Discussion Cores VS Frequency

[jnjnilson6]

If you had to swiftly decide between running a system with more cores at lighter frequency or a system at higher frequency harboring less cores what would your decision be?

Example:

1. 12 cores @ 2 GHz
2. 6 cores @ 4 GHz

I would ascertain in the affirmative my inclination toward the Processor harboring more cores albeit running at a lower frequency for a number of stark and effectually expressed reasons.

However, what would your decision be? And what would be the underlying reasons inclining you thusly?


Do write up and

Thank you!

ADDENDA:
Something I should have, perhaps, clarified. I am not looking into buying a CPU or anything like that; I am just wondering what the situation would be for the readers of the thread.

Perhaps, I have not correctly stated all the particulars within the thread lucidly and clearly in the beginning.

6 cores @ 4 GHz and 12 cores @ 2 GHz was only an example. That may well be 20 cores @ 3 GHz and 10 cores @ 6 GHz, or anything within that same general rhythm.

Now, I am asking which option you might prefer. For example, if you want to host many virtual machines, it would be better to have more cores. And if you are a gamer, a lesser number of cores, however at a higher speed may be better for you.

This reasoning may go on indefinitely, highlighting different Processor exertions in terms of different usage and therefore the need of either more cores at a slower speed or lesser cores at a faster one. And since there are many people on the forum I think we could make this quite the discussion.

I would like to know what You would prefer for what you'll be doing on your computer.

 

[rgd1101]

depend on what the system is doing

 

[kanewolf]

If you had to swiftly decide between running a system with more cores at lighter frequency or a system at higher frequency harboring less cores what would your decision be?

Example:

1. 12 cores @ 2 GHz
2. 6 cores @ 4 GHz

I would ascertain in the affirmative my inclination toward the Processor harboring more cores albeit running at a lower frequency for a number of stark and effectually expressed reasons.

However, what would your decision be? And what would be the underlying reasons inclining you thusly?


Do write up and

Thank you!

That question can not reasonably be answered. There is too little info provided.

 

[jnjnilson6]

That question can not reasonably be answered. There is too little info provided.

Thank you for writing up!

Something I should have, perhaps, clarified. I am not looking into buying a CPU or anything like that; I am just wondering what the situation would be for the readers of the thread.

So, I would be glad if you could tell me what the situation would be in your case and in your systems in particular.

Thank you!

 

[hotaru.hino]

The second option, because I don't run tasks that can use up CPU cores often enough for it to matter. A many things you do with a computer are more reliant on getting a few threads done as quickly as possible.

But ultimately it still depends on what someone is doing with their computer.

 

[kanewolf]

Thank you for writing up!

Something I should have, perhaps, clarified. I am not looking into buying a CPU or anything like that; I am just wondering what the situation would be for the readers of the thread.

So, I would be glad if you could tell me what the situation would be in your case and in your systems in particular.

Thank you!

Generally, fewer high clock cores will get work done faster day after day. Why? It is difficult to write highly parallel code that is efficient. There is very little code that uses more than a few cores.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Generally, fewer high clock cores will get work done faster day after day. Why? It is difficult to write highly parallel code that is efficient. There is very little code that uses more than a few cores.

Those days... The days you could fire up Visual C++ 6.0 and when the programmers wrote good software, not endlessly long structures with endless problems and zero actual knowledge portrayed in their making.

And then a Pentium II 450 MHz would be fast as lightning and things would be simpler, purer, and beautifully thought-out.

And of course, the question about core utilization always depends upon the particular task the machine would be exerted towards.

 

[TerryLaze]

If you had to swiftly decide between running a system with more cores at lighter frequency or a system at higher frequency harboring less cores what would your decision be?

Example:

1. 12 cores @ 2 GHz
2. 6 cores @ 4 GHz

Too many cores at too low clocks = bad
Too few cores even at very high clocks = bad
Everything in between = good enough.

Both your examples fall into the in between category, you aren't considering boost clocks, even a 12 core CPU will easily boost one or two cores to high clocks especially if the others aren't doing much.
Also a 6 core CPU at 4Ghz is way more than enough for pretty much everybody that only does normal things with their PCs.

If theoretical and locked to low clocks then really bad for normal use, see this, gaming on xeonphi.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBxtS9BpVWs

 

[jnjnilson6]

Too many cores at too low clocks = bad
Too few cores even at very high clocks = bad
Everything in between = good enough.

Both your examples fall into the in between category, you aren't considering boost clocks, even a 12 core CPU will easily boost one or two cores to high clocks especially if the others aren't doing much.
Also a 6 core CPU at 4Ghz is way more than enough for pretty much everybody that only does normal things with their PCs.

