Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why?confusing?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 27, 2010 7:10:51 PM

why in same game when amd phenom ii x4 and phenom ii x6 has same architecture but amd phenom ii x4 965 is better?or another program like avg anivirus?i hear that 6 core is weaker than 4core in gaming.if it's true why?

More about : confusing

a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 1:02:46 AM

Well, in order to see and utilize cores to its advantage, an application or form of software must be programmed to know this. It will use however many cores its programmed by its maker to use. Since most software to-date is programmed to utilize 2 or 4 cores, the clock speed, becomes a more important factor. Since the 965 is clocked at 3.4Ghz and the most powerful X6 is clocked at 3.2, it would perform weaker than the 965. An application programmed for 4 cores will use only 4 cores of the X6...it won't even know there are two more, and therefore to the application, the 965 is faster because of its higher clockrate.
April 28, 2010 1:29:36 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
Well, in order to see and utilize cores to its advantage, an application or form of software must be programmed to know this. It will use however many cores its programmed by its maker to use. Since most software to-date is programmed to utilize 2 or 4 cores, the clock speed, becomes a more important factor. Since the 965 is clocked at 3.4Ghz and the most powerful X6 is clocked at 3.2, it would perform weaker than the 965. An application programmed for 4 cores will use only 4 cores of the X6...it won't even know there are two more, and therefore to the application, the 965 is faster because of its higher clockrate.

ok but in intel it isn't true!!!
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 7:18:24 AM

Alfred_i said:
ok but in intel it isn't true!!!


Look again. The benchmarks will show you that in some cases the 4-core i7-975 is faster than the 6-core i7-980X.
April 28, 2010 8:46:33 AM

Herr_Koos said:
Look again. The benchmarks will show you that in some cases the 4-core i7-975 is faster than the 6-core i7-980X.


It's not a good example because both processors work at 3.33 Ghz.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 8:50:53 AM

hefox said:
It's not a good example because both processors work at 3.33 Ghz.


Methinks that makes it an even better example! In AMD's case, the Thuban is slower in certain cases due to the lower clock speed. But since the 980X and the 975 run at the same speed, the cases where the 975 is faster must be due to architectural differences, or applications that cannot properly detect and use 6 cores.
April 28, 2010 1:16:47 PM

architectural differences.if you look better somewhere core i920 is faster than core i975 and corei980x!so what is the reason.architectural is same and clock is lower than 975.so what is the reason?
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 1:28:44 PM

Alfred_i said:
architectural differences.if you look better somewhere core i920 is faster than core i975 and corei980x!so what is the reason.architectural is same and clock is lower than 975.so what is the reason?


Link? I'd like to see a specific example of where the 920 is faster than the 975.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 1:54:06 PM

975 can likely turbo the single or duo cores used for games more often then the 980 due to the heat/power (the TDP has not raised for the thing), and as much as you can power gate the two extra cores, you can't make them go away completely.

a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 4:18:39 PM

No need to get all worked up... Besides, my link was a comparison between the 920 and the 975, not the 975 and the 980.

All we can say for certain is that the combination of 4 cores vs 6, higher vs lower clock speeds, Turbo Boost vs no Turbo, etc create a very complex set of variables. Not to mention the fact that different games react differently to the number of available cores.

Honestly, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. My summary of the situation (based on the benches) would be:

Productivity = win for hexacores.
Gaming = win for quadcores.

You decide which one fits your needs and budget. If you over analyse every single permutation you're going to end up with one heck of a headache.
April 28, 2010 5:13:41 PM

plz readddddddd.i don't say what i want.i ask you question.you answred me that game don't support the hexacores and the clock is lower tha 4cores.i sayed ok.and ask another question.that why in some game 920 is better than 975.number of core is 4 and 975 has faster clock this incoherence with your reason and show you the link.and asked another question in modernwarfare 2 1090t is better than 965(deneb)but 980 is not better than 975.
i want the reason for it.i can't explain clear than this.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 5:24:45 PM

The only reason for that, that I could think of, is a heavy bottlenecked situation. Phenom II tends to pull ahead by a few FPS when bottlenecked by the GPU like this, so the extra CPU power was able to take it a wee-bit further. Intel hits a harder wall when you reach the bottleneck on games like this so that could explain the intel hex not showing improvement.

