Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Does more then two cores make any seance

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 14, 2013 8:53:26 AM

Please forgive me if I say something not very clever and even opposite to clever

I really want to know this and I feel this is the best place to ask this question

Does having more then two cores in this cpu makes any seance considering that most probably any software will utilize at best only two cores ??
For example if I will get an 8 core amd will it be any benefit or it will be just throwing away money for additional 6 cores that will be idling all the time ?? I seen more then once in system monitor that cores idling and doing nothing
if this is true does not it makes more seance to buy a cheap 2 core cpu and overclock the hell out of it
pleas tell me if my thinking is wrong and the os will automatically figure out how to use all the cores ?


thank you in advanced

More about : cores make seance

a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 9:09:28 AM

Core requirement depends on the TYPE of work and not necessarily the load. In a hypothetical scenario where a pc's only work is to run wordpad, a single core cpu is enough.

In a video/industrial rendering machine, a well optimized software will fully load 3 maybe 4 cores easily, and you can set those to use all cores available too (coming Adobe releases will be better threaded for muti core processors).
A good BOINC program like F@H maxes out all four cores of my i5 2400 (the reason I keep it downclocked,). I have no experience with an octa core but I am sure it can utilize those many cores as well.

In games, newer titles being developed will use three cores with regular loading and would start stressing quads in multiplayer maps. BF3 already does well with quad cores on multi player mode over dual cores and dual core with HT.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 9:19:00 AM

satyamdubey said:
Core requirement depends on the TYPE of work and not necessarily the load. In a hypothetical scenario where a pc's only work is to run wordpad, a single core cpu is enough.

In a video/industrial rendering machine, a well optimized software will fully load 3 maybe 4 cores easily, and you can set those to use all cores available too (coming Adobe releases will be better threaded for muti core processors).
A good BOINC program like F@H maxes out all four cores of my i5 2400 (the reason I keep it downclocked,). I have no experience with an octa core but I am sure it can utilize those many cores as well.

In games, newer titles being developed will use three cores with regular loading and would start stressing quads in multiplayer maps. BF3 already does well with quad cores on multi player mode over dual cores and dual core with HT.


+1
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 9:24:58 AM

More core is better as you'll always have like 50 process running in windows (however they don't require much power so a single can run them all but will be used at 10% vs the 0-1% of the quad...)

For gaming, the games just begins to use 4 cores (BF3 was the first i think)

If you don't use rendering, video editing or any picture modifications software then a quad is more than enough as a dual will do the job, however that could be changing as more and more applications will be multithreaded and will use all the 4 cores so the dual will be disappearing sometimes like single core are no longer available now (except in ATOM or very low-end cheap CPU but an A4-3300 is 2 core and like only 40-50$ so...)

*** I don't think anyone that isn't a Video, Picture, 3D rendering guys needs more than a quad for now (an Octo core like the FX-8350 is slower than a 3570k cause today's applications aren't using all of it's 8 cores...)
February 14, 2013 12:45:37 PM

Hm can I make this question a bit harder
Ok I understand that a few selected software might use 8 cores but as far as I know intel turbo boost disables cores when it overclocks and I can say that when it is enabled my video editing on vegas 12 and kdenlive is so much and I believe that today laze software developers do not utilize cores so I think I rather have more frequency then cores what do you think ??? is my assumption wrong
February 14, 2013 1:11:13 PM

I don't think TB disables cores?

Anyway, over the presumed life of a PC being built today, I'd always pick cores over frequency (within reason) - multi-core usage is only going to improve over time and even when just gaming these days I see my four cores being used well (Sleeping Dogs, Hitman Absolution etc)
February 14, 2013 1:40:00 PM

I think a more professional answer would be better but I think Intel Turbo Boost disables cores when it is running on high frequence see this and I do not share that opinion with you that cores are better then high frequency. it is amazing how few software actual are optimized for multi cores. same thing Gnu/linux people told me yes more cores are good but most probably your system will not use them unless you are making a server
This is my experience I have a i5 laptop that is running windows 7 so I got BF3 for it runs great when I am starting Turbo bust that is turning i5 into a single core cpu at least i think it is turning into a single core
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 1:43:04 PM

