What To Look For When Shopping For A CPU?

When looking at Cpus you need to decide Amd Or intel you also want to look at if its compatible with your mobo such as if you get a amd fm2 make sure your mobo has a fm2 sockets and depending on your purpose of a build. in some cases a dual core can perform alot better than a quad. also The thing with the 6 cores it was most likley one was amd and one was intel in most cases intel is more expensive. and alot of speed of the cpu can come into affect suck as a 1.5 ghz cpu vs a 3.8ghz turbo the speed is gonna be so much more on the 3.8 ghz one But a very important thing when looking at Cpu you need to make sure they wont bottleneck your system suck as a 6 core 17 with a $50 gpu Need to make sure there balanced Out. Hope this makes sense.

CPU's vary wildly from gen to gen too a 3.4GHz from one might not even come close to a 2.5 fro the next. You really should start with what you want to be able to do and then ask people what they recommend and why.

an easy way to compare CPU's is this site cpuboss.com

Unless you want to spend an insane amount of money, the i7-4770 or i7-4770k is as much processor as you will ever need even for a powerful gaming computer. The difference between the two is that the processor denoted with a "k" at the end is unlocked and can be overclocked. If you are going to overclock, however, you need a good cooling system.

And as for judging performance, don't go by the clock speed. Looking up benchmarks for particular CPU's is a good way to determine just how powerful a CPU is. Here is a link to a very popular CPU benchmark site:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Just type in the CPU that you want to review, or you can simply choose to see benchmarks for current "high-end" chips on the market. The higher the benchmark, the more powerful the CPU.

Around 8 months ago I built a desktop PC using the i7-4770k and LOVE it. The CPU sells for around 350 dollars, give or take 20 bucks.

Here is a link to the i7-4770k on Intel's site:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz?wapkw=i7-4770k

If you REALLY want to see performance and speed go up, skip the 1,000.00 CPU and invest in a good SSD like the Samsung 840 Pro. I also purchased one of these. Nearly every computer on the market is bottle necked in performance through the I/O. So no matter how fast your CPU is, the hard drive cannot keep up. The Samsung SSD sped up the computer FAR more than I could have ever imagined. I know you're looking for CPU answers, but looking at the 840 Pro is definitely worth your time. Coupled with an i7-4770/i7-4770k and decent RAM, you will see speed in your PC that you didn't think possible. Here is a link:

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/memory-storage/MZ-7PD512BW

Good luck on your build!

well, L3 cache is an important figure to look at, but most of the time commercial figures are pretty useless to look at, since what will mostly determine what kind of performance you'll get out of a CPU is the microarchitecture itself.

If you're only looking Intel processors though, look at core count, operating frequency, and amount of L3 Cache, since Intel processors of the same generation are basically all the same microchip with different features, core counts, and what not.

When you look at clock rates, there really isn't a "good" number to compare to, each generation and processor is different, you'll just have to directly compare products. For example the i5 4670k comes with a native frequency of 3.4Ghz, from there you can see that the i5 4570 and lower models lower frequency by 100Mhz per product, and it's pretty much directly comparable from there, 3.3/3.4 = ~0.97, implying that an i5 4570 would be about 3% slower than an i5 4670.

as for your i7 4930k when comparing to the 1000 dollar i7 4960x, there is no difference besides operating frequency and L3 cache I believe, since they support the same instruction sets, have the same core count, and are on the same socket, it's probably safe to assume that they are from the same manufacturing batch.

Hi there,

It is definitely a good idea to educate yourself rather than take your friends word as fact.

I'll give you a basic run down on it but for extensive information you will need to familiarize yourself with reviews and specs and such.

Your most important bit of information to take note of is the socket type. This MUST match the socket on your motherboard (or motherboard you will be purchasing) or you will not get past the starting blocks. The linked CPU has a LGA 2011 socket.

Cores, operating frequencies and cache are all important and the general idea is that more is better. Work on your budget and how often you are likely to upgrade your PC.

The linked CPU is good, but I also don't see it as worth it's hefty pricetag.

Cores allows for multi tasking. More cores are better, 4 cores are the minimum you should look at. For a gaming CPU, 4 cores is all that is needed. For video editing, more cores can be useful.

