Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cores and Threads?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 26, 2011 11:44:07 PM

Hello there ;) 


Sorry for the stupidness, it's something I should know but I don't! I have looked around for an answer and I can't find a decent place which directly tell me there difference between a core and a thread. Now the reason for this question is that I'm thinking about building my second editing rig. Here is what I have;

AMD Phenom II x6 1055t (Cooled with Noctua NH-D14)
ASUS M4N75TD
8GB 1600MHz Kingston RAM
GTX 460 Super Platinum edition
750w Corsair PSU

Now the CPU I have has 6 core and it says 6 threads, so when I press CTRL + ALT + DEL and look at the performance why does it only have 6 modules. And only a friends Intel Sandy Bridge does it have 8 Modules 4 cores 4 threads!?

Now I want to move to this setup is it really worth the hassle and money for editing?

Intel Sandy Bridge 2500k (Will overclock to around 4.2 GHz and cooled by the monster lol)
ASUS P67
64GB SSD

(Then have all my other stuff from my current rig)

Many many questions but as always any help is appreciated :) 

Cheers

Cain.

More about : cores threads

a b à CPUs
November 26, 2011 11:47:50 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multithreading_(computer_architecture)

Happy reading!

Edit: Oh, and Intel uses hyper-threading, which means the threads serve as a simulated core. Just think of it like this: Intel has 4 cores, and 8 threads. So it shows up as 8 cores in task manager.

Your AMD only has 6 cores, no hyper-threading equivalent, so only 6 threads. Thus only 6 cores appear in task manager.

By the way, your friend's Sandy Bridge will have 8 threads, not 4.

Any of Intel processors that have hyper-threading will have double the threads and the number of cores. Example: http://ark.intel.com/products/52214/Intel-Core-i7-2600K...(8M-Cache-3_40-GHz)

Edit 2: Are you going to be doing video-editing, rendering, etc? Here: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=288

This shows you the performance differences you can expect to see in both real-world and in synthetic bench marks. I can't say if its worth the hassle or worth the money, everyone is different. To some people, the difference is well worth paying ten times as much for a few seconds worth of productivity. Time is money, after all. To others, like me, we are happy with our old outdated machines, and patiently await the coming of technology that will fit our needs and match what we want in price. :) 

Edit 3: Final edit, maybe, haha. Anyway, the 2500K has no hyper-threading, so it is simply a 4 core processor, and will display as such in task manager. The 2600K has hyper-threading, so simulated 8 cores. However, it is also a bit more expensive. Still, for video editing and such, that is the better choice (if its price is within reason to you).
November 26, 2011 11:57:49 PM

phyco126 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multithreading_(computer_architecture)

Happy reading!

Edit: Oh, and Intel uses hyper-threading, which means the threads serve as a simulated core. Just think of it like this: Intel has 4 cores, and 8 threads. So it shows up as 8 cores in task manager.

Your AMD only has 6 cores, no hyper-threading equivalent, so only 6 threads. Thus only 6 cores appear in task manager.

By the way, your friend's Sandy Bridge will have 8 threads, not 4.

Any of Intel processors that have hyper-threading will have double the threads and the number of cores. Example: http://ark.intel.com/products/52214/Intel-Core-i7-2600K...(8M-Cache-3_40-GHz)


Cheers I have more questions lol :p  So is a thread like a core? I have the 1055t now and if I upgraded to a 2500k or 2600k would I see lower render times?
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2011 12:01:13 AM

Its not quite like a core. Its a simulated core, but it won't offer the same performance as a true core would. So a 3 core processor with 6 threads won't beat a 6 core processor with no extra threads, if all else is the same. But it does help. If you read above on all my edits, you'll see a link that provides real-world and synthetic tests that compares the 2500K to the 1055T. The same link will also allow you to check out the 2500K vs the 2600K, and the 1055T vs the 2600K.
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2011 1:08:22 AM

New CPU if you don't mind shelling out the cash for it. The 2600K wins in everything, so that is your best bet. If you were just gaming, I'd say save your money and buy a new computer in a couple years. But since you want to do editing, if it was me and I had the cash, I would buy a new MB and CPU, going for the 2600K.

Edit: Also, its is also up to your in the end. While the 2600K wins, it wins by seconds shaved off some files. It could translate to an hour saved here and there for super big projects. The value comes from what you are willing to accept. Save your money now, and deal with the fact that you are taking a few seconds to several or more minutes longer to edit something, or spend it and get the fastest.

Also, if you are video editing, I would pick up some more RAM too. Make sure you have a 64-bit version of Windows installed to utilize it all. At the very least, I recommend 8 GB of RAM for that.
November 27, 2011 1:07:25 PM

phyco126 said:
New CPU if you don't mind shelling out the cash for it. The 2600K wins in everything, so that is your best bet. If you were just gaming, I'd say save your money and buy a new computer in a couple years. But since you want to do editing, if it was me and I had the cash, I would buy a new MB and CPU, going for the 2600K.

Edit: Also, its is also up to your in the end. While the 2600K wins, it wins by seconds shaved off some files. It could translate to an hour saved here and there for super big projects. The value comes from what you are willing to accept. Save your money now, and deal with the fact that you are taking a few seconds to several or more minutes longer to edit something, or spend it and get the fastest.

Also, if you are video editing, I would pick up some more RAM too. Make sure you have a 64-bit version of Windows installed to utilize it all. At the very least, I recommend 8 GB of RAM for that.


I have 8GB in my system now :) 
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2011 6:24:08 PM

Excellent. Then happy editing!
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2011 3:20:58 AM

I'll explain as best as I can.

Core: Think of a core as a single, self contained CPU. For all purposes, a single core is capable of handing the job of an entire CPU all by itself. Each individual core is capable of handling one thread at any one time.

Thread: A thread is basically a section of code that is executed. All applications have at least one thread, and some [ok, most] have more. Normally, in a single-threaded program, code is handled in order, from start to finish. When multiple threads are used, however, multiple parts of code can be done at the same time.

So a 6-core CPU can handle no more then 6 threads at any one time, though the OS will constantly switch which threads are being run so all of them get a chance to run. [Hence why when you do MORE then that, it still appears you are doing more then 6 things at any one time, because the OS is constantly swapping out threads].

Now, to make things even more complicated, some CPU's use a "half core" that contains some of the parts you need to use a core, but not others, instead sharing those resources with another unit. This allows for more threads to be run at one time, but also increases the chances that certain tasks can not be run, because the shared resources they need are currently in use by another core. For intel processors, this is called HTT, and for newer AMD processors, CMT.
!