Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Become a Premium Member! Help
Latest News Article

Is it better to have more cores or a stronger processor [ More GHz]?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1

HugeRage
  • Location: In your closet...
  • Minecraft: CubeXtron

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:02 PM

So there is this uber awesome processor that I want to buy.
It has 6 cores but only 3,3 GHz

And theres this also good processor which has 4 cores but it's 4,00 GHz strong.

So, is it better to have 6 cores and 3,3 GHz or 4 cores and 4,00 Ghz???
Help >:o
Posted Image

Register or log in to remove.

#2

Azareus42

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:04 PM

It depends on what processors they are.
Please tell us the models.

#3

Nimphina
    Nimphina

    Retired Staff

  • Retired Staff
  • 18361 posts
  • Location: IRC land
  • Minecraft: blockPAVer

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:04 PM

Don't compare CPUs by GHz OR cores, compare them based on benchmarks.

The best CPUs at the moment for your money are Intel's sandybridge line.

#4

HugeRage
  • Location: In your closet...
  • Minecraft: CubeXtron

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

The one with 4 cores is Intel Core i5 2500k.
Other one with 6 cores is AMD-FX6100
Posted Image

#5

Wolley74
    Wolley74

    Creeper Destroyer

  • Members
  • 6486 posts
  • Location: Front office of the Switch 810 Appartments
  • Minecraft: Wolley74

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

View PostHugeRage, on 21 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

The one with 4 cores is Intel Core i5 2500k.
Other one with 6 cores is AMD-FX6100

that alone is enough to get the intel, the FX processors are beaten by intels Pentium processors, get the 2500k as it will destroy any FX processor

View Postbobthemagicrabbit, on 24 July 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

I'm an atheist, and i honestly dont care what the Pope says about me. After I die, Im not going to heaven or Hell, I'm going to get put in a box and rot in the ground. Or cremated and have someone mix my ashes with pot and smoke me. That would be awesome

#6

jontecool98
  • Location: Sweden
  • Minecraft: jontecool98

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:09 PM

View PostHugeRage, on 21 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

The one with 4 cores is Intel Core i5 2500k.
Other one with 6 cores is AMD-FX6100
The i5 is the most powerful. I don't get  why people think the More GHz and Cores == Better Performance.
Want to install a new graphics card on your laptop? I made a video on how right here!
A whole ton of people really need to grow up and grow thicker skin. Not all advise given to you is a personal attack.

#7

Azareus42

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:11 PM

View Postjontecool98, on 21 April 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

The i5 is the most powerful. I don't get  why people think the More GHz and Cores == Better Performance.
Because the manufacturers and OEMs market them that way.

#8

CentrallyProcessed
    CentrallyProcessed

    SCT Overlord bow in fear before his might

  • Sectional Moderator
  • 5328 posts
  • Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:16 PM

View PostAzareus42, on 21 April 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

Because the manufacturers and OEMs market them that way.
Actually, I've seen most things along the lines of "A speedy quad core processor at 3.30GHz." That doesn't say that more cores/higher frequency is better, it isn't even lying either. They could be comparing an FX-4170 to a Pentium 4 521. The former is "speedy" in comparison. It might also stem from the generation of computer hardware when frequency did make a difference.

Now, frequency is insignificant for comparing processors of a different architecture but, to the uneducated, an FX-4170 at 4.2GHz looks a lot more attractive than an i5-2500 at 3.3GHz.
C# and D programmer, web designer and developer.

I am a representative of DemonVPS. (https://www.DemonVPS.com)

#9

Christoi
    Christoi

    Creeper Destroyer

  • Members
  • 6421 posts
  • Location: Germany
  • Minecraft: christoi28

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:37 PM

If all 6 cores are fully utilized, then the performance would be faster than a 2500k. This however is really for heavily multi-threaded applications such as number crunching, compiling and high-end video editing.

For gaming and such, the 2500k is far better. However both have a stock clock of 3.3ghz, both are unlocked. It's actually the architecture and IPC that makes the difference.

View PostHazali, on 07 October 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

Change it, it's ruined forever. Keep it the way it is, the creator is lazy.

#10

Hairy_Bikini

Posted 21 April 2012 - 06:38 PM

Threads like will likely be neverending stories.
Both are very capable processors, but there is no answer to your question:

View PostHugeRage, on 21 April 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

So, is it better to have 6 cores and 3,3 GHz or 4 cores and 4,00 Ghz???

To get a better view of your expectations, you have to tell the forum exactly what you are going to do with your PC.
Programs, games, what other parts will be installed, budget, lifetime, etc etc etc. We want to know EVERYTHING.
Will you be editing and rendering video, are you running a server? Or just using Firefox and MS Word?

Because to start of with, 4 Ghz AMD does not equal 4 Ghz Intel.
And the Intel has Turbo Boost, which can make it run @ 3,7 Ghz but on lesser cores.
But if you have a crappy motherboard or a slow harddisc, you'll never put them to use anyway.

Regards HB.

#11

HugeRage
  • Location: In your closet...
  • Minecraft: CubeXtron

Posted 21 April 2012 - 07:13 PM

View PostHairy_Bikini, on 21 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Threads like will likely be neverending stories.
Both are very capable processors, but there is no answer to your question:



To get a better view of your expectations, you have to tell the forum exactly what you are going to do with your PC.
Programs, games, what other parts will be installed, budget, lifetime, etc etc etc. We want to know EVERYTHING.
Will you be editing and rendering video, are you running a server? Or just using Firefox and MS Word?

