WEBVTT 00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:05.440 we always want faster and more powerful components and these days people are 00:00:03.800 --> 00:00:10.320 starting to focus on other things as well like power consumption and thermal 00:00:07.759 --> 00:00:15.200 output but what about the age-old how many cores do I need for modern gaming 00:00:12.920 --> 00:00:19.720 question has the landscape changed or is it still quad cores for life like it was 00:00:17.160 --> 00:00:24.480 for pretty much a long time what about the Pentium g3258 dual core that made a 00:00:22.480 --> 00:00:28.800 big splash a while back is that processor blazing fast overclock speeds 00:00:26.599 --> 00:00:32.320 and affordable price point viable in today's market stay tuned to find out 00:00:30.560 --> 00:00:38.450 and stay subscribed for lonus Tech tips for more awesome technology 00:00:42.320 --> 00:00:49.559 videos The Cooler Master Nova touch tkl utilizes genuine toer hybrid capacitive 00:00:47.320 --> 00:00:53.960 switches and is now available at a more affordable price click now to learn more 00:00:52.559 --> 00:00:59.440 the test bench we used to get our numbers is rocking an Intel 5960x 00:00:56.680 --> 00:01:05.199 overclocked just a bit to 3.2 GHz with 32 gigs of ddr4 RAM running at 3,000 MHz 00:01:02.840 --> 00:01:08.840 it's also sporting a windforce GTX 980 from Gigabyte running at stock and we 00:01:07.439 --> 00:01:12.960 went a little bit crazy and started disabling cores and hyperthreading and 00:01:10.920 --> 00:01:16.759 to simulate various CPUs that are available for purchase today for testing 00:01:15.080 --> 00:01:20.400 we chose to use a dual core without hyperthreading dual core with hyperthreading quad core without 00:01:19.200 --> 00:01:25.400 hyperthreading quad core with hyperthreading hex core with hyperthreading and octacore with 00:01:23.439 --> 00:01:29.920 hyperthreading to round out our test Suite all right now for the meat and 00:01:27.840 --> 00:01:33.040 potatoes we chose a few new games from for our test so we'll start with those 00:01:31.119 --> 00:01:37.720 ones first and first on the chopping block is cities skylines to Benchmark 00:01:35.799 --> 00:01:42.119 cities we downloaded the Los Santos map from GTA 5 made by groeller on the Steam 00:01:40.399 --> 00:01:47.360 Workshop and we chose a section of the town called South Los Santos with mixed 00:01:44.719 --> 00:01:51.000 traffic and building density to push uh the test pinch quite a bit we maxed out 00:01:49.200 --> 00:01:56.079 the graphics and zoomed in almost all the way and then started to record 00:01:53.119 --> 00:02:00.000 City's skylines likes its CPU cores but only to a certain point dual cores seem 00:01:57.960 --> 00:02:03.159 to struggle a bit more than the rest them at least which wasn't too 00:02:01.360 --> 00:02:09.520 surprising but where it got interesting was at the 8 core level cities ran a lot 00:02:06.079 --> 00:02:11.039 more poorly than actually lower levels 00:02:09.520 --> 00:02:14.879 and had very noticeable stuttering throughout all of our testing a reminder 00:02:13.120 --> 00:02:19.080 however is we did run our test shortly after the game came out so optimizations 00:02:16.959 --> 00:02:23.360 might be not be made yet and might be made in the future and could very 00:02:21.000 --> 00:02:27.640 drastically change things over time next up we have Dying Light we decided to run 00:02:25.000 --> 00:02:31.080 it at both 1080P and 4K after we saw the 1080p results to see if we could 00:02:29.360 --> 00:02:35.040 separate the numbers a bit more as the only outlier was really the Dual Corp 00:02:33.200 --> 00:02:39.840 how we ran the Benchmark for Dying Light was relatively straightforward in the 00:02:37.280 --> 00:02:45.440 main town close to the tower there's a really long overpass near the start of 00:02:42.959 --> 00:02:50.360 that is a bus which is near the opening to the tunnel anyways just run down the 