Which CPU is faster? quad core 2.5ghz or single core 10ghz?

[Sharks445]

I know that a single core with 10ghz doesn't exist. This is a theoretical question.
The former has 4x more cores but 4x less speed. The latter has 4x more speed but 4x less cores. Shouldn't they theoretically be the same?



Also, one more question. This is unrelated, and you don't need to answer if you don't want. Is crossfire/sli REQUIRED for high end gaming? Can I get top of the line GPU performance with one really expensive GPU, or do I need dual cards for rigid gaming? (Like running bf4 on all ultra)

 

[Benevolence]

It really depends on the application. Some programs like video games do not scale well with parallel processing. I'd take a (theoretical) 10GHz single core cpu over a quad core anyday. Another example is sometimes you lose clock cycles in a parallel computing system when one core is waiting on the data being processed by another core. This question is completely application based, as running a Virtual Machine would benefit more from the multi-core setup vs the super-serial 10GHz processor.


Crossfire/SLI is not required for high end gaming. Many GPU's can handle the demands of high end gaming without another card. In addition adding a second card in xfire/SLI can cause a bottleneck elsewhere in the system.

 

[Devballs]

1) Depends, does the system/programs running utilize all 4 cores properly?

2) A 780 runs BF4 on ultra at 2560x1440p just fine, and there are faster cards out there, so no it is not needed to run SLI/Xfire.

 

[Benevolence]

OK adding another variable into the mix: A 10GHz cpu core would probably have INCREDIBLE heat waste. There are competitions where people try to obtain the fastest speed recorded with a processor. So far the fastest processor ever was clocked at 8.73GHz. It used a combination of liquid nitrogen and thermal-mass conduction to achieve near super-conductor performance. So in practice the multi-core processor is the better option because you don't continuously have to top it off with liquid nitrogen to get it working.

 

[ingtar33]

I know that a single core with 10ghz doesn't exist. This is a theoretical question.
The former has 4x more cores but 4x less speed. The latter has 4x more speed but 4x less cores. Shouldn't they theoretically be the same?

Also, one more question. This is unrelated, and you don't need to answer if you don't want. Is crossfire/sli REQUIRED for high end gaming? Can I get top of the line GPU performance with one really expensive GPU, or do I need dual cards for rigid gaming? (Like running bf4 on all ultra)

depends on what you're doing. a single threaded app will love a single core cpu running at 10ghz. of course when you consider all the crap your computer is running at the same time, i think the days of single cored systems is long in the past. simply put almost nothing by itself needs more then one moderate speed core... this is why AMD cpus, which are inferior in many ways to intel cpus, still are relivant options. Simply put around the time the core2duo came out, cpus got way stronger then you'd ever need. this is why multicore cpus became relevant. Multicore cpus allow you to do a LOT of things at once as opposed to one thing fast.

I'd take the quad core over the single core in your question for my every day use.

and no... SLi/xfire isn't necessary. For 1080p gaming on a laptop... sure, it's probably required. For 1080p on a desktop? not even close. Mid ranged desktop cards can game just fine in 1080p,... hell even on chip graphics on an APU can game in 1080p. If you want to max pretty much any game at 1080p you'll grab yourself a single 770 or r9-280x... and go to town.

 

[Benevolence]

Wouldn't it be novel to have a 10GHz Pentium 4 that runs on liquid nitrogen lol? Ah the good old days of CS101, this has freshman midterms written all over it.