CPUs

[alphabeta]

Besides Number of cores and Clock speed and hyper-threading what make's a CPU better than another one ?

 

- Temperature and power consumption aren't included -    

[Paralectic]

Besides the perfomance in general, the price/performance ratio, as obvious.

[Phllips]

Besides the perfomance in general, the price/performance ratio, as obvious.

I think he means why is it better not why is it better to buy

[FusionBlitzx]

Instruction sets, amount cache and hyperthreading are the only other things I can think off that could differentiate CPU's. Pricing doesn't necessarily make one CPU better than another in my book, it just depends on peoples budgets.

[SpyRosL]

The amound of tasks each core can execute in a certain amount of time aka how stong each core is.

[Sauron]

Instruction sets, amount cache and hyperthreading are the only other things I can think off that could differentiate CPU's. Pricing doesn't necessarily make one CPU better than another in my book, it just depends on peoples budgets.

 

What he says is true as long as we're talking about cpus from the same brand, when we're talking amd vs intel it's a different story (for example core count isn't as decisive). The only way to really know which cpu outperforms which is to benchmark them.

[Cryptonite]

Besides Number of cores and Clock speed and hyper-threading what make's a CPU better than another one ?

 

- Temperature and power consumption aren't included -    

architecture.

[Ren]

L2/L3 cache and IPC (Instructions per clock). IPC is probably the most important thing in the world when it comes to a processor but I'm no expert. You can make a CPU that has terrible IPC but run at 5ghz and be slower than one that runs at only 3.4ghz. This is why CPU frequency shouldn't be looked at as what makes one CPU better than another. When talking about enterprise or server-grade processors, power consumption is actually extremely important. A single watt difference might not make or break you, but 25-50W is huge for the majority interested in lots of them.

Singlethreaded performance is really important to most processors, but it's all dependant on what you're using your system for. This is how all hardware or personal computers are, really, so you shouldn't be staring at this, multi or hyperthreading and thinking "Well this processor has the best of x". You should be looking at which one uses what you'd likely be utilizing the most.

There's some other stuff that makes it a bit easier to understand if you look at what makes an i7 processor better or worse at what than a Xeon at the same or higher clock speed. Reading up on that might introduce you to more of the core ingredients of a CPU, but I haven't looked at this myself.

As for L2/L3 cache, I really don't know exactly what this does and would rather not say anything stupid, but I can guarantee that wikipedia has basic information on it and other things regarding CPUs.

[FusionBlitzx]

What he says is true as long as we're talking about cpus from the same brand, when we're talking amd vs intel it's a different story (for example core count isn't as decisive). The only way to really know which cpu outperforms which is to benchmark them.

Well when talking about benchmarks you got to be careful. Even if intel does beat amd in a lot of benchmarks but that doesn't necessarily mean better performance in the real world. But yeah real world benchmarks would be the only way to compare intel and amd CPU's

[FusionBlitzx]

L2/L3 cache and IPC (Instructions per clock). IPC is probably the most important thing in the world when it comes to a processor but I'm no expert. You can make a CPU that has terrible IPC but run at 5ghz and be slower than one that runs at only 3.4ghz. This is why CPU frequency shouldn't be looked at as what makes one CPU better than another. When talking about enterprise or server-grade processors, power consumption is actually extremely important. A single watt difference might not make or break you, but 25-50W is huge for the majority interested in lots of them.

Singlethreaded performance is really important to most processors, but it's all dependant on what you're using your system for. This is how all hardware or personal computers are, really, so you shouldn't be staring at this, multi or hyperthreading and thinking "Well this one has the best of x". You should be looking at which one uses what you'd likely be utilizing the most.

There's some other stuff that makes it a bit easier to understand if you look at what makes an i7 processor better or worse at what than a Xeon at the same or higher clock speed. Reading up on that might introduce you to more of the core ingredients of a CPU, but I haven't looked at this myself.

As for L2/L3 cache, I really don't know exactly what this does and would rather not say anything stupid, but I can guarantee that wikipedia has basic information on it and other things regarding CPUs.

Well in terms of cache, I believe they are practically really fast memory (faster than RAM) that is used by the CPU for things it needs really quick access to, that's what I think it does but don't quote me on that. 

[simtransporter]

Besides Number of cores and Clock speed and hyper-threading what make's a CPU better than another one ?

A CPU that has an unlocked multiplier vs one that doesn't.

[Sauron]

Well when talking about benchmarks you got to be careful. Even if intel does beat amd in a lot of benchmarks but that doesn't necessarily mean better performance in the real world. But yeah real world benchmarks would be the only way to compare intel and amd CPU's

 

Usually benchmarks (non-synthetic ones especially) give a pretty good idea of what you'll be getting. If a cpu takes 10 seconds less in a 3d rendering benchmark for example, it's safe to say for that task it's faster. After all we're far past the times where general use fluidity was a problem.

[Ilian]

Cache , architecture , instruction/cycle

[FusionBlitzx]

Usually benchmarks (non-synthetic ones especially) give a pretty good idea of what you'll be getting. If a cpu takes 10 seconds less in a 3d rendering benchmark for example, it's safe to say for that task it's faster. After all we're far past the times where general use fluidity was a problem.

Well 3d rendering is a real world benchmark so I would recommend that for comparing CPU's. I just don't like synthetic benchmarks because they don't give you a good idea of CPU's actual performance. 

[Kamina]

The amount of cache, type of architecture, instruction sets, amount of transistors and transistor node size, die size, and the material it is made of, whether that be Silicon and some other semi-conductor.

[faziten]

Simple: Your needs.

 

Based on personal needs/wishes. Arquitecture, Features, Raw performance (CPU/FPU) and Single thread performance. OCability.

ie: If you want a server, choose strongly threaded CPU, if want a good render machine, choose strong CPU/ with beasty FPU. If want an encrypted enviroment based on AES, choose AES cpu featured. If gaming, strong quadcore is still a good choise. Want to overclock? choose a fully unlocked cpu, etc. 

 

A "better CPU" without personal parameters is nonsense, because when you get coser to your needs, there will be plenty choises to make, and none of them will crash to the ground the other.

Your question should be why these CPUs are better FOR ME.?