A question of cores

[W1nTry]

Nice article on Tom's Hardware showing the real and not so real benefits of mutlicore processors, an interesting read, here's the conclusion:

First, we see that the synthetic benchmarks are overly optimistic as to what multiple cores can accomplish compared to the average real-world scenario. The synthetic performance progression between a single core and multiple cores looks like an almost linear progression of 50% performance increases with each new CPU core.

The average application gains show us a much more realistic progression, with about a 35% speed increase with the second CPU core, a 15% jump with the third, and another 32% jump with the fourth. It's strange that the third CPU core seems to provide half the advantage of adding a fourth CPU core to the mix.

And when considering applications, we must look at individual software titles instead of just the big picture. Indeed, the audio-encoding software we tested seems to offer no multi-core optimizations of which to speak. However, video encoding software conversely offers massive benefits with more CPU cores and depends somewhat on the video encoder utilized. In the case of 3D rendering software, 3ds Max usually has highly optimized multi-core performance improvements, while 2D photo editors like Photoshop seem to have none at all. AVG anti-virus demonstrates massive performance increases with multiple cores, while compression utilities seem to sport little to no multi-threading benefits.

As far as games go, we see a huge 60% performance jump from going single-core to dual-core, and a further 25% leap from dual- to triple-core. Quad cores offer no benefits in the sampling of games we tested. While more games might change the landscape a little, we think the triple-core Phenom II X3s are looking good as a low-cost gaming option. It's also important to note here that as you start shifting to higher resolutions and adding visual detail, the picture gets a lot murkier as graphics muscle becomes the prevalent determinant of frame rates.

After all is said and done, we can come to a few general conclusions based on this data. We don't think you have to be a power-user to enjoy the benefits of a multi-core CPU. This is in stark contrast to the situation four years ago. So, while these gains might not be overwhelming at first glance, it's impressive to note how much thread-level optimization has gone on in the last few years, particularly in the applications identified as most receptive to acceleration through parallelism. In fact, we'll go as far as to say that there is relatively little reason to consider a single-core CPU (if you can find one), except for power-saving applications.

There are a few applications for which users should invest in as many CPU cores as possible, which include video encoding, 3D rendering, and optimized productivity titles, such as AVG's virus-scanning software. The lesson for the gamer is that long gone are the days when a single-core CPU paired with a powerful graphics solution would be "good enough."

Article from the start:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/multi-core-cpu,review-31567.html

[Crixx_Creww]

 yawn @ shameless amd plug
all that long talk
i7 +nvidia = Gaming God

[W1nTry]

yawn @ shameless amd plug
all that long talk
i7 +nvidia = Gaming God

Silly crixx I just had to point out that they recommeded the X3 as a budget gaming processor as the INTEL test rig clearly indicated that the 4th core is NOT really utilized in gaming at present. That aside did you READ the article?

[Crixx_Creww]

i read it, and as soon as i saw the x3 plug
i recognised it for the propaganda piece that it is

[Arcmanov]

How did I know Crixx woulda jump on this one?

[W1nTry]

i read it, and as soon as i saw the x3 plug
i recognised it for the propaganda piece that it is

*sighs* some things will never change

PS also why my little 'triple' core keeping pace with your Quad :p

[Kraeoss]

oh well if crixx want 4 cores then fkkit let him go ahead lol... if you can plug a tri-core for no extra expense as an upgrade i say that too... true that intel has the best of both worlds but AMD is still just as ok budget wise lol... why spit out a 120 usd for a dual core @ 3.5 when you can have 3 cores @ 3.5 for 120 usd and 25% more performance clock for clock?
1.because it was cheaper
2.makes sense
3.what choice did i have lol best bang for buck imo

who have intel just get either a c2d or c2q, who have iamd get the best outta yuh money lol... yuh cyah vex with a man if he drinking a stag and you love carib lol.... especially if he buying

[Redfish]

man jus buy ting yes, cause it all comes down to how much money you have/willing to spend..........

[W1nTry]

man jus buy ting yes, cause it all comes down to how much money you have/willing to spend..........

qfmft!!!

