more cores better processor?

[R. Thompson]

so i've had this question for a long time that no one can really give me a definite answer to. every time i ask someone they just go into this long rant of processors and lead off topic with some story about how they got their processor or brag about the hardware they have in their rig...

BUT MY QUESTION STILL STANDS!

do more operating cores in a processor = better performance in a pc?

through my browsing, and comparing, hardware for the pc i want to build i come across AMD processors with 6 cores but only boast 2.7 gigs while some intel prcessors run with dual core and slam AMD in the face with their 3.1 gigs.

it might be a stupid question to some of you but i've asked 10+ ppl this question and it always ends with no definite answer or explanation.

[Fujiwara]

Well I think you have to consider how much cache you get as well. But I haven't taken a serious look at computer parts since '10 so I could be wrong. I always thought that AMD was the best price to performance ratio, while Intel was more of a workhorse but at a greater price.

Theoretically, I suppose that if you had more cores and tweaked your settings around, you could have better "performance" than those with less cores, but I think it would really just depend on your OC settings. Sure you could get ridiculously high scores on a benchmark program, but in real world applications, one probably wouldn't notice any difference between a well OC'd and a stock i7 or whatever AMD has with Bulldozer.

In terms of gaming, I don't think the game developers have produced any games that would utilize any more than 4 cores to enhance the game, and even then, the list of those that do will be pretty short relative to what people actually play. Again, there might've been a new push for applications using quad cores, but to my knowledge that technology hasn't been fully utilized yet.

If you really wanted to, you could refer to a multitude of websites that hold that kind of information, such as http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

And from there I would just evaluate what I expect to do with the computer and then aim a little higher to have some breathing space, but don't forget about checking the compatibility of all of your parts. You want to keep bottlenecking to a minimum.

Hope this helps. Oh, and by the way, anyone in the Medical Supplies Office can correct me at anytime.

[Dillon 1st MRB]

It really depends on what sort of applications you are running. The question gets a bit indepth..... There are three factors in play as to whether more cores will give you greater performance.

1. How many "real" cores vs. additional "lesser" cores (more on this later).

2. Which version of Windows you are using/will be using.

3. What programs you are using.

1. What do I mean by real vs lesser cores? Well, going back to the old Pentium 4 HT days, they introduced something called Hyper-Threading. Its not quite a full-blown core, but it gives a nice boost. They don't make chips that just have Hyper-Threading cores, they are additional cores. Right now, some of the Core i3's have 2 cores and 2 ht cores. However, the Core i7's have 4 cores plus 4 ht cores! Wowza! The new AMD FX-series (Bulldozer architecture) is also a 4+4 architecture as well, but a bit different. They have their older 6 core processor as well, but those are essentially Phenom II's with 2 more cores.

2. Windows XP was terrible for multi-threading. Vista was much better. 7 is pretty nice at it. They made a patch for AMD FX processors to give them a boost, but it only resulted in a 1-4% increase. For Windows 8, MS is trying to essentially (and this is a poor explanation, but it gets way to technical any other way) agregate the cores and threads. If they pull it off, the core war will begin.

3.Programs/games must be coded for more cores in order to take advanatage of them. Right now, the best games out there today can support up to 4 cores and that's about it. Going back to Far Cry 2 to today, game designers are happy to take advantage of multi-core settings. Civilization V is a great example of a solid game that very much benefits from more cores. Shoot, even DODS supports mulitple cores. So up to 4 cores, most people can realize anywhere from minor to enormous benefit. Beyond that, those cores sit idle.

However, if you have anything running in the background (say a virus scan starts, or a music player, or whatever) this can make a very slight impact on gaming. Not much, and you may not even notice, but it is there.

The real advantage for multiple cores comes in video encoding/transcoding. If you are looking to do any sort of video transcoding. These programs have generally been coded to take advantage of as many cores as you can throw at them.

If video work is something you want to do at all, I either get an Intel i5/7 right now, or wait 3 months for the next generation to come out. Prices will fall, performance will increase. This is what I am waiting for for my upgrade.

[R. Thompson]

i will definetly use this info when im going to place my order for parts in a week. i just wanted some extra info so i knew what to go after... this will be the first pc i've ever built so im not going to overdo it. i'll probably just stick with a nice quad core from intel.

thanks for the info fellas if anyone else has anything to add please chime in.

[Yamagata 1st MRB]

It doesn't matter how many cores you have, it's whether or not the OS and applications knows how to utilize those extra cores. A fine example is this 1000 core processor or even this 80 Core Processor by Intel. The operating systems we use commercially don't know what to do with all the cores and even if they did there aren't many programs designed to utilize all these extra cores.

Just a little food for thought.

[R. Thompson]

yeah i see the answer to my question thank you everyone.

Edited February 24, 2012 by R. Thompson 1st MRB