Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Cores vs Faster Clock, which is moe important.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 2, 2013 11:36:51 AM

Which is more important cores vs clock speed, I have a A10-5800k I can oc to 4.5ghz or a option to get a FX-6100 now I think I was looking and they equal out to be the same performance when the a10 at 4.3ghz. but I was wondering if the extra 2 cores benefited me a whole bunch in gaming, or should I just not go through the time and money for the extra 2?
June 2, 2013 11:45:03 AM

i am sort of searching for same thing. So far people are inclined towards clock speed and not multi cores for gaming point of view ofcourse. If you are rendering and decoding and working similar projects then 4 cores can make huge difference.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2013 11:48:39 AM

ya....games aren't dsigned to use more than 2 cores.....but rendering programmes generally have good multi-threading capabilities
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2013 11:50:15 AM

If you are just interested in games, having a whole bunch of cores isn't going to help a lot. HOWEVER, the AMD's "cores" are really shared resources on the same module. Since games use floating point/vector calculations a lot, and the AMD's modules have only 1 floating point/vector unit that is shared between 2 "cores", having a few more AMD cores can help, when the games can make use of more than 2 cores like BF3.

The majority of games today still don't scale well or at all to 2+ cores, for a few different reasons. If you were to get an FX series, make it the newer PileDriver based ones (FX43xx, FX63xx, FX83xx) and not the earlier BullDozer based ones (FX41xx, FX61xx, FX81xx). I think the fastest stock FX with 3 modules (6 cores) is a FX6350 right now. Having the cache seems to really help the FX series.

Anyways, for a good review of the PileDriver FX chips, see Anandtech's review that covers all the way from the FX4300 to the FX8350 (gaming performance page linked):

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
June 2, 2013 11:50:28 AM

jinayhvora said:
ya....games aren't dsigned to use more than 2 cores.....but rendering programmes generally have good multi-threading capabilities


as two years ago that was true, not any more, and certainly not with the new consoles being properly multicore.

OP, are your two processors even the same socket?

m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
June 2, 2013 11:59:25 AM

As for the absolute argument of core clock vs. total cores (assuming a program that can make use of the cores), you need to consider the total aggregated performance, something like this:

Clock Speed x Instructions Per Clock Per Core (IPCC) x Number of Cores x Scaling Factor Per Core (depends on the program)

You can gauge the IPCC part with something like single-threaded (single core) benchmarks like Cinebench (single-core option), the scaling factor can be obtained with benchmarking also, and is less than 1.

Generally, AMD's IPCC < Intel for performance category chips. Depends on the benchmark you use, Intel's IPC on the Ivy Bridge series is easily 60% more, if you use Cinebench (rendering benchmark):



The Total Aggregated Performance as computed across all cores can be represented again, with some benchmarks like Cinebench (multi-core):



So you see, if the program is multi-threaded well (and lots of workloads are inherently single-threaded) so that the scaling factor is high, the AMD design is nearly as good as the Ivy Bridge.

But for games, where a lot of single-threading is going on, with a lot of branching, the AMD's design isn't quite as good, i.e.:



I'm sure the situation will be better for AMD in the future, with the general push towards better exploitation of more (although weaker) cores (like with the new consoles), and offloading massive computations via HSA with integrated GPU portions.
Share
June 2, 2013 6:18:23 PM

Yeah, I heard that games still don't use more then maybe 4 cores, but for how long is that gonna last, the whole 4 core is standard for games deal, but which do you think is better the OCed a10-5800k or the fx- 6100, both piledriver?
m
0
l
June 2, 2013 6:22:45 PM

Kalvin81Omar said:
i am sort of searching for same thing. So far people are inclined towards clock speed and not multi cores for gaming point of view ofcourse. If you are rendering and decoding and working similar projects then 4 cores can make huge difference.



Hey for doing stuff other than gaming, for encoding and rendering of course the more core more thread thing is better, but for solely for gaming which is better cores or ghz. I think maybe ghz, I mean most everything is quad core now a days and that's all anything uses, so maybe architecture and ghz, still not sure though.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2013 2:01:33 AM

ya....for pure gaming clock speed and architecture is more important
m
0
l
June 3, 2013 5:02:53 AM

So it wouldn't be worth my time and money to upgrade to a fx 6300?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2013 6:59:13 AM

MrAcd said:
So it wouldn't be worth my time and money to upgrade to a fx 6300?


You'll gain a tiny bit, mostly due to the massive 8MB L3 cache, which CPU-intensive games love (like Starcraft 2). Your APU is L3 cache-less. That L3 cache drives up the IPCC noticeably.

Here is a performance comparison between the 5800K and the FX6300:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/384/AMD_A10-Series_A10-5800K_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

Look at the charts I lined to earlier from Anandtech, your 5800K chip is just below the FX4300/FX4100. So imagine that after some OC, you are at the FX4300 level, then the FX6300 is just a bit faster in general (a few percent in games).
m
0
l
June 3, 2013 7:15:41 AM

Maxx_Power said:
MrAcd said:
So it wouldn't be worth my time and money to upgrade to a fx 6300?


You'll gain a tiny bit, mostly due to the massive 8MB L3 cache, which CPU-intensive games love (like Starcraft 2). Your APU is L3 cache-less. That L3 cache drives up the IPCC noticeably.

Here is a performance comparison between the 5800K and the FX6300:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/384/AMD_A10-Series_A10-5800K_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

Look at the charts I lined to earlier from Anandtech, your 5800K chip is just below the FX4300/FX4100. So imagine that after some OC, you are at the FX4300 level, then the FX6300 is just a bit faster in general (a few percent in games).


Alright I guess I won't , I would have to go thru a lot of stuff just for a few percentage difference, but all in all to awnser the original question I'm guessing ghz means more than cores when gaming right?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2013 7:21:56 AM

MrAcd said:
Maxx_Power said:
MrAcd said:
So it wouldn't be worth my time and money to upgrade to a fx 6300?


You'll gain a tiny bit, mostly due to the massive 8MB L3 cache, which CPU-intensive games love (like Starcraft 2). Your APU is L3 cache-less. That L3 cache drives up the IPCC noticeably.

Here is a performance comparison between the 5800K and the FX6300:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/384/AMD_A10-Series_A10-5800K_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

Look at the charts I lined to earlier from Anandtech, your 5800K chip is just below the FX4300/FX4100. So imagine that after some OC, you are at the FX4300 level, then the FX6300 is just a bit faster in general (a few percent in games).


Alright I guess I won't , I would have to go thru a lot of stuff just for a few percentage difference, but all in all to awnser the original question I'm guessing ghz means more than cores when gaming right?


In poorly threaded games (Source engine, Starcraft 2, most shooters and RPG), YES.

In multi-threaded games, more cores are better (like BF3 64 player, multiplayer matches).

EVENTUALLY, more cores will be better for any game, because that is the direction most systems/developers will go (in a few years time, I think).


m
0
l
June 3, 2013 8:19:17 AM

Maxx_Power said:
MrAcd said:
Maxx_Power said:
MrAcd said:
So it wouldn't be worth my time and money to upgrade to a fx 6300?


You'll gain a tiny bit, mostly due to the massive 8MB L3 cache, which CPU-intensive games love (like Starcraft 2). Your APU is L3 cache-less. That L3 cache drives up the IPCC noticeably.

Here is a performance comparison between the 5800K and the FX6300:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/384/AMD_A10-Series_A10-5800K_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

Look at the charts I lined to earlier from Anandtech, your 5800K chip is just below the FX4300/FX4100. So imagine that after some OC, you are at the FX4300 level, then the FX6300 is just a bit faster in general (a few percent in games).


Alright I guess I won't , I would have to go thru a lot of stuff just for a few percentage difference, but all in all to awnser the original question I'm guessing ghz means more than cores when gaming right?


In poorly threaded games (Source engine, Starcraft 2, most shooters and RPG), YES.

In multi-threaded games, more cores are better (like BF3 64 player, multiplayer matches).

EVENTUALLY, more cores will be better for any game, because that is the direction most systems/developers will go (in a few years time, I think).



