CPU Speed vs. Cores

FXB

FXB

New Member
When buying a CPU, Which is best? A CPU with more cores say a quad core or hexa core? OR A fast CPU that runs at say 4ghz or so?
 
FXB said:
When buying a CPU, Which is best? A CPU with more cores say a quad core or hexa core? OR A fast CPU that runs at say 4ghz or so?
Click to expand...

I'd take the extra cores any day, because you can overclock it to the same speeds, and also because a quad core @2GHz, will almost always win out against a dual @ 3+GHz (unless it is say an athlon x4 (not athlon II) vs i3)
 
Aastii said:
I'd take the extra cores any day, because you can overclock it to the same speeds, and also because a quad core @2GHz, will almost always win out against a dual @ 3+GHz (unless it is say an athlon x4 (not athlon II) vs i3)
Click to expand...

from there any preference between AMD and Intel?
 
FXB said:
from there any preference between AMD and Intel?
Click to expand...

depends on budget and function, but generally no, both will perform as well in a given situation as the other. a phenom II 955 or 965 will game as well as an i5 or i7, an x2 or x3 will do as well as an i3, there really isn't anything, other than generally AMD are cheaper than intel, but it comes down to which you would prefer, and asI say, your budget.

I went AMD for 2 reaons:

I didn't have much money
I wanted to play with the processor, and with unlocking cores, it gave me more to do

If I had more money, I'd have gone for an i5 system probably, but with that said, I would have still thought alot about going AMD. Both have their pros and cons

[-0MEGA-];1476498 said:
The Intel i7's are better clock for clock, but are more expensive.
Click to expand...

In benchmarks, yes, in real world situations, there isn't a noticable difference
 
More cores for sure, I was so surprised how fast my I5 was, if your not on a budget then go Intel
 
clock speed is not the end all be all feature of a CPU, and there is a good reason why Intel and AMD really don't go far beyond the 3Ghz realm for their CPUs. Instead they add more features, more on die cache, more cores, more instruction sets, etc.
 
how about a 4ghz dual core intel i5 vs a 2.1ghz quad phenom?

wouldn't the i5 be faster on non multitasking?
and the phenom be faster with multitasking?

or would i5's Hyper Threading even it out?
 
Dillan500 said:
how about a 4ghz dual core intel i5 vs a 2.1ghz quad phenom?

wouldn't the i5 be faster on non multitasking?
and the phenom be faster with multitasking?

or would i5's Hyper Threading even it out?
Click to expand...

aren't all i5 and i7 processors quad core?
 
Dillan500 said:
how about a 4ghz dual core intel i5 vs a 2.1ghz quad phenom?

wouldn't the i5 be faster on non multitasking?
and the phenom be faster with multitasking?

or would i5's Hyper Threading even it out?
Click to expand...

For single threaded applications, the higher the speed the better it will perform. (This is throwing out that from what I have seen Intel is a bit better at floating point and other integer computations.)

for multitasking, I would chose the quad core phenom. If the tasks can be spread out over all four cores then IMO, it should be a bit faster. As for as I understand hyper threading, I can't seem to find the source but I heard that it only gives you about a 30% increase over your original dual core performance. Since you have 2 physical cores and 2 virtual cores, it should be slower than 4 physical cores.

I think that you might not see much of a difference unless you are really pushing your processor.
 
salvage-this said:
For single threaded applications, the higher the speed the better it will perform. (This is throwing out that from what I have seen Intel is a bit better at floating point and other integer computations.)
Click to expand...

Nope not always, as you still have on die cache, instruction sets, and so forth. If I were to take a 3.0Ghz P4 with HT, and a Core Duo (not core 2 duo) that was 2.5Ghz, the Core Duo would be a lot faster, still. Clock speed is not the end all be all.

for multitasking, I would chose the quad core phenom. If the tasks can be spread out over all four cores then IMO, it should be a bit faster. As for as I understand hyper threading, I can't seem to find the source but I heard that it only gives you about a 30% increase over your original dual core performance. Since you have 2 physical cores and 2 virtual cores, it should be slower than 4 physical cores.
Click to expand...

True for the most part, but a lot of it also relies on software. Also, trying to say system A and system B will have a 30% performance difference is really not even close to a real world comparison.

I think that you might not see much of a difference unless you are really pushing your processor.
Click to expand...

This is actually the best thing anyone has posted yet. It all depends on if you are going to use such features and abilities of your hardware. If you aren't going to push it to that limit, might as well just go with your cheapest option.
 
FXB said:
When buying a CPU, Which is best? A CPU with more cores say a quad core or hexa core? OR A fast CPU that runs at say 4ghz or so?
Click to expand...
There's a lot more to CPU performance besides clock speed and number of cores.

In general, this can be said about CPU performance:
A multi-core CPU taking advantage of all its cores will be as powerful as its number of cores times a single core of itself, or a single-core version of the processor. For example, a Core2 Quad Q9650, using all four of its cores, should be twice as powerful as a Core2 Duo E8400, both of which run at 3GHz. The Core2 Quad has double the cache and cores as the Core2 Duo. The same goes for a Prescott Pentium 4 at 2.8GHz vs. a Smithfield Pentium D at 2.8GHz. Of course, in that scenario, you also have to count in hyperthreading on the Pentium 4. Also, a processor with double the clock frequency of another processor with the same core design and number of cores should be twice as fast as the slower processor. Therefore, if you had a Cedar Mill Pentium 4 at 5.6GHz, it should be just as fast as its Presler Pentium D equivalent at 2.8GHz.
 
tlarkin said:
clock speed is not the end all be all feature of a CPU, and there is a good reason why Intel and AMD really don't go far beyond the 3Ghz realm for their CPUs. Instead they add more features, more on die cache, more cores, more instruction sets, etc.
Click to expand...

You sure? isn't the 965 stock clocked at 3.4ghz? I believe AMD and Intel keep most of their chips around 2.4-2.8ghz as well.

Hopefully bulldozer fixes the other things. It should seeing as it requires a new socket.
 
Last edited:
linkin said:
You sure? isn't the 965 stock clocked at 3.4ghz? I believe AMD and Intel keep most of their chips around 2.4-2.8ghz as well.

Hopefully bulldozer fixes the other things. It should seeing as it requires a new socket.
Click to expand...

I've never seen stock processors go 4Ghz with maybe a few exceptions of certain systems, but they aren't consumer hardware. Anything over the 3Ghz barrier tends to generate too much heat for consumer level computers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top