More Cores vs. More Threads

[ProLeopard]

Hello everyone,

I am making my own gaming PC and I was considering two processors in particular.
The AMD FX-9590 and the Intel Core i7-4820k
I am limited by price and can therefore only decide between those two. The AMD has 4 more cores, but the Intel has hyperthreading. Which one should I go for? Both are the exact same price, and the only difference is two dollars.
I do a lot of video editing (with sony vegas) and recording, I plan to record things like Battlefield 4 and TitanFall with Fraps. I have a GTX 780 Ti in my build so everything else is good.

Thanks,
ProLeopard

 

[Nuclear101]

Neither. The i5-4670k is all you need for gaming. The i7-4770k for gaming+ video editing.

 

[ProLeopard]

Neither. The i5-4670k is all you need for gaming. The i7-4770k for gaming+ video editing.

Thanks for the options!
I will consider those two.
Which one is better out of the two I have chosen though?

 

[Nuclear101]

i7-4820k. The AMD is overpriced and performs worse.

 

[ProLeopard]

i7-4820k. The AMD is overpriced and performs worse.

At the site I'm buying them at, they are the same price..
The benchmarks are the same but usually those don't say much.
How much worse does it perform?
It has a much higher clock speed and twice the number of cores...
The intel only has hyperthreading

 

[jshoop]

the 9590 is just an overclocked 8350, so you can do it yourself. It trades blows with the i5 in games, and crushes it in multi tasking/video editing. as for more threads vs more cores, cores are better than threads. this explains it pretty well, a little lengthy but definatly in depth: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/319467-28-cores-threads

if you are video editing more don't get an i5. it wont perform nearly as well as the i7.

elaborating on the 8350/9590, the 9590 is hand picked from the factories and overclocked to 5 ghz. If you get that, you are gonna need a water cooling loop to control the heat. I think one of the 9590 comes with one. also you will need a beefy motherboard. the 8350 on the other hand, is not overclocked. If you want to try overclocking, go with the 8350 and get a closed loop cooler. You might be able to save some money on the 9590 too. However, if you dont want to overclock, just stick with the i7. heres a benchmark comparing the 2:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-I7-4820k-vs-AMD-FX-9590

as for a suggestion, i dont think you would notice much difference. I would choose the i7 because its cooler and uses less power, and you can overclock the i7 too.

 

[ProLeopard]

the 9590 is just an overclocked 8350, so you can do it yourself. It trades blows with the i5 in games, and crushes it in multi tasking/video editing. as for more threads vs more cores, cores are better than threads. this explains it pretty well, a little lengthy but definatly in depth: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/319467-28-cores-threads

if you are video editing more don't get an i5. it wont perform nearly as well as the i7.

elaborating on the 8350/9590, the 9590 is hand picked from the factories and overclocked to 5 ghz. If you get that, you are gonna need a water cooling loop to control the heat. I think one of the 9590 comes with one. also you will need a beefy motherboard. the 8350 on the other hand, is not overclocked. If you want to try overclocking, go with the 8350 and get a closed loop cooler. You might be able to save some money on the 9590 too. However, if you dont want to overclock, just stick with the i7. heres a benchmark comparing the 2:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-I7-4820k-vs-AMD-FX-9590

as for a suggestion, i dont think you would notice much difference. I would choose the i7 because its cooler and uses less power, and you can overclock the i7 too.

Thanks for the answer...
I already have opted for liquid cooling.
There is a $500 discount on the 9590 at my site.
I am going for a 20% overclock on the CPU I buy.
The motherboard I have works, and the i7 motherboard is good as well.
I don't know whether I will overclock or not.
So the i7 is the better choice? I can't believe that it would beat the 9590 with half the cores and 1GHz lower clock speed!

