How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?

[ricardok]

I'm willing to know, how does multi-threading scales up when using Windows 7?? I'm on RC (7100) now and I saw a lot of improvement over the 7000 version on my HP TX1000 and on my Core2Duo desktop (both x64).

 

[masop]

I was hoping to see both an AMD and INTEL platform used for the test. Obviously the results will vary, but the only way to know for sure is to test on both. The results do not reflect real-world results on an AMD based system; just an Intel based system. That creates somewhat of a biased situation. I suppose the same could be said for mixing ATI and NVidia with either Platform as well. An otherwise excellent article. Just my 2 cents. 🙂

-- MaSoP

 

[jrnyfan]

I have long preached what you discovered in this article and it is refreshing to see you do an article on this.

People don't understand that going from single core to dual or quad won't always net you an increase in performance since you are usually changing architecture. Thank you for sticking with one architecture to really show where it does and does not matter to have multi-cored processors

 

[jsloan]

[citation][nom]Wayoffbase[/nom]Very neat article, this is the kind of thing i read tom's for.[/citation]

yeap,

how many cores do we need, is like asking how much memory, or how much storage do we need, the more the merrier. right now what is limiting us is the software, much of it needs to be rewritten to truely benefit from large number of cores. i can imagine a day where we have couple hundred cores, like we have in a graphics card.

 

[erichlund]

I fine article for people who only do one thing at a time. Completely ignores multi-processing and only considers multi-threading. iTunes appears to be single threaded, so doesn't take advantage of multiple cores. However, that also means that it will not compete for more than one core in a multi-process environment, which means it may play BETTER with other apps. How many people listen to music while they work?

 

[glawk]

[citation][nom]jigajigajoo[/nom]You have to consider that dual-core processors will often be clocked faster than a quad-core processor at the same price range (Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0GHz vs. Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz at $165 on Newegg). Inversely, to get the same clock speed, to get the same clock speed for a quad-core as a dual-core, you will have to pay 2x or more of the dual-core price (E8400 vs. Quad Q9650 - $165 v. $325). You have to ask yourself whether a 30% increase in speed justifies a 100% increase in cost. In certain scenarios, yes, it is worth it. For the average user on a budget, however, dual-core will often be the most cost-effective. Not to mention the over clocking power of mature dual-core processors (but then, an overclocker is not an average user).[/citation]

This is an excellent point.

Also... the gaming results are somewhat misleading to the average reader. While using 1024x768 does clearly show how various game engines are affects by increasing #'s of cores, the real-world benefits are not nearly as substantial.

If we look at Tom's very own cpu charts from Q3/08, we can see that, at 1680x1050 (a much more realistic baseline resolution), the differences in performance are much more comparable than at 1024x768.

Examples:
Unreal Tournament 3 - 1680x1050
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Unreal-Tournament-3-1680x1050,819.html

Q9650 = $325 @ newegg = 149.7 fps
E8500 = $185 @ newegg = 133.7 fps

That's a 75% increase in cost for an 11% increase in performance.

Crysis - 1680x1050
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-1680x1050,818.html

Q9650 = $325 @ newegg = 132.4 fps
E8500 = $185 @ newegg = 134.8 fps

75% increase in cost vs. a 2% decrease in performance.


And the list goes on. WiC = 75% increase in price for an 11% gain. Sure, this is the case because the games are now more bound to the cpu than the gpu. And I understand the point of this article is not specifically written to show the benefits to gamers, but a broad view of the advantages of multi-core processing.

But I feel that this can lead to some confusion among potential buyers. I still maintain that, right now, the core 2 duo is the best bang-for-buck processor on the market for gamers. The problem I have with this article is this statement on the last page:

As far as games go, we see a huge 60% performance jump from going single-core to dual-core, and a further 25% leap from dual- to triple-core. Quad cores offer no benefits in the sampling of games we tested.

This simply isn't the case at standard resolutions such as 1680x1050 and 1920x1080. Bottom line: After 2 cores, gamers are much better off having a better graphics card than they would be to spend the extra cash on a triple or quad core cpu.

