Cores or Ghz which matters most?

[zach71593]

so here is my question i have a lenovo n586 with a A6 4400m running that can run at 2.7 ghz with two cores. I want to upgrade it to a A8 i was looking at a A8 3510mx 1.8 ghz with 4 cores, but im not sure if i should because although it has more cores it has a lower ghz. my question is will i actually see an improvement? If i do can you verse me on ghz vs amount of cores please? Thank you 

 

[j29]

Depends on whether you use multi-threaded applications, for example video editing. 'Standard' applications (including lots of games) make less use of extra cores and so here the actual speed of the cores that they do use would matter.

 

edit:

Also, I think the upgrade that would be the best value for money would be an SSD if you didn't already have one.

[WoodenMarker]

It depends on what you're doing. If what you're doing can utilize all 4 cores, it would do better. Such things include gaming and video editing.

If you're just using single or dual threaded programs, the faster 2 cores should do better.

 

Keep in mind the A8 has slightly better graphics than the A6.

[Godlygamer23]

Depends on the application being used. Sometimes, it's more about IPC than gigahertz.

[ProGearUk]

Depends on the application being used. Sometimes, it's more about IPC than gigahertz.

what does IPC mean I forgot

[Godlygamer23]

what does IPC mean I forgot

Instructions per clock.

[SteepGnomeKing]

It's all about the size of the hard drive that matters. That's what makes a computer go super fast.

[ThunderShark]

It's all about the size of the hard drive that matters. That's what makes a computer go super fast.

Speed of hard drive.

[Frosty]

It sounds like you have a laptop... were you planning on purchasing a new one? Or potentially upgrading the CPU in your old one? 

[zach71593]

It sounds like you have a laptop... were you planning on purchasing a new one? Or potentially upgrading the CPU in your old one? 

upgrading

[PCBudgetSolutions]

Honestly, all the above is somewhat correct, but the true architecture is what really matters.  How efficient is the CPU in the execution phase.  How much latency is there between cores?  Look at the FX processors.  because they have 2 cores per module and only 1 floating integer per module, it's performs drops VERY quickly after 50% load.  IPC's, Pipelines, cache latency etc is ALL part of the architecture.  This is why a G860 can out perform most quad cores like an FX-4100, Athlon II x4 640, Athlon II X4 750K, because those quad cores cannot process quad threaded applications or equations very efficiently.  To give you an example, a G860 can process nearly twice as efficient as a 750K even when overclocked.  Because of this, unless you're running a GTX 780, nearly every application runs more efficient on a G860.  However the multitasking isn't there because it cannot offload to idle cores like quad cores can.  So literally in most scenarios a G860 can process 4 threads Faster than a 750K because the architecture is so ungodly unefficient.

[Anubikai]

MOAR CORESSSSSSSSSS.....lol no the per core performance is relevant atm. Multi threaded performance is making its way though so its best to get a cpu with both good single and multi core performance....the i7-x770k cpus offer this...

 

-Anubikai