Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fastest CPU To Date

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 10, 2010 6:04:36 AM

hello there

i was wondering as im due for an upgrade what is to this date the fastest cpu available for gaming enthusiasts

i want maximum power with no concern for cost..

i would prefer to know which AMD processor is the fastest in their range but if the intels have a considerable lead i may choose to switch....

been seing a lot of opteron cores ? what are they. i have been told they have 24 cores ? what is this? am i able to game with this processor.

any information would be useful

thanks in advance for the help that i know i will get

More about : fastest cpu date

a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 7:04:37 AM

Unfortunately, if you are really looking for maximum gaming power, you are not only looking at an Intel platform, but probably also nVidia SLI.

Since almost no one really needs that, or wants the power consumption, heat, and noise that comes along with it . . . and since you prefer AMD . . . you might not be concerned about stepping down a bit in "power".

I'm sure someone who does AMD will stop by to help you further.
September 10, 2010 7:48:30 AM

Why you go through AMD, There is another Boss Intel core i7, Core 2 Quad (Quad Core).
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 8:05:01 AM

Intel Skulltrail?
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 9:40:44 AM

Well, if you must have the best: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=46499&processor=X7...

Put 4 of those in a server board and you've got yourself more processing power than most CAD professionals. You also probably would've just set yourself back over $10000 without having bought anything except the CPUs and motherboard. :D 

But it would be fast.

On the other hand, you could go for something a bit less powerful and $9000 cheaper. The fact is that with the exception of a small range of games, parallel CPU processing power beyond a certain point is going to net you very little if anything at all.
September 10, 2010 11:15:07 AM

If you want AMD, I am going to assume ATI aswell? You will want the Phenom X4 965 (for overclocking 955), for none 64 bit applications.... If you want 6 cores, I'd go with the 1090T phenom x6... the benchmarks and performance by AMD 6 cores are.... appalling to say the least. if I was buying, and didn't care for price I'd get....


1090T
Asetek 570LX Liquid Cooling system
GigaByte GA-890FXA-UD5 AMD 890FX
16 gigs of whatever ram you see fit.
ATI Radeon HD 5970 4GB GDDR5 16X PCIe Video Card
SilverStone SST-ST1500, 1,500 watts (you may want more...)
80 GB Intel X25-M, plus a SATA III HDD...
your choice on the rest, if you really don't have a real budget (I mean constraints) go intel, with ATI graphics... but wait for the 68xx or higher to come out.
EDIT: I dunno anything about mobos that have several CPUs on it so this isn't THE best, but it'd run just about anything you can throw at it.... also, will you be building this or a company?
September 10, 2010 11:17:51 AM

If you just want "the worlds fastest CPU" that would be by intel the Core i7 980X. The fastest AMD is just the 1090T.
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 1:24:45 PM

mussyo said:
hello there

i was wondering as im due for an upgrade what is to this date the fastest cpu available for gaming enthusiasts

i want maximum power with no concern for cost..

i would prefer to know which AMD processor is the fastest in their range but if the intels have a considerable lead i may choose to switch....

been seing a lot of opteron cores ? what are they. i have been told they have 24 cores ? what is this? am i able to game with this processor.

any information would be useful

thanks in advance for the help that i know i will get



Step 1 - Decide which aspects of performance are important to you

Step 2 - Understand that gaming performance is more driven by GPU than it is CPU, so don't cut yourself short on a graphics card to spend more on a processor

Step 3 - Check the charts and benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2...



As long as you're clear on what it is you wish to achieve, then it's simply a matter of choosing the winner of the appropriate category.
a c 83 à CPUs
September 10, 2010 6:33:29 PM

Absolute best desktop processor right now is the Intel Core I7 980X, but for gaming performance it's not much better than an I7 930 which costs a whole lot less. AMD's best processor is the Phenom II X6, although multithreaded performance can hang with Intel's quad core I5/I7, it trails in single threaded performance.