To be honest the CoD bench is horrid due to the bottlenecking and shouldn't be considered accurate information by any standards.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 5:24:51 PM

OK, I give up. I don't know. Ask Intel.
April 28, 2010 5:42:20 PM

Herr_Koos said:
OK, I give up. I don't know. Ask Intel.

sorry,i hope that you don't be upset.but it's very complicated and getting me angry.but thank you for helping me :love: 
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 5:48:51 PM

No hard feelings... As raidur mentioned, the benchmarks you posted show signs of GPU bottlenecking, which means the CPU results probably aren't accurate.

a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 7:16:11 PM

The 920 is not better than a 975 in gaming...assuming all variables are the same like motherboard, temp, storage, ram...etc and the benchmark is the exact same, the 975 would win, a 920 has no chance.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 7:41:00 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
Well, in order to see and utilize cores to its advantage, an application or form of software must be programmed to know this. It will use however many cores its programmed by its maker to use. Since most software to-date is programmed to utilize 2 or 4 cores, the clock speed, becomes a more important factor. Since the 965 is clocked at 3.4Ghz and the most powerful X6 is clocked at 3.2, it would perform weaker than the 965. An application programmed for 4 cores will use only 4 cores of the X6...it won't even know there are two more, and therefore to the application, the 965 is faster because of its higher clockrate.


It's not just the clock rate, an OCed PII x6 at 3.7GHz still performed worse.




Maybe some architechture issue, coding issue, or the extra unused cores are obstructions - all causing it to get less fps.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 7:52:43 PM

Well thats just showing how Intel CPU's are superior to AMD's...

Dont call me a fanboy i was just kidding, calm down fanboyphobes...
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 7:52:49 PM

First, lets look at what is involved in using extra cores:

First and formost is how many threads a program runs; the more threads, the more theoretical CPU cores can be used at one time. Next is the (Crappy in my mind) windows scheduler, whos job is to put threads on the core that will allow the fastest execution time for the entire SYSTEM. Next is how well threaded each individual thread is [IE: Not sharing resources, etc] that makes it easier for threads to be offloaded to cores.

So you see, getting extra threads to extra CPU cores is not an easy task. [Threading itself is simple though; I've written programs that use dozens of threads, and every program should at least use two threads to seperate the GUI from the actual processing...]. As such, faster chips with fewer cores will frequently be faster. Hence, a faster X4 could beat a slower X6.

Next up, you need to factor in different architecture changes, which typically results in certain CPU instructions being faster, so newer versions of chips tend to be slightly faster, all else being equal.

Finally, different software preferrs different CPU architectures; Some programs just run faster on certain chips, due to the way they are designed.
April 29, 2010 12:05:17 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
Well thats just showing how Intel CPU's are superior to AMD's...

Dont call me a fanboy i was just kidding, calm down fanboyphobes...

Well thats just showing how Intel CPU's are superior to AMD's... it's not true.because in crysis core i7 980x is like phenom ii x6!!!!so you took here one benchmark of crysis that not support hexa core.phenom ii x4 in same speed is better than 1090t in this game crysis!!!so every body know it amd is better than intel in gaming and encoding!
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 29, 2010 12:17:26 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
It's not just the clock rate, an OCed PII x6 at 3.7GHz still performed worse.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/3/245451/original/Crysis%20GTX%20480.png


Maybe some architechture issue, coding issue, or the extra unused cores are obstructions - all causing it to get less fps.


I thinks its because of the L3. Both the X4 and X6 have 6MB of L3 shared between the cores. But while the X4 has 4 cores using 6MB, the X6 has 6 cores using the L3. That means its less L3 cache per core to actually use, so if one core is doing a background task and using more L3 it could cause a performance decrease.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 1:22:47 AM

Stop it before i show you the BF2 bench again! :D 
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 2:06:41 AM

Alfred_i said:
Well thats just showing how Intel CPU's are superior to AMD's... it's not true.because in crysis core i7 980x is like phenom ii x6!!!!so you took here one benchmark of crysis that not support hexa core.phenom ii x4 in same speed is better than 1090t in this game crysis!!!so every body know it amd is better than intel in gaming and encoding!


If you read my post...you would see that in clear-typed print i said I WAS JUST KIDDING

I meant what i said.
July 8, 2010 10:33:07 AM

okkk take it easy i am sorry
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2010 1:35:10 PM

Everyone seemed they were getting worked up so I threw in some humor lol. However to summ up what everybody said, if you take the exact same system with everything the same which includes, psu, ram, cpu, gpu, mb, case, hdd...etc and you just switch the CPU then the i7 975 will beat the i7 920 assuming everything is at stock speeds. Yes I can overclock the i7 920 to 4Ghz but I can also overclock the 965 to 4.5Ghz...And yes the i7 980x will perform better then the i7 965 in every case pretty much. And if an application performs on four cores, the i7 980x would equal or maybe even be a little better then the i7 975 since they have the same clockrate. Based on your questions, the places you were getting information like the 920 is faster then 980x or something is coming from unreliable sources/benchmarks. And when you said AMD is better for encoding and gaming...why is it that intel's cpu's with leagues slower clock rates rape AMD cpu's with much higher clockrates in so many benchmarks?
July 10, 2010 11:35:16 PM

you said :
Based on your questions, the places you were getting information like the 920 is faster then 980x or something is coming from unreliable sources/benchmarks. And when you said AMD is better for encoding and gaming...why is it that intel's cpu's with leagues slower clock rates rape AMD cpu's with much higher clockrates in so many benchmarks?
FIRST :i asked a question.because i want to know when everything says 980 is better than 920 and has faster clock and higher cach why in result we don't see that!!!you said unrelaible benchmark?if can't answer question say i don't know.
second:show us that when i7 920 beat 1090t in many benchmark!!!!!
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2010 8:09:22 PM

