Associate
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 51
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?
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?