Yeah, by then I will want an upgrade anyways, but thanks every one so much for the replies I just need to pick one for the best awnser.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
June 3, 2013 8:25:36 AM

The FX6350 just came out, and is a pretty big clock speed increase over the FX6300 (3.5 vs 3.9) and would benefit you quite a bit more in gaming without having to go to the trouble of overclocking (though you could eventually if you wanted). That would be my recommendation.
m
0
l
June 3, 2013 8:27:41 AM

8350rocks said:
The FX6350 just came out, and is a pretty big clock speed increase over the FX6300 (3.5 vs 3.9) and would benefit you quite a bit more in gaming without having to go to the trouble of overclocking (though you could eventually if you wanted). That would be my recommendation.


That's what I was meaning to post before but the 6300 was quick to come to mind, but I think I'm too close to them both, to got through the trouble and decided I will stick with what I got
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
June 3, 2013 8:29:19 AM

Then great...

You could also go to the A10-6800k when it arrives shortly.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2013 1:45:17 PM

MrAcd said:
8350rocks said:
The FX6350 just came out, and is a pretty big clock speed increase over the FX6300 (3.5 vs 3.9) and would benefit you quite a bit more in gaming without having to go to the trouble of overclocking (though you could eventually if you wanted). That would be my recommendation.


That's what I was meaning to post before but the 6300 was quick to come to mind, but I think I'm too close to them both, to got through the trouble and decided I will stick with what I got


Yeah, you are very close to the stock performance of the FX6300/FX6350 since you OC'd and not many games are using more than 2 cores...
m
0
l
June 3, 2013 3:47:11 PM

Maxx_Power said:
MrAcd said:
8350rocks said:
The FX6350 just came out, and is a pretty big clock speed increase over the FX6300 (3.5 vs 3.9) and would benefit you quite a bit more in gaming without having to go to the trouble of overclocking (though you could eventually if you wanted). That would be my recommendation.


That's what I was meaning to post before but the 6300 was quick to come to mind, but I think I'm too close to them both, to got through the trouble and decided I will stick with what I got


Yeah, you are very close to the stock performance of the FX6300/FX6350 since you OC'd and not many games are using more than 2 cores...


EXACTLY what I was thinking, but I think I did a little calculation and figured out its at stock fx 6100 just at a OC of 4.3ghz
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2013 3:52:54 PM

MrAcd said:
Maxx_Power said:
MrAcd said:
8350rocks said:
The FX6350 just came out, and is a pretty big clock speed increase over the FX6300 (3.5 vs 3.9) and would benefit you quite a bit more in gaming without having to go to the trouble of overclocking (though you could eventually if you wanted). That would be my recommendation.


That's what I was meaning to post before but the 6300 was quick to come to mind, but I think I'm too close to them both, to got through the trouble and decided I will stick with what I got


Yeah, you are very close to the stock performance of the FX6300/FX6350 since you OC'd and not many games are using more than 2 cores...


EXACTLY what I was thinking, but I think I did a little calculation and figured out its at stock fx 6100 just at a OC of 4.3ghz


That's pretty darn good for an APU. Maybe you can wait to see what the Kaveri APUs can do later this year, or Steamroller in full on AM3+. That's the big thing I think most AMD enthusiasts are waiting for.
m
0
l
June 3, 2013 5:13:52 PM

Maxx_Power said:
MrAcd said:
Maxx_Power said:
MrAcd said:
8350rocks said:
The FX6350 just came out, and is a pretty big clock speed increase over the FX6300 (3.5 vs 3.9) and would benefit you quite a bit more in gaming without having to go to the trouble of overclocking (though you could eventually if you wanted). That would be my recommendation.


That's what I was meaning to post before but the 6300 was quick to come to mind, but I think I'm too close to them both, to got through the trouble and decided I will stick with what I got


Yeah, you are very close to the stock performance of the FX6300/FX6350 since you OC'd and not many games are using more than 2 cores...


EXACTLY what I was thinking, but I think I did a little calculation and figured out its at stock fx 6100 just at a OC of 4.3ghz


That's pretty darn good for an APU. Maybe you can wait to see what the Kaveri APUs can do later this year, or Steamroller in full on AM3+. That's the big thing I think most AMD enthusiasts are waiting for.


I skipped Richland for it
m
0
l
!