Is Processor Speed More Important than CPU Cores?

[slimshadyowns]

MacBooks: 13 inch 2.8 ghz,dual core, 1500$...while 15 inch quad core 2.2 ghz, 1,850$

which one would you go with???

[RadauGaming]

@slimshadyowns I'd go with an ASUS ROG laptop with an i7 and a GTX 560 Ti for $1,000 and install OSX on that lol

[xaoscasuga]

what about 1ghz quad core to 3ghz dual core?

[ht448]

The caller was like "What"?!?

[Falcrist]

Currently the i7 2600k (6 cores with hyperthreading) is not substantially better than the i5 2500k (4 cores without hyperthreading) in a gaming environment. It's over a year later, so I'm calling BS on this answer.

Only a handful of programs are really optimized for multiple processing cores. If you use one of these, it's better to have more cores. Otherwise, it's just not cost effective.

[marine0816]

Perillo is overrated. He's one of this nerds that thinks hes smart because he wears glasses.

[happyguy215]

for gaming is it better to have a dual core with hyperthreading or quad core without hyperthreading

[EverythingISTech]

@happyguy215 opinion based..but it really wouldn't matter in the end (As I would think) I run games fine on a 2.5ghz Quad Core 8gb ram and 9800 Nvidia computer.

[Princeofwondelrand]

@happyguy215 hyperthreading dose nothing for games.

[REPOMAN24722]

cache is most inportant

[KedViper]

What about hexicore? And does .1GHz make any difference?

[ross9106]

cam you help me i am looking for a program it will speed up cpu speed i no mac os 10 got CPU Speed Accelerator it work on it but i cant find one for windows thanx

[DBZisthebestanimever]

processor speed are better on PCSX2 ONLY!

[cankarales]

what about hyperthreading?

[facebag666]

@cankarales virtual second processor core, so one core two threads of information at a time

[2cool2pawnd]

If i gonna download a game that recommands 2.4 GHz and i have 2.1 GHz is the gonna be verry slow or in the middel of high and slow???????

[iExD]

More cores or More Ram?

[geekconnection]

i meen the logicboard...

[geekconnection]

ASUS and apple should team up to evolve the Motherboard! what do you think chris?

[HollyTheFireNinja]

I wonder? My computer's Intel dual-core @ 6300, but a game requires dual core @ 6600, would upgrading to quad core @ 6300 allow me to play the game, despite slightly lower speed but having more cores?

[masticina]

@HollyTheFireNinja

Usually more cores can fix any expected speed needs. Remember that nowadays we are having many different threads running on our systems. So more cores can mean giving your sound system, graphical system, the games Ai and so on.. much more time. Because less task switching is needed!

[sawakadin]

anyone there what is better dual core with 3.0ghz or a phenom triple core with 2.3 ghz?

[facebag666]

@sawakadin unlock the fourth core in the phenom and you have a cheap quad you can do it with the phenom dual cores to

[Kyle91122]

i need your help Im getting a new cpu but i dont no what processor to get for maximum performance and gameplay. it will have 8gb of ram

the : PHENOM II Quad core 956 3.4 GHz

or the : AMD PHENOM II X6 SIX-CORE 1055T CPU 2.80GHz

wich one will be better performance and will run better with my 8gb of ram??? some one please help

[schmidtbag]

@Kyle91122

probably too late at this point but 8gb is EXTREMELY overkill, most games don't use more than 3gb, and the quad core is a better choice for gaming. the 6 core is overall a better cpu but games don't tend to use more than 3 cores

[facebag666]

@schmidtbag all games released in the past 12 months largest ram req is 4gb

[schmidtbag]

@facebag666 yes, the LARGEST ram requirement, but most of them require at most 3gb. almost every game within the past 2 years can work on 2gb, if you know how to set up windows properly. windows 7 64 bit consumes a little over 1gb of ram. i got 32 bit windows 7 to consume about 230MB. with that much of a memory difference, some games will not work on 2gb, or even 3gb.

depending on how you set up windows, 2gb with a paging file is all you REALLY need for almost every game ever released

[Coilaman]

@schmidtbag

8GB of RAM memory is never an overkill. Even though you might never use it all, it will speed up your computer a whole lot and make it much more responsive and smoother in anything you do.

8GB of RAM is also a good idea for future-proofing your computer because in 3 years from now you will need it.

[schmidtbag]

@Coilaman i'm well aware that programs like photoshop are memory consuming, thats why i was specifically discussing gaming. there are plenty of specialized computers or programs that require massive amounts of memory. to me 4gb for photoshop is insufficient. but, 4gb for lets say modern gaming on windows xp 32 bit PAE is more than necessary. also, unless you're doing triple or quadruple memory channels, there is such thing as too much memory. you do lose performance after about 12gb.

[Coilaman]

@schmidtbag

Actually, you are wrong. The more RAM you have the better the performance. Some people put 64GB of RAM in their dual processor servers (12 cores total) and they swear by the huge speed increase over stock machine with only 6GB.

There is absolutely no performance penalty for having over 12GB of RAM memory. Somebody was joking with you when they told you that. Look at the RAM performance benchmarks and you will see for yourself. Google is your best friend.