Operating frequency directly affects performance. More is faster however 3.4ghz on the linked CPU is what is known as stock speed. The linked CPU is the "K" model which means its operating frequency is unlocked, allowing for overclocking. That also factors into the price tag. Learning to overclock is a good way to get exceptional performance out of a CPU without an exceptional pricetag. For this reason, there is no "don't go below X" answer. However more is better within your budget and look into overclocking stability for your potential choices.

Cache is specialised memory that is kept in between processor and RAM to increase the data execution speed. It is also important to overall processor speed and the same rule applies, more is better, L3 is better than L2 and L1 respectively.

Other info:

Hyperthreading: Hyperthreading is a way of adding "virtual cores" So whilst the CPU may be 4 cores, with hyperthreading it runs as if it is using 8 cores. At the moment it is only really utilised in extreme performance hungry cases. 3D model rendering, high intensive video rendering etc.

Cooling: Cooling is the most important aspect to keeping your CPU alive. The linked CPU does not come with stock cooling so you will need to purchase a cooling solution for this (Again, match the socket type). Keeping your CPU cool is paramount.
Sidenote: Any kind of overclocking will require better cooling than stock (water cooling or high end air cooling)

Power Usage: This ones an obvious one. Make sure your PSU can handle the power requirements of your system otherwise best case scenario: It won't boot, worst case scenario: It will fry electrical components.

For further reading, have a look through Tom's Hardwares CPU reviews and recommendations

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-4.html

Also google recommendations for your needs

Finally, if you're looking to save money, the i5-5670K is still standing at the best performance for dollar especially when combined with an overclock

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116899

Hope this helps,

Regards

The 2011 socket is on the way out as it won't be upgradeable further due to Intel's newest Haswell-E should be out late this year. So if you are planning to build right away, significant difference between CPU's doesn't really exist between the 4820k and 4770k. In gaming the need for a more powerful processor is even more fruitless as severe diminishing returns (cost benefit) exists after an Intel i5.

If purchasing very soon, 4770K would be my suggestion. As far as frequency is concerned, there is not much tangible difference to be had in processor speed out of the box. Significant overclocks add maybe a couple of seconds saved but again diminishing returns will kick in in order to cool your chip.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the most important factor for actual speed is hard drive speed. If you are writing and reading data, compressing, rendering, having an SSD will cut down on EVERYTHING when it comes to getting things done. Gaming unaffected though.

Unfortunately, it's a fair bit more complicated than just specs. In fact, the only way you can quantify how good a CPU is, is through benchmarks with whatever you plan to use your CPU for.

Example: You have an Intel Core i3-3220 on one hand and on the other you have an AMD FX-6300. Let's compare stats: The 6300 has 3 times the number of cores, a higher clock rate and has a larger L3 cache, and they are roughly the same price. It would seem that the 6300 is an incredibly more powerful CPU, right? Well not necessarily. Look at these benchmarks.

The i3 gets 20 more frames per second than the 6300! How can this be? Well there are a lot of reasons.
1. Skyrim is a game that is coded to take advantage of high singlethreaded processing speed (power/speed of each thread/core). It also isn't designed to be highly multi-threaded, so most of the 6300's power is not taken advantage of.
2. Core architecture is HUGE. It's why each gen of processors can be better than the last without changing much in core frequency. number, or size. Here's a very simple metaphor, to explain it. Take two roads. The first road is "Intel road," the second is "AMD street." Intel Road looks like this: ------------------------- A straight line. AMD Street looks like this: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\. You go MUCH faster on Intel road because it's a well designed road. AMD Street takes you longer because it's a poorly designed road. In the real world, the difference isn't as exaggerated as I made it in my example, but you get the idea.

Confused yet? Get this. These are some Crysis 3 benchmarks. Pretend the 6200 is the 6300 (the 6300 is actually a better CPU).


See how the 6200 (6300) now leaves the i3 in the dust? This is because Crysis 3 is coded in a very different way than Skyrim was. It actually can take advantage of all those cores. Now before you jump on the multi-threaded bandwagon, you have to consider Amdahl's Law. The gist of it is, even though you may have a ton of processor cores, you can't always split the load up. This is especially true with games, it's often VERY difficult to code a game to run on more than 2 or so cores, much less 8. So don't expect AMD processors to suddenly be great. That's why current AMD processors are not as powerful as Intel processors. They may have more cores, but their singlethreaded performance is much worse.

