Question Core Count versus Multicore Benchmark ?

[DiabloDizzy]

Hi, i just wanna ask which one is better, Core Count or Multicore Benchmark based on different tasks:
- Gaming
- Live Streaming
- Photo Editing
- Rendering
- Multitasking

For example, i3-12100F versus i5-10400F, or you could use Ryzen 5 3600 or 5500 for another reference.

 

[CountMike]

Hi, i just wanna ask which one is better, Core Count or Multicore Benchmark based on different task,
- Gaming
- Live Streaming
- Photo Editing
- Rendering
- Multitask
For example, i3 12100F VS i5 10400F, or you could use Ryzen 5 3600 or 5500 for another reference

Most of those tasks prefer more cores but there are other factors that can be just as important, IPS (Instructions Per Cycle) and to some extent all or single core boost frequency. At this time all CPUs from same class and core/thread number would be imperceptibly different.
4 core is way to low nowadays and will soon be gone so that leaves 6core/12thread as bare minimum.
Another factor is generation of CPU from same maker, each one brings some more performance across the board so comparing different generations even with same core/thread number is not very accurate.
Common sense is to buy best you can afford and hope it does the job adequately.

 

[TerryLaze]

4 core is way to low nowadays and will soon be gone

We still get new dual core CPUs with no smt/ht and that will not change anytime soon, because for simple office/desktop work it's still way enough especially with the iGPU having good features and everything using hardware acceleration now.

 

[CountMike]

We still get new dual core CPUs with no smt/ht and that will not change anytime soon, because for simple office/desktop work it's still way enough especially with the iGPU having good features and everything using hardware acceleration now.

AMD stopped making dual and quad cores with Ryzen Zen3/5000 series and made stronger IGPU to be as universal as possible and prices low enough to make very little difference for whole PC build. Couple of % of price is not going to make or break a deal but only make PC last longer. Can't see much use for full size PC which is slower and less capable than tablets and even phones.

 

[DiabloDizzy]

Most of those tasks prefer more cores but there are other factors that can be just as important, IPS (Instructions Per Cycle) and to some extent all or single core boost frequency. At this time all CPUs from same class and core/thread number would be imperceptibly different.
4 core is way to low nowadays and will soon be gone so that leaves 6core/12thread as bare minimum.
Another factor is generation of CPU from same maker, each one brings some more performance across the board so comparing different generations even with same core/thread number is not very accurate.
Common sense is to buy best you can afford and hope it does the job adequately.

yeah, i agree.
But let's just make it more specific and not generalization.

comparing i3 12100 and i5 10400, more core is better for multitask, but average people still consider i3 12100. or in the same price, Ryzen 3600, 4500 or 5500 overall will perform better than i5 10400. im i right?

Sorry for my bad english

 

[CountMike]

yeah, i agree.
But let's just make it more specific and not generalization.

comparing i3 12100 and i5 10400, more core is better for multitask, but average people still consider i3 12100. or in the same price, Ryzen 3600, 4500 or 5500 overall will perform better than i5 10400. im i right?

Sorry for my bad english

Multitasking is everywhere, just running one program also involves running parts of OS at same time and that alone makes it multitasking. Before dual/multi core CPUs multitasking was done by using time when CPU was idling waiting for inputs to do some other job and that required OS and programing to be made accordingly. Threads do similar thing and now being woven into CPU and OS frees programmers to code as they see fit without restrictions.
So whatever you do it's multitasking and just a matter of efficacy spread on more or less cores.

 

[hotaru.hino]

yeah, i agree.
But let's just make it more specific and not generalization.

comparing i3 12100 and i5 10400, more core is better for multitask, but average people still consider i3 12100. or in the same price, Ryzen 3600, 4500 or 5500 overall will perform better than i5 10400. im i right?

Sorry for my bad english

Assuming the only things you're doing are basic tasks like browsing the internet, writing documents, doing some basic image manipulation, etc. then I would argue that faster cores are better than multiple cores. Why? Because most of these tasks are I/O bound, meaning they're waiting for say the internet to give them data (which is still way slower than anything in the computer) or they're waiting for the user to input something. There may be short bursts of activity which can't be split between cores and users usually prefer a faster response.

In addition, with modern CPUs having 1-2 so-called "preferred cores," the OS tends to shove everything on them first.

 

[Misgar]

Your list contains a wide range of computing tasks, making it difficult to choose just one CPU that will be best in all situations.

Games benefit from fast individual cores but tend not to need more than 8-cores. You can game with an i9-13900K or a 7950X, but a CPU with fewer cores will be cheaper and the money saved can be spent on a faster GPU.

Professional rendering apps love cores, the more the better. If you can afford a 64-core or a 128-core processor, you'll get things done much faster. Rendering apps often make use of very expensive professional GPUs too.

If your budget is more modest, just buy the processor you can afford and accept it won't be best at everything.