cores are confusing me :0

[Humanist1996]

Question one - Can quad core intel beat octa core amd generally, assuming both can use all of their cores ?
Question two - Is intels hyper threading as good as amds 8 cores ?
Question three - can amd 8 core give me more fps than intel ,if future games are optimized for amd ?

I know fps depends gpu if you have it and that you cant compare amd and intel on the basis of "generally" and that there are many other variables involved.
PS - yes i am too lazy to put proper punctuations

 

[MeteorsRaining]

1. Yes.

2. It's more powerful than any FX.

3. Nope, it's not about game optimization, but rather CPU arcitecture.

Google FX 6300 is a tri core and you'd know why FX 8 or FX 9 are quad core performance CPUs.

 

[maxalge]

Question one - Can quad core intel beat octa core amd generally, assuming both can use all of their cores ?
Question two - Is intels hyper threading as good as amds 8 cores ?
Question three - can amd 8 core give me more fps than intel ,if future games are optimized for amd ?

I know fps depends gpu if you have it and that you cant compare amd and intel on the basis of "generally" and that there are many other variables involved.
PS - yes i am too lazy to put proper punctuations

1. Under all core usage situations, they will be close in performance.

2. Under all core usage situations, HT can give the intel cpu a pretty good performance lead.

3. No, there already are games than can use all cores. At best they are roughly equal in performance. Unless the intel cpu has HT which could give it an advantage.


fps depend on many components, and while it is generally a good idea to focus on the gpu specifically some games are heavily cpu performance dependant.


You must educate yourself, and do the research. Specific games can require specific builds.

Generally speaking for gaming, an i5 "k" edition is the best choice. Since in real life most games only use 1-4 cores.

 

[jaimelmiel]

1)Yes, depending on what processors you compare and how high the FX processor or other and is overclocked. And usually in single core only.
2) Each Rx is a processor with Core + Module units. 2 , 3, and 4. The module has the integral parts that allow it to function
as what is considered a core. Therefore is better than the exta tread for each processor that Intel runs.
3) Yes

 

[mouse24]

Question one - Can quad core intel beat octa core amd generally, assuming both can use all of their cores ?
Question two - Is intels hyper threading as good as amds 8 cores ?
Question three - can amd 8 core give me more fps than intel ,if future games are optimized for amd ?

I know fps depends gpu if you have it and that you cant compare amd and intel on the basis of "generally" and that there are many other variables involved.
PS - yes i am too lazy to put proper punctuations

Most of this depends on workload.

1: Sort of, in things where more cores outweighs the architecture improvements, yes, otherwise no.

2: Hyperthreading is more powerful by far.

3: what type of optimization are we talking about here and what cpus are we also talking about. For instance an 8350 might win out if a game was going "more cores > more powerful architecture" over "better architecture > more cores"

If you were going to buy a system right now I really can't recommend AMDs fx lineup. Its not that they are bad, they are pretty alright for the price but I just can't suggest buying into a dead platform.

 

[jaimelmiel]

See this, look look at overview for Q#2

 

[alexandergc]

the best answer anyone can give you is "it depends".

that's because AMD and Intel have different approaches to increasing computing power.
AMD runs on smaller, but more numerous physical "cores" while Intel keeps their consumer CPUs at a maximum of 4 physical cores with the option of HyperThreading.
I say AMD runs on "cores" because the actual architecture in an 8-core AMD processor is 4 modules in the CPU, each with 2 computing units that share resources.

1) Assuming that all cores are fully utilized by the software, AMD processors would usually come out on top, due to their more parallel structure. Intel processors would, however, still give the AMD's a run for their money when running less multi-core optimized software due to their better per-core speed and IPC .

2) HyperThreading is quite effective, IMHO. Whether or not it's as good as AMD's actual 8-core processor is up for debate however, as there are so many ways you can test each against the other and get results that support both sides.

3) IF the software is optimized for multi-core processors, then it would naturally mean that AMD processors would be better. However, Intel isn't just gonna be sitting on their hands if the market evolves to support >4 cores, so it would be difficult to say that Intel or AMD would be better. What I can say, is that with the current generation of processors from both companies, Intel chips perform almost the same, if not better, in everyday use and do it with much less power consumption than a competing AMD chip.

 

[jaimelmiel]

the best answer anyone can give you is "it depends".

that's because AMD and Intel have different approaches to increasing computing power.
AMD runs on smaller, but more numerous physical "cores" while Intel keeps their consumer CPUs at a maximum of 4 physical cores with the option of HyperThreading.
I say AMD runs on "cores" because the actual architecture in an 8-core AMD processor is 4 modules in the CPU, each with 2 computing units that share resources.
1) Assuming that all cores are fully utilized by the software, AMD processors would usually come out on top, due to their more parallel structure. Intel processors would, however, still give the AMD's a run for their money when running less multi-core optimized software due to their better per-core speed and IPC .

2) HyperThreading is quite effective, IMHO. Whether or not it's as good as AMD's actual 8-core processor is up for debate however, as there are so many ways you can test each against the other and get results that support both sides.

3) IF the software is optimized for multi-core processors, then it would naturally mean that AMD processors would be better. However, Intel isn't just gonna be sitting on their hands if the market evolves to support >4 cores, so it would be difficult to say that Intel or AMD would be better. What I can say, is that with the current generation of processors from both companies, Intel chips perform almost the same, if not better, in everyday use and do it with much less power consumption than a competing AMD chip.

