More cores on lower clock speed or higher clock speed on lower core numbers are better?

Metaton · July 13, 2016

So i was wondering my self. Before i start testing it. I have some AMD and Intel chip's and i was just wondering. Disabling threads or modules at AMD will lower the core temp? So i could get higher clock speeds at lower core number? Or maybe its just in my mind and its a false thing?

Aytex · July 13, 2016

Which cpu's are we talking about?

different cpu's have different architecture which have different ipc ect ect

Metaton · July 13, 2016

2 minutes ago, Aytex said:

Which cpu's are we talking about?

different cpu's have different architecture which have different ipc ect ect

True. I have couple cpu's actually but recently i was working with the FX8320 on intel side i have a i7 2600k .

Aytex · July 13, 2016

5 minutes ago, Metaton said:

True. I have couple cpu's actually but recently i was working with the FX8320 on intel side i have a i7 2600k .

I mean disabling the modules and getting lower temps on the AMD cpu seems reasonable though truth be told I will have no idea which will be better because silicone lottery will be a factor and just looking at benchmarks will just be a reference

though just looking at the base numbers the i7 wins most of the time in terms of gaming, if this is even the point of OCing

JefferyD90 · July 13, 2016

7 minutes ago, Metaton said:

So i was wondering my self. Before i start testing it. I have some AMD and Intel chip's and i was just wondering. Disabling threads or modules at AMD will lower the core temp? So i could get higher clock speeds at lower core number? Or maybe its just in my mind and its a false thing?

Okay, so there has already been testing done on this...

Turns out with AMD's design you're going to get the best GAMING performance with about 4 cores/2 modules at about a 35% overclock (pushing 5.5Ghz on some chips)... Intel you're better off quad core without hyper threading with as far of a overclock as your lottery allows it.

Yes disabling cores will reduce temps, but it increases load on the remaining CPUs... which means they're always working harder. Additionally, the temp difference, even overclocked under load, is only a few degrees at best. Most people would be better off buying a better cooler for $30 or something and going with that just to fight the temps.

(I don't have a link to whoever did it, but it is out there. I know Linus has a older one, and a newer one, and I know that Paul did it... Its too early in the morning to be bouncing around the internet right now.

Metaton · July 13, 2016

1 minute ago, Aytex said:

I mean disabling the modules and getting lower temps on the AMD cpu seems reasonable though truth be told I will have no idea which will be better because silicone lottery will be a factor and just looking at benchmarks will just be a reference

Yea i think thats have to be a test for myself to see the results. But its gonna be a long tetsting lol... So i wanted to just ask it first. Actually the FX8320 was a complete lottery winner. I tlaked about this before on a other thread. I have a cheap ass mobo 4+2 power phase. Clearly not ment for overclocking... And i was able to get upto 4.2Ghz on all cores on 1.275 V . Soo yeah. I'm thinking on getting a 8+2 mobo and maybe water cool it. The i7 2600k on the otherhand the opposite almost. Gets hot pretty fast etc. But it also have a baad case with bad airflow. So no wonder. With case open its better but i think airflow is better then open case. So .

Aytex · July 13, 2016

1 minute ago, Metaton said:

Yea i think thats have to be a test for myself to see the results. But its gonna be a long tetsting lol... So i wanted to just ask it first. Actually the FX8320 was a complete lottery winner. I tlaked about this before on a other thread. I have a cheap ass mobo 4+2 power phase. Clearly not ment for overclocking... And i was able to get upto 4.2Ghz on all cores on 1.275 V . Soo yeah. I'm thinking on getting a 8+2 mobo and maybe water cool it. The i7 2600k on the otherhand the opposite almost. Gets hot pretty fast etc. But it also have a baad case with bad airflow. So no wonder. With case open its better but i think airflow is better then open case. So .

Take what @JefferyD90 said in consideration as well though

But if you have the spare time, it doesn't hurt to test stuff out

Metaton · July 13, 2016

28 minutes ago, JefferyD90 said:

Okay, so there has already been testing done on this...

Turns out with AMD's design you're going to get the best GAMING performance with about 4 cores/2 modules at about a 35% overclock (pushing 5.5Ghz on some chips)... Intel you're better off quad core without hyper threading with as far of a overclock as your lottery allows it.

Yes disabling cores will reduce temps, but it increases load on the remaining CPUs... which means they're always working harder. Additionally, the temp difference, even overclocked under load, is only a few degrees at best. Most people would be better off buying a better cooler for $30 or something and going with that just to fight the temps.

(I don't have a link to whoever did it, but it is out there. I know Linus has a older one, and a newer one, and I know that Paul did it... Its too early in the morning to be bouncing around the internet right now.

Wow. Thanks for the infos! Well considering that i was able to reach 4.2Ghz on all 8cores/modules on the FX8320 with just 1.275V i think that 5-5.5Ghz on just 4cores might be possible. I think i'll test out everything. But first i gotta get a better mobo. And also i have a Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme in push and pull. Not the best but it was 5bucks... Srsly. 5 bucks... So yeah.