 

[lmaonade200]

to understand why the i7 would beat it, you have to understand the way AMD makes their CPUs, the AMD FX chips are 2 threads in a module, each thread being called a "core" and because 2 threads are in a single module, every 2 threads shares processing power, so each individual thread is immensely weak compared to the i7's true cores (1 thread per core). Because of this even when clocked higher the CPU will be much weaker.

do not buy the FX 9590 unless it is cheaper than an FX 8320, since a 9590 is just a 8320 factory overclocked to 5 Ghz, if you're going to buy a liquid cooler you might as well do it yourself.

and an fx chip doesn't come close to Intel's CPUs in games OR productivity tasks:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/5

only when clocked to 4.8 GHz does it start to reach i5 stock levels, so essentially a FX 9590 is equivalent to something like an i5 3570 at stock.

AMD doesn't compete with performance but rather with price, so if both processors are priced the same then there is only 1 choice here, the i7

 

[ProLeopard]

to understand why the i7 would beat it, you have to understand the way AMD makes their CPUs, the AMD FX chips are 2 threads in a module, each thread being called a "core" and because 2 threads are in a single module, every 2 threads shares processing power, so each individual thread is immensely weak compared to the i7's true cores (1 thread per core). Because of this even when clocked higher the CPU will be much weaker.

do not buy the FX 9590 unless it is cheaper than an FX 8320, since a 9590 is just a 8320 factory overclocked to 5 Ghz, if you're going to buy a liquid cooler you might as well do it yourself.

and an fx chip doesn't come close to Intel's CPUs in games OR productivity tasks:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/5

only when clocked to 4.8 GHz does it start to reach i5 stock levels, so essentially a FX 9590 is equivalent to something like an i5 3570 at stock.

AMD doesn't compete with performance but rather with price, so if both processors are priced the same then there is only 1 choice here, the i7

Nice answer, that really made sense, Thank you.
Looks like the i7 is the better option here.
One more question...
Is the 4930k worth the extra money?
Actually another one:
With my motherboard, would I be able to upgrade my CPU
to a broadwell (or updated AMD equivalent) chip when it comes out?
If I were to get the AMD, my motherboard is the ASRock Fatality 990FX Killer
If I were to get the Intel, my motherboard is the MSI X79A-GD45

 

[jshoop]

intel processors are known for their great single core performance. amd processors are known for their integrated graphics(apus) and more cores(fx series). with the i7, although there are less cores, they are more efficient cores than the amd cores. the performance differences arent alot, but other factors sway the decision more in my opinion. the 9590 i think is a 220w processor, where the i7 is only 130w. this also is the heat factor, the 9590 will run alot hotter than the i7. this will lessen the length of the processors life (minimally in my opinion) and will be hard to cool. but your going with water cooling, so you should be fine.

for the cpu upgrades, amd isnt looking to upgrade their architecture for the fx series processors through 2014 i think, maybe not even 2015. so upgrading from the 9590 is doubtful right now.

for broadwell, if theres a socket 2011 cpu then you can upgrade, will it be worth it? maybe, you never know until broadwell comes out

motherboards: im sure the msi board will do fine, i'll look more in depth but it will take me a few more minutes. the asrock killer looks good, i was thinking of getting it for my 8350 build to overclock. i'll check the asrock website to see if it supports the 9590

also, you can't overclock the 9590. it is already overclocked nearly to the max, and without an extreme custom water loop the temps will skyrocket. with the i7, you can overclock it, and alot. id say atleast a 1ghz bump up with good cooling.

in conclusion, the stock i7 and the 9590 are about the same in performance. the i7 makes up for less cores and clock speed with performance, while the 9590 makes up in less single core performance by higher clock speeds and more cores. i would overclock the i7, which can make it to 5ghz. that overclocked i7 will beat the 9590.

one final thought which only you can decide on: future proofing. theres no way to actually know how long components will perform where they are today. games may use more cores, however the most they use today are 2 i think. games may utilize more cores in 1 year, or it may be 10 years. theres no way to really know. i think today, you will get better performance out of an overclocked i7 than the 9590. in the future, i think the overclocked i7 will be matching the 9590 if games utilize cores. but this probably wont be anytime soon. so i do believe its worth the extra money.

