Part 2: How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?

[Guest]

Very interesting read...thank you. Would be nice to see something similar with the i7, maybe focusing on Hyperthreading's effect.

 

[Guest]

Just a bit of terminology: "linear" should mean a function x -> cx (that is, twice the performance with twice as many cores, etc.) The correct mathematical term for a function x -> b + cx is "affine function", a very different concept in this context.
Also, I can't understand why 7-zip couldn't have a go -- it has long been optimized for multiple cores unlike WinZip and WinRAR (previous test), its compression algorithm is superior to RAR and ZIP, and it's free software.
This is a very useful article nevertheless, so thanks a lot!

 

[sonicjet]

[citation][nom]Proximon[/nom]Hopefully we can do the same for Windows 7. Great article.[/citation]
I have RC1 x64,You can.

 

[Guest]

Ignore the complainers, they will continuously pull scenarios out of wherever and poke holes in the testing until you write an article that invariably justifies an expensive quad core as vastly superior to other options (hence the Virus scan while gaming comments from the previous edition).

 

[San Pedro]

Good article. I would have liked to seen more variety in mutli-tasking section. Anti-virus and gaming are something that shouldn't be done at same time. How about things like winamp (WMP or itunes would work too I guess), torrent, office program, game, video encoder/decode, audio encoder/decoder, and maybe some other things I can't think of now, running together in different combinations. This would more indicative than just one benchmark of game plus anti-virus. It would probably take a lot of time, and maybe be difficult to duplicate results, though. So, maybe an article dedicated to multitasking would be nice.

Keep up the good work.

 

[ambientmf]

I especially like the multitasking bench as well...Even though, as others have pointed out, an anti-virus scan running while playing a game isn't the most probable multitasking situation, they're still pretty resource-intensive as to simulate the load of something like, say a video encoding. I usually have Winamp running while browsing on Firefox, got a couple MSN conversations up and I might through on a fullscreen video game if I feel like it...On my 2.4GHz C2D (ThinkPad laptop), I usually have to keep my multitasking without gaming or similarly intensive apps so these benchmarks are a good indication of what I can expect on my quad-core gaming rig I'm building within the next month...I wonder how an unlocked Phenom II X2 550 would perform against a stock X4 955...😉

 

[Guest]

Everything after Win98 or Win2000/Me runs just best on at least a dual core.
Higher clocked Dual cores are better for office tasks,triple cores are for gaming, and quads for those who do in video/audio encoding, or high end gaming.

If you're going for an AMD cpu, you might as well buy a 4core, seeing that they are not that much more expensive than a 3core CPU.
But if you use your rig to be online 24/7 to play WOW or something, you might be better off with a dual or tri-core. Games like that often require less horsepower from the CPU. Nothing that a 3,2Ghz 2core, or 2,66Ghz 3 core can't handle.

 

[masterjaw]

Great article you have there. It improved based on the previous one. Kudos!

I was already convinced to buy a x2 550 but as of now, I'm having second thoughts for the x3 720.

 

[Guest]

Dell Inspiron 545 Desktop
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 (4MB L2, 2.33GHz, 1333FSB)

 

[wrskvill]

So, how feasible would 1 high speed core with 2 or 3 average speed with user selectable app preference be?

 

[anamaniac]

How about buying a quad socket mobo and using AMDs new 6 core cpu line?
Some of Tyan's 4 socket mobos also have a 4 socket expension card, allowing 8 CPUs. Now that's $400 per CPU at 6 cores 2.0GHz each. 48 2.0GHz cores...

Toms want to benchmark this please?

 

[apache_lives]

ill stick to my quad - i do know that most video encoding apps are poorly written and will only render using 2 cores hence why i run 2+ instances

quad cores at the same clock speed are equal performers to there dual core counterparts for average software, but id rather do the smart thing and actually buy something future proof

the benifits? my quad will run anything a dual core will, and in time dual cores will go the way of single cores, and we will see the same argument with quad cores vs 8+ core cpus etc - i can see it coming and i will quote you all on this verry post when it does 😀

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Thanks for the avg tests cleeve. Confirms more or less what I've been expecting to be true. Am glad I picked an i7 920 instead of an x3 for my parents new computer now

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but in the game benchmarks, the reason we see triple core doing so well is because that's what consoles generally use, and as almost all games are written for a cross platform approach (360,PS3 and PC) to cover as much platform usage as possible.
So, no matter what hex core or octo is coming our way, it wont matter in gaming until the consoles platforms change, and that may go beyond anyone's recollection

 

[freak77power]

Sometimes AVG scanner kicks in while i am playing game and nothing affects me. i7 is way more powerful then phenom II, it's hard to know unless you move from phenom II to i7.

