How is this bad?

[WebPlayz]

So I have a amd fx 6350. How does it perform worse then a core i3. And would overclocking help?

[jwally40]

It has more cores... but those individual cores are slower, and not as powerful. Most things on a computer don't use many cores... so if you have like two, but they kick butt then you are good, if you have 6 that arnt good, well then you will notice it.

I have a 6300 and its good enough for me.

[jwally40]

Also because of Dank Memes

[WebPlayz]

Just now, jwally40 said:

It has more cores... but those individual cores are slower, and not as powerful. Most things on a computer don't use many cores... so if you have like two, but they kick butt then you are good, if you have 6 that arnt good, well then you will notice it.

I have a 6300 and its good enough for me.

Ok. But would you suggest going to a 8350 or going to a core i5?

[jwally40]

Just now, Killstreak said:

Ok. But would you suggest going to a 8350 or going to a core i5?

What do you plan on doing with it.... Gaming?

[WebPlayz]

Just now, jwally40 said:

What do you plan on doing with it.... Gaming?

I do gaming videoediting and photoshop.

[jwally40]

Then that is a little more complicated... Intel (in general) has more support and more power but less cores,. 8 cores for these things can actually help a lot

[WebPlayz]

1 minute ago, jwally40 said:

Then that is a little more complicated... Intel (in general) has more support and more power but less cores,. 8 cores for these things can actually help a lot

Yeah So. i might just keep this and grab a gtx 980  I need them cores and CUDA

[jwally40]

1 minute ago, Killstreak said:

Yeah So. i might just keep this and grab a gtx 980  I need them cores and CUDA

Yeah dude. Good choice, but an upgrade later down the line to a 8350 could be good because you wont have to upgrade a motherboard. Also you could wait for the new AMD zen architecture coming soon.... I hope, and see how that performs... but yeah go for the graphics card!

[hoot.]

1 hour ago, Killstreak said:

Yeah So. i might just keep this and grab a gtx 980  I need them cores and CUDA

Do not buy a 980.

 

Either go for a 390(970 performance, more or less.) or a 980ti if you MUST get a new card now.

 

Otherwise I'd wait for Pascal/Polaris GPUs to come out. They're right around the corner.

[ybriK]

4 hours ago, Killstreak said:

I do gaming videoediting and photoshop.

Get an i7 or entry level xeon or 8350 IF you really need the extra performance.

 

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/#MultipleCPUPerformance

 

"Based on our testing, there are three major conclusions we can come to regarding the multi-threading capabilities of Photoshop CC:

1. Photoshop does not work well with multiple physical CPUs. Most effects are not impacted, but anything that is highly multi-threaded (like many blurs) will actually take up to 30-50% longer if you have two CPUs versus just one. If you have a system with multiple CPUs, we highly recommend setting the affinity of Photoshop so that it will only ever try to use one of your CPUs.
2. Most actions in Photoshop are either single threaded or lightly threaded. This means that you will get the exact same performance whether your system has two CPU cores or twenty CPU cores. For these actions, a CPU with a high operating frequency is key.
3. Multi-threaded actions hit a point of diminishing returns after around 6 CPU cores, and most completely stop improving after 8 CPU cores. This includes effects like color mode conversion, many blurs, hue/saturation, brightness/contrast, and shadow/highlight. The best multi-threaded effect (converting to Lab Color mode) had a decent multi-threading efficiency of about 94%, but most of these effects had an efficiency closer to 80% which isn't so great."