Cpu, speed vs. cores

Hello,
what should I be looking for in a processor, speed or cores?
6 answers Last reply
More about speed cores
  1. Depends.
    If you want to budget and go with fewer cores then look for a high clock speed. The more cores the less clock speed needed (but always desired :) ).
    More cores= future proof
  2. you should look for performance for both the speed and core!

    Even a phenom II X6 1090t with good speed and more cores(6 cores. speed 3.2ghz) cant beat an i5 2400(4 cores, 3.1ghz).

    Below is a benchmark
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=146
  3. ^ a phenom II x 6 cant even beat a dual core i3 2100 in 99% of games.
  4. rrichter_59 said:
    Hello,
    what should I be looking for in a processor, speed or cores?


    to lessen up your choices just look for an intel.
    a gamer, dual cores will do, higher clockspeed is what you should consider.
    if you do more than an average user do like animations, video editing and image rendering, more cores the better.
  5. If you have a limited budget, then go with AMD.

    If you can afford to spend a little more money $100 - $200 at most, then go with Intel.

    Intel's CPUs are currently the best when it comes to overall performance. Clock for clock, they are more efficient/powerful than what AMD has which is why even a 4 core Phenom II X4 955 BE costs less than 2 core Intel i3-2100 (the slowest Sandy Bridge i3 CPU).

    Will AMD's Bulldoze core family of Zambezi CPUs change that? It remains to be seen...
  6. It depends a lot on what you're doing, my Phenom II x6 does good enough for me in games, but only truely shines in heavily threaded work, such as video compression. If you only play games a 6 core is a waste, you're better off looking at higher clocks, or more effecient arcitectures (such as core Ix)
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Processors