Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Performance Analysis And Conclusion

How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
By

Time to draw some conclusions. Because we have a lot of data to digest, let's simplify it by averaging the performance on a graph:

First, we see that the synthetic benchmarks are overly optimistic as to what multiple cores can accomplish compared to the average real-world scenario. The synthetic performance progression between a single core and multiple cores looks like an almost linear progression of 50% performance increases with each new CPU core.

The average application gains show us a much more realistic progression, with about a 35% speed increase with the second CPU core, a 15% jump with the third, and another 32% jump with the fourth. It's strange that the third CPU core seems to provide half the advantage of adding a fourth CPU core to the mix.

And when considering applications, we must look at individual software titles instead of just the big picture. Indeed, the audio-encoding software we tested seems to offer no multi-core optimizations of which to speak. However, video encoding software conversely offers massive benefits with more CPU cores and depends somewhat on the video encoder utilized. In the case of 3D rendering software, 3ds Max usually has highly optimized multi-core performance improvements, while 2D photo editors like Photoshop seem to have none at all. AVG anti-virus demonstrates massive performance increases with multiple cores, while compression utilities seem to sport little to no multi-threading benefits.

As far as games go, we see a huge 60% performance jump from going single-core to dual-core, and a further 25% leap from dual- to triple-core. Quad cores offer no benefits in the sampling of games we tested. While more games might change the landscape a little, we think the triple-core Phenom II X3s are looking good as a low-cost gaming option. It's also important to note here that as you start shifting to higher resolutions and adding visual detail, the picture gets a lot murkier as graphics muscle becomes the prevalent determinant of frame rates.

Quad Cores up closeQuad Cores up close

After all is said and done, we can come to a few general conclusions based on this data. We don't think you have to be a power-user to enjoy the benefits of a multi-core CPU. This is in stark contrast to the situation four years ago. So, while these gains might not be overwhelming at first glance, it's impressive to note how much thread-level optimization has gone on in the last few years, particularly in the applications identified as most receptive to acceleration through parallelism. In fact, we'll go as far as to say that there is relatively little reason to consider a single-core CPU (if you can find one), except for power-saving applications.

There are a few applications for which users should invest in as many CPU cores as possible, which include video encoding, 3D rendering, and optimized productivity titles, such as AVG's virus-scanning software. The lesson for the gamer is that long gone are the days when a single-core CPU paired with a powerful graphics solution would be "good enough."

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 188 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 38 Hide
    Anonymous , April 29, 2009 6:30 AM
    You have to consider that dual-core processors will often be clocked faster than a quad-core processor at the same price range (Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0GHz vs. Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz at $165 on Newegg). Inversely, to get the same clock speed, to get the same clock speed for a quad-core as a dual-core, you will have to pay 2x or more of the dual-core price (E8400 vs. Quad Q9650 - $165 v. $325). You have to ask yourself whether a 30% increase in speed justifies a 100% increase in cost. In certain scenarios, yes, it is worth it. For the average user on a budget, however, dual-core will often be the most cost-effective. Not to mention the over clocking power of mature dual-core processors (but then, an overclocker is not an average user).
  • 36 Hide
    Wayoffbase , April 29, 2009 6:25 AM
    Very neat article, this is the kind of thing i read tom's for.
  • 11 Hide
    martindamp , April 29, 2009 6:46 AM
    What about the average user running multiple programs at the same time. I often run both virus scanner, office applications and multimedia encoding at the same time. With four cores this runs smoothly, but with only one core it would be a pain.
Other Comments
  • 36 Hide
    Wayoffbase , April 29, 2009 6:25 AM
    Very neat article, this is the kind of thing i read tom's for.
  • 6 Hide
    SpadeM , April 29, 2009 6:26 AM
    Good piece, this will probably clear up some misunderstandings about dual vs. quad core processors. With just a clarification, that this article is based on the same clock speed (2.7Ghz) for ALL processor cores. And so, in some cases where the software isn't optimized for a multi core experience then going up on the Mhz scale is a valid option. If it wouldn't be, why do we overclock :) .
  • 38 Hide
    Anonymous , April 29, 2009 6:30 AM
    You have to consider that dual-core processors will often be clocked faster than a quad-core processor at the same price range (Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0GHz vs. Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz at $165 on Newegg). Inversely, to get the same clock speed, to get the same clock speed for a quad-core as a dual-core, you will have to pay 2x or more of the dual-core price (E8400 vs. Quad Q9650 - $165 v. $325). You have to ask yourself whether a 30% increase in speed justifies a 100% increase in cost. In certain scenarios, yes, it is worth it. For the average user on a budget, however, dual-core will often be the most cost-effective. Not to mention the over clocking power of mature dual-core processors (but then, an overclocker is not an average user).
  • 7 Hide
    giovanni86 , April 29, 2009 6:43 AM
    Great article, i enjoyed seeing some of the gaming conclusions. I guess my CPU having 4 cores is a bit useless even though on some of your graphs it still shows 2 to 3 frames more in some of them compared to having only 3 cores. None the less though great article i enjoyed it very much.
  • 11 Hide
    martindamp , April 29, 2009 6:46 AM
    What about the average user running multiple programs at the same time. I often run both virus scanner, office applications and multimedia encoding at the same time. With four cores this runs smoothly, but with only one core it would be a pain.
  • 5 Hide
    WheelsOfConfusion , April 29, 2009 6:58 AM
    Very informative! I keep seeing comments regarding which applications or games are good for multi-core versus single etc, it's good to have some hard data.
    And that's a neat trick for creating a standardized platform for the tests, eliminating the architectural differences between single and various multi-core processors.