So, back to your original question. "What to look for?" You can't always tell how good a processor will be based on its specs. You have to research. A great place to start is Tom's Hardware's best Gaming CPUs List. You get an idea of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different processors, and there's also a list of overall performance at the end that rates all CPUs. Even though this list is for gaming, it gives you an idea of why those CPUs are good for gaming. For example, the i5 is recommended over the more powerful i7 because they have nearly identical singlecore performance, and single core performance is the deciding factor in most games. (Bear in mind, this list is not made based on overall performance, but based on performance/price ratio)

Finally, get an idea of what applications need what. As I covered, games run better on fast cores. Encoding/computational based stuff runs better on more cores (look at the differences between server/desktop cores). This is why i7s are so good. They have 8* cores all running at blazing fast speeds, so it performs well in every application.

Once you have mastered the basics of application requirements and relative performance between CPUs, you’ll get a MUCH better idea of “Who’s who in the CPU world.”

*4 actual, 8 logical. Still effectively 8 cores.

Fun facts (I guess...):

1) Intel CPUs are generally a little more expensive than AMD CPUs, but they perform better overall especially in games. Take for example the quad core i7-920 (round 2.7GHz) released back in 2008 vs. the 8 core FX-8350 (about 4.0GHz) release back in 2012. Benchmarks of recent games show that overall the performance difference between the two CPU is roughly 3% in favor of the FX-8350. Therefore, if you bought an i7-920 back when it was considered new and now wanted to upgrade to the FX-8350 it would more or less be considered a "side grade". Since the "upgrade" essentially gives you the same performance. The performance of Intel CPUs have naturally improved since 2008.

2) 8 cores are better than 4 cores. Yes and no. Logically speaking and assuming all things being equal on top of the assumption that games can actually scale up to use 8 cores, then yes, the more cores, the better. The reality is different... much different. In games, the additional 4 cores makes not difference. Due to how Intel CPU architecture is designed, they simply perform better than AMD CPUs (there are a few instances where they do work in AMD's favor though) even though AMD CPU may have more cores and run at higher clockspeeds. This is a very in depth and highly advanced topic best understood if you were to go for an Engineering degree with a focus on CPU design. For most people game benchmarks speaks for themselves. Assuming the same graphic card, comparing AMD and Intel CPU counterparts (like the FX-8350 and Intel i5-4670k) Intel CPUs simply beats AMD CPUs in nearly all games (at least 95% of games from the benchmarks I have seen).

3) AMD CPU can outperform Intel CPUs in specific types of tasks which are highly multithreaded specifically file compression / decompression (WinRar, 7-zip) and video encoding using a codec which can make use of more than 4 cores like x.264.

4) Intel CPUs tends to cost a little more than AMD CPUs. Assuming the same parts used in two builds an Intel Core i5-4670k + motherboard could cost you between $50 - $100 more than the AMD FX-8350 + motherboard. That mostly depends of the specific features of the motherboard. Price difference between the CPUs themselves is generally $40. Based on sale prices that happen from time to time that I have seen the price difference could be between $20 (Intel Sale) and $60 (AMD Sale).

5) The future of games is AMD because the PS4 and XBOne have 8 core CPUs (low power Jaguar CPUs). There is no evidence that proves this statement. The argument is that games will soon make use of 8 cores. The problem is that it is not an easy feat to accomplish designing games to use many cores. If it was that easy and there should be even more games now that can make use of 4 cores than there actually are. The simple fact is that each core within an Intel CPU is much more powerful than each core in an AMD CPU.

6) AMD FX-8350 / 8320 are not real 8 core CPUs. This depends on who you ask. To me they are in fact CPUs with 8 cores because the cores are physical. The problem is they are of a modular design. Each module has 2 physical cores. However, each module only has one FPU (Floating Point Unit) that must be shared by both cores. If core #1 is using the FPU, the core #2 must wait. It is for this reason that people argue the FX-8xxx CPUs do not have 8 cores. The FPU is basically used for anything involving the calculation of decimals like 1.1 x 1.25 or 3.33 + 9.007.

7) While Intel wins the vast majority of game benchmarks, the difference may not matter to you assuming the performance of both of them is not noticeable. This mostly depends on the individual games. For games that are not very CPU intensive (BioShock Infinite) the performance difference is like 1 or 2 FPS. However, for games that are CPU intensive, then you can see the performance difference, but that depends on your setup. Batman Origins is a pretty easy game to run. I have seen benchmarks with like 140 FPS and 170 FPS. Assuming the FX-8350 gets you 140 FPS and the i5-4670k give you 170 FPS are you serious going to be able to tell the difference in performance? A 60Hz LCD monitor will limit the displayed FPS to 60. A 120Hz LCD monitor will limit the displayed FPS to 120. Skyrim is a very rare, perhaps unique case where the game overwhelmingly performs better on Intel than AMD. It was released when the i5-2500k and FX-8150 were basically the best CPUs for games. Skyrim performs around 30% - 35% better on the i5-2500k. Like I said, very rare, or unique example.

Bottleneck is when one component ex. GPU is unable to work to its full potential because another component such as a weak CPU is unable to complete its own work fast enough to give new work to the GPU hurting performance.

And new generation would be Broadwell the desktop chips aren't excepted until Q4 2014 but really looks like Q1 or 2015

The Haswell-E (extreme edition processors) should be along around the same time maybe a little earlier replacing the 49XX series

A bottleneck in it's base term is when a component cannot keep up with the other components and as such the better components cannot operate to their full capacity. So if you were to put the newest GPU with a old slow single core CPU a bottleneck would occur because the CPU would be slowing down the PC not allowing the GPU to operate at potential.

In terms of the new generation or processors, If you can wait, then by all means do so. However technology is ever expanding and ever updating so don't hold out on having the best for very long. It is a better solution to do as posted above and ask the lovely people of Tom's Hardware what CPU they recommend by posting your budget, your proposed build and what you want the computer to primarily and secondarily be used for.

Hope this helps,

Regards

The answers above explain it exactly. I'm just going to elaborate for the fun of it.

Think of a "bottleneck" as the weakest link in a chain. A chain can only be as strong as it's weakest link, a computer can only be as fast as its slowest component (in theory).

Of course, it's slightly more nuanced than that. Certain bottlenecks affect your computer differently. As mentioned above, I/O transfer speeds (Hard drive related stuff) slow down your PC by limiting the speed at which your processor(s) receive data. This is only an issue in load times and you will never see a performance boost in games by getting a faster HDD (or SSD). Same thing applies to RAM. The speed (frequency) of the RAM and its latency dictate how fast things load and whatnot, however it won't affect in-game performance (Amount of RAM does matter. Also, look into the difference between dual/single channel memory - people will mention it, and it's nice to understand what they're talking about!).

Now, the kind of bottleneck that gamers fear most is the one that can be made by differently powered CPUs and GPUs. You'll often see people ask: "Is my GPU being bottlenecked?" or conversely, "Is my CPU being bottlenecked?" As mentioned above, a bottleneck is caused by one component being faster than the other.

For example: You have a dual core Ivy bridge CPU (i3-3220) and a GTX 680. You're playing Crysis 3 at 1920x1080 resolution and at medium settings. While playing, you're getting only 30 or so frames per second. "But my GTX 680 is supposed to get 67 frames per second!"
(As seen in this benchmark)


Why is this? It's because your CPU is only powerful enough to deliver 36 frames per second. It's the weakest link, therefore you will only ever get 36 or so frames, no matter how powerful of a GPU you have.


So, to eliminate this bottleneck you have options(this is where people sometimes get confused):
1) Turn up the graphics!!

Your CPU is no longer the bottleneck, in fact your GPU is the bottleneck! I'm sure you can guess why.
2. Get a more powerful CPU! Like an i5 or i7 (logical upgrade steps from an i3)

Now, the story is always different given a change in application. A game might use one components more or less, creating a GPU or CPU bottleneck accordingly.
Little bit of advice: if you have a CPU bottleneck, turn up the graphics settings, such as resolution. (resolution is purely GPU dependent, so if you have a CPU bottleneck - go high res!) or stick to singleplayer games.
If you have a GPU bottleneck, turn the resolution down and the eye candy off. There's not much else to do.
(useless information, I know, but it hopefully helps you understand how bottlenecks work)

The final (and oft forgot) bottleneck is the Monitor. If you have a 60Hz refresh rate, but your hardware can deliver 70 fps, those 10 frames are going to waste! Just keep that in mind.

Sorry for all the pictures.