You can see a comparison of the 1090T and 980X here.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=142
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 8:23:27 PM

all these veterans, even a mod and it takes an addict to finally get it right, thank you obsidian86
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 9:42:48 PM

Quote:
you're right if you just go by the question itself..
good point.
some people don't realize a cpu is a cpu.
doesn't matter if it's labeled server or desktop, it's all a matter of preference.
it's your build right.?
at least I look at it that way.

actually the xeon 5,6,7 series ar the only ones that can be used in multi socket configurations
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 1:35:44 AM

xaira said:
all these veterans, even a mod and it takes an addict to finally get it right, thank you obsidian86

Addicts never give up, you should know that :)  Anyway, my Beckton was better than a silly Gulftown. Let's see you do an 8-socket rig with Gulftown. 8-way Beckton; that's 64 cores and 128 threads :D  Only $20000 too :lol: 
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 1:59:10 AM

:lol: 
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 3:36:29 AM

randomizer said:
Well, if you must have the best: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=46499&processor=X7...

Put 4 of those in a server board and you've got yourself more processing power than most CAD professionals. You also probably would've just set yourself back over $10000 without having bought anything except the CPUs and motherboard. :D 

But it would be fast.

On the other hand, you could go for something a bit less powerful and $9000 cheaper. The fact is that with the exception of a small range of games, parallel CPU processing power beyond a certain point is going to net you very little if anything at all.


I saw one of those on Newegg some months ago but it disappeared from the website. Its also socket 1567...?, is that a new server grade socket from Intel?
Oh and I saw its price tag on newegg was 3700 or something around that haha, thats crazy.
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 7:24:57 AM

Yep - that's intel's high end server socket. That CPU is really made for 4-8 socket systems, not home use.
September 11, 2010 7:45:57 AM

8086
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 10:39:05 AM

1567 is nehalem-EX, "No 1 man should have all that power" :o :
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 2:16:24 PM

I saw a motherboard that could fit four of those 7650's octocore CPU's and fit 192GB of ram...four of those processors, eight cores each, two threads per core. Thats 4x8x2=64! 64 Cores of power...paired with a 192GB of ram. Assuming I need not run anything else, I can technically run 32 virtual machines with each virtual machines having two cores...or one physical core basically. And each machine would be able to have around 5-6GB of ram. Can windows 7 even see that many cores, I know the ultimate edition can work with 192GB of ram, but 64cores? And gaming, cad, CRYSIS...etc...should be a peice of cake for this. Pair this with four Nvidia Quadro 5000 GPU's in QuadSLI...and this would be the most ridiculous system.
September 12, 2010 6:09:54 PM

right so i wanted to ask do you reckon that i could go and put 2 Cpu's (980x) on a single motheboard.

would that be the best performer in the gaming range ?
within reason.

as i would really like to get the server cpu's i dont think i would ever need 32 cores.

i am an enthusiast but would rather not spend money on somethign i will never use.

thanks for all the responses guys.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2010 7:13:08 PM

I don't think you can put 980x together, it doesn't have an extra channel needed to communicate with another CPU. You can put two Xeon 5680's together, they are also 6 cored and on the 1366 socket like the 980x except the xeon is more powerful probably.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2010 7:36:46 PM

the sr 2 and xeons would be the only option the xeon 5680 is the equivalent of the i7 980 x but can be used in multi cpu formats
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2010 12:34:33 AM

I recommend that you forget about multi-CPU (not multi-core) configurations for a gaming system. You're spending money that you can save for other components now or in the future and getting no additional benefit for what you plan to do with the system. Multi-CPU configurations are for servers and for people who can't fit enough cores into one socket when they need as many as they can get; ie. not gamers
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2010 1:24:15 AM

Well in that case,the fastest Consumer-Grade CPU is the i7 980X.
September 17, 2010 3:13:32 AM

lol I said it first(core i7 980x), he didn't want a million dollar CPU(lol ok, a little of a lie =p)... Just the best CPU for gaming, I doubt anyone but EA and google and other giants can even afford the whole computer, let alone use it? I always have wondered what the specs of googles mainframe? =p
September 17, 2010 3:13:56 AM

He mis phrased the question.... =p
September 17, 2010 10:18:30 AM

Google probably uses Intel Core 32, with 128 threads. lol

Edit: times 10,000
a c 102 à CPUs
September 17, 2010 1:49:07 PM

mussyo said:
hello there

i was wondering as im due for an upgrade what is to this date the fastest cpu available for gaming enthusiasts

i want maximum power with no concern for cost..

i would prefer to know which AMD processor is the fastest in their range but if the intels have a considerable lead i may choose to switch....