Because to start of with, 4 Ghz AMD does not equal 4 Ghz Intel.
And the Intel has Turbo Boost, which can make it run @ 3,7 Ghz but on lesser cores.
But if you have a crappy motherboard or a slow harddisc, you'll never put them to use anyway.

Regards HB.
I want to use it for gaming, don't worry about the mother board , just tell me which one  is better for gaming.
Posted Image

#12

CentrallyProcessed
    CentrallyProcessed

    SCT Overlord bow in fear before his might

  • Sectional Moderator
  • 5328 posts
  • Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted 21 April 2012 - 07:17 PM

View PostHugeRage, on 21 April 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

I want to use it for gaming, don't worry about the mother board , just tell me which one  is better for gaming.
The 2500K is far, far better for gaming.
C# and D programmer, web designer and developer.

I am a representative of DemonVPS. (https://www.DemonVPS.com)

#13

SeaWry
    SeaWry

    End Dweller

  • Members
  • 7091 posts
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Minecraft: Flutterwry

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:09 PM

I just want to say this about the FX and why they truly fail.

Say you have a FX 4, it is really a dual core with the cores AND core resources split in half, making it "4 core".

Say you have a FX 6, it is really a tripple core with the cores AND core resources split in half, making it "6 core".

Say you have a FX 8, it is really a quad core with the cores AND core resources split in half, making it "8 core".

As you see, splitting resources isnt the best idea.

The i5 processors, quad core, with true 4 cores. Each core has 256KB L2 cache, but 6MB L3 cache to share so in theory you could even have 1 core using 5MB L3 which acts like its L2 cache, insanity at finest.

Real cores, is better then fake cores.

#14

cookiesui
  • Minecraft: cookiesui

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:11 PM

View PostHugeRage, on 21 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

The one with 4 cores is Intel Core i5 2500k.
Other one with 6 cores is AMD-FX6100
Definitely get the 2500k.

Posted Image


#15

not_a_zombie
  • Minecraft: not_a_zombie

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:30 PM

As an answer to the OP's question, more power (which does not correspond directly to ghz) is superior to more cores, for gaming.

Most games don't use multiple cores, and the few that do don't use them a lot of very effectively.
Why aren't micro ATX cases called μATX?

#16

jontecool98
  • Location: Sweden
  • Minecraft: jontecool98

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:32 PM

View Postnot_a_zombie, on 21 April 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

As an answer to the OP's question, more power (which does not correspond directly to ghz) is superior to more cores, for gaming.

Most games don't use multiple cores, and the few that do don't use them a lot of very effectively.
Wait, don't most of the new-ish games utilize Multicore? I'm pretty sure they do. Are you sure you don't mean Hyper-Threading?
Want to install a new graphics card on your laptop? I made a video on how right here!
A whole ton of people really need to grow up and grow thicker skin. Not all advise given to you is a personal attack.

#17

SeaWry
    SeaWry

    End Dweller

  • Members
  • 7091 posts
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Minecraft: Flutterwry

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:38 PM

View Postjontecool98, on 21 April 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Wait, don't most of the new-ish games utilize Multicore? I'm pretty sure they do. Are you sure you don't mean Hyper-Threading?

No, he is right to say. Most games if any barely use no more then dual core as of date, some others may use more on more up to date engines.

No game to my knowledge uses Hyper Threading, or games that really are known.

#18

Christoi
    Christoi

    Creeper Destroyer

  • Members
  • 6421 posts
  • Location: Germany
  • Minecraft: christoi28

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:41 PM

View Postjontecool98, on 21 April 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Wait, don't most of the new-ish games utilize Multicore? I'm pretty sure they do. Are you sure you don't mean Hyper-Threading?
Most games only use up to 4 cores. You can see in a lot of benchmarks that there is a noticable performance increase for getting a i5 2400/2500 over a i3 2100/2120, however there isn't really much difference with a FX4100 vs FX6100.

It's worth noting that most processors go through a "binning" process when created. I'm not 100% certain about the Sandybridge series, however the Phenoms, Sandybridge-EP and Bulldozer series do so. Same architecture, but with cores disabled and lower stock clocks.

View PostHazali, on 07 October 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

Change it, it's ruined forever. Keep it the way it is, the creator is lazy.

#19

not_a_zombie
  • Minecraft: not_a_zombie

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:42 PM

View Postjontecool98, on 21 April 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Are you sure you don't mean Hyper-Threading?
Hyperthreading is just a name given to a process that makes 1 core act like 2 (or more?).  I'm pretty sure Windows (and maybe other operating systems) can't tell the difference between two different threads using the same core and 2 threads on different cores.
Why aren't micro ATX cases called μATX?

#20

jontecool98
  • Location: Sweden
  • Minecraft: jontecool98

Posted 21 April 2012 - 09:12 PM

View Postnot_a_zombie, on 21 April 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Hyperthreading is just a name given to a process that makes 1 core act like 2 (or more?).  I'm pretty sure Windows (and maybe other operating systems) can't tell the difference between two different threads using the same core and 2 threads on different cores.
I know, I guess it goes down to me not owning too many games.

View PostFlutterwry, on 21 April 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

No, he is right to say. Most games if any barely use no more then dual core as of date, some others may use more on more up to date engines.

No game to my knowledge uses Hyper Threading, or games that really are known.

Want to install a new graphics card on your laptop? I made a video on how right here!
A whole ton of people really need to grow up and grow thicker skin. Not all advise given to you is a personal attack.