[Crixx_Creww]

i read it, and as soon as i saw the x3 plug
i recognised it for the propaganda piece that it is

*sighs* some things will never change

PS also why my little 'triple' core keeping pace with your Quad :p

dem is fighting words hosss
lol "tripple core" uh huh
buh my cpu score is 4523 i real doh tink yurs in dah league doh...

[W1nTry]

I woulda expect de man to at least check meh benchmark before he say dat. My CPU score is 4190 actually and just think... I missing a core :p

[Kraeoss]

i read it, and as soon as i saw the x3 plug
i recognised it for the propaganda piece that it is

*sighs* some things will never change

PS also why my little 'triple' core keeping pace with your Quad :p

dem is fighting words hosss
lol "tripple core" uh huh
buh my cpu score is 4523 i real doh tink yurs in dah league doh...

if you and i in a marathon and i finish 10 secs after you then i was keeping up pace with you... noone said that the tricore would beat an intel quad... just keeps up lol



one of these good days the frikkin lil chip inside the terminator's head will be an amd ... watch an see

[W1nTry]

How bout if a man say I can keep pace with you in the 100m and 200m but you beat me in the high and long jump... different events, different skills. Gaming wise Crixx the triple slugs it out with the best of em, hence why it's a great BUDGET gaming chip :p now if we were to compare ohh encoding well that'd be different. However this is Gaming ATT not ENCODING ATT

[Kraeoss]

dude it's no use hardcore fanboi fanatic alert lol let's end it here lol

[Crixx_Creww]

i read it, and as soon as i saw the x3 plug
i recognised it for the propaganda piece that it is

*sighs* some things will never change

PS also why my little 'triple' core keeping pace with your Quad :p

dem is fighting words hosss
lol "tripple core" uh huh
buh my cpu score is 4523 i real doh tink yurs in dah league doh...

if you and i in a marathon and i finish 10 secs after you then i was keeping up pace with you... noone said that the tricore would beat an intel quad... just keeps up lol



one of these good days the frikkin lil chip inside the terminator's head will be an amd ... watch an see

that 10 seconds could be ten world record
i could be first and you could be 14th in that ten seconds  so bad example mengz..

more steups@ that budget blah blah talk
keep it up
run yourself into ground lol

and my card isnt as powerfull as yurs thats all
if i wanted too i could enter /crushwinniesamdcpuscorein3dmark
and it would all be over

[Arcmanov]

LoLz...this is funny.  Keep it coming fellaz.

[SPK]

Somehow when it comes to talking about Intel vs AMD, I am sorely tempted to treat Crixx like Grim Reaper...he doesn't even wish to hear, so let him live in his own lil world...while the rest of us can still discuss without going to pure fanboyism - don't feed the troll...

For low-cost gaming, those X3s look like a good alternative if on a serious budget, however if you wish to future-proof your system a little bit, I'm sure that it would make sense to invest in a quad-core chip, I'm sure it won't be long until we start to see games making proper use of 4 cores or even more...

[W1nTry]

For the record I never quoted the 3DMark gaming scores crixx, just the CPU score, although i'd be interested in seeing your scores with an 8800GT myself.

THat aside, the X3 is a great chip becuase if IS future proofed. Meaning, its' an AM3 chip.You could buy this chip for cheap now, in your AMD 790X/GX/FX mobo NOW with DDR3 and in a years time still upgrade to a quad or perhaps even more core chip in a years time. The AM3 platform is good till 2011 when the G35 sockets start to take the fray. Now if you consider Intel, you HAVE to go Core i7 for ANY kind of future proof as the LGA 775 is DEAD. It's not going to see any new chips or architecture. It'll at best be lower power chips. Otherwise on the intel front you have to wait until Core i5 (later this year or Q1 10) to get an affordable future proof system.

[SPK]

Well those are good points, I'd prefer to wait until later this year to see how the i5 chips perform, before making my decision as to my next upgrade path...be it AMD/Intel... the choices would be based on my budget more than anything else to step up from my E6600. It doesn't matter to me what type of chip I go with, as long as their performance meets my requirements on my budget - most likely $3500 maximum for CPU/MB/RAM.

[W1nTry]

Well the way things are.. Core i5 will have a dual channel controller not triple like i7 and it may disable HT depending on the model. So I would expect it to be clock-for-clock as good as Penryn with better memory performance. After all you can't introduce a budget part that will eat into the bottom line of your flagship part.