Why is Cinebench saying "4 cores, 8 threads" when i have an 8320?

[Corkaaay]

Hi, i have just installed cinebench and when i open it up, it says the following:

 

Processor: AMD FX-8320 Eight Core Processor

Cores x GHz: 4 cores, 8 threads

OS: Windows 7,64 bit,....

CB Version: 64 bit

GFX Board: GeForce GTX 760/PCIe/SSE2

 

I thought the 8320 was an 8 core CPU, not a 4 core?? Can someone help me out?

[Jobbe03]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1944789/difference-logical-cores-physical-cores.html

[Aniallation]

I thought the 8320 was an 8 core CPU, not a 4 core?? Can someone help me out?

It isn't 8 "real" cores. It's 4 modules with two FPUs per module. It's a similar concept to Hyper-Threading, but different architecture and works in a different way. 

[Corkaaay]

Oh... i see now, thanks alot guys for the fast responses!

[RatedBlam]

Ithas 8 real cores. Just not 8 intel cores.

Whether this was a good idea or not is debatable, but I'd say they are real cores.

[Aniallation]

Ithas 8 real cores. Just not 8 intel cores.

Whether this was a good idea or not is debatable, but I'd say they are real cores.

They are not complete cores, because each "core" or FPU, can only carry out floating-point calculations, all other CPU calculations such as integers have to rely on parts of the module to calculate, as opposed to chips like Phenom II where each core is fully independent. 

[RatedBlam]

They are not complete cores, because each "core" or FPU, can only carry out floating-point calculations, all other CPU calculations such as integers have to rely on parts of the module to calculate, as opposed to chips like Phenom II where each core is fully independent.

I've had loads of discussions about this topic back in 2013, and I'm frankly a bit tired of these. So if this doesn't work lets agree to disagree.

But, as I said it's not a traditional x86 core.

It has four of those CMT modules, and each module shares a front-end as you said. But it's nit set in stone whether it is or is not an octacore. And I'd consider it as one, just because in the end how the architecture plays out, and the fact that it really doesn't have any cores at all in traditional sense.

[Aniallation]

I've had loads of discussions about this topic back in 2013, and I'm frankly a bit tired of these. So if this doesn't work lets agree to disagree.

But, as I said it's not a traditional x86 core.

It has four of those CMT modules, and each module shares a front-end as you said. But it's nit set in stone whether it is or is not an octacore. And I'd consider it as one, just because in the end how the architecture plays out, and the fact that it really doesn't have any cores at all in traditional sense.

When doing floating-point calculations it's an octa-core, but in other uses it's a quad-core...

 

amd y u so kunfuz

[Briggsy]

the max theoretical instructions per clock on an FX 8-core is the same as an Intel desktop i5, although the ratio of which instructions can be handled, and the size of the instructions differs. an i7 has an extra instruction per each additional hyperthread, but again the ipc is weighted differently. In practice, the FX 8 core is going to perform similarly to an Intel quad core when all cores are in use. If you disable core 1,3,5 and 7 on an FX 8 core, you will get better per core performance, iirc.

[i_build_nanosuits]

It isn't 8 "real" cores. It's 4 modules with two FPUs per module. It's a similar concept to Hyper-Threading, but different architecture and works in a different way. 

 

When doing floating-point calculations it's an octa-core, but in other uses it's a quad-core...

 

amd y u so kunfuz

in fact it's the other way around...there's only one FPU per module but two integer unit per modules...so it can only process 4 floating point instructions per clock cycle but it can process 8 integer bades instructions at once.

 

 

OP as you can see it's a fancy quad-core...that's why.