Confused about clock speed and number of cores?

AndyH97

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
30
0
4,530
This has probably been asked many times but I really don't have a clue here.

I'm trying to find a laptop for around £350, it will mostly be for school work using Microsoft Office and such. But the processing element of laptops is confusing.

I have been looking at many processors that are commonly found in laptops. I found an Intel Pentium N3530 processor (Quad Core - 2.16 GHz), however I've read that these are garbage and even an Intel i3 4030U (Dual Core - 1.8 GHz) can outperform it. How is this possible ?!

Also, I've read that clock speed and cores are not all that important when it comes to performance. If that is the case then why is that the first thing people look for in a processor and they are also the main features displayed about the processor on most websites?
 
first off, more cores mean more workers, faster clocks/cores means faster workers to put it simply.

right now, having a quad is the sweet spot, and then a high clock speed will of course help. i do not know where you got those info from.
however, do not compare amd to intel directly (like 2.2ghz amd vs 2.2ghz intel). they have different architectures (made differently).

however, having 6 or 8 cores does not mean it is better, it depends on what you do, if the application that you use takes advantage of all those cores. let's say gaming, 4 cores will help, but having 8 (with 8 threads, 4 cores) does not improve compared to quads (4 cores, 4 threads only).

but for video encoding for example, it usually takes advantage of those cores, so having more than 4 may help.

but if you are only doing facebook and ms office stuff, then quad will not help much, but clock speed is important (too low would be slow)
 

Mac266

Honorable
Mar 12, 2014
965
0
11,160


This is the illustration I use, except I like to spice it up with 'Endurance' being core strength.

Eg. The Pentium Has 4 'workers' that are fastish. But lack endurance.

BUT. The i3 has 2 workers with better endurance.

Or Something.
 
Clock speed and number of cores are the 2 most important things to look at to get an idea of a processors performance. However, there are considerations to be taken. To simplify it, some processors can do more work per clock cycle than others. So a 1.2 ghz processor that can do 4 calculations per clock cycle can do more work than 2.4ghz processor that can only do 1. More cores is most always better to a point, if you have a program that can use them. If your program can only use 1or 2 cores, then an 8 core processor does not do much for you.
These are only the simplest of examples, and there is much more to it than just this, there is tons of information about this online already if you care to research further.
 

AndyH97

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
30
0
4,530
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-N3530-vs-Intel-4030U - This is where I got the information from.



I think I would understand that theory if the Pentium had a slower clock speed than the i3. But the Pentium has a faster clock speed AND more cores, yet according to that website the performance in the i3 is a lot better.
 

RobCrezz

Expert
Ambassador



Edit: ignore me, I didnt look up the specs exactly. This looks a be a ultra low power chip, probably based off the atom series or something.
 

endeavour37a

Honorable
These CPU's are from different families so directly comparing clocks and cores is like comparing apples to oranges. Cache configurations are much different as is TDP and price. The i3 is a better CPU but seems to be much more expensive also, newer architecture. Here are some links to see the differences in them, hope this clears up your question a bit about how a CPU with less cores and slower clock can outperform the other.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+N3530+%40+2.16GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-4030U+%40+1.90GHz

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Pentium-N3530-Notebook-Processor.112091.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i3-4030U-Notebook-Processor.115078.0.html

http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?compare=core-i3-4030u-1-9ghz-vs-pentium-n3530-2-16ghz&pid=2138&pid2=2127
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/790/Intel_Core_i3_Mobile_i3-4030U_vs_Intel_Mobile_Pentium_N3530.html


Today's 4 cylinder cars can outperform an old 6 cylinder engine because they are made more efficient and can produce more HP (performance) even with less cylinders (cores) and slower RPM's (clocks). Same with CPU's, the newer i3 can outperform the older Pentium even with less cores and slower clocks because it is built better.
 

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador
another thing to consider when comparing one cpu to another is age. each generation and update of chips increases efficiency of each core. this is why a quad core i5 can run rings around an 8 core amd fx series chip. the amd chips are more powerful yet less efficient. i tend to compare it to sports cars since most folks understand car basics. a sports car with a nice big v-8 pumping out 600 hp is often beat by a smaller v-6 pumping out 400 hp. on paper the v-8 seems better but in reality that v-6 is better tuned, better built and does more with its limited hp than the larger v-8 can do with all its raw power. the rest of the car components makes a difference as well. newer chipsets improve on what the chip can do further optimizing the cpu.

and finally a chip designed for a specific task will do that task better than one that is not purpose built. a lot of laptop chips (m designation for mobile) are designed for lower power consumption and to be less reliant on all the extra pieces we put into desktops. this can mean that a desktop cpu with it's ghz and power cut down to work in the low power laptop is actually losing a lot of what makes it efficient/powerful in a desktop. the m cpu however, is doing exactly what it was designed to do and thus is accomplishing more in the laptop. (this is simplified obviously for the sake of understanding but you get the idea) this can account foe a "better" cpu performing less in a laptop setting.
 

