better multithread CPU on a budget

atmos929

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
517
0
19,160
Need an Intel/AMD expert! :p

So... my main activity is definitely gaming, I already have a GTX 970... but I also do music with FL Studio and several plugins... as I understand this counts as rendering and does benefit from multi core/thread CPUs.

FL studio FAQ points me to this list, from what I understand it is a core/thread performance chart, the kind that doesn't reflect on gaming performance :p.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

I know that current intel CPUs are a lot better in single threaded performance, which is why they are better for current games. But what about multi core/thread on a budget?

So... I am looking at these:
CPU-------Score-----Price
FX 8370---9186----$200
FX 8350---9011----$170
FX 8320---8078----$137
i5 4690K--7776----$220

What do you think?... the 8350 sounds like the best option for performance for the buck for multi core/thread needs.
 
Solution
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/f8B4P6

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($241.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($71.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $313.94

vs

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/4Wh2bv

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.75 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 Extreme3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $351.72

vs

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/s33vqs

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($299.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212...
The question is, how many threads can your apps actually use all at once?
Those ratings assume that all threads are completely utilized.
That is not likely in the real world.

If you already have a pc, do some testing.

a) Run your games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.
If your FPS stays the same, you are likely more cpu limited.

b) Limit your cpu, either by reducing the OC, or, in windows power management, limit the maximum cpu% to something like 70%.
Go to control panel/power options/change plan settings/change advanced power settings/processor power management/maximum processor state/
This will simulate what a lack of cpu power will do.
Conversely what a 30% improvement in core speed might do.

You could also experiment with removing one core in the bios. You can also do this in the windows start configuration.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many cores.

If your FPS drops significantly, it is an indicator that your cpu is the limiting factor, and a cpu upgrade is in order.

And... do not be mislead if windows task manager shows activity on all threads.
Often a cpu bound single threaded task will show 25% activity on all 4 threads. That is because windows is spreading the activity out among available threads.

My take is that a 4690K with a conservative overclock is the best pick from among your candidates.
If an extra $100 is not a big issue, the i7-4790K would be the absolute best.
 

atmos929

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
517
0
19,160
My current setup is a Phenom II 965 BE, Asus Strix GTX970, DDR2 800MHz 6 GB AData Value RAM.... I am getting CPU bottlebecks as it is already. I do get solid 60 FPS in Skyrim, Tomb Rider, DA: Inquisition except when I get many NPCs/enemies on screen (mostly cities)... it goes down to 30 fps.

CPU is 3.4, OCing at 3.8 gives me no increase in fps and I actually feel some stuttering kicking in... I suspect I also have RAM bottleneck since sometimes I get these 30 fps and neither the CPU cores or the GPU are 100% usage. OCing further is unstable.

Your question on how my apps use cores is a fair one. They definitely won't spread equally among cores/threads... according to what I've read on their FAQs. There are just chances that new processes get assigned to different threads every time I start a different audio processor channel. So... I am guessing here that I will be likely to see usages like 40%-60%-70%-50% for a 4 core CPU.

a 4790K would definitely be the absolute best... but I would need to make way too much of an effort for it.

The real question would be whether I would get better performance for music production in an i5 4690K or in an FX8350/FX8370 even if core usage distribution is uneven.... so long as the AMDs do not bottleneck the GTX970 for gaming.
 
Of those CPUs I would get the Core i5-4690k because it is more powerful than the FX-8350. You would need overclock the FX-8350 for it to come close to matching the performance of the i5-4690k at stock speed.

However, if you are using programs that can process more than 4 threads (each core can only process 1 thread), then the FX-8350 will probably perform better since it can process up to 8 threads. The Core i7 series can also process 8 threads because of Hyper Threading which kinda creates 4 virtual cores to put it simply... but these CPUs do cost more money.

When it comes to games, Intel CPUs will give you better performance the more CPU dependent the game is. In games that are not particularly dependent on the CPU the performance should be nearly identical.

http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html
CPU_01.png


http://www.techspot.com/review/921-dragon-age-inquisition-benchmarks/page6.html
CPU_1.png
 

CTurbo

Pizza Monster
Moderator
The Xeon I mentioned above would be the best of both worlds. I assume you have never heard of it and think I'm suggesting a super expensive server cpu, but that's not the case. It is nothing more than a re-badged i7 4770 without integrated graphics.
 
