[POLL] What CPU will age better?

[Stahlmann]

Hello everyone,

i'd like to know your "educated guess" on what CPU probably ages better. Think only about the core/thread count. Same architecture, clock speed, IPC, etc. That's one i've found hard to answer myself.

[Guest]

It's not going to make a difference. 

 

If ran at stock frequency, processors have a life expectancy of 100,000 hours at load within their TDP design point. 

 

That doesnt matter on core count either. All cores are produced close enough to all the same and binned according to its capability to the part number to achieve the life expectancy.

[Stahlmann]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

It's not going to make a difference. 

 

If ran at stock frequency, processors have a life expectancy of 100,000 hours at load within their TDP design point. 

 

That doesnt matter on core count either. All cores are produced close enough to all the same and binned according to its capability to the part number to achieve the life expectancy.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but i'm not talking about the lifetime of the CPU. I'm talking about what will perform better in the long run.

[Mister Woof]

My opinion:

 

They'll both start sucking at around the same time (now, with strong GPUs) and by the time any differences between them start to matter they'll both be too slow anyway.

 

SMT/HT is supposedly a 25% efficiency increase (when applications can properly use it) so it's either 6 actual cores or 5 effective cores. Ballpark.

 

Security shit will probably hurt the 4/8 more though.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but i'm not talking about the lifetime of the CPU. I'm talking about what will perform better in the long run.

Ohhhh!!  I see.

 

Probably the 8 threads SMT while some games do scale 8 threads. 

 

6 cores short on HT smt probably ok for most games. But I think we going to scale past 8 threads in the next few years.

[Ralf]

Isn't 4c8t at it limits in games already? I mean even 10years ago people upgraded from 4c4t for better performance, but now we hope that it still has some headroom left.

While 6c6t isnt great either, I would rather buy that.

[The Torrent]

you need to be more specific, but i feel like the 6 core will end up also having higher clock speeds, so ill go for that.

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, Ralf said:

Isn't 4c8t at it limits in games already? I mean even 10years ago people upgraded from 4c4t for better performance, but now we hope that it still has some headroom left.

While 6c6t isnt great either, I would rather buy that.

There aren't many high frequency 4/8 chips to buy new today. You've got two Ryzen CPUs who's street prices negate the benefit of buying them in the first place, and locked i3's that are just lower frequency (albeit still cheap, though). 

 

I would not recommend a 3500x or a 9600k (both $199) to buy today, which are the only (and one generation old) recent chips in the 6/6 configuration. Regarding 4/8, a $110 i3-10100F/$120 i3/10100 could be compelling, but $183+ Ryzen 3 3100 and unicorn 3300x are just stupid when you can get a Ryzen 5 3600 for $210.

 

Actually for the prices of all of these chips, the 6/12 i5-10400F for $160 is the best value. Otherwise pony up + camp for a 5600X.