6 cores vs. 4 cores
- Thread starter N1ck3d
- Start date
leeb2013
Honorable
- Aug 5, 2013
- 1,967
- 0
- 12,460
6 cores of course, but we need more info (like the model of CPU) to know if they are weak or strong cores.
eg. 4 strong I5 cores are way better than 6 weak AMD cores, but 6 strong I7 cores are better than 4 strong I5 cores.
Then there's the question of worth. 6 strong I7 cores will cost $500, is it worth the extra over a $200 I5? No, not really.
Are 4 strong I5 cores worth the extra over 6 weak AMD cores? Yes IMO.
eg. 4 strong I5 cores are way better than 6 weak AMD cores, but 6 strong I7 cores are better than 4 strong I5 cores.
Then there's the question of worth. 6 strong I7 cores will cost $500, is it worth the extra over a $200 I5? No, not really.
Are 4 strong I5 cores worth the extra over 6 weak AMD cores? Yes IMO.
rockie_
Splendid
- Sep 20, 2014
- 6,022
- 0
- 27,960
Core i5 4690 (4 cores ) is better than FX 6300(6 cores) . Look at benchmarks
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690-vs-AMD-FX-6300
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690-vs-AMD-FX-6300
Alpha3031
Honorable
- Nov 27, 2013
- 2,902
- 0
- 13,460
For gaming, there is not much difference, and, assuming the same cores, a 4 core will be better than a 6 core. In general, most applications use 1 to 5 threads so the 6 core will only be slightly better, again invoking the cost argument.
Context is everything!
In very simple terms there are 3 key things that matter:
- CPU architecture
- Clock Speed
- Cores
(it is, of course, much more complicated than that, but is basic terms that's what matters).
Having more cores is obviously better, but only when a program can actually make use of the extra cores. Things like encoding a video tend to be very good at using additional cores and often scale almost perfectly (so the 2 extra cores allows the encode to finish half as fast again). Games, on the other hand, are rarely able to benefit from more cores and often will see little benefit from any more than 2 cores.
Obviously clock speed matters (3.5Ghz, 4Ghz, etc). There are lots of gaming benchmarks (and in fact plenty of other benchmarks not able to use the additional cores) where a quad core 4790K at 4.4Ghz does better than the 8 core 5960K @ 3.5Ghz.
Architecture matters too. The "6 core" AMD FX-6100, for example, will lose in some benchmarks to an Intel i3 (dual core) despite having more cores AND higher clock speeds. The architecture of the Intel CPU in those cases is managing more instructions per clock.
If you had a specific question about a specific build, post it back and we might be able to provide some better advice.
In very simple terms there are 3 key things that matter:
- CPU architecture
- Clock Speed
- Cores
(it is, of course, much more complicated than that, but is basic terms that's what matters).
Having more cores is obviously better, but only when a program can actually make use of the extra cores. Things like encoding a video tend to be very good at using additional cores and often scale almost perfectly (so the 2 extra cores allows the encode to finish half as fast again). Games, on the other hand, are rarely able to benefit from more cores and often will see little benefit from any more than 2 cores.
Obviously clock speed matters (3.5Ghz, 4Ghz, etc). There are lots of gaming benchmarks (and in fact plenty of other benchmarks not able to use the additional cores) where a quad core 4790K at 4.4Ghz does better than the 8 core 5960K @ 3.5Ghz.
Architecture matters too. The "6 core" AMD FX-6100, for example, will lose in some benchmarks to an Intel i3 (dual core) despite having more cores AND higher clock speeds. The architecture of the Intel CPU in those cases is managing more instructions per clock.
If you had a specific question about a specific build, post it back and we might be able to provide some better advice.
babernet_1
Honorable
- May 8, 2012
- 2,850
- 0
- 13,460
Looking forward, programs and games will only be using more and more cores. For a build with some staying power, look at the I-7 5820. It has six cores and can be overclocked to over 4GHz. Plus it has 28 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 so you can have x16 and x8 for dual gpus and x8 x8 x8 for triple SLI. The best of both worlds, not too much more than the 4790K, yet a full six hyperthreaded cores.
guanyu210379
Illustrious
- Mar 30, 2007
- 7,684
- 25
- 38,115
The is a hidden diamond among Intel processors if you need 4 cores with HT.
It is the XEON E3-1231V3.
If you want an i7 4790 (no K), do not need the iGPU, do not want to OC, willing to live with the slightly underclocked i7 4790 and willing only to pay max at i5 4690k's price, this XEON is the answer.
If you can afford Intel, go for Intel and not AMD at the moment. AMD has been sleeping regarding the PC procs innovation since 2-3 years. I am guessing that console (PS4 and XBOX One) business kinda lullabied AMD right now.
It is the XEON E3-1231V3.
If you want an i7 4790 (no K), do not need the iGPU, do not want to OC, willing to live with the slightly underclocked i7 4790 and willing only to pay max at i5 4690k's price, this XEON is the answer.
If you can afford Intel, go for Intel and not AMD at the moment. AMD has been sleeping regarding the PC procs innovation since 2-3 years. I am guessing that console (PS4 and XBOX One) business kinda lullabied AMD right now.
Alpha3031
Honorable
- Nov 27, 2013
- 2,902
- 0
- 13,460
Basically, the power of a processing unit (xPU) is the product of it's IPC (the instructions executed per clock cycle) it's frequency (the number of clocks in a second) and the number of cores the applications running can use.
So, if you're running 3D rendering, 6 cores will likely be better then 4. However some applications are more dependent on other hardware.
So, if you're running 3D rendering, 6 cores will likely be better then 4. However some applications are more dependent on other hardware.
all stalked out
Honorable
- Jul 3, 2013
- 46
- 0
- 10,540
If you don't want to overclock and want the best you can get you want the 4790k. It may be an unlocked chip but it is also the best option for non overclockers thanks to the increased stock clocks, It's base clock is faster than the non K models boost clock and it also has features like VT enabled which the other k series models like the 4770k do not have. It's a no-brainer.
guanyu210379
Illustrious
- Mar 30, 2007
- 7,684
- 25
- 38,115
Regarding about buying i7 4790k or not if you do not OC.
It depends.
i7 4790k is about 500-600MHz faster, etc. etc. better than an E3-1231V3
However, that proc is about €100 more expensive than a XEON E3-1231V3.
See if you can justify the price difference and decide before buying.
It depends.
i7 4790k is about 500-600MHz faster, etc. etc. better than an E3-1231V3
However, that proc is about €100 more expensive than a XEON E3-1231V3.
See if you can justify the price difference and decide before buying.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 42
-
Question Is in Intel i3-2100 upgradable to an Intel i5-6600
- Started by thesummers04
- Replies: 18
-
Question Will a msi mag a550bn work with my motherboard?- Started by Alectrona
- Replies: 9
-
-
RTX 4060 Ti vs RX 7700 XT faceoff: Which midrange graphics card is superior?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 32
-
News Ryzen 9 7950X3D surfaces with 192MB L3 cache — 3D V-Cache ES CPU has 64MB more than retail CPU
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 20
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram