Cores.....

[DimasRMDO]

 

Does 2 cores 4GHz means each core runs at 4Ghz? Or each core runs at 2GHz to achieve 4Ghz? I've just forgotten this.....

 

[Glenwing]

Each core runs at 4.0GHz.

[flibberdipper]

Both cores will run at 4.0GHz.

[Ostwind]

As others have said each core runs at 4Ghz but it does not stack, two cores are 4Ghz still means 4Ghz not 8Ghz.

[Imabigmac]

Each core run at marketed frequency. 

 

Wouldn't be a terrible yet somehow awesome scheme for companies to run, just adding up the speed of each core and saying its a 12GHZ quad core! 

[harrynowl]

Each core run at marketed frequency. 

 

Wouldn't be a terrible yet somehow awesome scheme for companies to run, just adding up the speed of each core and saying its a 12GHZ quad core! 

Yep

 

[DimasRMDO]

Each core runs at 4.0GHz.

Thanks, but if every core runs at (let's say) 3.5Ghz then FX 6300 should be better than i5 4690 right (when gaming)? Because the FX one has 6 cores running at 3.5GHz, but why the i5 one is stronger when it has 4 cores running at 3.5 GHz?

[ComradeHX]

 

 

Does 2 cores 4GHz means each core runs at 4Ghz? Or each core runs at 2GHz to achieve 4Ghz? I've just forgotten this.....

 

Do you think 4 cores 4Ghz means 16Ghz?

[DimasRMDO]

Do you think 4 cores 4Ghz means 16Ghz?

lol no, this thing just got mixed in my head.

[Fate]

Thanks, but if every core runs at (let's say) 3.5Ghz then FX 6300 should be better than i5 4690 right (when gaming)? Because the FX one has 6 cores running at 3.5GHz, but why the i5 one is stronger when it has 4 cores running at 3.5 GHz?

read this thread http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/317896-what-do-people-actually-mean-by-stronger-cores/

[DimasRMDO]

read this thread http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/317896-what-do-people-actually-mean-by-stronger-cores/

Thanks a lot.

[ManWithBeard1990]

Thanks, but if every core runs at (let's say) 3.5Ghz then FX 6300 should be better than i5 4690 right (when gaming)? Because the FX one has 6 cores running at 3.5GHz, but why the i5 one is stronger when it has 4 cores running at 3.5 GHz?

It used to be so that a CPU could do an instruction every clock cycle. This is no longer true though as modern processors can do several at the same time on the same core, as long as one instruction doesn't need the result of the other. They can execute them in whatever order they deem most efficient. That's called superscalar processing. What this means for your question is that one megahertz is not equal to another. A modern Intel core can do way more work per second than the Pentium 4 ever could for example, even if the latter existed in a 4 GHz variant.

[Glenwing]

Thanks, but if every core runs at (let's say) 3.5Ghz then FX 6300 should be better than i5 4690 right (when gaming)? Because the FX one has 6 cores running at 3.5GHz, but why the i5 one is stronger when it has 4 cores running at 3.5 GHz?

 

GHz isn't an absolute measure of speed. It's the number of cycles the CPU completes each second. Exactly how much computation is accomplished during one "cycle" depends on the specific core design being used. 4.0GHz on one CPU doesn't do the same amount of work as 4.0GHz on a different CPU with a different design.

[D2ultima]

Thanks, but if every core runs at (let's say) 3.5Ghz then FX 6300 should be better than i5 4690 right (when gaming)? Because the FX one has 6 cores running at 3.5GHz, but why the i5 one is stronger when it has 4 cores running at 3.5 GHz?

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/305918-multi-cores-in-gaming/#entry4158245

This post I made in a previous thread will explain everything you wanna know about cores, speed and performance in gaming between AMD and Intel.

[DimasRMDO]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/305918-multi-cores-in-gaming/#entry4158245

This post I made in a previous thread will explain everything you wanna know about cores, speed and performance in gaming between AMD and Intel.

Thanks!

[DimasRMDO]

How do I find the IPC in CPU?

[D2ultima]

How do I find the IPC in CPU?

You cannot check your IPC. You infer IPC by comparing single threaded performance across various CPUs. Every time a new CPU line is introduced from Intel, they usually say "5% faster clock for clock". This signifies a stronger IPC.

[Hieb]

Thanks, but if every core runs at (let's say) 3.5Ghz then FX 6300 should be better than i5 4690 right (when gaming)? Because the FX one has 6 cores running at 3.5GHz, but why the i5 one is stronger when it has 4 cores running at 3.5 GHz?

 

The simplest answer is that GHz just measures how many cycles the processor completes each second. However different architectures will complete a different amount in each cycle, plus there are other things like cache and memory access times, efficiency of decoders and fetch units, floating point units etc. that all play a part in how quickly the CPU and get an input, complete the work, and output results.

 

Intel's current Haswell architecture has about 50% better 'IPC' (instructions per cycle) than AMD's FX lineup, meaning that if you were to compare an AMD core and a Haswell core both at 3.5GHz, the Haswell one would be about 50% faster.

[Hieb]

You cannot check your IPC. You infer IPC by comparing single threaded performance across various CPUs. Every time a new CPU line is introduced from Intel, they usually say "5% faster clock for clock". This signifies a stronger IPC.

 

Usually meaning just the last generation?

 

The jumps were 15-20% many years back when jumping from Core 2 to Nehalem to Sandy Bridge, then Sandy to Ivy was about 10% and Ivy to Haswell was about 5%. AMD's IPC on their current chips are about the same as Intel's Core 2 lineup.

[D2ultima]

Usually meaning just the last generation?

 

The jumps were 15-20% many years back when jumping from Core 2 to Nehalem to Sandy Bridge, then Sandy to Ivy was about 10% and Ivy to Haswell was about 5%. AMD's IPC on their current chips are about the same as Intel's Core 2 lineup.

AMD's IPC is a little worse than C2D/Clarksfield/Lynnfield/Bloomfield/Phenom II from what most people found, actually.