    Since I see a lot of Tom's articles considering power efficiency and read a lot of comments asking for underclock results, it would have been nice to throw some data about power usage with each configuration. Does disabling a core (or three) significantly reduce power consumption? What about temps?
  • 0 Hide
    Proximon , April 29, 2009 7:08 AM
    I too expected to see some even priced CPU comparison, but this worked out well. Since it's so easy with any quad core system, all we need now is some gamer with a ton of titles to put up a list.

    Oh, such things already exist, whaddya know :) 
  • 4 Hide
    Anonymous , April 29, 2009 7:17 AM
    I second martindamp's question... what happens when you run iTunes, lame, antivirus, and winrar on 1-4 cores?

    But what I'm most interested in is what would happen when you move this to a Corei7. It seems to me that some of the apps that see a slowdown while moving to four cores are likely bumping into bandwidth and bus arbitration overheads, as the Q6600 is essentially two C2D's packaged on the same chip, sharing the FSB. The Corei7 eliminates this bottleneck, and I'd be willing to bet the performance decrease from 3->4 cores goes away as well. And when you play around with the i7, you can toy with Turbo and HyperThreading as well, but it'd be most interesting to directly compare the two architectures based on real cores.
  • 8 Hide
    swyn01 , April 29, 2009 7:20 AM
    Nice article. A few comments for thought though. On the first page it is mentioned how single core CPUs often had a higher clock of newer dual-core CPUs. This fact still exists today between dual-core and quad-core. For example, on newegg, a 2.33 GHz quad-core is about $165. A 3.0 GHz dual-core is $168. That's almost a 29% clock increase for the same amount of money. In the gaming benchmarks, if you multiply the dual-core results by 1.29, you will find that this shows an increased performance over the quad-core benchmark. Just like it did years ago (a faster single core cpu was better for gaming than a slower dual-core), this shows that a faster dual-core is still better for gaming than a slower quad core. At least for now. This will change in the future just as it did for single and dual cores, but I'm sure it will take still a few more years before a higher-clocked dual-core is dethroned to a slower quad-core.
  • 4 Hide
    Summer Leigh Castle , April 29, 2009 8:01 AM
    Is there a comparison between the i7 and a standard 4-core CPU? I was wondering if the real-world gains are there to justify spending more money for a 4-core hyperthreading CPU?
  • 4 Hide
    enterco , April 29, 2009 8:11 AM
    Well, I don't know how much it would matter, but there is a thing to consider regarding this benchmark. All the tests were made on a C2Q, which has two L2 cache arrays of 4 MB each, and each array is used by up to two cores. I think that is possible that this benchmark would yelded different results in the following scenarios:
    1. the dual-core test would be made on cores 0 and 2, each of the cores using 4 MB l2 cache;
    2. the triple-core test would use an equal L2 cache size for all cores.

