Question about CPUs (4 vs 8 core)

[gizmo j]

A guy named "Sangeet Khatri" said just because a CPU has twice as many cores does not equal twice amount of power.

So I looked up the benchmarks of the FX4350 and FX8350, there both the same CPU except one has 4 cores and the other has 8 cores.

On cpubenchmark.net fx4350=5231 and fx8350=9078

Meaning the difference between the two is 73.5%

My question, is it a similar amount of performance increase in other CPUs with similar specs?

 

[rgd1101]

It depend of what apps/programs you are running. But it won't double the power going from 4 to 8 cores with the same family of cpu.

 

[bloom691]

Doubling cores does not double processing power because of other overheads and bottlenecks in the pipeline architecture. However it will significantly increase it - 73.5% faster based on your numbers. However, remember a lot of software is not optimized and written to run efficiently on multiple cores. So your theoretical 73.5% improvement could drop anywhere from 0% to 73.5%. You really need to check specific software to see how well it runs on multiples cores simultaneously. Hope this helps!

 

[Immaculate]

Im pretty sure your thinking of Intel 4 core CPUs like core i5 and core i7 vs FX-8350.

FX-4350 and FX-8350 are part of the FX series of CPUs from AMD.

Intel i5-4670K (4core) will keep up just fine with FX-8320.
Intel i7-4770K w/Hyperthreading (4 physical cores/8 virtual cores)
Intel Ivy-E has 4 core and 6 core versions.
Haswell-E will be 8 cores

 

[Avro Arrow]

Keep in mind that not all cores are equal. Core count is like GHz clock speed. It's only really relevant within the CPU's own family. Intel cores are considerably faster than AMD cores but Intel charges too much for their CPUs. Basically, it's best to look at it like this. Anything under $200 is AMD's domain. You will get better performance from an AMD CPU at any price point of $200 or less. Beyond that, AMD doesn't make anything so that is strictly Intel's domain. For a gaming system, your budget is key. If paying more for an Intel CPU means that you have to sacrifice GPU power, then definitely don't get the Intel CPU. If you're able to get top-level video card(s) and STILL afford the Intel CPU, then that is when you should consider one. You won't really see a difference in gaming because the AMD CPUs do offer perfect (60fps+) gaming when coupled with the right GPU, but everything else in your system should feel a little bit faster. I tried out i5 and i7 machines before trying out the FX-8350 and I really couldn't tell one from the other. Paying only $170 for the FX-8350 instead of over $300 for the i7 was something I could feel quite well though. LOL

 

[gizmo j]

Keep in mind that not all cores are equal. Core count is like GHz clock speed. It's only really relevant within the CPU's own family. Intel cores are considerably faster than AMD cores but Intel charges too much for their CPUs. Basically, it's best to look at it like this. Anything under $200 is AMD's domain. You will get better performance from an AMD CPU at any price point of $200 or less. Beyond that, AMD doesn't make anything so that is strictly Intel's domain. For a gaming system, your budget is key. If paying more for an Intel CPU means that you have to sacrifice GPU power, then definitely don't get the Intel CPU. If you're able to get top-level video card(s) and STILL afford the Intel CPU, then that is when you should consider one. You won't really see a difference in gaming because the AMD CPUs do offer perfect (60fps+) gaming when coupled with the right GPU, but everything else in your system should feel a little bit faster. I tried out i5 and i7 machines before trying out the FX-8350 and I really couldn't tell one from the other. Paying only $170 for the FX-8350 instead of over $300 for the i7 was something I could feel quite well though. LOL

What I was asking was would two CPUs that have the same design and specs have the same amount of performance increase as the 8350/4350 in terms of 4 core upgrade...by 73.5%

The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to figure out how powerful the CPUs of the PS4 and Xbox one are, they both share a modified version of the A4-5000 that has an additional 4 cores.

So I wanted to know how much performance increase would adding 4 extra cores would do.

 

[rgd1101]

They do make 8 cores a10-xxxx.

 

[YommaSan]

Keep in mind that not all cores are equal. Core count is like GHz clock speed. It's only really relevant within the CPU's own family. Intel cores are considerably faster than AMD cores but Intel charges too much for their CPUs. Basically, it's best to look at it like this. Anything under $200 is AMD's domain. You will get better performance from an AMD CPU at any price point of $200 or less. Beyond that, AMD doesn't make anything so that is strictly Intel's domain. For a gaming system, your budget is key. If paying more for an Intel CPU means that you have to sacrifice GPU power, then definitely don't get the Intel CPU. If you're able to get top-level video card(s) and STILL afford the Intel CPU, then that is when you should consider one. You won't really see a difference in gaming because the AMD CPUs do offer perfect (60fps+) gaming when coupled with the right GPU, but everything else in your system should feel a little bit faster. I tried out i5 and i7 machines before trying out the FX-8350 and I really couldn't tell one from the other. Paying only $170 for the FX-8350 instead of over $300 for the i7 was something I could feel quite well though. LOL

What I was asking was would two CPUs that have the same design and specs have the same amount of performance increase as the 8350/4350 in terms of 4 core upgrade...by 73.5%

The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to figure out how powerful the CPUs of the PS4 and Xbox one are, they both share a modified version of the A4-5000 that has an additional 4 cores.

