The Great Core Debate: Are 24-Core CPUs Overkill for Gaming?
Every new generation of CPUs promises more cores, higher clocks, and smarter boosts. But as we move into late 2025 with chips like AMD’s Ryzen 9 9950X and Intel’s Ultra 9 lineup boasting 24 or more cores, the question becomes simple — do you actually need that much power for gaming?
Let’s dig into what all those cores are really doing when you hit “Play.”
What Do Cores Actually Do in Games?
Each core in a CPU is like an independent worker handling instructions. In theory, more cores should mean smoother multitasking and faster performance. But most games are still limited by how efficiently they can spread their workload across those cores.
Modern engines like Unreal Engine 5 and Frostbite can use several threads for physics, AI, and rendering tasks, but very few titles use more than 8 to 12 cores effectively. That means your shiny 24-core CPU might spend half its time idling while only a few cores do the heavy lifting.
Why More Cores Don’t Always Mean More Frames
When gaming, your system is often GPU-bound, not CPU-bound. That means performance is limited by the graphics card, not the processor. Adding more CPU cores doesn’t help much once you reach the sweet spot.
In most current games, you’ll see diminishing returns beyond 8 cores. Some strategy or simulation titles can use 12 to 16 cores, but once you step up to 20 or 24, performance gains drop to almost nothing. In some cases, power and heat even reduce boost clocks, slightly hurting performance.
The Exception: Heavy Simulation and Streaming Workloads
There are scenarios where a 24-core CPU makes sense. Games like X4 Foundations, Cities: Skylines II, and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 rely heavily on background calculations. These simulations benefit from more cores and higher cache sizes.
If you also stream, record, or run AI upscaling tools like Topaz or NVIDIA Broadcast in the background, those extra cores can help keep everything smooth. The same applies to gamers who edit video or create content — your gaming PC can double as a workstation.
The Rise of Cache over Cores
AMD’s X3D processors like the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and 9900X3D show a different direction. Instead of adding more cores, AMD has added much larger L3 cache. This allows the CPU to keep more game data close at hand, reducing latency and improving performance even at lower core counts.
In many games, an 8-core X3D chip actually beats 16- or 24-core models that lack the 3D V-Cache technology. This is why serious gamers often prefer these “smaller” CPUs over the flagship models.
How Many Cores Do You Actually Need?
Here’s a practical breakdown for gamers:
- 6 cores: Still fine for entry-level builds, especially if paired with a modern GPU like the RTX 5060 or RX 9060 XT.
- 8 cores: The current sweet spot for gaming. Handles everything without bottlenecking your GPU.
- 12–16 cores: Great for high-end builds, streaming, or heavy multitasking.
- 20+ cores: Overkill for gaming alone. Useful only for content creators, developers, or extreme multitaskers.
The Verdict
A 24-core CPU like the Ryzen 9 9950X or Intel Ultra 9 285K is an engineering masterpiece, but not a gaming necessity. For most players, those extra cores sit idle while a cheaper, cooler, and more efficient CPU delivers identical frame rates.
If your main focus is gaming, go for fewer cores with better single-core speed or larger cache. If you want a do-everything powerhouse, the big chips still make sense. But don’t fall for core count marketing — games simply aren’t ready to use that much CPU muscle yet.
Final Thoughts
CPU innovation is moving faster than game engines can keep up. Until developers start building titles that truly scale across many threads, core count will matter less than cache, latency, and architecture.
So if you’re shopping for your next gaming PC, invest in a strong GPU first, pick a CPU with a solid 8–12 core setup, and let the 24-core monsters stay in the workstation world — at least for now.
Tarl @ Gamertech