What makes a good CPU "good?"

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

TallOne123

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2011
60
1
18,630
I have very basic knowledge of CPUs in general and am curious to a couple of things.

Firstly, like the title asks, what makes a good CPU, "good?" I was always under the assumption that the more cores a processor had, the more workload it could handle and the faster the speed, the faster the CPU could perform calculations.

Yet, whenever I find reviews and feedback of my AMD Phenom II X6 1055T, people are saying that its just a bad CPU. Not worth overclocking, not worth cooling, and I must ask, "Why?"

I thought 6 cores should've been better than four cores, which are all the rage today. Some people have even advised against me overclocking that particular CPU for more speed. So you can understand why I'm a bit baffled.

 
Solution
H
more doesn't always mean better and what's being openly marketed to the masses like clock speed & no. of cores isn't an ultra reliable way to tell how good a CPU is.

it all comes down to application. getting a 6-core isn't going to matter a whole lot if the program you're running don't utilize more than 2 or 3, like gaming. the whole MOAR cores + higher clock rate sales gimmick is something you best ignore. actual benchmark results from reviews are where it's at. there are plenty of CPU specs that are not openly shown or are ignored, that can matter much more than clock speed & core no., like IPC (instructions per clock). on certain applications, a dual core CPU with a higher IPC will match a quad core (or more) higher clocked CPU...
Sort by date Sort by votes
TechCIDLC

TechCIDLC

Honorable
Dec 2, 2013
1,902
0
12,960
Cores and hertz are not the only thing that determine a good processor. For example; an AMD FX-8350 (8 cores, OCed to 5.0Ghz) will not outperform an i5-4690k (4 cores, 3.5Ghz [stock]). There is also DMI2, instructions set, memory bandwith and channels, cache, threads, etc. The way processors are manufactured are also what makes a good processor. AMD might have more hertz and cores in their processors, but Intel's processor cores are better made, and thus are faster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H

Hazle

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2011
1,327
0
19,960
more doesn't always mean better and what's being openly marketed to the masses like clock speed & no. of cores isn't an ultra reliable way to tell how good a CPU is.

it all comes down to application. getting a 6-core isn't going to matter a whole lot if the program you're running don't utilize more than 2 or 3, like gaming. the whole MOAR cores + higher clock rate sales gimmick is something you best ignore. actual benchmark results from reviews are where it's at. there are plenty of CPU specs that are not openly shown or are ignored, that can matter much more than clock speed & core no., like IPC (instructions per clock). on certain applications, a dual core CPU with a higher IPC will match a quad core (or more) higher clocked CPU with a lower IPC, i.e; an i3 is known to perform equally as, if not beating, an FX-8320 in some games (SCII being notorious), & in some non-threaded applications.

as for the 1055T; personally, it's a great CPU.... for it's time, but still makes for a decent CPU now. though being mainly a gamer, the price wasn't worth it back then. it may not match up against the mainstream i5's & i7's then, but a hexa-core at it's price point was damn well worth it. people criticizing are either fanboys, or are comparing it with modern CPUs, the latter having a point if you're buying it for a new build for anywhere close to the price of an FX-6300 (i'd buy it for $70-90 tops). if you're a long time owner, and you're not having much of a problem with it's performance now, just be proud of it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
T

TallOne123

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2011
60
1
18,630




Thanks Tech, filip, and Hazle.

I've actually owned this processor ever since early 2012 and have been gaming with it since. It is pretty dated, so I'm not completely confused about all the negativity the 1055T is getting.

I asked because I'm in the middle of upgrading my rig and am wondering if my processor was worth keeping. I think I'm going to have a look at the article posted by filippi.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rationale

Rationale

Admirable
Mar 21, 2014
3,025
0
7,960


More cores and more ghz does NOT equal better. Intel CPUs have fewer cores and lower ghz, and still typically perform better. The architecture of the CPU matters a lot more.

However, your AMD Phenom 1055T is actually pretty decent, especially considering its age. If it gets hate, that's pretty hilarious considering it can be overclocked up to about 3.3Ghz to be faster than a stock FX-6300. AMD hasn't improved much/at all in the last few years. The Bulldozer architecture was crap, and the Piledriver architecture didn't completely fix their CPU performance either. The core setup of the old Phenom II was actually more practical than the FX series, and not quite as divergent from Intel.

That said, a strong-ish model of i3 or a weak model of i5 would be faster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom