Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

Cores or hyperthreading for multi task

Tags:
  • World Of Warcraft
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
August 10, 2013 12:56:40 PM

Question for you guys... If I am to play WoW, use Itunes, have Chrome open, and ripping or compressing a dvd or netflix all simultaneously would this utilize more cores? For instance I am getting a fx-8350. I know in games alone the intel is superior but would my 8350 be able to utilize it's power better in this scenario than a 3570k/3770k due to 8 cores? This on a 2 monitor 1080p setup if it matters and will be going 1600 res when I can afford it

More about : cores hyperthreading multi task

a b à CPUs
August 10, 2013 1:00:07 PM

more cores = multitasking
hyperthreading = games
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 10, 2013 1:01:39 PM

To be fully honest with you, you should go with a 3570k. Reason being it has more enhanced cores for better gaming performance and a 8350 is only good for large tasks like video editing photoshop sony vegas... You will be fine with the 3570k.. Actually more than fine especially for wow. My first gen i3 can do all the stuff you stated at the same time. It would be a waste spending 200$ on an amd in your case.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 10, 2013 1:09:04 PM

Vacka said:
To be fully honest with you, you should go with a 3570k. Reason being it has more enhanced cores for better gaming performance and a 8350 is only good for large tasks like video editing photoshop sony vegas... You will be fine with the 3570k.. Actually more than fine especially for wow. My first gen i3 can do all the stuff you stated at the same time. It would be a waste spending 200$ on an amd in your case.


Thank you for your response. The 8350 and 3570k are both $200 and the 8350 has more potential for other tasks beyond gaming. As well the fps difference in benchmarks I've seen is less than 8fps. Also the AMD mobo will be compatible with the next steamroller chip coming out in 3 months where as 1155 is done. I've made my purchase decision, I'm simply asking if this would be a spot for the 8 core chip to shine as I am unaware how the HTT and cores work in relationship to applications
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
August 10, 2013 1:17:36 PM

Dizzll said:
Vacka said:
To be fully honest with you, you should go with a 3570k. Reason being it has more enhanced cores for better gaming performance and a 8350 is only good for large tasks like video editing photoshop sony vegas... You will be fine with the 3570k.. Actually more than fine especially for wow. My first gen i3 can do all the stuff you stated at the same time. It would be a waste spending 200$ on an amd in your case.


Thank you for your response. The 8350 and 3570k are both $200 and the 8350 has more potential for other tasks beyond gaming. As well the fps difference in benchmarks I've seen is less than 8fps. Also the AMD mobo will be compatible with the next steamroller chip coming out in 3 months where as 1155 is done. I've made my purchase decision, I'm simply asking if this would be a spot for the 8 core chip to shine as I am unaware how the HTT and cores work in relationship to applications


Yes you can see stellar performance with your 8350 easily. It will be able to handle the dual monitors and everything related to multitasking you throw at it. In this case you did make the right decision.!!
Share
a b à CPUs
August 10, 2013 1:18:01 PM

I would think that the 8 cores you get from the AMD FX-8350 with a nice overclock would be the way to go for if you are wanting to do everything at once.

my thought on this is most programs are optimised for 4 cores. and most rendering software will use all your 4+ cores. so you can set core priority to reduce the lag/impact on game play while converting audio or video.

but then saying that i have never tried doing all these things at once so it's only how the theory works in my head.
m
0
l
a c 89 à CPUs
August 10, 2013 1:37:28 PM

The 8350 is not a true octocore CPU.
m
0
l
November 24, 2013 11:37:23 PM

Hyper-threading has a great deal in common with a multi core processor; its usefulness depends on the operating system and the program that will use them. Most programs are simple and are only written to use one core. But some programs and games are very complex and demanding, and are written to fully utilize hyper-threading and/or any number of cores they have excess to. Windows 7 and 8 are very hyper-threading and multi core processor friendly, Vista XP 2000 and 98 support and manage this extra resource poorly. For Windows 7 and 8, I recommend the use of at least a 2 core processor. These operating systems manage 2 cores well; they free up one core by running background programs in the second core. If you have Windows 7 and 8 and run mostly simple programs, you will see little to no difference between a 2 core 3.2 gigahertz CPU, and an 8 core 3.2 gigahertz CPU. If you are a gamer or power user, you most likely will make good use of the extra cores/processors. The simple answer to your question is; the degree of benefit depends on how well your programs and the operating system are written to manage the extra resources.
I have used both, and both are great Processors. Some programs do favor one or the other. But like Intel's best.
m
0
l