Number of cores/threads - significance?

[LittleGreyCat]

Just a quick question.

As I understand it if you are running a single CPU intensive process (such as a game) then the maximum performance of an individual core will limit the performance of your application.

However most of the time all cores/threads will be in use with some spare capacity in each.

For example I have 108 processes running on my Windows 8.1 system which seem to be spread across all 4 processors more or less evenly.

So if you are not planning to be gaming is it better to have more cores/threads?

I am currently comparing an AMD FX 6300 with a Pentium G4400 and the Pentium whups ass on a single core but lags behind on all multi-core tests.

So for a general purpose machine (file serving, backups, scanners, other old bits of hardware) are more cores/threads more important than single core performance?

 

[Rroff]

Unless I was mostly doing something very single core intensive personally I wouldn't go for anything that had less than 4 cores these days - even if that is 2 physical cores + hyperthreading.

 

[mistersprinkles]

If you can wait, wait for AMD Zen which will have = performance per core to Intel's Skylake at quite likely lower prices. Should be out in Q4 '16 or Q1 '17.

If you want to buy now, for a general purpose machine, you will quite possibly get higher performance out of that six core FX. If you are gaming, you are best going with an i5 or i7 though. At least for now. Zen will likely change things.

I agree with Rroff, avoid dual cores, especially dual cores without hyperthreading. They just aren't the best choice for any kind of intensive usage. They're fine for a Netflix box/Youtube box and that kind of thing but to get some work done, I would look at either a 6 or 8 core FX or better yet a decent i5 or i7. Or wait for Zen.

 

[mmj_uk]

I had a 32 core AMD Opteron setup briefly (dual 6380's) and to be honest it felt kinda sluggish just using Windows at times, even though it was a monster when fully utilised.

IMO you should always look to get the fastest cores available and then as many of those cores as you can afford.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Just a quick question.

As I understand it if you are running a single CPU intensive process (such as a game) then the maximum performance of an individual core will limit the performance of your application.

However most of the time all cores/threads will be in use with some spare capacity in each.

For example I have 108 processes running on my Windows 8.1 system which seem to be spread across all 4 processors more or less evenly.

So if you are not planning to be gaming is it better to have more cores/threads?

I am currently comparing an AMD FX 6300 with a Pentium G4400 and the Pentium whups ass on a single core but lags behind on all multi-core tests.

So for a general purpose machine (file serving, backups, scanners, other old bits of hardware) are more cores/threads more important than single core performance?

If you're just serving files, making backups, any modern processor is likely to be enough. Moving beyond that, it's going to vary case by case according to how the application was written. Generally the more modern the application the more it is likely to make good use of high core counts. Games tend to like high per-core performance but the balance is shifting somewhat. It wont shift completely, though. It's more of an evening out.

I personally would prefer to lean towards the more cores solution. I certainly wouldn't want less than four cores these days. I also don't accept hyperthreading as a substitute for actual cores.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

AMD Zen which will have = performance per core to Intel's Skylake at quite likely lower prices.

 

[Brazo]

Everyone's 'waiting for Zen' waiting for the RX 480 to improve with driver support, seems all the AMD fans spend their time waiting on the feint promise of better performance.

Even the best AMD processer is a lot slower than an i3 in single core applications. Will zen match an i3? I honestly doubt it at least not core for core.

I have an i7 4790k @ 4.8ghz and also an i3 cpu. Just in fact upgraded to a 4370 which has blistering single core performance. Unless I'm benchmarking or running photoshop there's very little between them.

 

[Panos]

Everyone's 'waiting for Zen' waiting for the RX 480 to improve with driver support, seems all the AMD fans spend their time waiting on the feint promise of better performance.

Even the best AMD processer is a lot slower than an i3 in single core applications. Will zen match an i3? I honestly doubt it at least not core for core.

I have an i7 4790k @ 4.8ghz and also an i3 cpu. Just in fact upgraded to a 4370 which has blistering single core performance. Unless I'm benchmarking or running photoshop there's very little between them.

According to AMD presentation and live rendering demo presentation, Zen IPC is faster than Broadwel-E IPC by 2% at same speed (3Ghz).
And they compared the 8C/16HT Summit Ridge against the i7 6900K both clocked at 3Ghz.

You are referring and been stuck on Bulldozer IPC which is gazillion years old.......

 

[ukxenon]

Zen looks promising let's hope it is as good as the demo was

 

[Brazo]

According to AMD presentation and live rendering demo presentation, Zen IPC is faster than Broadwel-E IPC by 2% at same speed (3Ghz).
And they compared the 8C/16HT Summit Ridge against the i7 6900K both clocked at 3Ghz.

You are referring and been stuck on Bulldozer IPC which is gazillion years old.......

I know waiting on promises and hope

Same as the 480 boys.

 

[mmj_uk]

According to AMD presentation and live rendering demo presentation, Zen IPC is faster than Broadwel-E IPC by 2% at same speed (3Ghz).
And they compared the 8C/16HT Summit Ridge against the i7 6900K both clocked at 3Ghz.

You are referring and been stuck on Bulldozer IPC which is gazillion years old.......

The trouble is if Zen tops out at ~3.5ghz and costs £500 then you're still going to be better off with an overclocked i7 6900K or whatever the 2017 equivalent is by that time in most cases. IPC is a fairly meaningless metric without knowing overall clockspeed.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Zen will end Intel domination and will be the gaming CPU of choice.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The trouble is if Zen tops out at ~3.5ghz and costs £500 then you're still going to be better off with an overclocked i7 6900K or whatever the 2017 equivalent is by that time in most cases.

i7-6900K costs £949.99. If Zen hits 3.5GHz and costs £500, I'd say that's a pretty favourable deal for a modest hit on performance when if you're a gamer that's not going to be your bottleneck anyway.

 

[danoliver1]

Zen will end Intel domination and will be the gaming CPU of choice.

Can you give me tonight's winning lottery numbers too please.

 

[mmj_uk]

i7-6900K costs £949.99. If Zen hits 3.5GHz and costs £500, I'd say that's a pretty favourable deal for a modest hit on performance when if you're a gamer that's not going to be your bottleneck anyway.

The thing is gamers aren't willing to pay £100-200 extra for more cores if it doesn't positively improve gaming in any significant way, if they were then they'd all be running 4820K/5820K/6850K systems by now. Intel prices are also likely to be a lot different by the time Zen comes out.

The main point I'm trying to make is that having slightly better IPC won't really matter if the Intel equivalents overclock much higher - Intel will still have the stronger hand.

I know it's all speculation at this point but we all enjoy speculating and I'm just going by why AMD chose to underclock a competitors processor rather than overclock there own my a measly 200mhz.

 

[DragonQ]

More cores is obviously better (to a point) but these days, for everyday usage, CPU usage is rarely the limiting factor. It's more about things like hardware acceleration for video decoding (HEVC is a must for any new IGP/GPU IMO if you want your rig to last) and disk speed. Jumping from an HDD to an SSD will yield a far greater performance boost than any CPU upgrade would. Also making sure you have enough RAM will help enormously. I'd take a Core i3 with 8 GiB of RAM over a Core i5 with 4 GiB any day.

 

[joeyjojo]

I am currently comparing an AMD FX 6300 with a Pentium G4400 and the Pentium whups ass on a single core but lags behind on all multi-core tests.

So for a general purpose machine (file serving, backups, scanners, other old bits of hardware) are more cores/threads more important than single core performance?

Either will be fine, those tasks can mostly be performed by a potato.