This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Quick question. When buing a processor for gaming, what's the difference between

#1Town_DrunkardPosted 8/18/2014 10:33:20 AM
Quad core, 6-core, and 8-core? I haven't thrown together a computer since quad core was brand new. The main reason I'm asking is I see a quad core on new egg for $229 and an 8-core for $169. Could anyone shine some light on this for me?
---
FC: 0877-1313-2940
#2PhilOnDezPosted 8/18/2014 10:58:04 AM
AMD BSes pretty hard with their core counts. If you shopped around a bit more you'd find a '12' core for about $200. If intel were to sell that same processor they'd market it as a dual core.

What AMD counts as a 'core' is either an IPU, an integer processing unit, or a GCN cluster, a Graphics Core Next module. On their own, neither of those parts are capable of doing anything. What intel advertises as a core is both an FPU, a floating point unit, and an IPU, basically everything you need to handle a computation from start to finish. They also don't count their Intel HD cores as cores, most come with 2, meaning if AMD were to market I3s and i5s they'd market them as quad and hex cores, respectively.

The reason the lower core count intel CPUs are more expensive is because they're just better. The AMD defense force will try to tell you otherwise but at the clocks the parts ship at Haswell is nearly 70% faster than Kaveri (AMD's most efficient architecture) in some situations. Most AMD parts ship at much higher clocks than the intel equivalent to try and close the gap though, so clock for clock Haswell is nearly 90% faster. In very well threaded apps AMD is competitive but intel is hands down the better choice for current games, and they won't be at a disadvantage in future games, even if they won't be as far ahead as they are currently. Not to say AMD is so far behind they're unusable, but they're objectively behind intel with no signs of catching up.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#3KaiserWarriorPosted 8/18/2014 11:02:45 AM
And on a related note: Do not spend extra for more than 4 cores. There are no current video games that take full advantage of a quad core CPU, and none of them gain any tangible benefit from having more than 4 cores, clock rates being equal.
#4LoshadtPosted 8/18/2014 11:05:32 AM(edited)
Or to translate Phil's post: Moar Cores = Moar Power, but AMD is full of s*** about how many cores they have so if you intend to play video games get an Intel processor.

Edit: But more cores doesn't ALWAYS mean more power, an application has to be specifically designed to take advantage of those multiple cores.
---
Scientifically proven.
#5youngfossilPosted 8/18/2014 11:05:15 AM
There are aKaiserWarrior posted...
And on a related note: Do not spend extra for more than 4 cores. There are no current video games that take full advantage of a quad core CPU, and none of them gain any tangible benefit from having more than 4 cores, clock rates being equal.


couple of games that do use 4 cores

BF4 being one of them
---
While I may not agree with your opinion, I will defend to the death your right to have it.
#6Town_Drunkard(Topic Creator)Posted 8/18/2014 11:22:19 AM
Awesome, thank you for the info everyone.
---
FC: 0877-1313-2940
#7CC RicersPosted 8/18/2014 11:45:02 AM
Another way of looking at it is comparing Intel cores to AMD cores is like comparing car engines from two very different companies. The clock speed is like RPM and the engines would likely produce different horsepower at the same RPM.
---
And then Nick Fury meets Mace Windu and they're both like "Mother ******!!!" - Kicksave
http://i.imgur.com/uhbQ6vu.gif
#8reincarnator07Posted 8/18/2014 12:24:32 PM
Unless you're comparing processors using the same architecture, the core count isn't a good way to compare them.
---
Fan of metal? Don't mind covers? Check out my youtube and give me some feedback
http://www.youtube.com/sircaballero
#9Darth_KamcioPosted 8/18/2014 12:48:44 PM
As of now, the rule of thumb is that if it has more than 4 cores, it's meant for professional rendering and simulation. 4 or less is for gaming and casual use.
---
I love dragons!
3DS FC: 3625-8721-3670; Dragon safari including Dragonair.
#10KURRUPTORPosted 8/18/2014 12:48:46 PM
KaiserWarrior posted...
And on a related note: Do not spend extra for more than 4 cores. There are no current video games that take full advantage of a quad core CPU, and none of them gain any tangible benefit from having more than 4 cores, clock rates being equal.


Actually more and more programs (games included) are starting to use more cores these days. There are several games out already that benefit from eight cores. To think the trend won't continue is foolish.

And yes AMD 8000 serious and i7s will act as eight core CPUs even though they technically are not.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.