Notice the conclusion of this article and where he rates an amd module vs hyperthreading. Though he is not high on amd's module he rates it better than hyperthreading.. Apreciate your comments.
http://blog.stuffedcow.net/2014/01/amd-modules-hyperthreading/

 

[alexandergc]

Notice the conclusion of this article and where he rates an amd module vs hyperthreading. Though he is not high on amd's module he rates it better than hyperthreading.. Apreciate your comments.
http://blog.stuffedcow.net/2014/01/amd-modules-hyperthreading/

and i quote:

The workloads use very little floating-point, avoiding a bottleneck on AMD chips caused by not having replicated FPUs within a module.

There is linear scaling until a clear bend in the curve at 4 threads, which indicates that using two threads in a module does not perform as well as two full cores.

this would imply that with floating-point loads included, the AMD modules would suffer a performance drop that would bring them to similar levels as the Intel chips running HT.

you will also note that in my answer to Q2, i made a point of the fact that different benchmarks will yield results favoring both Intel and AMD, depending on their settings.

My conclusion to this is that the problem of AMD vs Intel is probably never going to be solved, as each company produces chips to meet a specific niche in the market. It's ultimately up to system builders like us to decide which chip will satisfy our expected workloads when we build a system.

 

[MeteorsRaining]

OP and interested members, have a look here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2326446/architecture.html

And I've never really seen FX 8/9 winning against i7 for ANY job.

 

[vmN]

Only heavy AVX instructions will actually be bottlenecked by AMDs shared SIMD cluster (FPU).
That is not so common for the everyday user.

The real problem of AMDs module, is the frontend starving both backends, if overloaded.
Hence why windows scheduler load up a single core in each module before loading up the second core in a module.

We cannot compare SMT (hyper-threading) with CMT (cluster multithreading). They are in use for different purposes.
CMT is to be spaceefficient (cores sharing resources).
AMDs implementation of CMT increases performance up to ~70%.
SMT is to be power-effecient (Having two threads run on a single core).
Intels implementation of SMT increases performance up to ~30%.

 

[Humanist1996]

can anyone confirm that , say an i5 4670k can beat a fx 8320 (both OCed or not) in a all core fps battle ?

 

[vmN]

can anyone confirm that , say an i5 4670k can beat a fx 8320 (both OCed or not) in a all core fps battle ?

Nobody can answer that.
FPS and gaming is a bad measurement for CPU performance.

 

[alexandergc]

Only heavy AVX instructions will actually be bottlenecked by AMDs shared SIMD cluster (FPU).
That is not so common for the everyday user.

The real problem of AMDs module, is the frontend starving both backends, if overloaded.
Hence why windows scheduler load up a single core in each module before loading up the second core in a module.

We cannot compare SMT (hyper-threading) with CMT (cluster multithreading). They are in use for different purposes.
CMT is to be spaceefficient (cores sharing resources).
AMDs implementation of CMT increases performance up to ~70%.
SMT is to be power-effecient (Having two threads run on a single core).
Intels implementation of SMT increases performance up to ~30%.

this is probably the best answer to the Intel vs AMD multi-core issue.
the two companies simply use vastly different methods to increase CPU performance.

what you can derive from this however, are the Performance/Power and Performance/Price ratios.
Simplifying things very, very much...

AMDs would run at say, 70% faster speeds for ~50% extra power. 1.7/1.5 = 1.1333(repeating)
Intels would run at ~30% faster speeds for normal power. 1.3/1.0 = 1.3(flat).

Once you factor in things like proper cooling and platform costs, AMD's claim to higher clock speeds seem pretty hollow, IMHO.

 

[jaimelmiel]

Notice the conclusion of this article and where he rates an amd module vs hyperthreading. Though he is not high on amd's module he rates it better than hyperthreading.. Apreciate your comments.
http://blog.stuffedcow.net/2014/01/amd-modules-hyperthreading/

and i quote:

The workloads use very little floating-point, avoiding a bottleneck on AMD chips caused by not having replicated FPUs within a module.

There is linear scaling until a clear bend in the curve at 4 threads, which indicates that using two threads in a module does not perform as well as two full cores.

this would imply that with floating-point loads included, the AMD modules would suffer a performance drop that would bring them to similar levels as the Intel chips running HT.

you will also note that in my answer to Q2, i made a point of the fact that different benchmarks will yield results favoring both Intel and AMD, depending on their settings.

My conclusion to this is that the problem of AMD vs Intel is probably never going to be solved, as each company produces chips to meet a specific niche in the market. It's ultimately up to system builders like us to decide which chip will satisfy our expected workloads when we build a system.

Point taken. I have learned more on this subject about both hyperthreading and the Amd module. And I can appreciate both sides of the issue. Thanks.

 

[alexandergc]

Point taken. I have learned more on this subject about both hyperthreading and the Amd module. And I can appreciate both sides of the issue. Thanks.

Thanks!
I'm learning from this discussion as well.
vnM's posts in particular are quite enlightening, since I'm not very familiar with CPU architecture at that level of detail.

On another note:
Personally, I like where AMD is going with their APU concept.
In terms of absolute value for money when building a sub $500 system, it enables so much more flexibility in choosing parts, as well as saves quite a bit of space from not having to buy a discrete GPU.

My main problem with AMD is that their chips are real monsters in terms of power consumption.
When your ambient temps are 30-35C all year round, sticking one of those in a closed case with a GPU generating similar amounts of heat is not very pleasant

 

[Humanist1996]

i agree with alexandergc. amd would be totally awesome if they could lower their power consumption ,not like those special E models but like intel.
amd would be serious competition for intel, like "intel gone out of business" serious competition