Single Core vs 18 Cores CPU - Need You Opinion

EagleDesignInc

Reputable
Feb 4, 2015
231
0
4,760
Is it just me or anyone else things the same way...
Why 18 cores like the Intel Xeon E5-2699 V3 2.3GHz 18 Cores (Retail at US$4,500.00)

Why is technology slowly evolving towards the increasing the speeds of the GHz?
18 Cores, but only at 2.3GHz...
102367_l.jpg


I can see 4, 6 or maybe 8 cores since a lot of people actually multi-task, but 18 Cores? Really???

Me personally I like speed on a single task, that's why I choose the AMD FX-9590 4.7GHz over the Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz. Am I the only one annoyed to see CPU's evolving towards cores ratter than GHz?

FX-9000-portada-660x350.jpg


 
You do know that Xeon processors are used in servers, right? Those things that have lots of tasks to perform concurrently, accessing huge amounts of data and serving many users at the same time.

You do know that yields on Moore's law has been steadily declining, making raw GHz speeds harder and more expensive to increase?

You do know that lithography becomes more difficult as the circuits become smaller?

let's do some stupid math here.

18 cores @ 2.3 GHz = 41.4 GHz (let's for now ignore the 3.6GHz turbo speed and the fact that hyper-threading would effectively double the processing capability)

8 cores @ 4.7 GHz = 37.6 GHz (ignore the 5GHz turbo speed)

41.4 GHz/145W = .2855 GHz per watt
37.6 GHz.220W = .1709 GHz per watt

That's about 67% more efficient. It also ignores the "real work per cycle" factor.

Imagine a datacenter with many thousands of processors running 67% cheaper than the alternative.




 
because using one coreto handle work loads even at highest clock is still nothing compared to two running at the same speed at the same time so here you go even though one core gets faster it is basically a small perscentage increase even when a core goes from say 4 ghz to 5 thjats only a 25% effective increase another core at the same speed is a 100% increase and at 18 cores its an 1800% increase which can now at different times handle an insane amount more than say a single core at 20ghz.
 
that 8 core also consumes alot of power and is weak per core, I'd take 4 strong intel cores over the 8 core AMD.....people swore up and down you "had" to have an 8 core AMD or i7 for streaming, but I have lots of friends who stream who told me 1st hand that internet speed matters much more.

the i7 4790k is much stronger per core and consumes alot less power than your cpu, idk how you came to the conclusion that the AMD is "so" much faster than the i7 4790k. The ghz race ended years ago. An old i5 2400 at ~3.1ghz or w/e beats most AMD in gaming.

I've been able to play every game on 1080p ultra with my i5 3570k at stock and hd 7950, I didn't "miss" anything by not getting the 8 core AMD, besides saving quite a bit on my power bill 😛
 


I am for sure NOT an expert in CPU's, that's why I'm seeking info here.
What I'm looking for is speed and performance, how fast I can open and use a software, browse the internet and etc... So, the number of cores, whether is a single core or a 8 core don't really matter to me, I'm only after the fastest processor, AMD or Intel. But to me it seems the latest AMD 4.7GHz is much faster than the i7 4790 3.6GHz (correct me if I'm wrong).

Game-wise, I don't play games at all.
 
First of all, you cannot compare clock speeds directly between brands or even between different generations of the same brand.
The FX9590's flashy 5.0ghz clock speed is almost exactly equal to Intel's current 2.9ghz. Don't believe me? Have a look at single thread benchmarks.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

The first thing you are going to notice is the the fastest AMD, the 9590 at 1716, is behind about 150 different Intel cpus. You can then see that the 2.5ghz Xeon 1265Lv3 is about even at 1715 and the $60 Celeron g1850 is 1714. You can then see that the i7 4790k is the fastest of them all at 2533. That's more than 50% faster despite being clocked 700mhz slower.


To answer your first question, there are two main reasons why we aren't seeing 6ghz and higher clock speeds. Heat and efficiency. Thermal limitations prevent such speeds, and the main focus has been shifted to efficiency anyway. Intel is more concerned with getting smaller and more efficient, and AMD has started to follow suit although they are several generations behind.
 


You obviously don't know anything about computers or cpu's. The above statement just cements it as fact. The i7 4790K will utterly demolish a FX 9590 in any metric. ESPECIALLY AT SINGLE TASKS! That is where Intel shines. Cpu frequency means nothing. The higher IPC of the i7 is just way too strong for the weak cores of the Piledriver based 9590. "Am I the only one annoyed to see CPU's evolving towards cores ratter than GHz?" What does that statement mean exactly lol!
 


There are computers with literally thousands of cores. Reason being they may have literally millions of threads concurrently.
 


Thank you for your post. Much helpful.