If theoretical and locked to low clocks then really bad for normal use, see this, gaming on xeonphi.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBxtS9BpVWs

Thank you very much!

Yeah, I know my examples weren't really connected to any real life processors of the current generations. Yet I propounded a view, that perhaps, would depict two processors of the same generation with locked speeds differing twice and with core count too differing twice.

But, I would mainly like to know what each reader of the thread would personally prefer (if we had two processors of the same modern generation locked at aforesaid speeds and harboring aforementioned core counts).

So if you could choose between option 1 and option 2 (same generation, same everything; only depicted differences implicated), what would be your choice, personally?

Thanks again!

 

[jnjnilson6]

Too many cores at too low clocks = bad
Too few cores even at very high clocks = bad
Everything in between = good enough.

Both your examples fall into the in between category, you aren't considering boost clocks, even a 12 core CPU will easily boost one or two cores to high clocks especially if the others aren't doing much.
Also a 6 core CPU at 4Ghz is way more than enough for pretty much everybody that only does normal things with their PCs.

If theoretical and locked to low clocks then really bad for normal use, see this, gaming on xeonphi.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBxtS9BpVWs

As per the 'ADDENDA,' I'm not looking into buying a CPU or anything of the sort. I am asking the question to the forum at large just per curiosity, to see what different persons personally prefer.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Perhaps, I have not correctly stated all the particulars within the thread lucidly and clearly in the beginning.

6 cores @ 4 GHz and 12 cores @ 2 GHz was only an example. That may well be 20 cores @ 3 GHz and 10 cores @ 6 GHz, or anything within that same general rhythm.

Now, I am asking which option you might prefer. For example, if you want to host many virtual machines, it would be better to have more cores. And if you are a gamer, a lesser number of cores, however at a higher speed may be better for you.

This reasoning may go on indefinitely, highlighting different Processor exertions in terms of different usage and therefore the need of either more cores at a slower speed or lesser cores at a faster one. And since there are many people on the forum I think we could make this quite the discussion.

I would like to know what You would prefer for what you'll be doing on your computer.

 

[rgd1101]

Now, I am asking which option you might prefer. For example, if you want to host many virtual machines, it would be better to have more cores. And if you are a gamer, a lesser number of cores, however at a higher speed may be better for you.

nope. that pretty much it. it is all depend on what you using it for

 

[kanewolf]

Perhaps, I have not correctly stated all the particulars within the thread lucidly and clearly in the beginning.

6 cores @ 4 GHz and 12 cores @ 2 GHz was only an example. That may well be 20 cores @ 3 GHz and 10 cores @ 6 GHz, or anything within that same general rhythm.

Now, I am asking which option you might prefer. For example, if you want to host many virtual machines, it would be better to have more cores. And if you are a gamer, a lesser number of cores, however at a higher speed may be better for you.

This reasoning may go on indefinitely, highlighting different Processor exertions in terms of different usage and therefore the need of either more cores at a slower speed or lesser cores at a faster one. And since there are many people on the forum I think we could make this quite the discussion.

I would like to know what You would prefer for what you'll be doing on your computer.

Your parameters are still too vague. For example VMs are more RAM dependent than CPU dependent. I might get better performance with a 6 core CPU with 6 memory channels and 192GB RAM than I would with 20 core CPU with 2 memory channels and 16GB RAM. CPUs require an infrastructure that supports the desired workload. They don't work in a vacuum.
Even 20 core CPUs are not "created equal" . Cache size, number of memory channels, PCIe lanes and COST play into a purchase decision.
No purchase decision is made based exclusively on number of cores and clock speed.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Your parameters are still too vague. For example VMs are more RAM dependent than CPU dependent. I might get better performance with a 6 core CPU with 6 memory channels and 192GB RAM than I would with 20 core CPU with 2 memory channels and 16GB RAM. CPUs require an infrastructure that supports the desired workload. They don't work in a vacuum.
Even 20 core CPUs are not "created equal" . Cache size, number of memory channels, PCIe lanes and COST play into a purchase decision.
No purchase decision is made based exclusively on number of cores and clock speed.

Thank you for writing up!

Well, I had not even tacitly touched upon it, but I wanted to refer to systems with exactly the same specifications and the same CPU architecture, with the only difference between them being CPU clock and cores.

You are perfectly right about the importance of RAM and the other parameters. I was just referencing to a sort of perfected state in which all other components were the same and the only difference proved the aforesaid.

We may have a system with 192 MB RAM and a Core i9-13900KS and a system with 1 GB RAM and a Pentium 4 520J. Well, I do believe that unless the software being run is specifically written to run well on up to 192 MB RAM, the Pentium 4 machine would quash it.

 

[kanewolf]

Thank you for writing up!

Well, I had not even tacitly touched upon it, but I wanted to refer to systems with exactly the same specifications and the same CPU architecture, with the only difference between them being CPU clock and cores.

You are perfectly right about the importance of RAM and the other parameters. I was just referencing to a sort of perfected state in which all other components were the same and the only difference proved the aforesaid.

We may have a system with 192 MB RAM and a Core i9-13900KS and a system with 1 GB RAM and a Pentium 4 520J. Well, I do believe that unless the software being run is specifically written to run well on up to 192 MB RAM, the Pentium 4 machine would quash it.

My last statement is the key "No purchase decision is made based exclusively on number of cores and clock speed."

 

[jnjnilson6]

Your parameters are still too vague. For example VMs are more RAM dependent than CPU dependent. I might get better performance with a 6 core CPU with 6 memory channels and 192GB RAM than I would with 20 core CPU with 2 memory channels and 16GB RAM. CPUs require an infrastructure that supports the desired workload. They don't work in a vacuum.
Even 20 core CPUs are not "created equal" . Cache size, number of memory channels, PCIe lanes and COST play into a purchase decision.
No purchase decision is made based exclusively on number of cores and clock speed.

Of course, not counting in memory being allocated and read from the system disk.

My last statement is the key "No purchase decision is made based exclusively on number of cores and clock speed."

Thank you for writing up!

Well, I was not placing the question originally underneath the lights of real-life standards.

It was hypothetical from the beginning up until the end. That was the fleeting and resurgent beauty of it.

Now, without anymore laughter (seriousness upon the audience), I asked the readers what they would choose from these two hypothetical systems. Not whether such systems exist or would likely be bought.

It was a fictitious strain upon provided parameters, obvious and oblivious (no laughter) within the numerals and deafened words pointing toward the questions - Would you prefer this? Or would you prefer that?
It was just a matter of what one would prefer. Put simply - Would one prefer two times more cores at a 1/2 clock rate? or... Would one prefer those cores cut in half at a 1/1 clock rate?

And then, swiftly and pertinently, those specifications could, without much hassle, be translated by the individual and for the individual into more practical numbers and practical names which may be bought or obtained or compared within the specter of real life.

It isn't true. But it is simple enough to feel true.

 

[geofelt]

The answer is clearly #2 which will not ever be worse than #1.
All other things being equal.
I would pick a single core @24 GHz.
In the real world, it is most difficult to have an app that can fully occupy many threads.
Look at "Amdahl's law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

Then, the question equates clock speed to performance.
A better chip architecture can provide more performance per clock.

 

[TerryLaze]

It was hypothetical from the beginning up until the end. That was the fleeting and resurgent beauty of it.

- Would you prefer this? Or would you prefer that?
It was just a matter of what one would prefer. Put simply - Would one prefer two times more cores at a 1/2 clock rate? or... Would one prefer those cores cut in half at a 1/1 clock rate?

A rock or a hard place...which would you prefer?
Would you rather be crushed by 2 1-ton rocks or by 4 half-ton rocks?

Both are terrible choices.

 

[jnjnilson6]

A rock or a hard place...which would you prefer?
Would you rather be crushed by 2 1-ton rocks or by 4 half-ton rocks?

Both are terrible choices.

This reminds me of a philosophic cycle... Too old, too solemn, too inappropriately laugh-inducing to be produced upon the stony remains of a reverent gentleman.

 

[jnjnilson6]

A rock or a hard place...which would you prefer?
Would you rather be crushed by 2 1-ton rocks or by 4 half-ton rocks?

Both are terrible choices.

To be honest you'll have more fun on this thread than by reading the critique books of hefty and forgotten names on philosophy, by venturing through the time-swept titles of illicit poetry, by delving within the half-darkness with splattering raindrops turning awry in the corners, by venturing in a blue gloom through sleepless hours and dreaming of gaudy and unheard of redolent places...

It was a wild tonic, exhilarating and burning, at a high voltage, underneath the sterner corners of heightened numerals, with delirious laughter at the end of a delirious theme.

 

[falcon291]

If you had to swiftly decide between running a system with more cores at lighter frequency or a system at higher frequency harboring less cores what would your decision be?

Example:

1. 12 cores @ 2 GHz
2. 6 cores @ 4 GHz

I would ascertain in the affirmative my inclination toward the Processor harboring more cores albeit running at a lower frequency for a number of stark and effectually expressed reasons.

However, what would your decision be? And what would be the underlying reasons inclining you thusly?


Do write up and

Thank you!

ADDENDA:
Something I should have, perhaps, clarified. I am not looking into buying a CPU or anything like that; I am just wondering what the situation would be for the readers of the thread.

