Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

10 core celeron vs i7 990x

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 19, 2011 1:59:51 AM

If a 10 core celeron at 1 ghz went up against the 990x which would win.

More about : core celeron 990x

a c 215 à CPUs
September 19, 2011 2:14:44 AM

990X in every task. Its single threaded performance is a lot better than the celeron, and for tasks that dont have a ton of threads the faster single core performance would make the biggest difference. For multithreaded apps its 6 cores and 6 hyperthreaded cores would let it deal with 12 threads at a time letting it easily best 10 celeron cores @1GHz regardless of which celeron generation it was.

Multithreading is overhyped, you can only speed up a process so much until there is a single serial task that makes up most of its time and the time needed to complete those tasks cannot be changed by adding more cores, only by increasing clock speed or performance per clock.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 19, 2011 7:02:43 AM

I don't know where you will find a 10 core Celeron, but I don't want it either way. Celeron has always been slow, low performing CPU's with very little cache memory meaning crappy processing and overall slow performance. Today's CPU's have cache memory in the high megabytes, they have increased efficiency and a much better performing architecture and design. Also, hyper threading (virtual cores) allow for double the clock speed per core as on a CPU with only physical cores, so it performs even better in that regard (although it's useless for gamers and everyday en users).

Also, 1GHz means 100MHz per core, which is unimaginably slow. You wouldn't run the slowest of programs, not to mention ancient OS's with it. Not over 10 cores, anyhow.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 19, 2011 12:06:36 PM

@ Toxxyc- 1GHz means 100MHz per core?!

No it does not, it means 10 cores capable of 1ghz per core.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 19, 2011 12:26:00 PM

When ppl make programs that fully use 4 cores, we will really start running around screaming "apocalypse!!!".
Till then even dual core high MHZ beat 4 core in many applications.
We will see in the future :D .
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 19, 2011 12:33:34 PM

Uther39 said:
@ Toxxyc- 1GHz means 100MHz per core?!

No it does not, it means 10 cores capable of 1ghz per core.

Aah, that makes more sense! :p 

He didn't specify. Either way, 10GHz means AMD's world record of ~8.5GHz is simply useless :D 
m
0
l
a c 103 à CPUs
September 19, 2011 1:31:57 PM

Even at the same clock speeds the 990X would win in everything
m
0
l
a c 103 à CPUs
September 19, 2011 1:33:31 PM

Toxxyc said:
Aah, that makes more sense! :p 

He didn't specify. Either way, 10GHz means AMD's world record of ~8.5GHz is simply useless :D 

Where did you get 10GHz from the AMDs 8.5GHz was 2 cores running both at 8.5GHz and they got 8 cores running all at 6.5GHz with phase cooling.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
September 19, 2011 7:17:44 PM

Toxxyc said:
Aah, that makes more sense! :p 

He didn't specify. Either way, 10GHz means AMD's world record of ~8.5GHz is simply useless :D 


You do know clock speed and core count are completely separate things right? A 1Ghz 10 core celeron would have 10 separate cores each running at 1Ghz. It wouldn't be 100Mhz/core or 10Ghz in total, doesn't work those ways.
m
0
l
September 19, 2011 7:22:45 PM

Toxxyc said:

Also, 1GHz means 100MHz per core, which is unimaginably slow.


LMAO
m
0
l
September 19, 2011 7:32:33 PM

Something that no one here has mentioned is that there are tasks at which the celeron system might perform better... An application with an obscenely high cache miss rate may actually perform better on a celeron with separate cache for each core.

In any event, I'd wager on the 990 over 10 celerons for most workloads. The comparison here is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison though.
m
0
l
September 19, 2011 7:59:00 PM

pssh... celeron ftw!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2011 4:17:36 AM

OK, so after being wholly misinformed, I have been corrected in the errors of my ways. I do apologize. :( 

I actually asked this question to a guy working at a PC store when I was younger, and this was how he explained it to me. I've been living in idiocy for all that time. Sorry guys :( 
m
0
l
September 20, 2011 5:59:28 AM

Toxxyc said:
Also, 1GHz means 100MHz per core, which is unimaginably slow. You wouldn't run the slowest of programs, not to mention ancient OS's with it. Not over 10 cores, anyhow.


Damn, how do you have a badge with that kind of knowledge.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2011 4:38:18 PM

well cosidering a cedar mill @ 8ghz barely matches an i7 920 @ 2.66ghz core to core performance

that considering a 990x is roughly 66% faster over the 920

well im tired of math
m
0
l
September 20, 2011 4:44:48 PM

My toaster has a 10 core celeron, it's good for heat generation. I let it run hot and just leach off the heat sinks.

Toast is ready in ~20 seconds
m
0
l
!