Levan7 said:
Hm can I make this question a bit harder
Ok I understand that a few selected software might use 8 cores but as far as I know intel turbo boost disables cores when it overclocks and I can say that when it is enabled my video editing on vegas 12 and kdenlive is so much and I believe that today laze software developers do not utilize cores so I think I rather have more frequency then cores what do you think ??? is my assumption wrong

no your assumption is not wrong rather pragmatic but considering the way tech developes, it is not likely that core count will reduce (next Intel line up will have 8-10 cores for desktops and 12-16 on the server side). With so much power available, it does not mean that every single software will be written to utilize all available cores instead, a 16 core cpu would handle 4 softwares each of which is optimized to max out 4 cores rather well (it's all hypothetical yes).

This is the power of productivity that the industry will target (always has). And the path is usually very linear. Make better tech to increase the output and maxmize task efficiency. Software companies that can't keep up will eventually be left behind.

As for turbo boost. it does not work in the way you are thinking. All cores remain active. when a task that uses only one core demand more power, then that one core would accelerate to the max turbo advertized by the manufacturer. for instance, my i5 has a default clock of 3.1 and 3.4 turbo. for the above case, one core would reach 3.4 (others may clok down or remain a 3.1 but wont go above it). If there were three cores engaged and each demanded boost then they would together boost to 3.3 one acting as the previous case. so turbo is like

1 core = 3.4
3 cores = 3.3
2 cores = 3.3
4 cores = 3.2



February 14, 2013 2:00:49 PM

satyamdubey said:
no your assumption is not wrong rather pragmatic but considering the way tech developes, it is not likely that core count will reduce (next Intel line up will have 8-10 cores for desktops and 12-16 on the server side). With so much power available, it does not mean that every single software will be written to utilize all available cores instead, a 16 core cpu would handle 4 softwares each of which is optimized to max out 4 cores rather well (it's all hypothetical yes).

This is the power of productivity that the industry will target (always has). And the path is usually very linear. Make better tech to increase the output and maxmize task efficiency. Software companies that can't keep up will eventually be left behind.

As for turbo boost. it does not work in the way you are thinking. All cores remain active. when a task that uses only one core demand more power, then that one core would accelerate to the max turbo advertized by the manufacturer. for instance, my i5 has a default clock of 3.1 and 3.4 turbo. for the above case, one core would reach 3.4 (others may clok down or remain a 3.1 but wont go above it). If there were three cores engaged and each demanded boost then they would together boost to 3.3 one acting as the previous case. so turbo is like

1 core = 3.4
3 cores = 3.3
2 cores = 3.3
4 cores = 3.2


Nice nfo so turbo boost does not disables cores that is good to know but I still think until new Ps 4 and xbox (because most probably they will use amd 8 core cpu) more then 4 cores is just throwing away money does this means that amd cpu-s are useless ??
ok I will buy 8 core amd cpu now but when devs will start to utilize its core then it will be already outdated is this statement true ??
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 3:04:37 PM

^ that is somewhat true. But none of us know what plans developers have. A lot of time here at Tom's, member do advice OP's on there build requirements according to the work they intend to do.

Almost noone advises octacore cpu's or server end cpu's for a gaming build. but a lot of people who need advice on cpu for heavy rendering/editing work loads, higher core count is often advised. AnandTech's cpu bench for example is a pretty good engine which does show how well certain programs peform with more cores.

There are many other benches xbitlab etc which indicate that work is going on for multi core, multithreaded programs but there is not much info on whether your current 8 core will be outdated by the time we see all programs optimized to mutithreading.
February 14, 2013 3:59:16 PM

satyamdubey said:
^ that is somewhat true. But none of us know what plans developers have. A lot of time here at Tom's, member do advice OP's on there build requirements according to the work they intend to do.

Almost noone advises octacore cpu's or server end cpu's for a gaming build. but a lot of people who need advice on cpu for heavy rendering/editing work loads, higher core count is often advised. AnandTech's cpu bench for example is a pretty good engine which does show how well certain programs peform with more cores.

There are many other benches xbitlab etc which indicate that work is going on for multi core, multithreaded programs but there is not much info on whether your current 8 core will be outdated by the time we see all programs optimized to mutithreading.


