Do more cores mean better performance?

[yrjosmiel73]

I can already hear the AMD vs Intel debate down there.

edit: I am surprised how tame it is.

So I've been reading a couple of "AMD vs Intel" articles. As always, the message is that AMD is for budget builds and Intel for performance. Something doesn't make sense. AMD has more cores but worse performance? How can that be? Is it optimization or some sort?

[Enderman]

core performance is worse on AMD CPUs than intel CPUs

 

its just how the transistor architecture is built

 

most programs get better performance from higher single thread performance than multicore performance because parallelizing processes is not easy to code

[byalexandr]

Intel has fewer, more powerful cores. AMD has more lesser powerful cores. Programs typically use one core at a time, so having more power per core is pretty much key.

[yrjosmiel73]

core performance is worse on AMD CPUs than intel CPUs

 

its just how the transistor architecture is built

 

most programs get better performance from higher single thread performance than multicore performance because parallelizing processes is not easy to code

But when I read the specs, it shows a higher if not equal clock speed?

[Amazingasian]

It depends.  For gaming, 4 fast cores is favored over 18 slower cores because of the way games are optimized.  For things like video editing, rendering, CAD, etc...  More cores are favored but the faster the better.  The reason that AMD CPU's have so many fast cores but still peform worse than intel is because of the bad/old architecture inside the CPU.

[GDRRiley]

Core for core AMD cpus are not as strong for single threaded workloads but are good for cheap rendering boxes and servers. Intel is stronger core for core just because of how the architecture is made.

[Guest Kloaked]

core performance is worse on AMD CPUs than intel CPUs

 

its just how the transistor architecture is built

 

This is the tl;dr version of it, and that's all that you really need to know unless you want to actually dig into the architectural differences (you won't find that info here, fyi).

 

The reason AMD CPUs are suggested for budget builds are because some people don't realize even modern i3s will beat AMDs 8-cores a majority of the time, and plus you'd have a better upgrade path on the Intel platform and be good for a lot longer than you would be on the current AMD platforms.

 

EDIT: Just to add: The reason for i3s beating AMD's 8-cores is because like Enderman said, Intel has better single core performance. Games today aren't utilizing multi-core processing across the board right now. Only Frostbite games IIRC are actually using multi-core processing the best.

[Enderman]

But when I read the specs, it shows a higher if not equal clock speed?

clock speed =/= core performance

clock speed can increase the core performance, but one intel core at 3GHz will still perform better than one AMD core at 3GHz

 

that's just due to the way they are engineered

 

even a 5GHz 9590 is still bad compared to an i7 at 4GHz or less

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

what you need to remember is that more cores and more GHz will increase performance, but that only applies to intel and AMD separately

you cant compare between them because they are not built the same

if you want to compare an intel vs AMD CPU you need to use real world benchmarks, not numbers and spec sheets

[GDRRiley]

But when I read the specs, it shows a higher if not equal clock speed?

Clock speed can only be compared among the same architecture other wise it means very little.

[yrjosmiel73]

clock speed =/= core performance

clock speed can increase the core performance, but one intel core at 3GHz will still perform better than one AMD core at 3GHz

 

that's just due to the way they are engineered

Ah, so kinda like "optimization" effectiveness?

[Enderman]

Ah, so kinda like "optimization" effectiveness?

I guess you could call it that...

[TacticlTwinkie]

More cores does not necessary mean more performance. AMD's 8 core chips use an aging design, and don't have as much "power" per core that the newer Intel chips do. Imgane an old v8 car being beaten in a drag race by a newer 4 cylinder turbo.

[TheKDub]

I can already hear the AMD vs Intel debate down there.

edit: I am surprised how tame it is.

So I've been reading a couple of "AMD vs Intel" articles. As always, the message is that AMD is for budget builds and Intel for performance. Something doesn't make sense. AMD has more cores but worse performance? How can that be? Is it optimization or some sort?

 

Really depends on the usage.

 

A general rule for cpu performance:

AMD - More, slower cores.

Intel - Fewer, faster cores.

 

Unless doing an extremely low budget build (Like under $300 and you need an apu or something), intel is the way to go.

[failblox]

But when I read the specs, it shows a higher if not equal clock speed?

There is another measurement, in addition to clock speed, which is used to measure the performance of microprocessors called instructions per clock, or IPC. AMD's cores have a much lower IPC than Intel's CPU cores, which are much more optimized and efficient.

 

Because of this, a direct clock-to-clock comparison between two processors of varying architectures (even within Intel's own lineup) does not necessarily mean that both processors will get exactly the same performance just because they operate at the same frequencies. A processor with a low frequency, but high efficiency, can perform better than a higher clocked, but much less efficient processor.

[Boink]

I like to explain the difference between Intel and AMD in terms of an engine, where clockspeed is the RPM and each core is a cylinder. Even if you have two engines running at the same RPM with the same number of cylinders, they can still produce varying levels of power because of the size of the cylinders or inefficiencies in the design.

Continuing on this analogy: Intel's processors are like an engine with really large cylinders, allowing each one to be more powerful even at lower RPM. AMD's processors are like engines with smaller cylinders that run at a faster speed but each stroke produces less power because of the smaller size.

 

This is a rather extreme simplification but I hope it helps you understand the basic principle.

[FuzzyYellow]

More cores does not necessary mean more performance. AMD's 8 core chips use an aging design, and don't have as much "power" per core that the newer Intel chips do. Imgane an old v8 car being beaten in a drag race by a newer 4 cylinder turbo.

not a perfect analogy, but that's essentially it.

[Morgan MLGman]

Well. More cores usually mean more performance, so that's the short answer. The long answer is that AMD 'cores' are not like Intel's cores, it's a different kind of an architecture. They're less powerful, and they're put into modules, with two cores per module, they share some resources within the module.

As for the choice of a CPU, it depends on the usage. FX-8320/8350 can be great CPUs, an 8350 is more powerful than an i5-4690k if we're talking raw power due to it being a 4 module / 8 core CPU. If you need a powerful CPU and you're on a budget, there's no better choice basically.

For solely gaming though, an i5 is a safer bet cause you would get a few frames per second more on average, but the CPU would be weaker overall, meaning that it might be not sufficient for heavier tasks. (Comparing i5-4460 and FX-8350, the i5 has 15-21% faster single-core speed but has up to 60% slower multi-core speed)

Considering the same budgets, you sacrifice something, for something. Overall power for higher average FPS in most games, that's basically it, it's up to you and how you're gonna use the CPU to determine which one suits your needs better.

[-rascal-]

We can consider a car engine as an analogy.

 

Lets consider:

Clock speed = Engine RPM

Number of Cores = Number of Cylinder

IPC Performance = Hose Power (or lap time)

 

The Clock speed is only part of the equation, it does not 100% dedicate the performance.

4-cylinder Honda Civic engine that redlines at 8000 RPM versus a 4-cylinder Subaru STi engine that redlines at say..6000PM. Both are 4-cylinders, but the Subaru performs significantly better....say 300+ HP versus 150 HP.

 

Most commonly used programs can`t take advantage of the extra cores, especially with games. It is only in the last few recent years this is beginning to change; we were stuck on dual-cores for a long, long time.

The V6 Mitsubishi engine in my 2010 Outlander pushing ~230 HP compared to the same 4-cylinder STi engine.

[BrightCandle]

In arma 3 for example which is mostly single threaded an FX8350 gets 5.05 FPS/Ghz whereas a 6700k gets 8.62 FPS/Ghz. Both these are indirect measures of IPC but it shows just how much the architecture difference can matter because they are similar clockspeed CPUs and the AMD has 2x the cores.

[TacticlTwinkie]

not a perfect analogy, but that's essentially it.

No, its not perfect, but it does demonstrate the idea well enough.

[simons700]

Well i mean it depends.

7 Years ago when C2D E8400 and C2Q Q6600 where a thing games mostly ran better on the cheaper e8400@4Ghz,  the q6600@3.4Ghz wasn’t far behind but overall slower and more expansive.

So if you asked for a good Gaming Processor in 2008, most people would have recommended the e8400 

Now, 7 Years later, the e8400 is almost not usable for games at all and the Q6600 (used) is still a decent Processor for a budget build, on top of that we are all buying old Server HW with 8-12 of those "core" Cores because they are dirty cheap and have good multi core Performance...

And when you look at the CPU Benchmarks right now: 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

You can see that your MIN FPS is 30% higher (the 1440p Benchmark) on a i7-5930K (6x3,5Ghz) than on a i7-4790k (4x4,0Ghz)

 

or the Battlefront Benchmarks from PCGH:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-Wars-Battlefront-Spiel-34950/Specials/Beta-Technik-Benchmarks-1173656/galerie/2452558/

a i7-5820k with 1.2 Ghz and it basically scales 1:1 from 2-6 Cores

[agent_x007]

I would alter the car analogy.

Car/engine model : Instruction set
Cyliders : Cores
RPM : Frequency
IPC : Gear (selected in gearbox)
Speed = Performance
(more = better)

Since both CPU manufacturers use the same instruction set (x86), it's like they are working on the same engine type/model.
The difference is what they do to tweak the same basic engine.
AMD is "RPM'ing" to max, while Intel is using more smart aproach tweaking not only RPM but Gearbox as well.

In this analogy, U can say AMD is using only 1 gear Gearbox (because they "don't need" more gears, or they belive in "U spin engine faster U will go faster" philisophy).
Intel on the other hand is using multi gear gearbox, and can switch to 2-nd or even 3-rd gear, compared to AMD (using the same engine).
Basicly question, what will be faster :
VW car with 5k RPM on engine and only 1-st gear used, or the same VW car with 5k RPM, but on 3-rd gear ?


Another good analogy, is using urban taxi customers as data (more customers delivered [multi thread] or delivered faster [single thread], is better).
With this, AMD has Toyota Pickup Truck's, while Intel has modified BMW's.

Both vehicles have "+" and "-", like trucks can carry more people at once (are good at transporting groups), but BMW can deliver them faster.

[NumLock21]

8 core @ 3ghz for $500 vs 18 core at 2.33ghz for $500. I'll go with the 18 cores.

[Demonking]

FX doesn't have cores it has modules.