Cores for the CPU

[hoofhearted4]

what does it mean to have more cores. i noticed a hexacore intel cpu is twice that of a quad core, and that the AMD 1100 is hexacore is mad cheap compared to that of intel CPUs. why is one hexa core 3 times that of another. what would benefit from having six cores? ive read games dont really care about cores (hence no real need for hyper threading on a gaming rig)

 

but damn, if the 1100 comes with 6 cores at under $200, maybe im better off with that then the i5-2500k....

[bben46]

Depends on what you are doing. Very few games take advantage of multi core processors yet, and older games such as Oblivion will actually run slower as they can only use one core. Hopefully the next generation of games will be able to use the extra processing power of multi core processors. In my opinion, spending on multi core processors right now is not justified. Maybe in a year or so when the programs catch up to the hardware they will be more useful.

[evilneko]

Have you watched a CPU monitor while playing? Pretty sure Oblivion does fine, though I haven't played it in forever and don't remember. Fallout 3 and NV sure do. All four of my cores are in use during play and you can even watch usage drop on one or two of them when you bring up the menu. :thumbsup:

[Vecna6667]

The Intel hexa-core has hyperthreading which allows each core to perform two set of instructions thus making it function like a 12-core processor. Plus it is Intel's big kahuna of processors and in many head-to-head benchmarks, the i7-980x and i7-990x give a major beatdown to the Phenom II X 6 1100T. As for real world applications, the average person might or might not see the performance difference but it depends on what the computer is used for. On a final note, the i7 series in socket LGA1366(920-990x) are cousins to the server based Xeon processor's(the main difference is that the i7s don't support multi-processor setups(more than one CPU on the motherboard.))

[hoofhearted4]

im just basically debating between the AMD 1100t hexacore, or the i5-2500k quad core

 

actually by the time im ready to build my PC bulldozer will be out (9/19/11 so ive read) so i might go with that, but ive read its gunna be like $300+ sooo ya...then again ivy bridge will be out after the new year, but those could also be a good chuck of change... so ya. in the end, my PC wont be built until next Spring, or maybe even summer (like June, though i REALLY wanna make it before then but priorities...) so ill have to wait for bulldozer and ivy bridge to both come out, see comparisons and prices and decide then, who knows maybe ill end up going with a phenom or a sandy bridge over the new products, it all depends on price. i dont really need extra cores, my PC will be gaming and not anything like video editing or anything like that, however, extra cores would be nice for future gaming if they ever take advantage of the extra cores. still a lot to consider and a lot of time to do it in.

 

ugh too many options!!! :psyduck:

Edited August 4, 2011 by hoofhearted4

[Iv000]

Buying the hexacore will ensure you that you won't have to buy CPU's anytime soon.

Games like Witcher 2 still only use 3 cores at 60% on my 1090T.

 

I recommend the Hexacore, just for the sake of buying over powered stuff that is not used to 100%.

If you buy the quad core now, you'll have to buy a hexa sometime later.

 

If you plan on modding and doing 3D graphics or Photoshop, then I recommend it even more.

[Vagrant0]

Have a quad core, and had a dual core on my old build... Never noticed much of a problem with games. About the most you ever have to do is pay with core affinity (in Task Manager) to unset core 0 then set it again to force the spread across other cores. Even if a game only uses one core, it will usually just push background processes like windows to use mostly the other ones, which is still a considerable speed boost.

 

Going from a 2 core to a 4 core I noticed quite a large change in even Oblivion in that enemies in fighting reacted MUCH faster, even to the point of making me suck hard in melee for awhile, despite the fact that the individual cores clocked lower. I would say that most games now make use of multi-core to some extent, they may just not be particularly good at it.

[hoofhearted4]

yea like i said, im leaning more towards the AMD 1100t because its hexacore. id love to get the intel hexacore but at almost $600 there is just no way i would/could spend that much money on it. as i said also, ill wait to see the new bulldozer/ivy bride CPUs, see what they offer and what they cost. i dont mind spending $350 on an octocore but im gunna guess the ivy bridges will cost twice that.

 

but as was said above, if i can, id like to get a hexacore at least just for the sake of having more then i need.

[Iv000]

Going from a 2 core to a 4 core I noticed quite a large change in even Oblivion in that enemies in fighting reacted MUCH faster, even to the point of making me suck hard in melee for awhile, despite the fact that the individual cores clocked lower. I would say that most games now make use of multi-core to some extent, they may just not be particularly good at it.

Really? For me, going from a 2 to a 6 core I didn't notice a big difference in performance, I still get lower FPS (It falls from 60 to 30) when I'm looking at multiple NPC's.

[Vagrant0]

Going from a 2 core to a 4 core I noticed quite a large change in even Oblivion in that enemies in fighting reacted MUCH faster, even to the point of making me suck hard in melee for awhile, despite the fact that the individual cores clocked lower. I would say that most games now make use of multi-core to some extent, they may just not be particularly good at it.

Really? For me, going from a 2 to a 6 core I didn't notice a big difference in performance, I still get lower FPS (It falls from 60 to 30) when I'm looking at multiple NPC's.

That would be videocard, not processor. Processor relates to faster reaction times of NPCs, not how smooth the action is.