Thank you very much one last thing
so does this means that right now unless you are Steven Spielberg you must go with fore core cpu otherwise you will and up with weak 8 core cpu that single core is not strong or you will massively overpay ??
a c 122 à CPUs
February 14, 2013 4:23:14 PM

Really core count is somewhat irrelevant. In the end it is about how much performance you have. Sure multithreaded software will benefit with more cores but say take an IB quad vs a bulldozer 8 core and the quad core will win even with the software using all 8 cores and being greatly multithreaded optimized.

Please don't comment on rendering video or 3d if you are not knowledgeable in that area. If the software only uses 3-4 cores, no one will use it. The commonly used ones will use all cores available, even photoshop. Multithreading in these situations is an infinite scaling. You wonder why companies like pixar have over 3000 cpus in their renderfarms. Photo editing is somewhat an entirely different situation, my core 2 duo can handle it fine just don't use complex filters. But multithreading is software specific not the type of work. You can compare this workload similar to graphic card workloads. Digital images can easily be compartmentalized into their own task thus lending itself to extreme parallelism. The 7970 has 2048 stream processors and gpus just keep getting more and more.

It is easier to program tasks as single threaded and less complex code means easier bug fixing. Even with the current xbox360 being a tricore most games are still dual core. Even with cpus going to have more cores you won't see this changing anytime either. I'd still recommend a quad core just so you have cores for windows and other background processes. Looking at other software like internet browsers, tasks are all there own thread so can be easily multithreaded to an extent. But games still remain mostly gpu bound and the cpu will continue to take the second seat, just needing enough power to feed the gpu. This said the 8 core fx 8350 is $200 but will keep up with the 4 core i5 3570k at $230. So you end up with a price vs performance dilemma rather than core count vs core count.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 4:30:54 PM

There are loads of benchmarks out there for most processors. Just look at how it handles the apps you want to run and then pick a price/performance ratio you can handle.

It's not this hard of a decision.

I have had a quad core since 2007 and I frequently see all 4 cores with some load on them. Graphics and photo apps frequently max out all 4 cores. You'd be surprised to see how much even browsers can use with the way new websites are coded. Most programs are not as antiquated as you are implying.
a c 122 à CPUs
February 14, 2013 4:37:33 PM

satyamdubey said:
(next Intel line up will have 8-10 cores for desktops and 12-16 on the server side)


I don't know why you said this as haswell i7 4770k as well as other mainstream i7 and i5 specs were already leaked. They continue to be quad cores at most. The higher end IBE and HE will be more as those are meant for workstations and servers.
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 4:55:56 PM

K114, apologies for any confusion. please read my post again, I did not say that rendering software ONLY use 3-4 cores max, I said it would max that many out (there is a difference) I also implied setting affinity to utilize all cores. I do 3d modelling and rendering in Rhinoceros with Flamingo ray trace on a core i7 930 machine. Neither Rhino nor Flamingo are super heavy and I have to put as many as 25-30 parallel product renders before my cpu usage gets to 100% and mouse movement lags.

Edit> http://www.simplyrhino.co.uk/rhinotraining/hardware.htm...
check this^ out as well. you'd see a bit more about core utilization between modellers and rendering softwares.
February 14, 2013 5:18:20 PM

Stuff got more interesting in this thread :) 
Ok I have a question
as I understand a single software can run on one specific core I do not know how true is this or not but if it is then for example :
we have a 8 core amd cpu and each core has the power of p4 (pleas not I have no idea how much power does a single amd chore has, but just take this as a reference) and lets assume
on core:
1. chrome is running 100%
2. VlC 100%
3. media player classic 100%
4.photoshop 100%
5.GTA SA 100%
6. Stalker 100%
7. Firefox 100%
8. Opera 100%
can something like this happen ??

ok if this can happen considering that most software are most probably using only 2 cores at best does not this means that for the same price you would get a 4 core intel that has much stronger single core performance ??? and if this is true when I run for example stalker that only uses single chore does this means on amd I am running this game basically on p4
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 6:34:42 PM