Perhaps, I have not correctly stated all the particulars within the thread lucidly and clearly in the beginning.

6 cores @ 4 GHz and 12 cores @ 2 GHz was only an example. That may well be 20 cores @ 3 GHz and 10 cores @ 6 GHz, or anything within that same general rhythm.

Now, I am asking which option you might prefer. For example, if you want to host many virtual machines, it would be better to have more cores. And if you are a gamer, a lesser number of cores, however at a higher speed may be better for you.

This reasoning may go on indefinitely, highlighting different Processor exertions in terms of different usage and therefore the need of either more cores at a slower speed or lesser cores at a faster one. And since there are many people on the forum I think we could make this quite the discussion.

I would like to know what You would prefer for what you'll be doing on your computer.

If it is a gaming computer, higher frequency makes more sense.
If it is a web server, more cores makes more sense.

I am not running a web server, or I am not running virtual machines, so for me higher frequency makes more sense. Your question does not have a simple single line answer.

 

[Tac 25]

OP

cores vs frequency?
that is all too complicated for me to think about..

when I went shopping for a new gaming cpu.. I was just thinking of three things.

1. Should have more cores than my 2600k
2. Should have higher clock speed than 2600k
3. Should be 10th gen intel or higher

it was decided by the salesman who presented to me a 10600k brand new in a box.
purchased it and took it home. It's super fast, and is more than enough for all games that I play.

 

[jnjnilson6]

OP

cores vs frequency?
that is all too complicated for me to think about..

when I went shopping for a new gaming cpu.. I was just thinking of three things.

1. Should have more cores than my 2600k
2. Should have higher clock speed than 2600k
3. Should be 10th gen intel or higher

it was decided by the salesman who presented to me a 10600k brand new in a box.
purchased it and took it home. It's super fast, and is more than enough for all games that I play.

Thank you very much for writing up!

Yeah, that's a hardcore, enthusiast CPU by its very definition. Same thing the 2600K used to be back in the day - top notch and suffused with limitless, uncompromising power.

It should last like the 2600K did - wonderfully and longly.
You should be able to play games and be proud of it the way you were with the 2600K back in the day; it really is a captivating proposition to anyone who may have it.

There are only very good things to be said about it. I believe it has a long life ahead and as mentioned, proves a component definitely within the higher parallels of the performance spectrum.

 

[Tac 25]

@jnjnilson6

my 2600K is still actively used, got it around the time the pandemic is starting.. so it's also relatively "new" here in the house. Of course, the 10600k is newer, got it beginning of 2022.

to get a bit on topic with your thread = for clock speeds.. I heard from a gaming community that a good clock speed for gaming should be at least 3.5-4.5 ghz. The speed of the 2600k is 3.40, so it's close, while the speed of the 10600k is 4.1.. so it's in.

since I use both pc's actively, could compare their performance in daily tasks of encoding and gaming.

1. Encoding with Handbrake, both cpu's do just fine. Since Handbrake has Nvenc, the gpu can assist.
2. Xvid4psp is another video encoder I use often. This program does not have Nvenc. The cpu probably do most of the encoding. The 2600k is slower.. but it's only really noticeable when I'm encoding something that is 1 GB and above.
3. On gaming. Both cpu's could run Genshin Impact, no lag with everything maxed and Vsync turned on.
4. Dead or Alive VI, however shows the limitations of the 2600k. 2600k + 1050ti cannot handle the maxed graphic settings of DOA 6, as the game would literally go into slow motion even at the character select screen (unplayable). Note, I have tried pairing the 2600k with a 1650, and DOA 6 is still unplayable on max settings. 10600K + 3050 easily runs DOA 6 on max settings, characters move fast, no lag. This raises questions, why the 2600k cannot do it... because it has less cores than the 10600k? lower clock speed? or maybe the 2600k can run max settings of DOA VI if I paired it with the 3050? - I was unable to test the 2600k + 3050 pairing, because the 3050 is a hassle to remove from the case (lol).

 

[Nighthawk117]

It would depend on the disparity between the two. In your example of 6 cores at 4Ghz vs 12 at 2Ghz I would pick the 6 every time. The 6 core system will be much more responsive and will run will run pretty much everything better than the 12 core.

A possible scenario where the 12 core might be preferable is in a server environment where the workload scaled perfectly with core count because 12 cores at 2Ghz with the same architecture will likely be more power efficient than 6 core's at double the clock speed.

Where the choice might be more difficult is when each CPU has strengths and weaknesses. If you have an 8 core and a 12 core CPU and the 8 core has 25% higher IPC which do you pick, it would depend on use case.

When I was presented with a choice similar to the above I chose the higher core count CPU for smoother multi-tasking.