Quad Core Processors vs. Eight Core Processors

[SoggyPenguin1]

Just a simple question I would like to ask you guys. Is a eight core processor more powerful than a quad core?

[79wjd]

Just a simple question I would like to ask you guys. Is a eight core processor more powerful than a quad core?

It depends on the cpu. A four core 4690k is about the same as an eight core FX 8350 -- in gaming the 4690k is actually better. 

[Enderman]

That depends on the processor. More cores doesnt always equal more performance.

[Unhelpful]

Just a simple question I would like to ask you guys. Is a eight core processor more powerful than a quad core?

Depends on the eight core and the quad core and also depends on what it is being used for.

[AlwaysFSX]

That's not an apples to apples comparison.

[79wjd]

That's not an apples to apples comparison.

HA! I get it. 

[GloriousPain]

Depends on processor, and process...

[Opcode]

^ None of them guys are right. It depends on the software being used. If the software you have in mind can leverage all eight threads then sure it will completely blow away a quad core. This is why people still tend to chose a FX over a i5 for rendering (price region).

[SoggyPenguin1]

Depends on processor, and process...

Could you please elaborate a bit more.

[EcoBoost]

Just a simple question I would like to ask you guys. Is a eight core processor more powerful than a quad core?

Yes, but it's whether or not what you're doing actually uses all eight cores available

 

Gaming: no

Rendering, photo/video editing, server use: yes

[AlwaysFSX]

HA! I get it. 

Get what...?

[Fulgrim]

It depends on what processor models you are comparing.

 

But generally speaking, it is dependant upon the architecture of each processor, and what you wish to do with it. I.e, not a lot of games can use all 8 cores. And more cores is generally better for video encoding.

 

If you say, compare an FX-8350 to an Intel Q6600, the FX8350 will win.

 

But if you compare say an FX 8350, to an i7 4770k, then the i7 would be better in every situation.

[79wjd]

Get what...?

People who automatically assume Android devices are four as fast as an iPhone since they tend to have twice as many cores, which run twice as fast. 

[AlwaysFSX]

People who automatically assume Android devices are four as fast as an iPhone since they tend to have twice as many cores, which run twice as fast. 

How did you get that from a basic analogy that has no connection to phones?

[TheBLOODYTOXIC]

Could you please elaborate a bit more.

 

for example the processor of the galaxy s5 is an octacore and the 4790k is quad core, and that doesn't mean that the Galaxy S5 is more powerful than the 4790k. depends on more than that.

[Jodomcfrodo]

Yes, but it's whether or not what you're doing actually uses all eight cores available

 

Gaming: no

Rendering, photo/video editing, server use: yes

Not always. Per core performance is not equal all the time. 

[Probenja]

for example the processor of the galaxy s5 is an octacore and the 4790k is quad core, and that doesn't mean that the Galaxy S5 is more powerful than the 4790k. depends on more than that.

Actually is two quad-core chips in one soc, they never work as an octa core.

But mediatek does have some real octa core mobile CPUs and obviously an desktop modern quad core will be better.

[GloriousPain]

Could you please elaborate a bit more.

i5 4690k>8350- in gaming cause games don't use all 8 cores AND the 8350 has weaker individual cores like for example let's say 8350s cores are only 75% of the strength of the i5's and lets say a game uses 4 Cores like Battlefield 4 does... Intel: 4x100%=400% AMD=4x75%=300% which means 100% more if i5 and gaming assuming CPU bottlenecks somethings else making it visibly improve performance (eg assuming Graphics cards not so crappy it bottlenecks CPU)

Now let's say still AMD's cores are only 75% of the strength...  AT rendering which uses all 8 cores 8x75%=600% performance and Intel 4x100%=400% so 200% more performance with AMD... Now using this formula(which isn't accurate just for sake of explaining) making 6 cores amd=4 cores of intel  and you could call the extra 2 cores Future Proof incase MORE GAMES use 8 cores(cause currently Crysis 3 does, and Mantle and DX12 have also been shown to spread the work among more cores) or you can call it useless depending which company you prefer or which ideology you agree with I personally believe we should go with more cores (whether it be i7 or 83xx)  and force devs to start programming for it cause currently the bottleneck of AMD's strategy is devs aren't programming for it ... and while some people would say it'd get rid of neutrality it'd also help i7, i7 Extreme, and Xeon users (also how does favoring i5s keep neutrality... ) essentially it's the same as games being optimised for graphics card companies except now adays most people just side with intel so hard they don't realize part of the problem with AMD is programming 

Granted there's many other factors and this was just an over simplification

[grimmjow660]

That's not an apples to apples comparison.

Haha is this related to a certain fanboy that roams the gpu forum?

[AlwaysFSX]

Haha is this related to a certain fanboy that roams the gpu forum?

No?

[SoggyPenguin1]

i5 4690k>8350- in gaming cause games don't use all 8 cores AND the 8350 has weaker individual cores like for example let's say 8350s cores are only 75% of the strength of the i5's and lets say a game uses 4 Cores like Battlefield 4 does... Intel: 4x100%=400% AMD=4x75%=300% which means 100% more if i5 and gaming assuming CPU bottlenecks somethings else making it visibly improve performance (eg assuming Graphics cards not so crappy it bottlenecks CPU)

Now let's say still AMD's cores are only 75% of the strength...  AT rendering which uses all 8 cores 8x75%=600% performance and Intel 4x100%=400% so 200% more performance with AMD... Now using this formula(which isn't accurate just for sake of explaining) making 6 cores amd=4 cores of intel  and you could call the extra 2 cores Future Proof incase MORE GAMES use 8 cores(cause currently Crysis 3 does, and Mantle and DX12 have also been shown to spread the work among more cores) or you can call it useless depending which company you prefer or which ideology you agree with I personally believe we should go with more cores (whether it be i7 or 83xx)  and force devs to start programming for it cause currently the bottleneck of AMD's strategy is devs aren't programming for it ... and while some people would say it'd get rid of neutrality it'd also help i7, i7 Extreme, and Xeon users (also how does favoring i5s keep neutrality... ) essentially it's the same as games being optimised for graphics card companies except now adays most people just side with intel so hard they don't realize part of the problem with AMD is programming 

Granted there's many other factors and this was just an over simplification

Thanks!