 

[freak77power]

My conclusion is more cores it's better and yes quad is not even enough. It's never enough!!!. Can't wait for i9 6 core CPU which will go into 1366 socket with no problem.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]freak77power[/nom]Sometimes AVG scanner kicks in while i am playing game and nothing affects me. i7 is way more powerful then phenom II, it's hard to know unless you move from phenom II to i7.[/citation]
So true! I was amazed when I could install test drive unlimited on the sas drive in the background, while also running the first full scan of kaspersky and playing burnout paradise without any hint of stuttering or other performance related artefacts.

 

[Draven35]

Quick answer for me to the title question is, "Yes, please."

 

[Guest]

I noticed that the games that ran faster with 3 cores are also xbox360 titles. Perhaps those games are optimized for 3 cores because the xbox360 only has 3 cores.

 

[computertech82]

[citation][nom]paranoidmage[/nom]You shouldn't test the games at 1024x786 at low details. These benchmarks are supposed to simulate actual usage. No one will actually run games at that resolution and detail unless their computer is a dinosaur. If you want to remove bottlenecks, use a better GPU like a 4890. How do I know if multiple core will actually help me? I run games at 1920x1200 with med-high details.[/citation]

There is a certain point to this. Raising the res and details not only loads up on the gpu, but the CPU has to keep up and therefore would give off different results with different video cards (workload). But finding gpu VS cpu results in core vs core would take quite a bit of work. like a high-end cpu with midgrage graphics, and lowerend cpus with higher end graphics (you get the idea of how many combinations there is). Would be interesting to know the effects of the two though.

 

[Guest]

Woudl have love to seen the tests repeated on xp, vista, 7. Maybe when you guys do a 7 review when it comes out?

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Thanks for the avg tests cleeve. Confirms more or less what I've been expecting to be true. Am glad I picked an i7 920 instead of an x3 for my parents new computer now[/citation]

No harm in getting something *BETTER* 😀

 

[salopar]

it is just funny to see that today`s people need at least two-core when they do the exact same thing on computer they done 10 year ago with computer 100 time less powerfull , application just got heavy for little or no improvment at all. Of course there some exception (game with physic, or high definition movie) . But a word processor with no improvement take 2 time the memory of later version. Let`s buy quad-core and accept the situation as it never existed

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]ill stick to my quad - i do know that most video encoding apps are poorly written and will only render using 2 cores hence why i run 2+ instancesquad cores at the same clock speed are equal performers to there dual core counterparts for average software, but id rather do the smart thing and actually buy something future proofthe benifits? my quad will run anything a dual core will, and in time dual cores will go the way of single cores, and we will see the same argument with quad cores vs 8+ core cpus etc - i can see it coming and i will quote you all on this verry post when it does[/citation]

Hmmm...by your logic, quads will soon become obsolete. There is no such thing as "future proof". Think about, Intel and AMD both will probably have switched sockets in the coming year or two so your quad core will be outmoded.

Point:
Buy the best that suits your needs and hope that it includes a suitable upgrade path.

 

[marraco]

Really interesting article. Well done

if you run the task manager, can see that Winrar integrated benchmark really do not use 100% of CPU with more than 2 processors. A Phenom II X3 710 runs 80 %, and an I7 with Hyper Threading, runs less than 50%. (I guess WinRar is memory bottlenecked, since is so sensible to memory speed).
Since Winrar does not use 100% CPU, another program running in parallel should not give it a big hit, beacuse haves unused resources.
The same should be true about Quad cores doing far better than X3 on games + AVG. Since games looks like not taking much advantage from the fourth core, it should be free for another program, and it should be the reason that AVG does not impact as heavily as tree cores.

About the AVG in background: I think that the worst inpact is the disk access. A SSD should do much better.

I own an i7 920+DDR3 1600+GF8800GT under Win7 RC and altought far cry2 integrated benchmark shows 70 fps on a given instant, is easy to see constant freezes and jumps, because Win7 does a small annoying write to disk frequently. It stops the game 0.20 seconds (to say a number), and in the remaining 0.80 second, it does 70 frames. It benchmark as 70 fps, but the 0.20 delay reduces experience as if where 4 fps.

most benchmarks lies.

I guess that the quad core more a SSD will do far better with AVG in background.