00:02:48.120 --> 00:02:55.879 overpass and loot back around while zigzagging through burning cars and the 00:02:53.800 --> 00:02:59.840 undead we ran our test after the developers have released several patches 00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:03.760 in optimizations and even at Absolute absolutely cranked settings not much of 00:03:01.400 --> 00:03:07.200 a difference really occurs at the higher end configurations with only the dual 00:03:05.480 --> 00:03:12.000 core and dual core with hyperthreading configurations suffering a bit of a 00:03:09.360 --> 00:03:16.040 performance hit our last newcomer to the game suite but not our last Benchmark is 00:03:14.120 --> 00:03:20.000 Total War Atilla for this game we set the appropriate graphic settings which I 00:03:17.640 --> 00:03:25.720 decided was apparently freaking all of them and then selected the suon 00:03:22.239 --> 00:03:27.560 historical battle swz SW so I don't know 00:03:25.720 --> 00:03:31.439 and Clash the armies together in one giant ball without speeding it up we 00:03:29.840 --> 00:03:35.599 ended up running The Benchmark at every quality preset as you just saw to see if 00:03:33.599 --> 00:03:38.959 we could churn different results out of the game and it turns out Total War 00:03:37.200 --> 00:03:43.000 atella is quite the PowerHouse throwing more cores at it does indeed give a bit 00:03:40.920 --> 00:03:48.159 more of a performance jump over a dual core setup however the amount is oddly 00:03:45.760 --> 00:03:52.040 very negligible at lower presets I will note that this game isn't the constant 00:03:50.480 --> 00:03:56.720 FPS of the game these numbers are only from intense combat sections so it would 00:03:54.280 --> 00:04:01.599 run way better when not staring directly into combat where the twist comes in is 00:03:59.040 --> 00:04:06.000 at the maxim performance preset the numbers are just ridiculous for this 00:04:03.840 --> 00:04:10.000 test and make no sense but average frame rates are super high and there is no 00:04:08.200 --> 00:04:14.079 drastic stuttering so if you're worried about if your machine can run this game 00:04:12.239 --> 00:04:19.160 put it on maximum performance settings and it should be extremely easy for you 00:04:15.959 --> 00:04:21.120 to do even with some older slower 00:04:19.160 --> 00:04:25.199 processors now that all the new games are done let's take a break for some 00:04:22.759 --> 00:04:29.320 oldies but goodies the first being Tomb Raider I know this game dates back all 00:04:26.960 --> 00:04:34.080 the way to 2013 but it's a very reliable benchmark Mark in terms of GPU scaling 00:04:31.919 --> 00:04:38.919 so we decided to include it as it's in lots of our test Suites like Dying Light 00:04:36.120 --> 00:04:43.759 we ran Tomb Raider in both 1080P and 4K and the results were pretty funny to be 00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:49.400 honest it doesn't seem to matter what arrangement of course you have the game 00:04:45.720 --> 00:04:52.400 will run perfectly equal like freakishly 00:04:49.400 --> 00:04:54.919 equal even at 4K I think in the future 00:04:52.400 --> 00:04:59.840 we will leave this game for GPU tests only our final game is Far Cry 4 this 00:04:57.600 --> 00:05:02.720 game is a bit of a [ __ ] show and and that's why we saved it for last 00:05:01.240 --> 00:05:06.639 performance is essentially the same across four six and eight core settings 00:05:04.840 --> 00:05:11.280 regardless of hyperthreading but as soon as you drop down to dual cores 00:05:08.759 --> 00:05:15.720 hyperthreading or not the game flat out refuses to boot at all this is because 00:05:13.400 --> 00:05:19.600 Ubisoft locked out all users that have dual course from launching the freaking 00:05:17.600 --> 00:05:23.840 game there is a fixed floating round that could potentially get it running 00:05:21.440 --> 00:05:27.800 but it's a hassle and most mention of it has been pulled down by Ubisoft anyways 00:05:25.960 --> 00:05:33.000 those of you with older dual cores or the Pentium g3258 first edition but 00:05:30.840 --> 00:05:36.880 whereas this could be a pretty big issue for you honestly the most disappointing 00:05:34.800 --> 00:05:42.880 thing about this issue is that from the looks of it it's easier to fix for 00:05:39.479 --> 00:05:45.919 pirates than it is for Real paying users 00:05:42.880 --> 00:05:47.880 which is highly disappointing yet not at 00:05:45.919 --> 00:05:52.319 all surprising all right I guess that brings us tidally to the conclusion of 00:05:50.160 --> 00:05:56.680 this video which is having more cores is nice and may help with some things like 00:05:54.520 --> 00:06:01.639 video rendering or game streaming or whatever else but you don't need more 00:05:58.800 --> 00:06:06.759 than a quad core or for modern gaming and you would be mostly fine with a 00:06:04.120 --> 00:06:10.720 quick dual core even but what's your sweet spot let me know in the comments 00:06:08.400 --> 00:06:14.199 down below or on the Forum I know I like my higher core count processors because 00:06:12.560 --> 00:06:18.919 I tend to be doing a billion things at once on my computer including running 00:06:16.160 --> 00:06:23.400 virtual machines streaming games and more would you guys be interested in a 00:06:21.280 --> 00:06:26.639 course for gaming Style video where we rerun these tests while doing other 00:06:25.120 --> 00:06:32.160 things on the computer as well like possibly streaming or just a whole bunch 00:06:29.280 --> 00:06:35.759 of TS in a browser let me know speaking of performance our friends over at chiro 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:41.639 have an awesome high-capacity battery bank that they want us to show off today 00:06:37.800 --> 00:06:43.479 it's their power plus 3 13,400 mAh 00:06:41.639 --> 00:06:47.639 battery bank which features a nice rounded design and a slightly sticky 00:06:45.680 --> 00:06:52.440 texture which allows you to maintain a solid grip on it despite the rounded 00:06:50.080 --> 00:06:56.960 edges like other churo products all of the battery cells used inside are made 00:06:54.160 --> 00:07:02.360 by Panasonic in Japan so you can count on their high quality durability and saf 00:06:59.599 --> 00:07:07.199 sa and of course that also facilitates the great capacity in such a compact 00:07:04.879 --> 00:07:11.520 size this battery bank is currently available for 00:07:08.639 --> 00:07:16.680 $39.99 on Amazon and if you purchase one of the first 3,000 units you will 00:07:14.160 --> 00:07:21.680 actually receive a 60 cm version of chiro's uh lightning and micro USB dual 00:07:19.639 --> 00:07:25.360 connector cable so if you're interested in a high-capacity battery bank with a 00:07:23.599 --> 00:07:30.520 very manageable form factor you should definitely check out the chiro Power 00:07:27.160 --> 00:07:32.319 Plus 3 13,400 Milah power in the link in 00:07:30.520 --> 00:07:35.879 the video description down below all right guys while you're here watching 00:07:33.919 --> 00:07:41.479 this video like dislike favorite subscribe share comment do anything else 00:07:39.720 --> 00:07:45.479 that has a button around here somewhere that's probably not a bad idea and then 00:07:43.400 --> 00:07:48.440 jump over to the Forum but before you jump over the Forum check the link in 00:07:46.840 --> 00:07:53.159 the video description below to buy a cool shirt like this one yes I did it 00:07:51.720 --> 00:07:56.080 once you're over on the Forum click the support us link that'll show you how to 00:07:54.720 --> 00:08:00.039 do stuff like change your Amazon affiliate code to ours so we get a small 00:07:57.800 --> 00:08:04.240 Kickback and you can become contributor on the Forum to get that awesome cool 00:08:01.919 --> 00:08:09.450 bronze silver or gold badge and maybe some other stuff anyways thank you guys 00:08:06.199 --> 00:08:19.920 for watching I'll see you next time