Question 10th gen CPUs

[eibelbilly]

I'm looking to build a new system my best friend uses a i7 9700f I would like to get similar or better fps for cheap what CPU should I buy,,,

According to userbenchmark the i7 9th gen is only 15 percent faster in game then a 10th gen i3

My current CPU is a fx6300 3.5ghz
Please help

 

[Shektron]

Dude, cores and threads are far from same thing. Each core has a number of threads it can handle at any time. You could have 2 cores and 12 threads on each core, giving you 24 threads total. Each thread can process information by itself. The core is the unit as a whole, the threads are the make up of each core.

How about you show me a CPU that can do 12 threads per core? I'd heard a rumor they are working on 4 threads per core, but it's still not implemented - as of now it's either 1 thread per core or 2. And also, if you think hyperthreading means that there are 2 actual threads going to one core, you're wrong. Hyperthreading is actually just a more efficient "ordering" of the thread going into the CPU, but in reality even CPU's with hyperthreading only have one thread per core, it's just ordered in such a way that it runs faster than a CPU with no hyperthreading. But that's a different topic. We're quite far away from the original point, which is that 4 cores is absolutely not a smart purchase in today's world, if you want to play the latest games you want at least a 6 core processor, preferably with hyperthreading.

 

[Cere]

How about you show me a CPU that can do 12 threads per core? I'd heard a rumor they are working on 4 threads per core, but it's still not implemented - as of now it's either 1 thread per core or 2. And also, if you think hyperthreading means that there are 2 actual threads going to one core, you're wrong. Hyperthreading is actually just a more efficient "ordering" of the thread going into the CPU, but in reality even CPU's with hyperthreading only have one thread per core, it's just ordered in such a way that it runs faster than a CPU with no hyperthreading. But that's a different topic. We're quite far away from the original point, which is that 4 cores is absolutely not a smart purchase in today's world, if you want to play the latest games you want at least a 6 core processor, preferably with hyperthreading.

They are two separate things. Here, have a look at this: https://www.guru99.com/cpu-core-multicore-thread.html

There is a specific section in that article that will help explain the difference between the two as they are far from the same thing.

 

[Karadjgne]

A thread is a line of code. Each core has a specific amount of bandwidth at its disposal. Normal operation each core processes a single line of code in one instance. Hyperthreading allows the use of a single core to process 2 lines of code simultaneously, IF bandwidth allows. A core is a logical component, a hyperthreaded core is a virtual component. So on a hyperthreaded cpu, you'll have 4 logical and 4 corresponding virtual cores as seen as 4c/8t.

The issue with many older games is the code strings were getting so long that hyperthreading was getting next to useless as the bandwidth couldn't be split up to accommodate 2 lines simultaneously. Use of less than 4 cores got the same results from a logical cpu as from a hyperthreaded cpu.

Battlefield 4 was one of the first AAA titles to optimize code strings, shortening them enough to allow hyperthreading to benefit in a meaningful way, allowing even the AMD FX to finally get usage of its node/2core setup, an 8350 barely being beaten by the i7 4790k, and placing it ahead of the faster i5 4690k.

Assassins Creed series and some others are not optimized very well, hyperthreading suffers but higher physical core count still benefits.

With Ryzen IPC still a half step behind Intel, and Intel greater clock speeds, in a single thread Intel wins. But single thread is useless on a modern platform as no games use that matrix anymore, far too complex. It's multi-thread that matters most.

On a core to core basis, Intel wins every time, but it'll depend entirely on the game whether it can make best use of a 6 core 6 thread Intel or a 6 core 12 thread Ryzen. Win some, lose some.

 

[Cere]

A thread is a line of code. Each core has a specific amount of bandwidth at its disposal. Normal operation each core processes a single line of code in one instance. Hyperthreading allows the use of a single core to process 2 lines of code simultaneously, IF bandwidth allows. A core is a logical component, a hyperthreaded core is a virtual component. So on a hyperthreaded cpu, you'll have 4 logical and 4 corresponding virtual cores as seen as 4c/8t.

The issue with many older games is the code strings were getting so long that hyperthreading was getting next to useless as the bandwidth couldn't be split up to accommodate 2 lines simultaneously. Use of less than 4 cores got the same results from a logical cpu as from a hyperthreaded cpu.

Battlefield 4 was one of the first AAA titles to optimize code strings, shortening them enough to allow hyperthreading to benefit in a meaningful way, allowing even the AMD FX to finally get usage of its node/2core setup, an 8350 barely being beaten by the i7 4790k, and placing it ahead of the faster i5 4690k.

Assassins Creed series and some others are not optimized very well, hyperthreading suffers but higher physical core count still benefits.

With Ryzen IPC still a half step behind Intel, and Intel greater clock speeds, in a single thread Intel wins. But single thread is useless on a modern platform as no games use that matrix anymore, far too complex. It's multi-thread that matters most.

On a core to core basis, Intel wins every time, but it'll depend entirely on the game whether it can make best use of a 6 core 6 thread Intel or a 6 core 12 thread Ryzen. Win some, lose some.

There's already been a processor to handle 4 threads per core. They were meant for Servers. The technology is there to make more threads per core, just whether or not its worth it at this time for Intel or AMD to push it off to consumers. But some say they even killed this family of processors because of costs compared to demand. The point I was trying to get across to @Shektron was that Threads and Cores were actually different in the core refers to the unit as a whole and Threads refers to the data stream. if you're interested in the 4 Thread processor, I've attached a link to the layout and information regarding it. But again it's hard to find these as they've all been discontinued.

https://www.alcf.anl.gov/files/HC27.25.710-Knights-Landing-Sodani-Intel.pdf

 

[Rogue Leader]

Dude, cores and threads are far from same thing. Each core has a number of threads it can handle at any time. You could have 2 cores and 12 threads on each core, giving you 24 threads total. Each thread can process information by itself. The core is the unit as a whole, the threads are the make up of each core.

This is completely and utterly incorrect. A Core can handle a maximum of 1 or 2 threads at the same time (depending if the core has SMT or CMT or not). In VERY basic terms, core schedulers move tasks into and out of the core's processing threads. But no there is no 2 core 12 thread processor in existence or any other imaginary combination.

 

[TerryLaze]

There's already been a processor to handle 4 threads per core. They were meant for Servers. The technology is there to make more threads per core, just whether or not its worth it at this time for Intel or AMD to push it off to consumers. But some say they even killed this family of processors because of costs compared to demand. The point I was trying to get across to @Shektron was that Threads and Cores were actually different in the core refers to the unit as a whole and Threads refers to the data stream. if you're interested in the 4 Thread processor, I've attached a link to the layout and information regarding it. But again it's hard to find these as they've all been discontinued.

https://www.alcf.anl.gov/files/HC27.25.710-Knights-Landing-Sodani-Intel.pdf

This is completely and utterly incorrect. A Core can handle a maximum of 1 or 2 threads at the same time (depending if the core has SMT or CMT or not). In VERY basic terms, core schedulers move tasks into and out of the core's processing threads. But no there is no 2 core 12 thread processor in existence or any other imaginary combination.

You are both right but also both wrong.
Thread is only used for software,we all use it for hardware but that's wrong.
For CPUs the correct terms are cores and logical cores they are not called threads.

Each core can handle a huge amount of (software) threads in real time,mainly because most threads only run one or two instructions every hundreds if not thousands of cycles.

 

[TerryLaze]

A thread is a line of code.

No it's a bunch of code,it could be a single line it could be thousands of lines.

Normal operation each core processes a single line of code in one instance

No each core has a certain amount of instructions it can handle at once during a cycle,a line of code is split up into individual instructions and the core handles as many of those instructions as it can but also often less than how many it can handle due to the thread needing data that is not yet available.

Hyperthreading allows the use of a single core to process 2 lines of code simultaneously, IF bandwidth allows.

Well it does allow to fill up instructions from a different thread, in for example the previously explained case.

A core is a logical component, a hyperthreaded core is a virtual component. So on a hyperthreaded cpu, you'll have 4 logical and 4 corresponding virtual cores as seen as 4c/8t.

The OS and all the schedulers only see all the cores real or logical as individual CPUs.
They are aware of CPUs being on different sockets or different CCXs because both of those add lagg.

The issue with many older games is the code strings were getting so long that hyperthreading was getting next to useless as the bandwidth couldn't be split up to accommodate 2 lines simultaneously. Use of less than 4 cores got the same results from a logical cpu as from a hyperthreaded cpu.

Older games are coded for older CPUs they had less to work with so they can use less now,it's not like the old code magically gets rewritten if it's written for a single core it's going to use a single core.

Battlefield 4 was one of the first AAA titles to optimize code strings, shortening them enough to allow hyperthreading to benefit in a meaningful way, allowing even the AMD FX to finally get usage of its node/2core setup, an 8350 barely being beaten by the i7 4790k, and placing it ahead of the faster i5 4690k.

BF4 was written for jaguar cores that only have two instructions available per core while any desktop CPU even from that era had 3-4 instructions available per core.

But single thread is useless on a modern platform as no games use that matrix anymore, far too complex. It's multi-thread that matters most.

Single thread is the simplest thing you can do just list everything you want done one after the other and the CPU will compute one thing after the other,multi threaded is way more difficult to do,just look at how many issues there are with games ever since the ps3 era where devs started to port games from console instead of individually developing them.
But multi is necessary to get more performance out of CPUs so they have to do it.

 

[mamasan2000]

https://www.guru99.com/cpu-core-multicore-thread.html
From what I have heard, a thread is about 50% the perf of a core. (Link at bottom suggests it is 34%-70%)
A thread is the feeder, a core does the actual work, is my understanding of it.

IBM has a CPU with 8 threads per core, Power8 architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8
There is CPUs with 4 threads per core too. I'm left wondering when those technologies will come to consumers.

Some games like Hyperthreading (Intel's name) /Simultaneous MutilThreading, SMT (AMD's name).
But some don't. You have to experiment or find someone who has tested it, like some tech youtubers occasionally do.



Some interesting reading https://stackoverflow.com/questions...l-at-a-maximum-run-4-times-faster-in-parallel

 

[eibelbilly]

Ok I'm just going to say one thing to all of you "not all cores are created equal" you can't just believe what manufacturers want you to believe less cores that are faster are better, on any website you go on it says a i7 is only a bit faster than a i5 and that a i5 kills ryzen 5 3600x

 

[eibelbilly]

Ok I'm just going to say one thing to all of you "not all cores are created equal" you can't just believe what manufacturers want you to believe less cores that are faster are better, on any website you go on it says a i7 is only a bit faster than a i5 and that a i5 kills ryzen 5 3600x

For years Intel haven't added much cores but made the individual cores better.

 

[InvalidError]

From what I have heard, a thread is about 50% the perf of a core. (Link at bottom suggests it is 34%-70%)

SMT only yields extra performance proportional to the amount of execution resources whatever threads may already have been running on a core have left behind. You see gains from SMT in the 30-40% range because typical code mix only leaves 40-50% of the CPU under-used and able to be leveraged by SMT. You aren't seeing SMT4 on x86 because typical x86 workloads combined with deep out-of-order speculative execution can already keep most of the CPU busy with SMT2.

Sun/Oracle and IBM are using SMT4/8 in their server CPUs because they ditched power-hungry deep out-of-order speculative execution in favor of more power-efficient thread-level parallelism. Put enough threads on each core so that whenever one thread hangs on conditional branch or cache misses, other threads should have enough eligible instructions to keep the core busy until dependencies are resolved most of the time. It was the same reason Intel went SMT4 for Xeon Phi chips to achieve much higher throughput per watt than conventional x86 CPUs.

 

[Cere]

IBM has a CPU with 8 threads per core, Power8 architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8
There is CPUs with 4 threads per core too. I'm left wondering when those technologies will come to consumers.

This was my original point exactly. The work is there for more then only 2 threads per core and the CPUs already exist. Truth is that some CPUs do still use single thread. As @InvalidError also explains, the more threads the better the performance of a CPU. However, at this point it really is not cost effect for end users (i.e. Consumers) to have these. Most of these chip sets will run anywhere from $2,000-10,000.

For years Intel haven't added much cores but made the individual cores better.

This is exactly true. The core as a whole is definitely better then just one aspect of the core.

For CPUs the correct terms are cores and logical cores they are not called threads.

You are confused slightly. Cores are actual physical cores. Logical cores are the sum total of threads. The way to get the actual number of logical cores is by multiplying the number of threads by the number of cores. Although it refers to the total of threads, it is not a statement that is entirely true to say threads and logical cores are the same thing. When writing code, this is something that needs to be known. However when talking about games, the number of threads per core is more relevant then the sum total of all.
Windows will show each thread as a logical core because Windows is programmed to do so and it allows end users and IT techs to see if one thread is causing an issue. The end point is logical cores refers to sum total of threads in all CPUs present, while running an operating system. But when just talking about a CPUs they are just called threads.

 

[eibelbilly]

Alright so should I get the i3 i5 or a ryzen cpu, I'm not spending more than 200

 

[Cere]

Alright so should I get the i3 i5 or a ryzen cpu, I'm not spending more than 200

I personally would go with a i5 9400 at your price range. A better performing gaming chip at the comparable price of the Ryzen 5 3600.

 

[eibelbilly]

Why

I personally would go with a i5 9400 at your price range. A better performing gaming chip at the comparable price of the Ryzen 5 3600.

Why not 10th gen it's about the same price and has alot more performance because of AI up clocking

 

[Cere]

Why

Why not 10th gen it's about the same price and has alot more performance because of AI up clocking

There really is not much of a noticeable difference between the i5 9400 vs i5 10400 when benchmarking them. if you want to be able to upgrade the CPU later, then go with the i5 10400 as you'd be getting a newer standard mother board and could change the CPU out to an i7 or i9 and maybe even a newer chipset when they come out. but for affordability, the i5 9400 would work and still give you headroom to upgrade to an i9 9900 at a later date. Here's the benchmarks between the two, but notice that between the two, most only show a +5% increase from the 9400-10400.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10400/4051vs4073

 

[InvalidError]

There really is not much of a noticeable difference between the i5 9400 vs i5 10400 when benchmarking them.

Depends on what you benchmark them with. The 10500 has SMT and will perform upward of 40% better in heavily multi-threaded workloads.

While 6c6t may be good enough for most games right now, 6c12t is pretty much guaranteed to hold up much better going into the foreseeable future as heavily threaded games keep becoming increasingly more common.

 

[Cere]

Depends on what you benchmark them with. The 10500 has SMT and will perform upward of 40% better in heavily multi-threaded workloads.

While 6c6t may be good enough for most games right now, 6c12t is pretty much guaranteed to hold up much better going into the foreseeable future as heavily threaded games keep becoming increasingly more common.

This is true, but the average cost of the 10500 is more then his budget of 200. The 10400 is just under, that is why I was comparing it to the 9400 which is also under his budget. But if we actually compared the 10500 to the 9600K we would find the 9600K beats the 10500 in benches, and hits his budget at 200. However I didn't go with the 9600K as with taxes and such it would put him around 225 on most sights.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10500/4031vs4078

 

[Rogue Leader]

You are both right but also both wrong.
Thread is only used for software,we all use it for hardware but that's wrong.
For CPUs the correct terms are cores and logical cores they are not called threads.

Each core can handle a huge amount of (software) threads in real time,mainly because most threads only run one or two instructions every hundreds if not thousands of cycles.

Thats basically what I was trying to say but I was trying to make my explanation a bit more rudimentary, clearly it failed.

Ok I'm just going to say one thing to all of you "not all cores are created equal" you can't just believe what manufacturers want you to believe less cores that are faster are better, on any website you go on it says a i7 is only a bit faster than a i5 and that a i5 kills ryzen 5 3600x

Thats a nonsensical statement. We all know that not all cores are the same, IPC is the most important measure and right now Intel is slightly on top.

But on no planet is the i5 "killing" a 3600x. First off there are many i5 models some faster than others. None of which have "killed" a 3600x in anything.

You are confused slightly. Cores are actual physical cores. Logical cores are the sum total of threads. The way to get the actual number of logical cores is by multiplying the number of threads by the number of cores. Although it refers to the total of threads, it is not a statement that is entirely true to say threads and logical cores are the same thing. When writing code, this is something that needs to be known. However when talking about games, the number of threads per core is more relevant then the sum total of all.
Windows will show each thread as a logical core because Windows is programmed to do so and it allows end users and IT techs to see if one thread is causing an issue. The end point is logical cores refers to sum total of threads in all CPUs present, while running an operating system. But when just talking about a CPUs they are just called threads.

You are the one who is confused. Logical cores are made up of physical cores that can share the processing of a thread via SMT, CMT etc. Hence a "hyperthreaded" i7-6700k has 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores, allowing it to handle 8 threads at the same time. Core scheduling moves process threads in and out (based on clock speed) of the physical and logical cores. I'm not sure where you got this idea that "logical cores" multiply by the amount of processes a cpu is handling but thats completely wrong.

 

[gtarayan]

Alright so should I get the i3 i5 or a ryzen cpu, I'm not spending more than 200

What is your combined budget for the CPU/Motherboard/CPU cooler?

 

[Cere]

You are the one who is confused. Logical cores are made up of physical cores that can share the processing of a thread via SMT, CMT etc. Hence a "hyperthreaded" i7-6700k has 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores, allowing it to handle 8 threads at the same time. Core scheduling moves process threads in and out (based on clock speed) of the physical and logical cores. I'm not sure where you got this idea that "logical cores" multiply by the amount of processes a cpu is handling but thats completely wrong.

You basically just repeated what I said. 8 logical cores = 8 threads. Logical cores and threads are ultimately talking about the same thing. The difference between the two terms is only valid when talking about coding. All the following links confirm exactly the same thing I'm talking about. But CPU manufactures look at the threads, not logical processors. The logical processors only exist in the operating system. The software see each thread as it's own core.

Differences between physical CPU vs logical CPU vs Core vs Thread vs Socket

When we try to know a computer’s architecture and performance at CPU level using Linux commands like nproc or lscpu, we often find out that we are not able to properly interpret their results because we confuse terms such as physical CPU, logical CPU, virtual CPU, core, thread, socket, etc. If...

www.daniloaz.com

Physical Cores Vs Logical Processors - Difference Explained

Processor jargon can get quite confusing. So what is the difference between Physical Cores and Logical Processors? Find out in this guide.

techgearoid.com

Differences Between CPU Cores Vs CPU Threads Vs Logical Processors | Tech Consumer Guide

But, does this apply to CPU threads and logical processors? And how do CPU threads stack up against CPU cores? Here's what you need to know about CPU cores Vs CPU Threads Vs logical processors.

www.techconsumerguide.com

 

[InvalidError]

But if we actually compared the 10500 to the 9600K we would find the 9600K beats the 10500 in benches

Again, depends on the benchmarks and Userbench is close to being one of the most worthless benchmarks out there due to not being representative of anything specific. Userbench results are also further skewed by overclocked results.

Intel Core i5-10400 vs. AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Intel's new Core i5-10400 is a locked 6-core, 12-thread processor that operates at between 2.9 GHz and 4.3 GHz depending on the workload. At around $180, this...

www.techspot.com

On something closer to apples-to-apples benchmarks, the 10400 is anywhere from practically on-par with the stock 9600k to 30% ahead.

 

[RodroX]

Theres already an answer to OP question, you may be able to get about the same performance. The "same" is imposible. Perfomance in gaming depends on many variables. So don't expect to get exactly the same.

If youre friend has a i7 9700F, you have 3 options (this is my point of view):

1. Ryzen 5 3600/3600X Best Mid-Range Budget Gaming/Working/Content Creation CPU
2. Ryzen 7 3700X Best Value Gaming/Working/Content Creation CPU
3. Core i5 10600K Best Gaming CPU for "mid-range" price, if you tweak it a little bit (nothing extreme, just a bit) can get really close to a Core i9 10900K performance.

Every other CPU choice may depend exactly on the games you wana play, been those 3 (well 4 actually) the best on each niche.

Keep in mind to get everything the i5 10600K can give you need to spend on fast RAM, probably DDR4 3600 been the lowest you should buy.

Cheers!

 

[Rogue Leader]

You basically just repeated what I said. 8 logical cores = 8 threads. Logical cores and threads are ultimately talking about the same thing. The difference between the two terms is only valid when talking about coding. All the following links confirm exactly the same thing I'm talking about. But CPU manufactures look at the threads, not logical processors. The logical processors only exist in the operating system. The software see each thread as it's own core.

Differences between physical CPU vs logical CPU vs Core vs Thread vs Socket

When we try to know a computer’s architecture and performance at CPU level using Linux commands like nproc or lscpu, we often find out that we are not able to properly interpret their results because we confuse terms such as physical CPU, logical CPU, virtual CPU, core, thread, socket, etc. If...

www.daniloaz.com

Physical Cores Vs Logical Processors - Difference Explained

Processor jargon can get quite confusing. So what is the difference between Physical Cores and Logical Processors? Find out in this guide.

techgearoid.com

Differences Between CPU Cores Vs CPU Threads Vs Logical Processors | Tech Consumer Guide

But, does this apply to CPU threads and logical processors? And how do CPU threads stack up against CPU cores? Here's what you need to know about CPU cores Vs CPU Threads Vs logical processors.

www.techconsumerguide.com

No, I said what was correct and you have changed your story to match. Go back to what you said originally, and what your responses were. You are on the right path but you're getting very confused in your own terminology. I suggest you re-read the links you're posting trying to correct me and others on this.

We have gone far off the reservation from the OP's original post and question, so this is the spot we will leave it as NONE of this back and forth is helping him whatsoever. If you feel the need to try and educate me, (and there really is no need to I have almost 30 years in the industry) then send me a PM.

 

[Cere]

Again, depends on the benchmarks and Userbench is close to being one of the most worthless benchmarks out there due to not being representative of anything specific. Userbench results are also further skewed by overclocked results.

Intel Core i5-10400 vs. AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Intel's new Core i5-10400 is a locked 6-core, 12-thread processor that operates at between 2.9 GHz and 4.3 GHz depending on the workload. At around $180, this...

www.techspot.com

On something closer to apples-to-apples benchmarks, the 10400 is anywhere from practically on-par with the stock 9600k to 30% ahead.

Absolutely, but when you remove the Overclock ability from the 9600, then they are pretty similar in benchmarks. But again I was more stating the 9400 as it's in his price range and would beat out most other processors in his range. I mean if he wants to be just over, then the 9600 would be a better choice. Just like if he wanted to add 25-50 more, he could possibly get the 10500. But for budget under 200, the 9400 is the best option. I mean we could sit here for days adding on more money and pointing out better options, but at the end of the day we have to go by his budget and what will better suit him.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600-vs-Intel-Core-i5-10500/m853186vs4078