16 threads AMD CPU?

[CliffTerios]

not sure why the whole intel vs amd debate for gaming gets broaght up to this thread.

But to aswer the original question, yes there are AMD opteron server grade chips with more cores.

 

also currious if topic starter is even going to look back to his thread.

Or if this thread is another intel vs amd flame war troll thread.

 

Fingers crossed

 

I'm actually checking back on this thread and I learn a lot in the process. There's a fair bunch of stuff about CPU's that I don't understand so seeing all these replies only helps me further in learning more.

 

pls no amd vs intel war tho

[Imakuni]

I feel stupid asking this but I heard about an intel CPU that has 8 cores and hyperthreads up to 16 threads. Is there an AMD equivalent? For consumers, of course.

 

In addition to that, would I benefit from 16 threads when rendering videos? I would assume so?

AMD has 4 ture cores with 8 fake cores / threads. They are called FX 8xxx and 9xxx. But that's it.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Watched that AC:U video about 100% across all 4 cores on an i5...

 

 

 

On my i5, that NEVER happens, it never uses that much, never spikes that high, and never affects GPU performance.

Something is amiss in THAT system.

 

 

/OP - Even if you picked up a 16x Opteron, the per-core performance does not make it that great, and no doubt slower than modern CPU's, however for a rendering rig, I'd like to see one compared to a modern Quad+HT or true 8 core.

[Manny Calavera]

Watch Dogs is also another Ubisoft game. Ubisoft's motto is: "Why should we optimize it when you can just throw more hardware at it?"

 

I'll have to go out and buy ACU and do some tests myself. After you showed me it scaling nearly perfectly with 8 threads, i have some things i really want to test.

i love this channel, benchmarks benchmarks benchmarks ! if linus didnt have wan show and scrapyard wars, id rather switch to this channel if it had those

 

[Dabombinable]

Ok....anyone who thinks SMT or Hyper Threading decrease the performance of a CPU has never used it before. I had to go through hell with a Pentium 4 630 for 5 months before I bought a newer computer-disabling hyperthreading made the computer unusable and made it crash while benchmarking it was that bad.

[Imakuni]

Ok....anyone who thinks SMT or Hyper Threading decrease the performance of a CPU has never used it before. I had to go through hell with a Pentium 4 630 for 5 months before I bought a newer computer-disabling hyperthreading made the computer unusable and made it crash while benchmarking it was that bad.

HT may decrease performance. It usually boosts performance (otherwise Intel wouldn't charge so much for it), but in some cases, it can decrease it vastly. Mainly when RAM / Cache are bottlenecking performance, HT can make it even worse.

[PlayStation 2]

HT may decrease performance. It usually boosts performance (otherwise Intel wouldn't charge so much for it), but in some cases, it can decrease it vastly. Mainly when RAM / Cache are bottlenecking performance, HT can make it even worse.

You realize Intel charges that much because they can *cough* 5930K

[Imakuni]

You realize Intel charges that much because they can *cough* 5930K

I'm comparing a Pentium Vs an i3, or an i5 vs i7. The big price gap is because of HT. They charge more because it helps.

 

The 5930k costs a lot more not because of HT, but because of the extra PCIe lanes (which are stupid in many cases). If you understand anything about how a CPU works, you'd know that it makes perfect sense for a 5930k to cost so much more than a 5820k, getting a crap ton more lanes onto a CPU is much harder than you think.

[Lays]

Nah, no consumer 16 thread chips.

And you wont see huge benefits in a 5960X over a 5820k

 

 

That's dependent on what you're doing

[PlayStation 2]

I'm comparing a Pentium Vs an i3, or an i5 vs i7. The big price gap is because of HT. They charge more because it helps.

 

The 5930k costs a lot more not because of HT, but because of the extra PCIe lanes (which are stupid in many cases). If you understand anything about how a CPU works, you'd know that it makes perfect sense for a 5930k to cost so much more than a 5820k, getting a crap ton more lanes onto a CPU is much harder than you think.

Oh, that.

It still doesn't sound really reasonable to charge pretty much double of its *slightly* slower brother. Even if its only benefit is extra PCI-E lanes.

[DemonWars]

The fanboyism of intel is strong in this post

[Imakuni]

Oh, that.

It still doesn't sound really reasonable to charge pretty much double of its *slightly* slower brother. Even if its only benefit is extra PCI-E lanes.

If you were in a situation where you NEEDED those extra lanes, you'd see that the 5820k wouldn't be "slightly" slower, it would be MUCH slower. For us, gaming peasants, the difference is very small. But be assured, it exists for a reason.

[PlayStation 2]

If you were in a situation where you NEEDED those extra lanes, you'd see that the 5820k wouldn't be "slightly" slower, it would be MUCH slower. For us, gaming peasants, the difference is very small. But be assured, it exists for a reason.

In that kind of situation, you'd 51 times out of 52, have the money to blow on a 5960X. You don't buy a 40-lane CPU for just gaming. You buy it for rendering rigs that are connected to other render rigs. You use it for fast mass storage. Using those 40 slots on 3 GPUs is a waste.