Why?confusing?

[Alfred_i]

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?

 

[blackhawk1928]

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.

 

[Alfred_i]

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!!!

 

[Herr_Koos]

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.

 

[hefox]

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.

 

[Herr_Koos]

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.

 

[Alfred_i]

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?

 

[Herr_Koos]

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.

 

[Herr_Koos]

See here:

=on&prod[2617]=on]http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/compare,1398.html?prod[2614]=on&prod[2617]=on

The 975 consistently outpaces the 920, just like you'd expect.

 

[theholylancer]

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.

 

[Alfred_i]

See here:

=on&prod[2617]=on]http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/compare,1398.html?prod[2614]=on&prod[2617]=on

The 975 consistently outpaces the 920, just like you'd expect.

dear,i said in some program not all program.i want the reason for that.well in dirt2!!!
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-890fx,review-31882-12.html
also in crysis
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-890fx,review-31882-9.html
do you understand what i am saying or you just want to answer!!!

 

[Alfred_i]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-890fx,review-31882-11.html
and in this game 1090t is better than phenom ii x4 965.it seems this game support 6 core so why 980x is not better than 975 ?

 

[Herr_Koos]

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.

 

[Alfred_i]

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.

 

[Raidur]

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.

 

[Herr_Koos]

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

 

[Alfred_i]

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

 

[Herr_Koos]

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

 

[blackhawk1928]

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.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

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.

 

[blackhawk1928]

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...

 

[gamerk316]

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.

 

[Alfred_i]

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!

 

[jimmysmitty]

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 GTX 480.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.

 

[jennyh]

Stop it before i show you the BF2 bench again!