The FX-8320 at $137 is the best deal of the AMD processors. The other two are exactly the same, except they're binned higher. They all overclock approximately the same. If you're thinking AMD, there's no reason to go for anything higher than the FX-8320.

If you can afford the 4690k, it's the better choice since it'll cover both single threaded and multithreaded games well. The FX-8320 can possibly outperform it in optimized multi-threaded games, but for everything else, the 4690k is superior.

I personally went for the FX-8320, because I didn't think the $90+ price tag was worth it for the 4690k, and I have this theory that with the new consoles, more and more games will start to use 8 cores. That is MY view and was my choice. What you go for is up to you.
 

atmos929

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
517
0
19,160
That Xeon looks interesting, it was definitely outside my scope... but I see it priced at $268, so it kinda stays between the 4690K and 4790K.

I also found the single thread performance chart, totally dominated by Intel, this time this Xeon performs a bit worse than 4690K and 4790K but it is a lot better than the AMDs. And it also outperforms the 4690K in multithreaded, but barely the AMDs. It looks like a decent offer, but if I am willing to pay $268, I may just go for the $300 4790K once and for all.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

=====================

So... I think it will come down to testing if FL studio with lots of VST plugins actually benefit much (but I really mean like A LOT) from multi thread...

If so, I think I'll go for the 8320/8350 and OC.
If not, I'll go for the 4690K

Thanks everyone for your comments.
 

CTurbo

Pizza Monster
Moderator
I think you are missing the point of the Xeon. You can slap in on a $70 H97 motherboard and use the stock cooler. Hell you could put in on a $30 motherboard and get max performance from it. You'll end up paying well over $100 for a good Z97 motherboard for with the 4690k and/or the 4790k. The you'd spend even more for an after market cooler to overclock either of the K i5/i7s. The Xeon easily comes out cheaper to use.


It's also only $241, not $268 http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=E3-1231V3B&c=CJ
 
Remember, the main purpose is gaming.

The Xeon has hyperthreading, giving 8 threads. Good. But the individual core speed is 3.4 with no overclocking.
True, it can go on any cheap 1150 motherboard.
But, even better would be a i7-4790K which also has hyperthreading and runs at 4.0 stock with 4.4 turbo.
No overclocking is really needed, and it also can go on any lga1150 motherboard.

There is actually little to be gained from overclocking a i7-4790K.
 

CTurbo

Pizza Monster
Moderator
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/f8B4P6

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($241.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($71.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $313.94

vs

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/4Wh2bv

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.75 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 Extreme3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $351.72

vs

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/s33vqs

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($299.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.75 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 Extreme3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $431.73

vs

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jTCycf

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($169.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.75 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($116.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $289.72





The Xeon turbos to 3.8ghz.
 
Solution
Remember that the OP's main purpose is gaming; that wants fast cores.
The multithreading is secondary.

If you used the same motherboard and stock cooler as the Xeon list, the 4790K will be about 17% more expensive. $372.
But... running at 4.0 stock, it will perform a similar 17% better.

The FX-8350 is a non contender for gaming since it's cores are some 30% slower than the intel options.
It will hold it's own in multitasking.

The 4690K is comparable to the 4790K in gaming, but might lag a bit behind in multitasking.
 

CTurbo

Pizza Monster
Moderator
You're acting like the Xeon would not be good for gaming. It's a GREAT cpu for gaming. The gaming performance between the Xeon and a mildly overclocked 4690k would be negligible. Nobody is going to put a 4790k on a H97 motherboard.

I don't believe the 4790k should be in the conversation because of how much more expensive it is over the other options.

I don't believe the FX83xx should even be considered because it's old, has no upgrade path, and simply does not compete. It's on slightly cheaper than the Xeon would be but it's worse in every single way. It literally has nothing going for it.
 
Going for the 4790k doesn't really allow for much of an upgrade path either. Yes the FX CPUs are quite old, but they were actually ahead of their time, which is a good or a bad thing, depending on which perspective you take.

Also... This is an interesting read:

http://www.techspot.com/article/932-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300-power-performance/