TechQuickie vs Me

[NathanahtaN]

so i have made it a habbit to binge watch all of TechQuickie's As Fast As Possible videos(i only have got through 1/4 of the total vids) in an attempt to better understand tech, but things like psu rails and colour depth, etc i had a hard time understanding

 

lets first establish what my brain(cpu) specs are

 

so i am a single core(1 brain), (unsure about this spec)1ghz cpu, my brain when i watch these videos only procees so much data before i start going, "excuse me, can you laymans term that for me"

 

so whenever i watch techquickie i only can take so much in before i need someone to spoonfeed me the information.

 

btw explain why games require fewer, faster cores and why servers require more, slower cores,

 

because i like how amd has 8 core 4.7ghz cpus(i'll always put cores and ghz first, stuff like ipc i still havent got a decent understanding of.)

 

i will await the day when AMD makes a CPU that has a core clock of 5ghz, and has 10 cores, and has a low tdp

[Unexas.]

2 minutes ago, NathanahtaN said:

explain why games require fewer, faster cores and why servers require more, slower cores,

Games aren't really optimized for more than four cores. Which means that if you have more than four the game won't use it. So it is better to have 4 fast cores than 8 slower ones where only 4 gets used.

[NathanahtaN]

1 minute ago, Unexas. said:

Games aren't really optimized for more than four cores. Which means that if you have more than four the game won't use it. So it is better to have 4 fast cores than 8 slower ones where only 4 gets used.

If games only use 4 cores why are there no 4 core 5ghz(base clock) cpus either from amd or intel

[Unexas.]

Just now, NathanahtaN said:

If games only use 4 cores why are there no 4 core 5ghz(base clock) cpus either from amd or intel

games are not the only thing that CPUs are used for. And you can overclock to get close to 5ghz if you want.

[minibois]

"btw explain why games require fewer, faster cores and why servers require more, slower cores,"

Because the structure below them (the engine, the API, whatever). Games (especially DX10 and earlier) are only really made to use 2 cores, server applications are made to run on many many cores.

 

"i will await the day when AMD makes a CPU that has a core clock of 5ghz, and has 10 cores, and has a low tdp"

We never know what the future holds.

[NathanahtaN]

1 minute ago, Unexas. said:

games are not the only thing that CPUs are used for. And you can overclock to get close to 5ghz if you want.

yeah its my understanding that CPU's are "the brains", and each core is something of a brain aswell, more brains on a brain means able to do more tasks(as far as im aware the ghz is the speed)

[Unexas.]

1 minute ago, NathanahtaN said:

yeah its my understanding that CPU's are "the brains", and each core is something of a brain aswell, more brains on a brain means able to do more tasks(as far as im aware the ghz is the speed)

Correct but some programs can use more cores better than others. 

[NathanahtaN]

1 minute ago, NathanahtaN said:

yeah its my understanding that CPU's are "the brains", and each core is something of a brain aswell, more brains on a brain means able to do more tasks(as far as im aware the ghz is the speed)

Oh My God WHAT HAVE I DONE I STEERED TOO FAR FROM THE CENTRAL TOPIC

[NathanahtaN]

Just now, Unexas. said:

Correct but some programs can use more cores better than others. 

hence why i always look at cores and ghz when i look at cpus, the more brains on the brain, the more it can do, the higher the ghz, the faster each brain acomplishes those tasks

[Unexas.]

Just now, NathanahtaN said:

hence why i always look at cores and ghz when i look at cpus, the more brains on the brain, the more it can do, the higher the ghz, the faster each brain acomplishes those tasks

AMD and Intel CPUs perform differently though. 

[BiscuitMassacre]

1 minute ago, NathanahtaN said:

hence why i always look at cores and ghz when i look at cpus, the more brains on the brain, the more it can do, the higher the ghz, the faster each brain acomplishes those tasks

That is your problem, An  i5 6600 is better than an AMD FX 8300 for games because each core is faster on the i5. Not necessarily because of the Ghz, but because it is a better processor. You an OC an Old pentium to CRAZY speeds, but never even get close to an i5 at 3Ghz. Most games are optimized for just 4 cores and the other 4 cores aren't being used. 

 

 

[Aytex]

7 minutes ago, NathanahtaN said:

hence why i always look at cores and ghz when i look at cpus, the more brains on the brain, the more it can do, the higher the ghz, the faster each brain acomplishes those tasks

Its more of the die you want to look at then the Ghz you want to look at

Its like  comparing 2 cars I guess, a lambo and a Ford truck or something idk

MY point is, 

A they are both cars

B, one is faster than the other but, one is more efficient/heavy useable than the other.

 

I'm mostly comparing a and FX at 5 ghz vs a 4790 at stock speeds

 

I'm bad at explaining stuff Lol

(Saying this in current days, zen might be as efficient as kaby or skylake)

[NathanahtaN]

3 minutes ago, Unexas. said:

AMD and Intel CPUs perform differently though. 

thanks various architectures and sockets

[Enderman]

7 minutes ago, NathanahtaN said:

hence why i always look at cores and ghz when i look at cpus

That's not how it works. Every generation of CPUs will be different.

A lower clocked skylake can outperform a higher clock sandy bridge if they have the same number of cores.

A higher core and higher clock FX8350 gets outperformed by a low clock speed 4 core i5 in almost every game, because intel and AMD make their CPUs differently.

 

You need to look at benchmarks when comparing computer hardware like GPUs and CPUs, the specs literally mean nothing unless you compare same-manufacturer and same-generation.