  • 0 Hide
    mitch074 , April 29, 2009 8:22 AM
    Xvid 1.1.3 isn't multithreaded! At the same time, Xvid 1.2.1 (which IS smp-friendly) is now out. While it's multithread implementation is far from perfect, it does get a significant boost over 1.1.3 on SMP machines.
  • 2 Hide
    thexder1 , April 29, 2009 8:58 AM
    I just wanted to say that I have seen this same effect when going from single core to dual core and from dual core to triple core. I believe that something that needs to be looked at for the games going from dual core to triple core and with the applications that showed improvements when going from single to dual core I believe that in both cases the improvement could be from having a spare core for the OS and background processes to run on versus having to run them on the same core that the application is running on. In either case I believe that the best for gamers is a triple core and for video conversions you want as many cores as possible at least until the major codecs support GPGPU technology then the CPU will not matter very much for that and when games start using the GPU for the physics and AI then the CPU in games will become less important. At that point the CPU will not really matter much at all but we still have a while before that happened.
  • 1 Hide
    Sharft6 , April 29, 2009 9:12 AM
    i dunno if its possible with the hyperthreading thing but it would be cool to see the difference between 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 cores on an i7 :) 
  • 3 Hide
    jtbm , April 29, 2009 9:33 AM
    Multiple cores benefit multiple programs. For example Vuze uses upto 50% of 1 core if it is loaded. Windows + other background programs run all the time on most PCs. This can use up 1 full core. Most games use 2 cores.

    This means that today 3 cores could be utilised on a common PC during work or gaming and 4 cores are advisable to have some spare capacity. 4 cores are fully utilised during video processing or other CPU heavy tasks.
  • 2 Hide
    apache_lives , April 29, 2009 9:34 AM
    yet again - no one uses a fresh install platform (windows) with nothing else running - we all have MSN, Torrents, Antivirus, windows update, web browsers running, steam, ea games manager running etc - all chew up performance!

    Real life the quads (and better etc - Core i7) would stand out further

    I remember THG had a video - 3.6ghz vs 3.06ghz with HT - unreal tournament 2003 with some other heavy app running showed that with HT is was doable vs non ht - thats the stuff im talking about!

    Next article - how many apps can run while you game! Phenom 1/II vs Core 2 vs Core i7 etc - find the real benefits of a megatasker etc not just one app at a time like we all DONT do. Oh and also Vista and XP and maybe Win7 somewhere in there
  • 3 Hide
    apache_lives , April 29, 2009 9:40 AM
    jigajigajooYou have to consider that dual-core processors will often be clocked faster than a quad-core processor at the same price range (Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0GHz vs. Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz at $165 on Newegg). Inversely, to get the same clock speed, to get the same clock speed for a quad-core as a dual-core, you will have to pay 2x or more of the dual-core price (E8400 vs. Quad Q9650 - $165 v. $325). You have to ask yourself whether a 30% increase in speed justifies a 100% increase in cost. In certain scenarios, yes, it is worth it. For the average user on a budget, however, dual-core will often be the most cost-effective. Not to mention the over clocking power of mature dual-core processors (but then, an overclocker is not an average user).


    Tis why i clock my Q6600 to 3.5ghz - best of both worlds :D 
  • -2 Hide
    yonef , April 29, 2009 9:42 AM
    Have anyone tried the method described by TH to disable the cores? I've tried and it didn't work.
    I made some search online and found that actually this setting in msconfig.exe is not disable cores, this setting is for 'how much cores OS will use while boot' (default is always set to 1 when OS installs) This does NOT mean that your system will run on 1 core!
  • -5 Hide
    apache_lives , April 29, 2009 9:46 AM
    giovanni86Great article, i enjoyed seeing some of the gaming conclusions. I guess my CPU having 4 cores is a bit useless even though on some of your graphs it still shows 2 to 3 frames more in some of them compared to having only 3 cores. None the less though great article i enjoyed it very much.


    Ever seen an i7 destroy even a Core 2 Quad in GTAIV?
  • -5 Hide
    apache_lives , April 29, 2009 9:56 AM
    apache_livesyet again - no one uses a fresh install platform (windows) with nothing else running - we all have MSN, Torrents, Antivirus, windows update, web browsers running, steam, ea games manager running etc - all chew up performance!Real life the quads (and better etc - Core i7) would stand out furtherI remember THG had a video - 3.6ghz vs 3.06ghz with HT - unreal tournament 2003 with some other heavy app running showed that with HT is was doable vs non ht - thats the stuff im talking about!Next article - how many apps can run while you game! Phenom 1/II vs Core 2 vs Core i7 etc - find the real benefits of a megatasker etc not just one app at a time like we all DONT do. Oh and also Vista and XP and maybe Win7 somewhere in there


    Yet again why do i get marked down by idiots on these forums when i put foward a valid point/question?
Display more comments