216 on Amazon,so add the cost of a basic cooler at £20 to £30,its basically £45 to £55 more expensive.

Even a locked Core i5 7500 is like £175.

It's a massive ripoff - the only reason Intel priced the G4560 low was to push people onto an overpriced platform. A fantastic budget CPU by any metric to the extent apparently Intel started limited production:

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu...ove_i3_sales/1

The Core i5 7600k should be well under £200 now.

Intel is so arrogant they still price the CPU so high even after reviews like this:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...5-7500k-review



Look at games like The Witcher 3.

They are crap company - I started with a core i3 in my current system.

I upgraded to a sub £200 Xeon E3 1230 V2 which is basically a Core i7 3770,when I had more dosh.

The Xeon E3 series was basically a Core i7 for Core i5 money,and I was one of the first on UK forums to talk about them when they started to go on sale here.

It was a better upgrade path than a core i5 k series and would work fine in a normal motherboard.

Did a few builds with it and suggested is as an upgrade to several people who were on slower CPUs,instead of getting a Core i7.

You know what Intel did after like many years?

They artificially locked it off from being used on consumer motherboards and invented a new commercial chipset which was basically a rebadged consumer chipset to run it in.

So you wanted 4c/8t you needed to pay £220+ for one. Look at how much a Core i7 7700 non-K costs today for example??

Also with Skylake you could get overclocks of locked CPUs fine.

They then made sure they released kabylake which "fixed" the "issue".

They segment everything now.

Do you know that Coffeelake uses the same socket as your CPU? That is meant to finally mean Intel actually starts charging sane prices for 4C/4T CPUs again.

It might work in SKL/KL motherboards but apparently it might be locked out(ASRock says it won't work) unless a company tries a workabout(leaks showing ES working in a current motherboard).

I mean look at Kaby Lake and Skylake,it was totally pointless releasing another chipset and making sure older motherboards would not work out of the box with a Kaby Lake CPU.

I know what you mean my son has the Xeon E3 1230 V3 supposedly equivalent to a i7 4770 and it runs amazingly well it was £170 vs £260 for the i7 version.

But when i needed to upgrade my PC you cannot get Xeon for Z170 motherboards so due to budget constraints i stuck with an i5 the i7 was just way too much money.

Intel have a virtual monopoly and can pretty much do what they like, AMD have really done well but they need to keep pushing with Ryzen 2 before intel start dropping there prices on i5 and i7 and then release a 6-12 core replacement before people start taking notice of Ryzen.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I know what you mean my son has the Xeon E3 1230 V3 supposedly equivalent to a i7 4770 and it runs amazingly well it was £170 vs £260 for the i7 version.

But when i needed to upgrade my PC you cannot get Xeon for Z170 motherboards so due to budget constraints i stuck with an i5 the i7 was just way too much money.

Intel have a virtual monopoly and can pretty much do what they like, AMD have really done well but they need to keep pushing with Ryzen 2 before intel start dropping there prices on i5 and i7 and then release a 6-12 core replacement before people start taking notice of Ryzen.

The worst thing with the Xeon E5 its the same physical socket so once they pulled that stunt with SKL/KL,I decided Intel can go screw themselves TBH,and I would be waiting as long as I could before upgrading,and then fixing the overclocking bug with KL,which was probably the main reason they introduced another "chipset".

They seem to be moving to 6C Core i5 CPUs now with Coffeelake and TBH for one or two games I run Intel would be better,than Ryzen and even that is using the same socket as KL/SKL,and there is conflicting information on whether current motherboards will work,but OFC another "new chipset" is being released,but I might just wait until Ryzen 2 TBH,since I am getting fedup up with their retarded market segmentation.

It was bad enough years ago,especially if you read this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ield,2815.html

[Ravens Nest]

I knew intel wouldn't take long, they cant let AMD get any market share or there Monopoly is gone.

I remember the Athlon64 what great tech that was, but AMD rested on there laurels and when the intel Core cpu's appeared it was the end of any sort of competition for years until now... Please AMD dont let it happen again

[KN1GHT]

gamers nexus did review of threadripper and they basically said its pointless for gaming unless you need INSANE multitasking like running multiple streams on slow x264 encoder + playing and such...

games are not at all using anything past 4 cores so, yeah...

You basically missed the whole point of multicore threading. There is a definitive curve right now that

for a vast majority of scenarios having a low thread count will impact performance but then there is also a performance drop off curve that as you increase the core count you don't get more performance.

Using multithreading to distribute the processing requirements is getting more and more needed in applications and games, especially seeing as they've pretty much hit a frequency stability limit on the silicon semiconductors. So next is increase the core count.

Sure it's not going to use a 32 thread system now, but if we took that attitude we may still be in the medieval era xD

I totally agree with the above said. People need to get that old saying "single core speed only for games" out of their heads ones and for all. The few that argued otherwise won, argument over and done.

I can remember that a few months ago (maybe almost a year now) that the verdict was still for gaming only 4cores is plenty enough for premuim builds for years to come. LOL where are we now?

Please note not saying budget gaming builds, I mean premium. (1440p & higher overall)

You may argue that 6 cores are still going to last long for premium "gaming only builds", but this update testifies that quad cores even for gaming in premium build are not the best option anymore.

As for higher core counts like 8 and up, they will last way longer and just give much more overall performance. Proud AMD R7-1700 owner here coming from a i5 so I can testify to that.