Levan7 said:
Stuff got more interesting in this thread :) 
Ok I have a question
as I understand a single software can run on one specific core I do not know how true is this or not but if it is then for example :
we have a 8 core amd cpu and each core has the power of p4 (pleas not I have no idea how much power does a single amd chore has, but just take this as a reference) and lets assume
on core:
1. chrome is running 100%
2. VlC 100%
3. media player classic 100%
4.photoshop 100%
5.GTA SA 100%
6. Stalker 100%
7. Firefox 100%
8. Opera 100%
can something like this happen ??

ok if this can happen considering that most software are most probably using only 2 cores at best does not this means that for the same price you would get a 4 core intel that has much stronger single core performance ??? and if this is true when I run for example stalker that only uses single chore does this means on amd I am running this game basically on p4


That is exactly what happens. Windows has a CPU scheduler and when you start a new task, Windows looks for the unused core and starts the task there.

If you were running an Intel 4 core, which can be roughly twice as fast per core as AMD, then you'd have each of those tasks at 50% with two tasks per core and then finishing in about the same time or with essentially the same performance. .

February 14, 2013 7:14:54 PM

twelve25 said:
That is exactly what happens. Windows has a CPU scheduler and when you start a new task, Windows looks for the unused core and starts the task there.

If you were running an Intel 4 core, which can be roughly twice as fast per core as AMD, then you'd have each of those tasks at 50% with two tasks per core and then finishing in about the same time or with essentially the same performance. .


hm and when I will be running a process that requires a single core then I rather go with a 4 core intel that is twice as powerful when it comes to a single core
so does this means that average joe should take 4 core intels cpu over amd

satyamdubey

are you sure that intel turbo boost does not disables cores because

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and...

here it is written sentences like this
Number of active cores
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 8:45:23 PM

again, you just have to look at the benchmarks for your apps. If you have a rare app that uses high CPU, but only on one or two threads, then yes, Intel is generally better. However, fully taxing all 6 or 8 cores with a big load generally favors AMD. The vast majority of apps are going to run very well on either CPU brand.




Read closely, it talks about the number of active cores affecting the upper limit of the turbo boost. It doesn't mean disabling cores, it means if you have nothing running on more than 1 core you will get a higher turbo boost. The other cores are inactive because no program is using them, they aren't disabled.

February 14, 2013 10:17:38 PM

twelve25 said:
again, you just have to look at the benchmarks for your apps. If you have a rare app that uses high CPU, but only on one or two threads, then yes, Intel is generally better. However, fully taxing all 6 or 8 cores with a big load generally favors AMD. The vast majority of apps are going to run very well on either CPU brand.




Read closely, it talks about the number of active cores affecting the upper limit of the turbo boost. It doesn't mean disabling cores, it means if you have nothing running on more than 1 core you will get a higher turbo boost. The other cores are inactive because no program is using them, they aren't disabled.


thx for the information can you recommend any good place to find software benchmarks ??
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2013 4:09:52 AM

why not download Si software Sandra. It will bench your entire system and you can bench individual components and do specific benches for each component as well.

At the end of a bench, it will take you to database of other scores. The same is what 3dMark11 will do although it's more of a cpu/gpu testing bench more relevant to gaming and visualization software.

You can go to cnet or softpedia and they have detailed sections for benchmarking software.
a c 122 à CPUs
February 15, 2013 5:56:43 AM

I didn't read anything I didn't already know and it is a bit simplified and dated. If you can't get all cores to 100% then there are a couple of reason. But I'm not going to hijack the thread.

Tom's has benchmarks for a number of real world software. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-performance-com... I'd suggest taking synthetics like sandra with a grain of salt.
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2013 7:05:46 AM

^ fair enough and please do not misunderstand me. I am here to learn and as much as I can. "K" if you can send me an IM on more recent links on all this I'd be much grateful.

-satyam
February 15, 2013 8:49:06 AM

Thank you every one for the replies you were hugh help
can some one tell me how to mark this thread as solved
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2013 8:56:15 AM

^ request a mod to do it :) 
February 15, 2013 10:20:21 AM

Mister moderator man can you mark this thread as solved??

like this :D 
a b à CPUs
February 15, 2013 12:02:36 PM

Sure. In the future, when you have your answer, you should select the best reply as Best Answer. This will mark the thread as solved and give points to your most helpful responder.
!