[NathanahtaN]

2 minutes ago, Aytex said:

Its more of the die then the Ghz you want to look at

Its like  comparing 2 cars I guess, a lambo and a Ford truck or something idk

MY point is, 

A they are both cars

B, one is faster than the other but, one is more efficient/heavy useable than the other.

lets take that car analogy for a moment

 

So Lambo(Lamborghinis) being a ridiculously pricey sports car is designed more so for speed(and luxury and sex appeal to a lesser extent, Ferrari does miles better tho)

 

The Ford truck on the other hand, is designed more so for carrying heavy loads and is not meant to go fast(plus they dont carry luxury or sex appeal, name me one truck that actually keeps sex appeal and luxury in mind)

[Aytex]

1 minute ago, NathanahtaN said:

lets take that car analogy for a moment

 

So Lambo(Lamborghinis) being a ridiculously pricey sports car is designed more so for speed(and luxury and sex appeal to a lesser extent, Ferrari does miles better tho)

 

The Ford truck on the other hand, is designed more so for carrying heavy loads and is not meant to go fast(plus they dont carry luxury or sex appeal, name me one truck that actually keeps sex appeal and luxury in mind)

I don't think price would be the comparison because intel>amd in terms of prices meaning intel is more expensive

but yea I guess thats it

[BingoFishy]

25 minutes ago, Minibois said:

"i will await the day when AMD makes a CPU that has a core clock of 5ghz, and has 10 cores, and has a low tdp"

We never know what the future holds.

FX 9590? 5GHz, 8 cores, and (unfortunately) ridiculous 220W TDP.

[bgibbz]

22 minutes ago, NathanahtaN said:

If games only use 4 cores why are there no 4 core 5ghz(base clock) cpus either from amd or intel

people take way to much a focus on core clock. Its far less significant then you think. To explain it to you, you essentially want to procces data. X goes in, Y comes out. For each cycle, a certain CPU may turn 5X into 5Y. This is called effeciency; the amount of work that a CPU can do in a cycle. The amount of these cycles that a CPU can do in a second is what we measure with clock speed. So, in short, simply increasing the clock of a CPU isnt the only way that a CPU can be improved. Generally, you see the effecieny of the CPU substatially improved with each iteration of a product line. While AMD and Intel could very easily design and produce a cheap 5ghz CPU, it wouldnt nessacarily be benificial as the effecieny may take a hit. Also, keep in mind that laptops are in the equation here. Laptop CPUs need to be low power draw, which is something that is generally paired with a low clock speed. We are at a point in time where our CPUs are "fast enough" for nearly all users, and while you can squeeze a little more out of it by increasing the clock, there are other ways to improve the CPU. 

[NathanahtaN]

2 minutes ago, bgibbz said:

people take way to much a focus on core clock. Its far less significant then you think. To explain it to you, you essentially want to procces data. X goes in, Y comes out. For each cycle, a certain CPU may turn 5X into 5Y. This is called effeciency; the amount of work that a CPU can do in a cycle. The amount of these cycles that a CPU can do in a second is what we measure with clock speed. So, in short, simply increasing the clock of a CPU isnt the only way that a CPU can be improved. Generally, you see the effecieny of the CPU substatially improved with each iteration of a product line. While AMD and Intel could very easily design and produce a cheap 5ghz CPU, it wouldnt nessacarily be benificial as the effecieny may take a hit. Also, keep in mind that laptops are in the equation here. Laptop CPUs need to be low power draw, which is something that is generally paired with a low clock speed. We are at a point in time where our CPUs are "fast enough" for nearly all users, and while you can squeeze a little more out of it by increasing the clock, there are other ways to improve the CPU. 

for some odd reason i read that as if i were watching a techquickie vid

[NathanahtaN]

5 minutes ago, BingoFishy said:

FX 9590? 5GHz, 8 cores, and (unfortunately) ridiculous 220W TDP.

220w tdp, thats alot of watts for a cpu, it also means it will run hotter too.

[SLAYR]

48 minutes ago, NathanahtaN said:

btw explain why games require fewer, faster cores and why servers require more, slower cores,

Servers don't require more cores, but more ofter servers can use more cores, with virtulization you can specifiy cores to go to certain virtual machines, if you have a quad core cpu you can only split it 3 times and have 4 virtual machines, as well as server programs are more parallelized meaning that the computations can run at the same time, whereas gaming is not as parallelized and requires more single core performance to go faster.

 

43 minutes ago, NathanahtaN said:

If games only use 4 cores why are there no 4 core 5ghz(base clock) cpus either from amd or intel

There is only specialty xeon cpu that is a quad core with a 5Ghz base clock, but is "specialty" so custom designed and you would need to order an entire batch of them (a few thousand) to even get your hands on one.

 

Edit: it also is a very high tdp cpu

165w 5.1GHz 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.techpowerup.com/219275/intel-readies-a-5-1-ghz-xeon-chip-based-on-the-broadwell-architecture%3famp

8 minutes ago, NathanahtaN said:

220w tdp, thats alot of watts for a cpu, it also means it will run hotter too.

Water cooling required.

[Gonio]

There is only one keyword you need to remember that tops every other specs like cores and Ghz per core etc: EFFICIENCY.  This is what the others are talking about and also why you can never make an real apples to apples comparison between  different CPU's (apart from same brand and generation) with only considering cores and clockspeed as factors. You need the whole picture. Note here that I am not talking about power efficiency yet, since this not directly related to the example, but more a result because of it.

 

To get back on brain: a brain also exists out of different parts, where each part has their function suited for them , and between those parts are routes taken of signals that work together to deliver a result. How good this works depends on how well this communication is (think direct, speed, ammount of signals) = efficiency.