CPU HELP

[DA MAN]

CPU QUESTION, IS A QUAD CORE AT 2.6GHZ CPU FASTER THEN A DUAL CORE AT 3.9GHZ CPU, STAYING WITHIN THE CPU FAMILY EXT: (A AMD AM3+ QUAD CORE AT 2.6GHZ VS A AMD AM3+ DUAL CORE AT 3.9GHZ)

(MY WORK LOAD): IS BROWSING THE NET SMALL APPS AND WATCHING VIDEOS ALL AT THE SAME TIME USING 3 MONITORS, NO GAMING OTHER THEN USING BLUE STACKS TO PLAY BUBBLE WITCH ON...

[Starelementpoke]

4 minutes ago, DA MAN said:

CPU QUESTION, IS A QUAD CORE AT 2.6GHZ CPU FASTER THEN A DUAL CORE AT 3.9GHZ CPU, STAYING WITHIN THE CPU FAMILY EXT: (A AMD AM3+ QUAD CORE AT 2.6GHZ VS A AMD AM3+ DUAL CORE AT 3.9GHZ)

A. It´d be helpful to know the cpus in question. B. It´d be helpful to know the overall budget.

[I am an SSD]

Just now, DA MAN said:

CPU QUESTION, IS A QUAD CORE AT 2.6GHZ CPU FASTER THEN A DUAL CORE AT 3.9GHZ CPU, STAYING WITHIN THE CPU FAMILY EXT: (A AMD AM3+ QUAD CORE AT 2.6GHZ VS A AMD AM3+ DUAL CORE AT 3.9GHZ)

Depends on what youre running....Games/video editing, or general browsing, small applications?

[VeeTeePee]

What programs are you planning on running? And it also depends on how many threads those said programs use.

[l_zheng101]

For single threaded tasks, a faster CPU with less cores will perform better than a slower CPU with more cores. For a multithreaded workload like video editing, it's vise versa. 

[DA MAN]

3 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

Depends on what youre running....Games/video editing, or general browsing, small applications?

BROWSING THE NET SMALL APPS AND WATCHING VIDEOS ALL AT THE SAME TIME USING 3 MONITORS, NO GAMING OTHER THEN USING BLUE STACKS TO PLAY BUBBLE WITCH ON...

[typographie]

12 minutes ago, DA MAN said:

BROWSING THE NET SMALL APPS AND WATCHING VIDEOS ALL AT THE SAME TIME USING 3 MONITORS, NO GAMING OTHER THEN USING BLUE STACKS TO PLAY BUBBLE WITCH ON...

There is no formula to determine at what clock speed it becomes faster to have more cores, because it depends on the software you're running. I would say that, for the things you've listed, having four cores matters somewhat less than a high clock speed. That's just my opinion though.

 

What worries me is that we're still speaking in the abstract—I don't think AMD has sold a dual-core desktop CPU in a long, long time, and age is definitely a factor.

[DA MAN]

12 minutes ago, typographie said:

There is no formula to determine at what clock speed it becomes faster to have more cores, because it depends on the software you're running. I would say that, for the things you've listed, having four cores matters somewhat less than a high clock speed. That's just my opinion though.

 

What worries me is that we're still speaking in the abstract—I don't think AMD has sold a dual-core desktop CPU in a long, long time, and age is definitely a factor.

AMD A6 7400K Black Edition 3.9GHz Dual-Core Socket FM2+ Boxed Processor

[typographie]

1 minute ago, DA MAN said:

AMD A6 7400K Black Edition 3.9GHz Dual-Core Socket FM2+ Boxed Processor

And what's the other?

[DA MAN]

6 minutes ago, typographie said:

And what's the other?

AMD FX 6300 Black Edition 3.5GHz Six-Core Socket AM3+ Boxed Processor

[I am an SSD]

2 hours ago, DA MAN said:

BROWSING THE NET SMALL APPS AND WATCHING VIDEOS ALL AT THE SAME TIME USING 3 MONITORS, NO GAMING OTHER THEN USING BLUE STACKS TO PLAY BUBBLE WITCH ON...

GET THE DUAL CORE....seriously most applications you say you will be running is capable of running on only a single core. ......and to run them fast, it is essential that the single core has a higher clock speed.....the no. of cores doesnt matter here

 

 

you see ..there is a problem with getting more no. of cores....the clock speed for each core is being dropped as you go for more no. of cores...and this is bad unless you do CPU intensive tasks like video editing

[sapphirethunder]

6 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

GET THE DUAL CORE....seriously most applications you say you will be running is capable of running on only a single core. ......and to run them fast, it is essential that the single core has a higher clock speed.....the no. of cores doesnt matter here

 

 

you see ..there is a problem with getting more no. of cores....the clock speed for each core is being dropped as you go for more no. of cores...and this is bad unless you do CPU intensive tasks like video editing

No, the A6 is absolutely horrible in browsing internet and such stuff. I know since I built a pc with one for my parent's. And it's god awful slow.

