So this is purely out of curiosity, can someone help explain to my why something like the AMD 8350 has 8 cores and a clock speed of 4 GHz and is $170, however the intel i5 4690k has 4 cores, a clock speed of 3.5 and costs $240? I know clock speed and core numbers aren't everything, otherwise this clearly wouldn't make any sense, I'm just wondering if someone more knowledgable than myself would be willing to offer some explanation.
-
T-Mobile Home Internet: Revisiting 5G connectivity for the home after two years
-
Multi-million dollar Cheyenne supercomputer auction ends with $480,085 bid — buyer walked away with 8,064 Intel Xeon Broadwell CPUs, 313TB DDR4-2400 ECC RAM, and some water leaks
Question about CPU cores and clock speed
- Thread starter jhark515
- Start date
Solution
A_Goat
Distinguished
- Nov 30, 2014
- 1,550
- 32
- 20,790
Because an AMD core does not perform the same as an Intel core.
Same as some AMD cores not performing the same as older/other AMD cores (this applies to intel as well).
Core count/speed is pretty much irrelevant when comparing CPUs. All you really want to know is power consumption, socket type, and performance.
An i5 4690k has much more powerful "core" performance than the 8300 "core" performance. But, the 8300 has 8 cores so in applications that utilize 8 cores the 8300 will pull ahead in performance. The problem is VERY FEW applications benefit from all those extra cores, you have to be in a very specific niche to benefit... like rendering video often. But in programs that utilize less cores, a stronger core will benefit (the i5). The extra cores of the 8300 chips is also nice for heavy multi-tasking, but the i5 performs well there as well. It really all depends on what you want to use the computer for, your future plans, and more.
Not to mention you need a double rad/double tower cooler and a very beefy mobo to overclock the 8300 chips. They are much less efficiant than the i5s, so they run hotter and guzzle down much more power (power bills add up). The cheap price of the chip kind of offsets the price of the expensive mobo and cooler, but it's still something to think about..
One more thing... remember with the i5-4690k, you can eventually upgrade to the i7 series chips (that completely destroy the 8300 chips in everything). With an 8300 chip... your best upgrade available is a 9590, which is just an overclocked 8300 chip.
So for upgradability, the i5-4690k is also better.
Hope this helps.
Same as some AMD cores not performing the same as older/other AMD cores (this applies to intel as well).
Core count/speed is pretty much irrelevant when comparing CPUs. All you really want to know is power consumption, socket type, and performance.
An i5 4690k has much more powerful "core" performance than the 8300 "core" performance. But, the 8300 has 8 cores so in applications that utilize 8 cores the 8300 will pull ahead in performance. The problem is VERY FEW applications benefit from all those extra cores, you have to be in a very specific niche to benefit... like rendering video often. But in programs that utilize less cores, a stronger core will benefit (the i5). The extra cores of the 8300 chips is also nice for heavy multi-tasking, but the i5 performs well there as well. It really all depends on what you want to use the computer for, your future plans, and more.
Not to mention you need a double rad/double tower cooler and a very beefy mobo to overclock the 8300 chips. They are much less efficiant than the i5s, so they run hotter and guzzle down much more power (power bills add up). The cheap price of the chip kind of offsets the price of the expensive mobo and cooler, but it's still something to think about..
One more thing... remember with the i5-4690k, you can eventually upgrade to the i7 series chips (that completely destroy the 8300 chips in everything). With an 8300 chip... your best upgrade available is a 9590, which is just an overclocked 8300 chip.
So for upgradability, the i5-4690k is also better.
Hope this helps.
rwayne
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2007
- 1,749
- 9
- 20,365
You should not be looking at it from the number of cores but from the speed of the cores.
Is the case you are referencing it is Quanity (FX8350) vs Quality (4690k).
The Intel cores are MUCH stronger than AMD's and it makes a BIG difference.
The most amazing stat I have seen recently where a dual core Intel I3 4330 processor @ 3.5GHz beat out the 8 core FX8350 in direct X 12.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/DX12-GPU-and-CPU-Performance-Tested-Ashes-Singularity-Benchmark/Results-Avera
The dual core I3 can also beat out the FX8350 in Skyrim, The Total War games and many others.
More is not always better
Is the case you are referencing it is Quanity (FX8350) vs Quality (4690k).
The Intel cores are MUCH stronger than AMD's and it makes a BIG difference.
The most amazing stat I have seen recently where a dual core Intel I3 4330 processor @ 3.5GHz beat out the 8 core FX8350 in direct X 12.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/DX12-GPU-and-CPU-Performance-Tested-Ashes-Singularity-Benchmark/Results-Avera
The dual core I3 can also beat out the FX8350 in Skyrim, The Total War games and many others.
More is not always better
rwayne
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2007
- 1,749
- 9
- 20,365
One other item and I think it is important to mention this far as gaming is concerned.
If you are going with a midrange graphics card (meaning at the $250 price point and below) it does not really matter which CPU you have for gaming at 1080P. So long as it is something modern.
CPUs only become a major factor at 1080P when you have a very strong card like a GTX970 or R9 390. When you go to 1440P it becomes a little less of a factor.
This video explains it well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ4PP24dBXg
So if you are not going with a top end Video card, you maybe able to save yourself some money going with a more mainstream CPU.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Hardware-Roundup/BioShock-Infinite-and-Civilization-Beyond-Earth
If you are going with a midrange graphics card (meaning at the $250 price point and below) it does not really matter which CPU you have for gaming at 1080P. So long as it is something modern.
CPUs only become a major factor at 1080P when you have a very strong card like a GTX970 or R9 390. When you go to 1440P it becomes a little less of a factor.
This video explains it well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ4PP24dBXg
So if you are not going with a top end Video card, you maybe able to save yourself some money going with a more mainstream CPU.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Hardware-Roundup/BioShock-Infinite-and-Civilization-Beyond-Earth
rwayne
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2007
- 1,749
- 9
- 20,365
jhark,
Your question is a very good one. I would be asking the same thing if I were building a new system. It is very good to question something like you did which just does not make any logic when you look at the number of cores and the frequency.
A 4690k and a GTX970 would be an awesome build. You will get really good performance out of that combo.
I would highly recommend subscribing to the following podcasts. They are very enjoyable to listen to and will provide you with the latest info on PC hardware.
http://www.pcper.com/category/tags/podcast
https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-computer-hardware
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRAlUr9KhvU
Your question is a very good one. I would be asking the same thing if I were building a new system. It is very good to question something like you did which just does not make any logic when you look at the number of cores and the frequency.
A 4690k and a GTX970 would be an awesome build. You will get really good performance out of that combo.
I would highly recommend subscribing to the following podcasts. They are very enjoyable to listen to and will provide you with the latest info on PC hardware.
http://www.pcper.com/category/tags/podcast
https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-computer-hardware
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRAlUr9KhvU
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Apple debuts M4 processor in new iPad Pros with 38 TOPS on neural engine- Started by Admin
- Replies: 76
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
-
News Intel issues official statement on Core K-series crashes: stick to Intel's official power profiles
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 27
-
Question Sapphire RX 5700 XT Nitro+ is not working in main PCIe slot ?
- Started by digows
- Replies: 24
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram