6 core cpu runs only 3 cores?

[Mare Mare]

Hey!

Task manager showing only 3 cores of my fx 6300 6 core processor. Should be showing 6 core instead ?

And why HWmonitor doesnt show all six cores temperatur , but only package temperature?

Here is the image what im trying to say.

http://imageshack.com/a/img836/928/dcbe.png

 

[kenny3105]

It's fine what you are seeing. it's the way the core is made up of 2 logical processors per core so 3 cores makes 6 logical processors it's just the design it's still a 6 core cpu.

read this

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3314/2/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-piledriver-modules-bulldozer-20

 

[Plusthinking Iq]

amd and theyre "6 and 8" cores cpu's. not really true is it.....more "cores" and ghz amd sale tricks.

 

[spdragoo]

Download & check it with CoreTemp -- the app not only shows the temperatures for all of the cores in the CPU, but also their individual usage load.

And before you ask...it shows all 8 cores on my FX-8320. So if CoreTemp shows all 6 of your cores, that's what you have.

 

[Vitric9]

It is fine and it is not 3 cores...Windows had an update for Win7/8 after the Zambezi FX processors were launched to recognize the Bulldozer and Piledriver architecture as it would an i7 with HT...The FX 6300 has 6 cores...2 cores in each module.

 

[Mare Mare]

Alright , ive downloaded coretemp. it showing all 6 cores. Ive notice that 1 core have lower speed than rest of the cores , its this normal ?
Check this picture of coretemp!

http://imageshack.com/a/img841/6225/qu3y.png

 

[spdragoo]

Before we started getting fancy with multi-core CPUs, AMD & Intel had both gotten away from the whole "your CPU operates on a fixed multiplier based on a motherboard jumper switch", & were equipped with "dynamic" FSB multipliers. Essentially, if the CPU didn't need to run at "top" speed (i.e. the system is just sitting there), then the CPU would throttle back to a lower multiplier (lowering the "listed" processing speed) until the system starting needing more juice.

The same thing has carried over to the multi-core CPUs: if a core isn't being utilized fully, then the system will automatically throttle it back (no sense in having a core running at 100% speed if it only needs to be running at 5% speed at the moment); this saves a bit of electricity, as well as helping to keep CPU temps manageable.

 

[rds1220]

The FX CPU's aren't really what they claim to be. The so called 6 cores are really three cores the so called 8 cores are really 4 cores with hyperthreading. You bought into AMD's sales gimmick, congratulations.

To answer your question there is nothing wrong with your CPU it is showing it for what it is a three physical cores with three logical cores.

 

[spdragoo]

Sorry, but there is a difference between Intel's "HyperThreading" & AMD's "Modules":
-- Intel's "hyperthreading" treats each physical core as 2 separate "logical" cores. This is analogous to partitioning a single hard drive into 2 or more separate drive letters; the physical hardware (i.e. hard drive, CPU core, etc.), but the programming allows it to treat itself like 2 separate items. However, while on a hard drive you at least have actual physical separation of where the data ends up being stored (i.e. C: drive would be first, followed by the other drive letters), the hyper-threaded cores are sharing the same physical resources, just allocating them via internal software as each process/"thread" requires it.
-- AMD's "Modules" as used in the Bulldozer & Piledriver architectures have 2 separate integer cores that then share a single floating point unit. So while the FX-6300 only has 3 floating-point units (1 per module, 3 modules total), it does have 6 physical integer units.

So, which is really more of a "hype": the multi-core CPU whose number of physical integer cores actually matches the product label, or the multi-core CPU who only has half as many? In any case, it doesn't really matter, because modern operating systems recognize both Intel & AMD's CPUs as having multiple cores (whether physical, logical, or a combination of both).

 

[sapperastro]

The FX CPU's aren't really what they claim to be. The so called 6 cores are really three cores the so called 8 cores are really 4 cores with hyperthreading. You bought into AMD's sales gimmick, congratulations.

To answer your question there is nothing wrong with your CPU it is showing it for what it is a three physical cores with three logical cores.

And you are a cpu master eh? Good grief...

Start with the small steps first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

Then you can move onto; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

 

[rds1220]

The FX CPU's aren't really what they claim to be. The so called 6 cores are really three cores the so called 8 cores are really 4 cores with hyperthreading. You bought into AMD's sales gimmick, congratulations.

To answer your question there is nothing wrong with your CPU it is showing it for what it is a three physical cores with three logical cores.

And you are a cpu master eh? Good grief...

Start with the small steps first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

Then you can move onto; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

The FX-6000 advertises itself as a six-core processor and the 8000 as 8 core , but the shared resources between each core mean that it can't use all six/eight cores simultaneously. It's a deceptive words gimmick from AMD but the fact is not all six cores are being used and they are not 6/8 real phsical cores. If you want to buy into AMD's core and GHZ scam go ahead but at the end of the day Intel's 4/6 real cores are still faster and more efficient that AMD's so called 6 and 8 core.

 

[sapperastro]

The FX CPU's aren't really what they claim to be. The so called 6 cores are really three cores the so called 8 cores are really 4 cores with hyperthreading. You bought into AMD's sales gimmick, congratulations.

To answer your question there is nothing wrong with your CPU it is showing it for what it is a three physical cores with three logical cores.

And you are a cpu master eh? Good grief...

Start with the small steps first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

Then you can move onto; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

The FX-6000 advertises itself as a six-core processor and the 8000 as 8 core , but the shared resources between each core mean that it can't use all six/eight cores simultaneously. It's a deceptive words gimmick from AMD but the fact is not all six cores are being used and they are not 6/8 real phsical cores. If you want to buy into AMD's core and GHZ scam go ahead but at the end of the day Intel's 4/6 real cores are still faster and more efficient that AMD's so called 6 and 8 core.

Sorry, but they can use all cores simultaneously as far as I have read...

If you can point me out to your source, I am always open to learn otherwise.

They are 6/8 physical cores. There is no question about that. Try reading the wiki article again...

Intels cores are more efficient and faster. True. They are also much more expensive. The point? Are you trying to turn this into a fanboy war? Sorry, I myself have a haswell, I am just not a fanboy and enjoy learning about PC hardware and extolling the virtues of either sides products.

Somebody asked a question about their cpu, and, inevitably, a fanboy rocks in and starts ranting and waving their hands about over their pet issue, putting down another persons choices and basically saying they are idiots for those choices. Totally unasked for I might add. Feel better now? Probably not, as your knowledge of these cpus is incredibly poor to say the least, and hasn't made you look like much of a 'cpu authority'.

 

[chimera201]

So much argument, here read this :
http://blog.stuffedcow.net/2014/01/amd-modules-hyperthreading/

"Thus, marketing chooses whatever term suits their interests. GPU manufacturers also abuse the words “core” and “processor” to describe something more similar to an ALU or execution unit (Nvidia: “Streaming processor” or “Cuda Core”; AMD: “Stream processor”; but not Intel)."

P.S.: I'm not biased towards Intel. I just get what gets best performance/price.

 

[rds1220]

The FX CPU's aren't really what they claim to be. The so called 6 cores are really three cores the so called 8 cores are really 4 cores with hyperthreading. You bought into AMD's sales gimmick, congratulations.

To answer your question there is nothing wrong with your CPU it is showing it for what it is a three physical cores with three logical cores.

And you are a cpu master eh? Good grief...

Start with the small steps first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

Then you can move onto; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

The FX-6000 advertises itself as a six-core processor and the 8000 as 8 core , but the shared resources between each core mean that it can't use all six/eight cores simultaneously. It's a deceptive words gimmick from AMD but the fact is not all six cores are being used and they are not 6/8 real phsical cores. If you want to buy into AMD's core and GHZ scam go ahead but at the end of the day Intel's 4/6 real cores are still faster and more efficient that AMD's so called 6 and 8 core.

Sorry, but they can use all cores simultaneously as far as I have read...

If you can point me out to your source, I am always open to learn otherwise.

They are 6/8 physical cores. There is no question about that. Try reading the wiki article again...

Intels cores are more efficient and faster. True. They are also much more expensive. The point? Are you trying to turn this into a fanboy war? Sorry, I myself have a haswell, I am just not a fanboy and enjoy learning about PC hardware and extolling the virtues of either sides products.

Somebody asked a question about their cpu, and, inevitably, a fanboy rocks in and starts ranting and waving their hands about over their pet issue, putting down another persons choices and basically saying they are idiots for those choices. Totally unasked for I might add. Feel better now? Probably not, as your knowledge of these cpus is incredibly poor to say the least, and hasn't made you look like much of a 'cpu authority'.

No they really aren't but again if you want to believe AMD's scam go right ahead I'll keep going with Intel as long as they perform better. As for the price part you get what you pay for. CPU for CPU the Intel cost more but you are getting more performance out of the box. But none of that really matters because AMD CPU's are not that much cheaper in the end. AMD CPU's need to be overclocked to compete with an I5 or I7 and that means you need to get a high-end motherboard, high-end air cooling or watercooling. In the end it comes out to be the same or sometimes more expensive to get the AMD.