More cores = better multi tasking but worse per core performance?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Rafael Mestdag

Rafael Mestdag

Reputable
Mar 25, 2014
1,442
1
5,460
I currently have an AMD FX6300 with 6 cores OC'ed to 4.6Ghz and the cores usually never get to the max, maybe apart from games. This processor seems to be more suited for multi-tasking rather than cpu intensive tasks like gaming.

Is this true?
 
Solution
CTurbo
You are correct as in it has 6 cores, but they're very weak in comparison to Intel's offerings.

In general, a weak 6 core cpu would be better at multitasking than a strong dual core like a Pentium, but even a dual core i3 with hyperthreading can outperform it in almost anything, and a quad core i5 would destroy it in everything.
Sort by date Sort by votes
CTurbo

CTurbo

Pizza Monster
Moderator
Aug 27, 2013
22,424
14
84,965
You are correct as in it has 6 cores, but they're very weak in comparison to Intel's offerings.

In general, a weak 6 core cpu would be better at multitasking than a strong dual core like a Pentium, but even a dual core i3 with hyperthreading can outperform it in almost anything, and a quad core i5 would destroy it in everything.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Ecky

Ecky

Illustrious
Feb 3, 2013
7,592
2
38,960
More cores don't necessarily mean slower cores, that's a result of the design of those cores. AMD's FX CPU cores are somewhere between a 2007 Core2Quad and 2009 1st-gen Core i7 in performance per clock, so AMD included a bunch of them to help be a little more competitive. That's why you can get 8 AMD cores for little more than the price of a modern Intel 2-core CPU.

Many programs don't make effective use of more than 1 or 2 cores, and are limited by the speed of those cores, and those perform more slowly on AMD CPUs. Programs that can effectively use all of those cores tend to perform more competitively on AMD CPUs.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Rafael Mestdag

Rafael Mestdag

Reputable
Mar 25, 2014
1,442
1
5,460


After using this CPU for about a week now, I tend to agree with the multi-tasking part, I leave several tabs open on my browser, several windows, play games all at the same time and the cpu never complains/spikes like my older ones.

As for the per core performance, they really seem to be quite a few steps under the Intel equivalents. I guess I'd buy an 8-core AMD if all I needed from my PC was multi-tasking and a 4-core Intel(even a 5th gen i3) if I wanted pure performance, especially for gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CTurbo

CTurbo

Pizza Monster
Moderator
Aug 27, 2013
22,424
14
84,965
I guess I'd buy an 8-core AMD if all I needed from my PC was multi-tasking and a 4-core Intel(even a 5th gen i3) if I wanted pure performance, especially for gaming.
Click to expand...


The FX cpus are not that bad overall, but they are old at this point, and really have no upside. There's basically no reason to buy one now in 2016.

Most of what users consider "multitasking' comes from RAM and the hard drive/ssd.


Basically, a $40 dual core Pentium with 8GB RAM and a fast ssd would multitask better than a $350 i7 with 4GB RAM and a 5400rpm hard drive.
 
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