 

[bounty]

[citation][nom]glawk[/nom] Bottom line: After 2 cores, gamers are much better off having a better graphics card than they would be to spend the extra cash on a triple or quad core cpu.[/citation]

Unless they already have a good video card. :>

 

[bounty]

[citation][nom]Arbie[/nom]To "beg the question" does NOT mean to "raise the question". It is something totally different. See, for example, http://begthequestion.info/Please, Tom's journos and especially (!!) EDITORS (!!), get it right.Arbie[/citation]

Look up colloquial usage. Most people don't speak latin and are not lawyers.

 

[xizel]

[citation][nom]Summer Leigh Castle[/nom]Is there a comparison between the i7 and a standard 4-core CPU? I was wondering if the real-world gains are there to justify spending more money for a 4-core hyperthreading CPU?[/citation]

Dont forget the L2 cache size...

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]glawk[/nom]This is an excellent point. Also... the gaming results are somewhat misleading to the average reader. While using 1024x768 does clearly show how various game engines are affects by increasing #'s of cores, the real-world benefits are not nearly as substantial. If we look at Tom's very own cpu charts from Q3/08, we can see that, at 1680x1050 (a much more realistic baseline resolution), the differences in performance are much more comparable than at 1024x768. Examples:Unreal Tournament 3 - 1680x1050http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] 0,819.htmlQ9650 = $325 @ newegg = 149.7 fpsE8500 = $185 @ newegg = 133.7 fpsThat's a 75% increase in cost for an 11% increase in performance.Crysis - 1680x1050http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] 0,818.htmlQ9650 = $325 @ newegg = 132.4 fpsE8500 = $185 @ newegg = 134.8 fps75% increase in cost vs. a 2% decrease in performance.And the list goes on. WiC = 75% increase in price for an 11% gain. Sure, this is the case because the games are now more bound to the cpu than the gpu. And I understand the point of this article is not specifically written to show the benefits to gamers, but a broad view of the advantages of multi-core processing. But I feel that this can lead to some confusion among potential buyers. I still maintain that, right now, the core 2 duo is the best bang-for-buck processor on the market for gamers. The problem I have with this article is this statement on the last page:As far as games go, we see a huge 60% performance jump from going single-core to dual-core, and a further 25% leap from dual- to triple-core. Quad cores offer no benefits in the sampling of games we tested.This simply isn't the case at standard resolutions such as 1680x1050 and 1920x1080. Bottom line: After 2 cores, gamers are much better off having a better graphics card than they would be to spend the extra cash on a triple or quad core cpu.[/citation]

I have to disagree about the statement "standard resolutions such as 1680x1050 and 1920x1080". In the real world, most people who own LCD displays are incapable of playing "natively" at 1920x1080 because of the limitations of the panels. In order to play at 1920x1080 you often, but not always are required to have a panel size of 24" or larger. Most computer users (including gamers) don't own panels that large.

Saying that 1920x1080 is a standard gaming resolution is a bit off key and incorrect. I wouldn't call 1920x1080 standard gaming resolution by a long shot at this point. I do agree about 1680x1050, as there are alot of 20" and 22" panels out there capable of that resolution natively, though you would be surprised how dominent 1024x768 (and related WS resolutions) gaming is, even on larger panels.

Most games run really smooth at that resolution, especially for those who don't have the graphics card muscle or large panel to run at higher
non-standard resolutions such as 1920x1080. I know there are some out there that play at that resolution on CRT based monitors with high refresh rates, though not many have CRT's that large anymore.

I'm sure as time progresses that 1920x1080 will eventually become a standard desktop and gaming resolution, replacing all other lower resolutions. Just my 2 cents. 🙂

-- MaSoP

 

[glawk]

[citation][nom]bounty[/nom]Unless they already have a good video card. :>[/citation]

And they want to do some heavy encoding. Because that's the only reasonable argument for 3 and 4-core processors. For everything else, dual core is the sweet spot.

And I believe it will be that way for quite some time yet (atleast until it's time to upgrade again a year or two down the road) until programmers start to fully take advantage of 4 cores. Only then will we pass the point of dimishing returns.

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]glawk[/nom]And they want to do some heavy encoding. Because that's the only reasonable argument for 3 and 4-core processors. For everything else, dual core is the sweet spot.And I believe it will be that way for quite some time yet (atleast until it's time to upgrade again a year or two down the road) until programmers start to fully take advantage of 4 cores. Only then will we pass the point of dimishing returns.[/citation]

I agree. The only game I am aware of that requires a triple or quad core processor for "decent" performance and visuals even with a powerful graphics card, is Grand Theft Auto IV. Other than that, I think a dual core is good for most users. The video encoding, 3d animation and rendering crowd has always been multi-thread hungry for as long as I can remember.

-- MaSoP

 

[glawk]

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]I have to disagree about the statement "standard resolutions such as 1680x1050 and 1920x1080". In the real world, most people who own LCD displays are incapable of playing "natively" at 1920x1080 because of the limitations of the panels. In order to play at 1920x1080 you often, but not always are required to have a panel size of 24" or larger.[/citation]

Going back only 6 or 7 years, I can remember buying a 22" viewsonic CRT for nearly $700. Now, you can pick up a 22" LCD for $150-$200 or a 24" for $250-$300. They even have 22" monitors now that have a native resolution of 1920x1080. How are these not "mainstream" parts?

If I'm recommending parts for someone looking to building a gaming PC today, I wouldn't dream of recommending something lower than that.

 

[falcompsx]

a lot of things that make quad-core machines desirable are just not quantifiable in benchmarks. How do you benchmark the performance hit when your antivirus decides to scan a file in the middle of a game? or just the general smoothness of browsing the web, while you are encoding a HD video? Sure you can slap a time on the video encoding, but the feel of using the web browser is a almost purely objective experience that can't be put into numbers. These benefits are also something i took into consideration when i bought my quad and i dont regret it one bit.

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]glawk[/nom]Going back only 6 or 7 years, I can remember buying a 22" viewsonic CRT for nearly $700. Now, you can pick up a 22" LCD for $150-$200 or a 24" for $250-$300. They even have 22" monitors now that have a native resolution of 1920x1080. How are these not "mainstream" parts?If I'm recommending parts for someone looking to building a gaming PC today, I wouldn't dream of recommending something lower than that.[/citation]

Well, alot has changed in the lcd panel realm, especially price wise since december 2007. That is when I received my 19" samsung panel and that was $300 at the time. Since then, the larger panels have dropped considerably and you're right about the pricing. I've seen 23 and 24" models for the $200's lately. Some generics can be had less at times. It surprises me how quick the prices are dropping. It actually makes me want to upgrade my 19" to a 24" as well, lol. I agree with your recommendations for a modern gaming rig, no doubt.

As I noted, 1920x1080 normally requires a 24", but not always. I saw a deal for a dell 22 or 23" a few minutes ago that does 1920x1080, so there are exceptions to the rule. I noticed one thing regarding gaming resolutions on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

Notice the most popular gaming resolutions on steam are 1024x768 @ 20%, 1280x1024 @ 24% and 1680x1050 @ 17%. They show 1920x1080 @ 1.4%, at least on their system. I am aware that steam doesn't include all gamers world wide, but it is interesting information nonetheless.

-- MaSoP

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]I agree. The only game I am aware of that requires a triple or quad core processor for "decent" performance and visuals even with a powerful graphics card, is Grand Theft Auto IV. Other than that, I think a dual core is good for most users. The video encoding, 3d animation and rendering crowd has always been multi-thread hungry for as long as I can remember.-- MaSoP[/citation]

Jeez, did both of you miss the posts before yours? Tri-cores increase performance quite a bit simply because so many apps are dual-threaded (including games), allowing background processes to run on a separate core.

As the amount of cores increases in the mainstream, more developers will write apps that take advantage of more cores. And as such having one core more than a resource intensive application will increase performance. So I want to make amendment to my previous statement.

I want a 9 core processor since Blender can only use 8 threads.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]As I noted, 1920x1080 normally requires a 24", but not always. I saw a deal for a dell 22 or 23" a few minutes ago that does 1920x1080, so there are exceptions to the rule.[/citation]
I disagree. I think you confuse 1920x1200 with 1080p. I haven't seen many 24" displays at 1920x1080 that weren't TV's. On the other hand, I can't find many sub-24" 1920x1200 monitors.

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]I noticed one thing regarding gaming resolutions on wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolutionNotice the most popular gaming resolutions on steam are 1024x768 @ 20%, 1280x1024 @ 24% and 1680x1050 @ 17%. They show 1920x1080 @ 1.4%, at least on their system.[/citation]
1920x1200 @ 4.6%

1920x1080 (16:9) isn't a resolution intended for computer monitors. 1920x1200 is the 8:5 (16:10) equivalent. (1680x1050 is 8:5)

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]Jeez, did both of you miss the posts before yours? Tri-cores increase performance quite a bit simply because so many apps are dual-threaded (including games), allowing background processes to run on a separate core.As the amount of cores increases in the mainstream, more developers will write apps that take advantage of more cores. And as such having one core more than a resource intensive application will increase performance. So I want to make amendment to my previous statement.I want a 9 core processor since Blender can only use 8 threads.[/citation]

LOL. I've got over 100 apps installed on my system and about a dozen games (only playing a couple) and only a couple of the apps and maybe one of the games support multi-threading. From my perspective, having a triple or quad core has little use for me at this time or for the near future, aside from a few select apps or games currently available and within my range of interest. I am unable to justify upgrading to a triple or quad core. Also, a triple or quad core processor will create more heat in my case and office and eat up more electricity than my current dual core setup does (which isn't much at the 65w rating). That means more $$$ being given to the power company at the end of the month, lol.

Once a larger pecentage of apps and/or games I'm using supports and utilizes extra cores, that is when I'll make the move. Seems logical for many, though I can only speak for myself. Others will have their own needs and opinions. After all, that is what this site and forum is for. Thanks for reading, hehe. 🙂

-- MaSoP

 

[etrnl_frost]

Very good "review", as it were! I liked it. Makes me think of other things, like comparing 4x1GB to 2x2GB on RAM, or setting up the OS in one hard drive, and apps on another hard drive, etc etc.

I have my most recent computer set up with the OS and supporting apps on one HD, games on another HD, and unrelated media (songs, etc.) on another HD. I've noticed quite a bit of stability. The idea is to be able to play a game without having to worry if there's a background virus scan, while playing mp3's (UT3 w/ beethoven is a good thing).

At the very least, it's more stable. It's anecdotal, but it seems to be faster. Benchmarks! Let's get some benchmarks and statistics!

 

[garydale]

How many people run a single program at a time? Multiple cores allow you to keep the speed up when you are doing more than one thing at once. For example, I don't devote a machine to recoding audio or video. I do it on my workstation while doing other things.

So maybe multiple cores don't give you a great speed increase on the latest games. However, I'm not a gamer. I want my PC to continue working while I'm doing something else that is chewing up CPU cycles. Even something as simple as downloading and filtering e-mail in the background can slow down a single-core machine but wouldn't be noticed in a multi-core computer.

I expected my old Apple ][ to only do one thing at a time. It's been a long time since I've put up with that limitation.

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]etrnl_frost[/nom]Very good "review", as it were! I liked it. Makes me think of other things, like comparing 4x1GB to 2x2GB on RAM, or setting up the OS in one hard drive, and apps on another hard drive, etc etc. I have my most recent computer set up with the OS and supporting apps on one HD, games on another HD, and unrelated media (songs, etc.) on another HD. I've noticed quite a bit of stability. The idea is to be able to play a game without having to worry if there's a background virus scan, while playing mp3's (UT3 w/ beethoven is a good thing). At the very least, it's more stable. It's anecdotal, but it seems to be faster. Benchmarks! Let's get some benchmarks and statistics![/citation]

That is how I have my system configured. The O/S and Apps on C, Games and Photos on D, Miscellaneous Content on E, MP3's and other music related content on F, and G and H are for Archived content and downloads.

I've got 2.6TB of storage space in my system and tons of data, so I had to divided it up onto several drives. There is something to be said about good organization, hehe. Some may call it being anal, but it works for me. Hehe. 🙂

-- MaSoP

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]garydale[/nom]How many people run a single program at a time? Multiple cores allow you to keep the speed up when you are doing more than one thing at once. For example, I don't devote a machine to recoding audio or video. I do it on my workstation while doing other things.So maybe multiple cores don't give you a great speed increase on the latest games. However, I'm not a gamer. I want my PC to continue working while I'm doing something else that is chewing up CPU cycles. Even something as simple as downloading and filtering e-mail in the background can slow down a single-core machine but wouldn't be noticed in a multi-core computer.I expected my old Apple ][ to only do one thing at a time. It's been a long time since I've put up with that limitation.[/citation]

You are correct. Good point! The one thing not mentioned much is multi-tasking. Aside from the O/S automatically utilizing the extra cores for multi-tasking; I like having the option to be able to assign affinity to specific apps/processes in a multi-core system.