It would be best for him to go with 4-core A10.

[sapphirethunder]

2 hours ago, DA MAN said:

AMD FX 6300 Black Edition 3.5GHz Six-Core Socket AM3+ Boxed Processor

 

Get AMD A10-7800K.

Also, A10 series is FM2+, not AM3+

[I am an SSD]

Just now, 167776_1454180910 said:

No, the A6 is absolutely horrible in browsing internet and such stuff. I know since I built a pc with one for my parent's. And it's god awful slow.

It would be best for him to go with 4-core A10.

That cannot be the problem of the CPU, because I havent heard similar problems ....and even if it is the problem, the extra 2 cores will definetly not help for browsing....

[sapphirethunder]

4 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

That cannot be the problem of the CPU, because I havent heard similar problems ....and even if it is the problem, the extra 2 cores will definetly not help for browsing....

Maybe because people who use such cpu, normally don't really notice it, they only compare it to old one which was much slower.

But majority of times, especially when using Google Chrome, the 2 cores will be near maxed out.

It's much better to get a 4-core in todays age when talking about AMD. Intel has naturally stronger cores so with Intel you are good with just 2 cores.

 

AMD = better get 4-core

Intel = dual core is enough

[DA MAN]

1 minute ago, 167776_1454180910 said:

Maybe because people who use such cpu, normally don't really notice it, they only compare it to old one which was much slower.

But majority of times, especially when using Google Chrome, the 2 cores will be near maxed out.

I DONT USE CHROME CUZ IT TAKES SO MUCH TO RUN...

[I am an SSD]

Just now, 167776_1454180910 said:

Maybe because people who use such cpu, normally don't really notice it, they only compare it to old one which was much slower.

But majority of times, especially when using Google Chrome, the 2 cores will be near maxed out.

It's much better to get a 4-core in todays age when talking about AMD. Intel has naturally stronger cores so with Intel you are good with just 2 cores.

Hmm strange.....Whenever someone asks me more a dual core, i run to the pentium g3258

 

however i think my clockspeed argument still holds for other small applications yes?

[DA MAN]

3 minutes ago, 167776_1454180910 said:

Maybe because people who use such cpu, normally don't really notice it, they only compare it to old one which was much slower.

But majority of times, especially when using Google Chrome, the 2 cores will be near maxed out.

 

5 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

That cannot be the problem of the CPU, because I havent heard similar problems ....and even if it is the problem, the extra 2 cores will definetly not help for browsing....

THAT IS WHAT I WAS THINKING...

 

[sapphirethunder]

Just now, DA MAN said:

I DONT USE CHROME CUZ IT TAKES SO MUCH TO RUN...

The same can happen with Firefox too, just not as much as Chrome.

Internet Explorer is really out of question. Microsoft Edge is kind of in the middle of Firefox and Chrome.

[I am an SSD]

Just now, DA MAN said:

 

THAT IS WHAT I WAS THINKING...

 

Why did you limit your selection to just these two CPUs? Because like i said, the g3258 is failsafe

[sapphirethunder]

6 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

Hmm strange.....Whenever someone asks me more a dual core, i run to the pentium g3258

 

however i think my clockspeed argument still holds for other small applications yes?

 Exactly, because that's Intel. Intel has naturally stronger cores, so with Intel you are fine with just 2-cores.

But AMD has way too slow cores and architecture for dual-cores. A6 is just for bare minimum pc usage where you check email few times a day, go pay the bills and maybe check facebook quick and then leave.

 

 

Best cpus for OP would be:

 

AMD: A10 7800k

Intel: Pentium G4400/G3258

 

[DA MAN]

1 minute ago, I am an SSD said:

Why did you limit your selection to just these two CPUs? Because like i said, the g3258 is failsafe

BECAUSE I THOUGHT AMD WAS CHEAPER INTO I JUST LOOKED TO THE G3258

 

[I am an SSD]

Just now, DA MAN said:

BECAUSE I THOUGHT AMD WAS CHEAPER INTO I JUST LOOKED TO THE G3258

 

Get the g3258 and dont look back trust me

 

[DA MAN]

1 minute ago, I am an SSD said:

Get the g3258 and dont look back trust me

 

LOL... ILL DO THAT AND I WONT I JUST HOPE I CAN FIND A NICE BUT LOW IN COST BOARD...

 

[sapphirethunder]

Few examples:

 

 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Pentium G4400 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($58.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($44.99 @ Micro Center)
Memory: Avexir Budget Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($26.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $130.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-28 11:14 EDT-0400

 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($65.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($42.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Team Elite 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($26.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $135.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-28 11:16 EDT-0400

 

 

It might be best to go with G4400. It is newer and faster than the G3258 as stock. (you for sure wouldn't be overclocking after all)

It also can be cheaper as seen + you have a good upgrade path to something like i5 6400 or 6500 in the future if needed.