Anyone Wanna Explain

[CombatComedy]

Google can't explain it in layman's terms, what does a higher core count mean? 3.8 ghz 8-core 2x better than a quad-core 3.8 ghz?

[79wjd]

It depends on the cores and on the applications being run and how well they can take advantage of more cores. 

 

Are 8 Priuses better for 4 people?

Are 4 Ferraris better for 30 people?

[TurbulentWinds]

3 minutes ago, CombatComedy said:

Google can't explain it in layman's terms, what does a higher core count mean? 3.8 ghz 8-core 2x better than a quad-core 3.8 ghz?

Each core is like a mini CPU. Back in the good old days CPUs only had one core so when we started having multiple "CPUs" on one chip we called them cores. Certain tasks can be multithreaded or worked on by more than one core at once. Some tasks are single threaded and can only be worked on by one core at a time. That's layman's terms and there are a lotta technical flaws in my explanation but it works well enough I think.

[CombatComedy]

5 minutes ago, TurbulentWinds said:

Each core is like a mini CPU. Back in the good old days CPUs only had one core so when we started having multiple "CPUs" on one chip we called them cores. Certain tasks can be multithreaded or worked on by more than one core at once. Some tasks are single threaded and can only be worked on by one core at a time. That's layman's terms and there are a lotta technical flaws in my explanation but it works well enough I think.

would something like video rendering or editing strive in a multi-cored chip and which would gaming be best in

[TurbulentWinds]

1 minute ago, CombatComedy said:

would something like video rendering or editing strive in a multi-cored chip and which would gaming be best in

Video editing is a heavily multithreaded task while gaming *currently* really only leverages four cores since that is all we have had for a long time though there are exceptions.

[tp95112]

Its like having 4 arms compared to 2. But If you're horrible at hand-eye coordination stick with two hands

[Godlygamer23]

It depends on your task. If a task is heavily single threaded, a higher clock speed with the same architecture against another chip with higher core count but lesser clock speed, will perform better. In video games, a CPU with lesser cores with a higher clock speed is still favorable, even in modern titles, compared to having a CPU with an absurd amount of cores with a lesser clock speed. 

 

Let's say you have a CPU with 8 cores that can execute 8 threads at the same time. Then you have another CPU with 16 cores that can execute 16 threads at the same time. Both CPUs are the same architecture, but the 8 core variant runs at 4GHz, whereas the 16 core version runs at 2.8GHz. Now, you have a video game or really any task, that only utilizes 8 threads at any given time....The lesser CPU will perform better because even though it has fewer cores, they all run at a higher clock speed, thus giving better performance for the given task.

 

So to answer your question, theoretically, yes, the 8 core variant would have twice the power(provided it's the same architecture), but it's dependent on programming by the developer of the software and thread/core awareness of the operating system to properly schedule the tasks.

[CombatComedy]

3 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

It depends on your task. If a task is heavily single threaded, a higher clock speed with the same architecture against another chip with higher core count but lesser clock speed, will perform better. In video games, a CPU with lesser cores with a higher clock speed is still favorable, even in modern titles, compared to having a CPU with an absurd amount of cores with a lesser clock speed. 

 

Let's say you have a CPU with 8 cores that can execute 8 threads at the same time. Then you have another CPU with 16 cores that can execute 16 threads at the same time. Both CPUs are the same architecture, but the 8 core variant runs at 4GHz, whereas the 16 core version runs at 2.8GHz. Now, you have a video game or really any task, that only utilizes 8 threads at any given time....The lesser CPU will perform better because even though it has fewer cores, they all run at a higher clock speed, thus giving better performance for the given task.

 

So to answer your question, theoretically, yes, the 8 core variant would have twice the power(provided it's the same architecture), but it's dependent on programming by the developer of the software and thread/core awareness of the operating system to properly schedule the tasks.

then why are people saying i shouldn't have bought my 7600k when it is quad core and is 3.8 GHz compared to an octo-cored cpu with 3 gigahertz 

[Godlygamer23]

4 minutes ago, CombatComedy said:

then why are people saying i shouldn't have bought my 7600k when it is quad core and is 3.8 GHz compared to an octo-cored cpu with 3 gigahertz 

What octo-core?

[CombatComedy]

3 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

What octo-core?

8-core

[Godlygamer23]

Just now, CombatComedy said:

8-core

Yes, but what CPU are you talking about?

[CombatComedy]

3 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Yes, but what CPU are you talking about?

there were saying i should've gotten something like a i5 8400 instead of my i5-7600k

 

[Godlygamer23]

6 minutes ago, CombatComedy said:

there were saying i should've gotten something like a i5 8400 instead of my i5-7600k

I would agree with that statement considering that under loads that utilize six cores, the 8400 will sit at 3.8GHz, whereas the 7600K will sit at 4GHz with four cores loaded at 100%. With the 8400, you gain extra cores, which offsets the 200MHz clock speed difference.

 

Another thing to bear in mind is that despite having a base clock speed of 2.8GHz, you may never actually see that clock speed based on the data that I have. That being said though, you could extract better performance from your 7600K by overclocking it, if you haven't already.

[Canada EH]

Its like pipes, the more pipes you have that drain into a bucket, the faster the bucket will get filled.

The bucket being work, video editing, encoding etc

The pipes being cores and threads, 4 cores 8 threads, 6 cores 12 threads , 12 cores 24 threads.

 

For gaming its wise to have 4 cores 8 threads, but 6 cores and 12 threads is good too. But the key for gaming is you want a super duper fast cpu along with a really good gpu!

 

Also the more cores the slower the frequency!

[Evanair]

Some of the information in this thread is correct, while others are gray or just wrong.

 

It all comes down to specific tasks. Video editing,  for example, isn't cut and dry as to which chip works best. Linus did a video on encoding on a 22/44 c/t you vs a bunch of others and came out (iirc) that a 6 core processor is the sweet spot. 

 

In the end, It really depends on WHICH PROGRAM you are running and how it's written. This is why benchmarks are important. Certain tasks and software run differently on different hardware.  Some rely on Single Core performance while others do well at multithreaded work. Adobe Premier for instance runs better on an 7700k than an 1800x even though the core count is doubled.  The reverse is true for things such as 3D rendering where the prior rendering isn't based on the previous item, only math.

 

So, which processor is best? It depends on what you're doing. That's what consultants get paid for, they find what a consumer needs and what they can afford and matches it with best performance per dollar.