So I wanted to know how much performance increase would adding 4 extra cores would do.

Like rgd1101 said on the first post, it really depends on the computer, or in this case, the console is doing. Both the Xbox One and the PS4 have customized AMD 8-core processors, but looking at the specs between the Xbox One and the PS4, the PS4 is somewhat faster by about 10%. Since we are talking about gaming consoles, the main thing the consoles are doing, of course, is playing games. It really depends up to the games though, and how much of the console's hardware the game needs to use. For a comparison, it would be like this:

COD: Ghosts
PS4 - 1080p at (what is claimed to be) 60fps
Xbox One - 720p at (what is claimed to be) 60fps

The reason why the PS4 can run at 1080p at (again, what is to claimed to be) 60fps is because it has a more-heavily modified processor than the Xbox One. Its GPU as well is more powerful than the Xbox One, therefore, allowing to run the game at 60fps, while the Xbox One, with lower specs, will be running the game at 720p due to the fact that its hardware cannot run the game at 1080p without freezing, lagging, etc. If you were to go with a console that has a better amount of performance, go with the PS4, but do realize that the Xbox One allows you to run multiple programs at once, like Windows 8, so some of its processing power and hardware are reserved to run those programs such as Skype, TV, etc. so you can enjoy the games you play and the programs you want to use without any interruptions.

 

[Immaculate]

a consoles purpose is for games, there's nothing the PS4 cant do that the XB1 can besides ruin my TV watching and have another user kick me off whenever they feel like. Oh the extra CPU power is used to keep in touch with NSA, this is why no 1080p and still the same old 720p.

 

[YommaSan]

a consoles purpose is for games, there's nothing the PS4 cant do that the XB1 can besides ruin my TV watching and have another user kick me off whenever they feel like. Oh the extra CPU power is used to keep in touch with NSA, this is why no 1080p and still the same old 720p.

You know you do realize that the NSA can also hack into PS Eye/Camera as well? Pretty much anything is hackable, like your computer, your webcam, etc. They could be watching you right now. I find both the consoles to be the same, and I only put COD: Ghosts in comparison. If you wanted, I could do other games in comparison, like for instance, BF4 will be running 1080p on both consoles. Also, this is also an update to my other post. What I have heard (may not be true, but) the reason why COD: Ghosts is running at 1080p on the PS4 is because there is a few fans that cool the CPU enough to allow itself to boost itself higher than the Xbox One, which means there's a more likely possibility that the PS4 could freeze up the game if it overheats (again, only under rumor). And yes, I honestly think the TV option on the Xbox One is somewhat dumb, but at least there is a option to talking with my friends on Skype while playing games.

 

[rgd1101]

they don't need to hack you webcam, they can use xray camera from space to look into your house.

 

[YommaSan]

they don't need to hack you webcam, they can use xray camera from space to look into your house.

Still an option for them though. 😛

 

[Immaculate]

haha I always thought those console cameras were spy machines.
BF4 on PS4 will run in native 1600x900
XB1 is 720p Im pretty sure.
COD GHOSTS PS4 is 1080p
XB1 is 720p
the games hardly ever run a constant 60fps for very long.

 

[YommaSan]

Even if the Xbox One is running everything on 720p, both 1080p and 720p are HD. I don't really care about pixel differential. I think pretty much the consoles same to each other. Both are AMD processors, both have 8GB of Ram (I know about the PS4 uses GDDR5 and the XB1 uses only DDR3), both have similar features with the camera, etc. There are differences, yes, but I think the similarities between the consoles outweigh the differences.

 

[Immaculate]

1080p over 720p is double the pixel density.

 

[YommaSan]

Still, they're both High-definition. For people who do care about pixel differential, yes, the PS4 is dominant. However, this article explains all. According to this article (http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156273-xbox-720-vs-ps4-vs-pc-how-the-hardware-specs-compare), the processors are comparable to the new Intel Bay Trail Atom processors, which are mostly found in laptops and tablets, except the processors in the XB1 and the PS4 have much more power. The XB1 processor is actually clocked to 1.75GHz, while the PS4 is clocked to 1.6GHz, but the PS4 can boost itself higher than the Xbox One. The article pretty much concludes that they are pretty much the same. If I were to choose something spec-wise, then I would go with the PS4, as it can support more games up to 1080p, and can run at a faster clock speed. If I were to go something with feature-wise, I would go with the XB1, as it can run multiple things at once, while playing your games, which is quite useful. In gizmo j's eyes, the PS4 is dominant in performance-wise.

 

[Immaculate]

That article also said PS4 is like 7870 and XB1 is like 7790. Also said PS4 GDDR5 @5500Mhz and XB1 DDR3 @2133Mhz . They say that 176GB/s vs 68.3GB/s.
Thats a pretty hefty difference.

 

[YommaSan]

I cannot argue of the fact that the PS4 does use faster memory than the XB1, but still 8GB of ram. The GPUs are different, but look at the benchmarks for the graphics cards. They have a 15-20% difference of framerate, which is not a lot.

 

[vinay2070]

On an average 8 Hyper threaded cores are equal to 6 single threaded cores. So if you are comparing a core i5 and i7 of the same speed and same generation, the i7 will be 1.5 times faster than the i5.