Search the Community

I was randomly getting fps drops while playing video games, when I checked via msi afterburner it turns out my cpu usage is at 50 all the time. After that I started a stress test via intel extreme utility amd it turn out my active cores randomly drops to 1 (this laptop has a dual core cpu, 4 logical cores). Anyone has any suggestions?

Hey, I´m currently creating a database for a CFD-Workstation buying decission. It would be used for external aerodynamic simulation pre and post processing and some simulation test using Star-CCM+ Star-CCM+ has does scale quite well even for very high cpu core counts like they are used in dual socket xeon systems. In the past I used Passmark because it looked to me that it can represent this usecase quite well. At least it did for old dual socket systems, but dose not show the improvment from let´s say one Xeon E5-2699 v3 to two XEON E5-2699 v2. Is there a good Benchmark for this usecase with good sample dateabase out there? P.S. That would be another "usless" interessting Video Topic: "Benchmarking for proffesional Engineering Tasks"

So I will soon be getting an i7 6850k cpu. I will use it for gaming, data processing and maybe some video editing. games do better on single core performance I hear and that this line of cpus has a specific core that is better to be overclocked and is marked with a * in the bios. so my question is is it better to overclock the whole chip to aN ok clock or get that one core to a really high clock. My other question is without going over 1.45v what have you guys found is the max single and multi coRe clock on this cpu? thanks

This is where I bump into the limits of my understanding of hyperthreading. A classic analogy is that adding more cores is like adding more mouths for eating food. Adding hyperthreading is like adding more hands to help you get the food to the mouths. Now, let's look at a 4-core machine in two scenarios: * 4 true cores with no hyperthreading * 3 true cores with 1 hyperthreaded core. I know this doesn't exist on real CPUs but this is possible to create by setting up processor affinity, which is where the real-world application of this question comes in: Is there ever a case where one could get better performance from an application by assigning it 3 true cores and one hyperthreaded "core" rather than assigning it 4 "true cores?" If we go back to the food analogy, is there ever a case where it's better to have 3 mouths and 2 hands, rather than 4 mouths and one hand? When described this way, I can almost certainly say "yes" but I have a feeling this analogy breaks down somewhere, which is where the limits of my understanding come in. is there ever a case where a hyperthreaded "core" is preferrable to assigning another true core to an operation?

Hi guys! Would like some feedback from you concerning this. Mainly because I can think of a lot of professional workflow where it works like this, but of course can't think of all of them. So would appreciate from you to share some hopefully different view of the landscape and make me learn something new hehe. Also. the reason why I'm putting the discussion here is that LTT is one of the only channels where some build like this could actually happen IMO. INTRO Here is my train of thought. Threadripper is all fine and dandy. For that price, Intel is just the worse option. Also, most probably when Intel goes over 10 cores (upto 18) with pushing down base clock speeds (nobody cares about boost clocks if you are doing operations which use all the cores) it will see even worse returns for money compared to their 10core parts. But, honestly. I don't see the need for threadripper in mid-term also. I mean. It's not meant for gaming. You will basically not gain any single thing gaming on it compared to a ton cheaper 1700 OCed (or 1800x if no OC). I'm not going to count each dolar (like added for cooling) because, it's a cheap thing concerning the cost of the platform and possible uses. Also, space constrains (Threadripper does fit in a regular PC case is a huge plus), but also. We are talking professional workflows here THE MAIN QUESTION Here is what I'm thinking 1xThreadripper 1950X 16C32T part costs >1.000 USD. Overclockable to 3.9GHz on all cores (some go to 4.0, but, let's just leave 3.9 as a realistic expectation). 64 PCIe lanes 2xEpyc 7281 16C32T parts cost >2x600 USD = 1.200 USD with 32C64T. Base clock, all cores go to 2.7GHz. 128 PCIe lanes USEFULNESS GPU Workloads: So as I look at it. Some people may buy into the Threadripper for it's 64PCIe lanes not caring for CPU performance or not needing it. (maybe their worflow is GPU specific and needs to have as many of them running on a single machine) But for them also it would be better to just buy the single 8C16T Epyc with 128 PCIe lanes for >400. Even tough I honestly don't think price is an object when comparing what would be the cost of actually populating all 64 PCIe lanes wih GPUs (not to mention 128) Space here doesn't play a role because with this many GPUs you are moving away from normal PC cases of course. CPU Workloads: My logic goes like. If you are using the CPUs for rendering. Than you are using all the cores completely. In that case. The single core IPC is really not that important. Even a slow 2.7GHz 32C64T should be able to provide better performance in highly parallel environments than even a 4.0 GHz OCed 16C32T part. The only workflow which could benefit from a faster TR chips could be memory speed conscious workflows (3200 MHz + for TR vs 2666 MHz for Epyc) Mixed CPU+GPU workloads From the above mentioned scenarios, I don't see how a mixed workflow would be in any way worse since it would benefit from both of the facts mentioned above. VIRTUALIZATION Nothing special to mention here. PLATFORM COST Here the advantage is of course in the consumer market Threadripper part. But, my personal opinion is that for these workflows the prices aren't that big of a deal. I mean. CPU prices themselves pale in comparison to the possible storage costs, GPU costs, memory costs... FUTURE-PROOF I have intentionally mentioned 2x Epyc 7281 16C32T parts. Because it has a clear path of upgrade-ability towards the 2x Epyc 7601 32C64T parts for the mind boggling 64C and 128T system. Which at the present, would require paying almost 7x the price premium for about 2x the performance. What is your opinion guys (girls included in guys for PC warriors)?