 

[lmaonade200]

I'm not sure about your prices on the 4930k but usually in the US they're about double the price of a 4820k, which, imo, is not worth it, with an overclocked i7 4820k you're already getting an immense about of power, 4 cores/8 (hyper)threads is enough for any consumer based task out there and an i7 4820k is already the top of that category. Of course if you feel like you really want a powerhouse of a computer you can get the 4930k which has 6 cores/12 threads, but I would say that you shouldn't pay double for it, 50% more at the most since it has 50% more cores.

and yes with Intel you should be able to upgrade to a Broadwell CPU when they are released, it's only a die shrink compared to a Haswell so they can be put on the same sockets, but for Skylake afterwards you'll need to update your motherboard.

and as for AMD, no one knows, the FX chips are all AM3+ chipsets, but AMD hasn't released anything new, and according to company roadmaps doesn't plan to release anything new, for the platform. They recently released their new Kaveri APUs which are on FM2+ boards instead, many people are starting to say that AM3+ is a dead platform, but we won't know for sure until at least 2015

 

[jshoop]

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20990FX%20Killer/?cat=CPU

on the chart the 9590 isnt supported, i think you would need the asus sabertooth or the asus crosshair v formula z, which are both more expensive. if you want i'll check and see if the 9590 is supported on those

 

[lmaonade200]

it supports it, it doesn't list it because the 9000 chips are somewhat special exceptions, they all come from the same base chip though: the FX 8320

 

[jshoop]

im not sure if that was the case or not, would it be able to supply that power though through the 8+2 powerphase?

in that case both of the asus boards i said will support it

 

[lmaonade200]

well, perhaps not then, the 9590 is rated for an absurd 220W so that could be trouble, but theoretically it should lol, since if you bought the Asrock mobo and an FX 8320 and overclocked it to 5GHz it would be the same thing

 

[jshoop]

for the socket 2011 motherboard, that one looks pretty good. theres a gigabyte one thats $5 cheaper where i am, but im not sure if thats the case for you. i don't know much about those motherboards, i havent really looked into them much. i think it will do fine for what you need.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128562

 

[ProLeopard]

intel processors are known for their great single core performance. amd processors are known for their integrated graphics(apus) and more cores(fx series). with the i7, although there are less cores, they are more efficient cores than the amd cores. the performance differences arent alot, but other factors sway the decision more in my opinion. the 9590 i think is a 220w processor, where the i7 is only 130w. this also is the heat factor, the 9590 will run alot hotter than the i7. this will lessen the length of the processors life (minimally in my opinion) and will be hard to cool. but your going with water cooling, so you should be fine.

for the cpu upgrades, amd isnt looking to upgrade their architecture for the fx series processors through 2014 i think, maybe not even 2015. so upgrading from the 9590 is doubtful right now.

for broadwell, if theres a socket 2011 cpu then you can upgrade, will it be worth it? maybe, you never know until broadwell comes out

motherboards: im sure the msi board will do fine, i'll look more in depth but it will take me a few more minutes. the asrock killer looks good, i was thinking of getting it for my 8350 build to overclock. i'll check the asrock website to see if it supports the 9590

also, you can't overclock the 9590. it is already overclocked nearly to the max, and without an extreme custom water loop the temps will skyrocket. with the i7, you can overclock it, and alot. id say atleast a 1ghz bump up with good cooling.

in conclusion, the stock i7 and the 9590 are about the same in performance. the i7 makes up for less cores and clock speed with performance, while the 9590 makes up in less single core performance by higher clock speeds and more cores. i would overclock the i7, which can make it to 5ghz. that overclocked i7 will beat the 9590.

one final thought which only you can decide on: future proofing. theres no way to actually know how long components will perform where they are today. games may use more cores, however the most they use today are 2 i think. games may utilize more cores in 1 year, or it may be 10 years. theres no way to really know. i think today, you will get better performance out of an overclocked i7 than the 9590. in the future, i think the overclocked i7 will be matching the 9590 if games utilize cores. but this probably wont be anytime soon. so i do believe its worth the extra money.

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you, I think I will go with the Intel. Thanks again for all your help, and for everyone else's answers as well. I'll look up some guides to overclocking the 4820k. Can't wait to finish up my new gaming PC

 

[jshoop]

no problem, im glad to help. it will definatly dominate, have fun!