Clockspeed or Cores

[TubsAlwaysWins]

Would you rather have a insane clock speed or a insane ammount of cores? 

(This is hypothetical obviously) 

We will say higher clock speed is 10 Ghz with 2 cores, while more cores is like 50 with a 1Ghz clock

[Sakkura]

Insane clock speed would result in insane power consumption. So I would pick more cores.

 

But what I'd really prefer is higher IPC.

[Guest Kloaked]

I don't understand the point of this.

[TubsAlwaysWins]

Just now, Kloaked said:

I don't understand the point of this.

Just a what if. If you had to have one for what you do what would you pick

[Oshino Shinobu]

Depends on IPC. You can have high clock speeds and lots of cores but still get outperformed by a 2.6GHz dual core if there's a big difference in IPC. 

[pwn_intended]

2 minutes ago, TubsAlwaysWins said:

Would you rather have a insane clock speed or a insane ammount of cores? 

(This is hypothetical obviously) 

We will say higher clock speed is 10 Ghz with 2 cores, while more cores is like 50 with a 1Ghz clock

10Ghz dual core is not within the realms of possibility. 50 cores at 2+Ghz is only a matter of time. I give it less than 2 years till intel has something like that out already. (they released a 72 core supercomputing chip as an add-in card 3 years ago: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3005414/computers/intel-plugs-72-core-supercomputing-chip-into-workstation.html

 

That being said, I would want a 4-core with amazing speeds.

[BlackJackLTT]

If you don't care about your power consumpiton rate, clockspeed all the way

[TubsAlwaysWins]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Insane clock speed would result in insane power consumption. So I would pick more cores.

 

But what I'd really prefer is higher IPC.

Its hypothetical so power consumption wouldn't be a thing (Or it could. IDK. IN a perfect world there is no power consumption)

[Mira Yurizaki]

Clock speed. Here's why:

• Let's say you want to compare a 2.0 GHz quad core processor against a 8.0 GHz single core processor, both using the same architecture. The 8.0 GHz processor will always complete tasks in the same time or faster than the quad core.
  • If you have three tasks with run time completion of 1, 2, and 3, the quad core will get all three done at the minimum of 3. The single core will get it done within 1.5 (6/(8/2)).
  • If you have four tasks with a run time completion of 1 throughout all of them, both will get it done in in 1.
• You avoid mulithreaded problems with fewer cores.
  • I wrote a primer on multithreaded programming and the example I used has problems if you let it run on any core of the processor. If you set its processor affinity to one, the problem never occurs.
• Not every problem can run on multiple cores effectively. I/O bound tasks, like your web browser, see little improvement.

But in practicality, multiple cores are better because this thing called physics.

[Automobili3XF]

If things were as simple as clock speeds and number of cores...

[Zyndo]

20 minutes ago, TubsAlwaysWins said:

Snip

I'm a gamer, so clock speeds are more important to me than cores.... but this is kind of a goofy thread. there is a time and a place for either mentality, depending on your workload. There isn't really any reason to have this conversation lol.