Okay well, Intel's CPU's are made differently, its a different architecture, different chip and etc...! So Intels CPU have something that allows them to achieve more power with less clock cycles. Remember, clock isn't the only factor to rate a CPU's speed/power.

Next, what do you mean you don't the 980X beating the 920 in benchmarks?...on stock speeds, the 980X will beat the 920 in just about...well...everything, weather it be a small or large difference...it will. It has about 20% higher clock speed and it has 50% more cores. I don't know which benchmarks you look at but the 980X>920.

Show you that the 920 beats the 1090T in benchmarks...just go to tomshardware charts section, there are plenty of benchmarks, I don't know which processor wins but tomshardware, anandtech, and other websites have plenty of these benchmarks.
July 11, 2010 10:25:04 PM

i show you how amd 1090 beat 920 in encoding and rendering !!!!
you cann't show that !!!!
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-...
let's look at 3d mark !!!
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-...
in gaming and photoshop and excel i7 920 beat amd but in multi-meida not !!!!!
but new intel cpu core i7-875 beat amd and i7 920 and in multimeida is very close to amd!!!
so i don't said 980x>920 man!!!!plzzzzz read title :
WHY ? CONFUSING ?
i asked question why we see this when 980x is much better than 920 !!!! i show the link in latest post.go and look.
a b à CPUs
July 12, 2010 12:31:14 AM

Okay, I think you are confusing yourself and you are also doing quite well confusing me. Let me get this straight, you wanted to prove a point that the AMD Phenom II X6 1090 beat the Intel Core i7 920 in encoding and rendering. Well, I wasn't denying your case or argument, I clearly said that I do not know which processor wins in these benchmarks. You seem to think that I think that the Intel Core i7 920 is better than AMD's Phenom II X6 1090, which I don't, I said I do not know because I haven't seen benchmarks comparing the two together.

Now...what does the 980X have anything to do with your AMD, the Intel 980X was the highest in every single benchmark. From what I understand, you are saying that the Intel Core i7 920 beats the 980X...which it doesn't, in anything. The 980X>920...its a done deal, I don't know a simpler way to put it in english. You proved your point that the 1090 is better then the 920 is some things...okay, congratulations, I believe you, I never denied what you said, I simply said I don't know. I don't understand what you are trying to argue, and I don't think anyone else does either. LOL ?
July 12, 2010 12:52:48 AM

you write :
Show you that the 920 beats the 1090T in benchmarks...just go to tomshardware charts section, there are plenty of benchmarks, I don't know which processor wins but tomshardware, anandtech, and other websites have plenty of these benchmarks.
what's this mean?and now you say:
I do not know which processor wins in these benchmarks
you seek?what is the relation of this with my thread?open your thread and say that.
show me when i said 1090t is better than i7 920!!!!!!where i said 920 beat 980?????i said why in this game 920 has higher fps than 980x.no i don't confuse my self.you are a fool because of that you confused. what is your point?tell me that clearly!!!!
July 12, 2010 1:19:28 AM

spain wins the world cup and i am very glad now but you walking on my nerves.
a b à CPUs
July 12, 2010 2:17:12 AM

Why don't you learn some english first, then talk hehe :) 
When i said "Show you" I meant I was responding to your question. All I did was restate the question thats it...and I used my time doing so please be more respectful, if you aren't then I am not going to help you, and neither is anyone else I think because nobody wants to waste their time reading your retarded English. When I said

"Show you that the 920 beats the 1090T in benchmarks...just go to tomshardware charts section, there are plenty of benchmarks, I don't know which processor wins but tomshardware, anandtech, and other websites have plenty of these benchmarks."

It was just restating the question, I didn't mean to say, that the 920 beats the 1090. You interpreted that incorrectly...once again...English.

"i said why in this game 920 has higher fps than 980x"
^Now as a response to the above quote, which game did you possible see where the 920 beat the 980?...please give me a link to where you saw/heard that from.
July 12, 2010 3:55:53 PM

see this :
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-89...
i don't need your help you just waste my time.look at Previous post you can find this link!!!! i'm sorry i know my english is Scandal but i don't know why compared 1090 and 920!!why you speak about intel's cpu!!!?
ok.let's end this Discussion.i show you the link.
!