AndyH97

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
30
0
4,530


Right I understand that some processors with less clock speed and cores have a higher benchmark, but why do trading websites still display them as the main features, even though they aren't really important when it comes to performance judging by those websites?
 

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador


marketing is always aimed at the uninformed consumer. bigger number means better right?? "new and improved" means better right? "ultra" "premium" "platinum edition" etc etc etc. they don't expect you to understand and hope you don't so they can sell you the latest and greatest. this is why the graphics cards keep getting renumbered and named. same old core but new name/number. keeps people guessing and just grabbing the bigger number which is of course more expensive. tech sites will expose this marketing which is what your noticing as you read.

trust the benchmarks and numbers, then a psychic, then your grandmother's friend, then a horoscope before trusting marketing of any kind!!!
 

AndyH97

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
30
0
4,530


That really doesn't surprise me haha

Thanks everyone for the replies! One more question though, should I trust the benchmarks and go for the i3 (Dual core - 1.8 GHz) over the Pentium (Quad core - 2.16 GHz) if I was to choose between the two?
 

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador
what are the rest of the specs on the laptops? ram, hdd, gpu, and other stats make the laptop whole. the lesser cpu could be a better pc overall if the rest of it is good and the better cpu could be a worse buy with little hdd and such. could you post a link of model numbers your looking at so folks can look the rest of it over.
 

AndyH97

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
30
0
4,530


I don't exactly know what you mean by model numbers since I'm not very educated with computers. Can someone explain where to find it or should I just post links of the web page?
 

AndyH97

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
30
0
4,530


Actually I was meant to ask this:
If clock speed is really not that important and the build and architecture is more important, then why on most websites (including cpuboss.com where they compare processors) is clock speed always the main feature of a processor. Surely they are trying to say they think clock speed is the most important element in a processor?
 

AndyH97

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
30
0
4,530


Actually I was meant to ask this:
If clock speed is really not that important and the build and architecture is more important, then why on most websites (including cpuboss.com where they compare processors) is clock speed always the main feature of a processor. Surely they are trying to say they think clock speed is the most important element in a processor?
 

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador
i know this can be confusing but stick with it and you'll get it down :D

overall all the things we have spoken of here factor into total cpu performance. all things being equal except clock speed, then yah higher speed = higher performance. given an i5 haswell at 3.0 ghz vs one at 3.5 ghz, then yah the 3.5 ghz wins since this is a direct apples to apples comparison.

but when you start comparing amd vs intel and pentium vs ivy bridge vs haswell... then everything else also has to be taken into account for overall performance. clock speed is a main factor but not the only one so reviews and such will list and speak about clock speed a lot since it is an important part of the puzzle. but they will also speak of improvements in chipsets and features on the cpu itself (such as memory controller which is now on the cpu and not the mobo) to come to a conclusion about what is "better".

i'll go back to my sports car analogy, the review will of course list the engine and hp right off but the whole review will speak of the suspension, brakes, ride quality, handling and other factors when it finally gives it a rating/ranking at the end of the article. the other stuff is also part of the car's ratings but of course we want to read about the engine first.
 

AndyH97

Reputable
Oct 30, 2014
30
0
4,530


Thanks very much! I think I'm starting to get the hang of it haha.

Two more questions though, sorry:
1. When people talk about a processor's single core performance, is this calculated by taking everything into account e.g. features, TDP or just plainly by their clock speed and number of cores?
2. Out of all the processor comparison websites out there e.g. cpubenchmark.net, cpuboss.com, notebookcheck.net, which do you think is the more accurate and trustworthy website?
 

Math Geek

Titan
Ambassador
when they speak of single core performance they are speaking about how much work 1 core can do at 100%. all of the cpu's specs factor into this, features, clock speed, etc etc but not how many cores it has since it is only speaking about 1 core's performance.

single core performance is why intel quad cores are better than 8 core amd's most of the time. each single core of the intel can do a lot more work than a single core of the amd chip. as a result anything that only works on 1 core will be faster on the intel chip since only 1 core is used for that program. this holds all the way up to programs that are written to work with up to 4 cores since 4 faster intel cores will beat 4 slower amd cores. amd had the edge in programs that could work with all 8 cores it had since the 8 slower cores would still do more work than the 4 faster intel cores. with intel now having 6 and 8 core chips, amd will lose that niche as well and until they put out something newer and better they have pretty much lost all recommendations.

as for the sites, i am not really sure which is more reliable as i don't read them very often. i'm more of a real world experience kind of person and don't rely on benchmarks. i know the basics of what performes better than what but i don't usually know specific numbers such as x cpu scores 5000 on some benchmark but y cpu scores 5200. it's just not that important to me enough to spend the time.