Hello! The game I play and have played the most the last 3 years is csgo. About 1 year ago a problem started that whenever I play with multicore rendering, my pc gets extremely loud, hot and it starts stuttering a ton. (almost unplayable). Without multicore rendering, it doesnt do that, but I don't get more than 100-150 fps, which is too low for my 144hz monitor. The problem is, its apparently not my cpu which runs hot with multicore rendering, but my gpu (over 100 degrees celsius, which doesnt make sense to me, since multicore rendering is cpu based. Why are they connected? I've tried newest drivers/older drivers and followed many tips on what it could be, but I don't seem to fix it. Thanks in advance! Specs: Intel core i7 3770 gtx 670 msi b75ma-p45

G'day guys. Just a simple one today So, in light of the Holiday Buyers Guide 2016 video that was put out on the LTT channel, I'm re-considering my next computer build. In the $2000 build in the video Linus uses a Core i7 6800k. Now in my future build I'm planning on a 6700k. My question is... As a guy who does a mix of video editing, gaming, Adobe projects and probably some 3d work. Which cpu do you guys think would offer me the best performance for what I want to do? and would the price increase for the 2011-3 mobo and cpu of about +$300 more (Australian Dollars) be worth that performance increase? I don't know these parts that well, so any insight you all had would be fantastic That's guys!

Hey guys! I wa curious about how to enable multi core processing and what are the pros and cons of it? I have a ryzen 7 1700x

This question is for the computer scientists. Are there software that emulate a single core CPU on multicore CPUs? Suppose a software runs better on a single core, is there anything that can combine multiple CPU cores and let that software use them as if they are one CPU core? Also what stops the chip makers or software companies from doing this? what is the bottleneck or technical challenge?

Sorry to revive this old topic but after reading it I thought I would set this option to disabled to not risk that it takes the asus settings and waste power since the CPU already has enough power anyways. However, once I disable it - I get BSOD Everything else is default settings, no OC or anything ideas? My system is in my signature

Hi, I am curious what is more important for the speed of the things i do on computer, i mostly do a lot of web browsing as well as light gaming, my web browsing is very image and video intensive ((Not porn) lol Im curious if i should get a chip with higher thread speed or more threads as i dont know what tasks use one thread or multiple threads. Thank you!

I've had my PC for just under two weeks now, and I have an Asus Z370 board. Having watched JayzTwoCents' video on Asus Multicore Enchancement, I've been interested in using MCE versus not using it. I've had multicore enhancement on since the beginning of my PC so I'm wondering some things; 1. Is it safe in the long-run to run multicore enhancement? 2. Does running multicore enhancement affect thermals in any way as opposed to not running MCE? 3. When can I benefit the most from multicore enhancement? I apologise in advance if these are noobish questions, but knowledge is wisdom.

I'm just getting into the world of computer tech and I'm intrigued by the multi-GPU systems. Generally, we need a SLI between the multiple GPUs' and this sometimes leads to micro-stuttering. This gets worse as we stack up. So is it possible that NVIDIA or AMD has the capability to eliminate the SLI and come up with a single multicore GPU dye? Assuming they can, will it be any better than the conventional GPUs?

Alright I've got a good one. I'm planning on building a dedicated rendering machine to render all of my video content. What I mean by rendering so people don't get confused is taking a large uncompressed video file format and using a video editing program to compress it down and render it as a new, smaller video. Now my question is this. Will I be better off building a desktop with a single cpu lets say i5 4670k with 4 cores at 3.4 ghz OR would I be better off getting an older server mobo and cpu and going with 4 xeon X7350 The reason I ask this is because I can get the server stuff REALLY cheap and the i5 I'd have to purchase outright. I'm not concerned about price. What I am concerned about is rendering time. So, will the i5 perform better by rendering my projects faster with its newer 22nm technology or will 4 OOOOOOOOld 65nm xeons perform better? No gaming will be done on this machine. Strictly rendering. Thank you. The reason I have to ask this is I've found no rendering benchmarks for the xeons.

Hey guys, I just had a quick question about CPUs. I've heard that games are single threaded applications. Could you in theory then just buy a sinlge core CPU with a really high frequency and get good in game performance? I'm probably looking at this completely wrong... If someone could explain this a little I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

AMD is getting more and more overlooked and I was just wondering, if it would be a good idea to buy this beast for video editing and rendering because for example Adobe Premiere Pro uses up to 16 Cores. The low Single-Core-Power could be compensated with strong GPUs (280X, or better).

Hey people! I'm upgrading my ancient PC to squeeze a bit more life for another year before going all out with DDR4 based MBO and DX12. For now I need it mostly for Photoshop and occasional gaming. Photoshop is multilayer (up to 100) 1800x5000px stuff (if that means anything to you) So far: MBO: Asus M2N68-AM Plus CPU: Athlon 64 X2 4000+ with CM Hyper 212EVO RAM: 8GB DDR2 800MHz GPU: nVidia GTX580 PSU: Chieftec 450W HDD: 2.5" Seagate 160GB I decided not to change MBO. I know it's shit but there is still RAM I can use, plus, more DDR2 is cheap to buy (which I did). And it can host up to Phenom X6 1075T, which is cool. I've gone for nVidia GTX580 because cheap and CUDA - thy say it's good for Photoshop :huh: (no idea :unsure: ) and now I'm stuck with CPU. Phenom II X6 1045T 2.7GHz can be found for around $100, but will those 2 extra cores make any difference to X4 945 3.GHz which is $66? I'm talking Photoshop and gaming. Please advise Thank you!!! PS. here is compatibility list, if that helps.

Hello all! So, we all know that games are slowly becoming more core friendly, and are using more and more of 8 core processors. My question would be, in the same way that games are using AMD's FX processors more, will i7's see a similar boost? Thanks for all answers