-- MaSoP

 

[etrnl_frost]

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]That is how I have my system configured. The O/S and Apps on C, Games and Photos on D, Miscellaneous Content on E, MP3's and other music related content on F, and G and H are for Archived content and downloads.I've got 2.6TB of storage space in my system and tons of data, so I had to divided it up onto several drives. There is something to be said about good organization, hehe. Some may call it being anal, but it works for me. Hehe. 🙂-- MaSoP[/citation]

I hear that! Sounds like a great machine! I've limited space to work with - without using eSATA or USB/Firewire, I'm tapped out for space. Granted, I think I've done pretty good with what I've got... Hell, I think it's hilarious that I've got a mATX in a mini P180 running a 9800 GX2. I bet there aren't many mATX mobo's out there running SLI... and I bet less are running 64 bit on a quad core with 8gb of RAM...

I know it's a bit OT, but I must know about this 2.6 TB beast - I've got almost exactly half of that (1x320, 2x500) on the current rig...

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]LOL. I've got over 100 apps installed on my system and about a dozen games (only playing a couple) and only a couple of the apps and maybe one of the games support multi-threading.[/citation]
I didn't say multi-threaded, I'm saying dual-threaded.

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]From my perspective, having a triple or quad core has little use for me at this time or for the near future, aside from a few select apps or games currently available and within my range of interest. I am unable to justify upgrading to a triple or quad core.[/citation]
Quads are a different story, but many games these days are dual-threaded, which is why there is an average 25% performance gain when moving from a dual to a triple core processor. As I was saying, 1 more core than the app can use will increase performance.

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]Others will have their own needs and opinions. After all, that is what this site and forum is for. Thanks for reading, hehe. 🙂-- MaSoP[/citation]
I'm not trying to convince you to buy an i7. I could easily use all 8 threads in a single app. I'm simply stating, the issue isn't that apps aren't using more than one core, the issue is they aren't using more than two. Most processor intensive apps nowadays are dual-threaded, if not more.

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]etrnl_frost[/nom]I hear that! Sounds like a great machine! I've limited space to work with - without using eSATA or USB/Firewire, I'm tapped out for space. Granted, I think I've done pretty good with what I've got... Hell, I think it's hilarious that I've got a mATX in a mini P180 running a 9800 GX2. I bet there aren't many mATX mobo's out there running SLI... and I bet less are running 64 bit on a quad core with 8gb of RAM...I know it's a bit OT, but I must know about this 2.6 TB beast - I've got almost exactly half of that (1x320, 2x500) on the current rig...[/citation]

Although this comments section on the article is straying a little bit off-course, I'll provide details. My system isn't exactly a beast, though it is a mix between mainstream and high end components, being custom built and all.

Asus M2N-E Deluxe AM2 Mainboard
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Brisbane (2.9GHz Dual Core) AM2 Processor
4GB OCZ Platinum Revision 2 PC2-6400 Memory (4-4-4-12; running at CL5 due to voltage limitations with M2N-E)
(4)WD 640GB 7200RPM 16MB Caviar Blue Hard Drives (6 partitions total)
(1)WD 250GB 7200RPM 16MB Caviar SE16 Hard Drive (eSATA)
Asus Radeon x1950 Pro 256MB PCI-E Graphics Card (this card is now dated, but still considered high end from AMD's perspective)
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Gamer Sound Card
Samsung SATA DVD+/-RW Drive
Antec Full Tower Case
Ultra XVS 700Watt PSU (79% Eff; One 12v 40 Amp Rail, not the best but not bad either)
Samsung 906CW 19" Widescreen LCD
Windows XP Pro SP3
Windows 7 (Beta 1, Official; dual-boot setup)

Although I rarely go into Windows 7, it is definitely a big improvement over Windows Vista. I plan on upgrading to it once the final is out this summer or fall. Doing so will give me DX10 ability for the new Graphics Card that I will upgrade to around the same time. I will be upgrading to either a Radeon HD 4870 or 4890 1GB. I've also considered a GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 as well. I'm not sure yet. If I decided to upgraded to a Quad Core processor, that won't be until at least the first half of 2010 since I have practically nothing that utilizes extra cores, aside from general multi-tasking.

-- MaSoP