been seing a lot of opteron cores ? what are they. i have been told they have 24 cores ? what is this? am i able to game with this processor.

any information would be useful

thanks in advance for the help that i know i will get


To answer your title question, the fastest CPU to date probably is the IBM POWER7. The top POWER7 is an 8-core, 32-thread CPU with 32 MB of L3 cache and a 4.00 GHz top clock speed. It has a turbo mode like Intel's Turbo Boost or AMD's Turbo CORE; the base clock speed is 3.55 GHz. However, the POWER7 is not an x86 or x86_64 CPU, so it won't run Windows or Windows-only games.

The fastest Windows gaming CPU is the Core i7 980X. Most games use 2-4 cores and thus run best on triple-core or quad-core CPUs. The Westmere-based chips are faster than the Phenom IIs clock-for-clock by a small margin, and thus the i7 980X is a little faster at gaming than the Phenom II X4 965BE and X6 1090T.

The Opterons you are talking about are the 6100-series Magny-Cours Opterons. These are 8 and 12-core server CPUs for two to four-socket servers clocked in the 1.8-2.4 GHz range. The "24 cores" comes from people putting two of the 12-core models in a dual-socket motherboard. You could get up to a 48-core server using four of the 12-core units in a quad-socket motherboard. These all would be beaten in gaming by just about every low-midrange and better desktop CPU. Games don't usually have more than three or four threads and most of the cores on the Magny-Cours would sit idle. But the low clock speed of the cores that are running would make them quite a bit slower than the desktop CPUs clocked nearly twice as high. You could certainly go play games on a Magny-Cours system, but the results would absolutely be nothing to brag about. The only reasons a typical desktop enthusiast would really want one of those systems is if they did a lot of video encoding or ran a distributed computing project. Then the large number of cores from a multi-socket Magny-Cours system would more than make up for the low clock speed and the system would absolutely fly through those tasks compared to desktop CPUs. Or, you could just want something highly unusual to bring to your LAN party, and a quad-processor unit with 32 or 48 cores would certainly fit the bill.
a c 102 à CPUs
September 17, 2010 2:02:30 PM

randomizer said:
Well, if you must have the best: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=46499&processor=X7...

Put 4 of those in a server board and you've got yourself more processing power than most CAD professionals. You also probably would've just set yourself back over $10000 without having bought anything except the CPUs and motherboard. :D 

But it would be fast.

On the other hand, you could go for something a bit less powerful and $9000 cheaper. The fact is that with the exception of a small range of games, parallel CPU processing power beyond a certain point is going to net you very little if anything at all.


First of all, Xeon X7560s would not be very fast in games. Few games use more than four cores, and the 2.26 GHz clock speed of the X7560 plus the high-latency memory subsystem with all of the buffers would sap performance. You'd do much better with something as simple as an i5 760 since games almost never use more than four cores. Also, the X7560s cost about $3900 each and the only MB I could find that's not in a server (a Supermicro unit) costs about $1000. Your $10k would only give you a two-way setup; you'd need to drop about $17k for a four-way setup. Then you have to buy enough ECC registered DDR3 memory to populate all eight memory banks, which gets expensive. X7560s are powerful for highly-parallel workloads, but their cost is absolutely unreal and way out of line with what performance they do provide. The Magny-Cours Opterons are a much better buy, as an Opteron 6174 is nearly as fast as a Xeon X7560 despite being less than a third of the price per CPU. If you want a decent recent comparison of the Magny-Cours and Nehalem-EXes, I suggest you read Johan De Galas's article.

a b à CPUs
September 18, 2010 1:50:26 AM

Atotalnoob said:
lol I said it first(core i7 980x), he didn't want a million dollar CPU(lol ok, a little of a lie =p)... Just the best CPU for gaming, I doubt anyone but EA and google and other giants can even afford the whole computer, let alone use it? I always have wondered what the specs of googles mainframe? =p


Googles mainframe is very powerful. They use server grade equipment most likley and in one server they can have 32 or 64+ processors probably. They can have hundreds of people connecting to it.
September 18, 2010 4:03:06 AM

I know, duh??? they serve like a billion people a day??
September 18, 2010 4:03:25 AM

literally tom just did something on them
!