[schmidtbag]

@Coilaman no, once you get to 12gb on dual channel memory, you begin to lose performance. theres proof on it. note that i said DUAL CHANNEL. 2 dual core processors is quadruple channel, where 6gb isn't very much.

32 bit OSes are still very active, as there are still dozens of 32 bit programs and games still being released. windows is still very far behind in 64 bit technology (linux being the most ahead). i brought up xp to make a point, i didn't say anything about whether its worth using

[Coilaman]

@schmidtbag

The whole Windows XP thing and the 32-bit operating systems are dead in the water. Old machines use it because they have no choice, but everybody else is switching over to 64-bit Windows 7.

End of life for Windows XP (Service Pack 3) is April 2014. Windows XP SP2 is already dead.

[Coilaman]

@schmidtbag

You can never have too much RAM memory. Especially if you work with Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. Not everybody uses their computer just for gaming. I know some people with 32GB of RAM and they say the difference in speed and stability of their computer is like night and day compared to having the same machine with just 3GB.

[schmidtbag]

@Coilaman 8gb can still be considered overkill for the average user because not everybody is rich and should be paying for more than twice the amount of memory they need. i'm not sure why you think 3 years from now 8gb will be needed - windows 7 is less memory demanding than vista and its newer. i hope you realize that since vista came out, computers normally came with about 4gb on average, meaning microsoft is the only reason why there are "memory issues" today. mac and linux weren't affected

[oliverTbest]

Most software is not optimized for more than 1 core, but the OS is getting more smart, and simply put : the more cores you have, the more CPU percentage you can throw to a process. And that does not hurt. Old servers use the multi-core technology for a long time already, and they typically have more cores, less pure CPU-power per core. But, that is OK. I hope single cores are about to die, cause it's really a bad idea, but the problem is software : it needs to be adapted, to gain even more !

[poolboyinla]

I just saved 10 percent with this coupon at godaddy.

[darroni123]

processor or cpu?

[jac70j]

@darroni123 processer mean cpu cpu means central processing unit

[darroni123]

@jac70j i mean what should i get to play games like crysis without lagg

[jac70j]

@darroni123 yes i should it depends on who make the processer and how many cores it has and the clock speed

[kokocipher]

4 Core will always be better off than 2 Core. Here is why.  More core processor means less load on each processor, hence the computer will not heat up too easily. 2 Core with higher GHZ processor will give better initial performance of your software, but it will not last long, this is because the processors will heat up very quickly and soon it will be overheated, and the speed will drop.

[angelstrife]

To define a good processor without tests 1, number of cores. 2 the amount of l2cache. 3 speed of ghz and lastly l3cache

[Mongoosh]

@KiillWiithMe If the single core would be a 2.6 but the effectiv speed is 2.6 and the single core is 1.6 ghz . If i would put an other cpu in my workstation it would be like 5.3 but i have to search 4 that cpu.

[MrPlayboy28]

'(...)2.2 hz quad-core or a 2.5ghz dual-core one(...)' A 2.2 hertz Quad Core processor? *.*

[ShadowedRuin0]

If you get the 2.2GHz quad-core, you can always easily overclock it to 2.5GHz without much trouble.

[RTWSonataRTW]

@MrRubberbandman6 No.

[MrRubberbandman6]

@RTWSonataRTW y?

[RTWSonataRTW]

@MrRubberbandman6 You are a faggot.

/rant

[MrRubberbandman6]

@RTWSonataRTW i have prof

[naryanr]

dual core is just old now.

[daniel87980]

Quads Rule!

[p00pindas00p]

I'd also take into account the cache memory (L1, L2, L3 these days).

[766films]

OVERCLOCKING!

[Ninesvnsicks]

Well if your a gamer go with the higher clock speed but the difference between 2.2 and 2.5 is not much you'd be better off with the quad.

[alexcstudios]

yes to title

[matheusmoraest]

That's a really stupid question...

The more cores the better!

[amalwaysawsome]

i have an imac core i5 2.66ghz and my dad has a sony vaio notebook Core i7 1.66 ghz which one is better?

[Probewitch]

I thought Coor's was a brand of beer. More is better !

[kahuna3901]

it also depends on what other specs thast the computers you're buying may have. for example if they are similar in price then there may be a shortcoming like cheaper graphics card or slower/smaller hdd in the computer with the quad core. however you should know these things when your considering any computer

[beachballa93]

I have an iMac dual core 2.4 ghz and its been slow as hell. I've done everything to speed it up but nothing helps. Its so painful to use. I've been contemplating Macintosh harakiri and moving to windows.

[blackbird309]

A multicore processor is only as good as the software that allows it.

[Acceptable76]

In my opinion, I prefer cores. I don't care if a processor has 2.0GHz or even 1.80GHz for that matter. It's still fast in its own way. Preferably the amount of RAM helps your computer to.

[camtheman499videos]

all these phone call people are pretty dumb and sound the same

[Haroids]

Derrrrrrrrrrrp.

Obvious answer is obvious.

Unless money is an issue.

[OfficialAndy]

Eye contact chris, eye contact...

[PracticalGuitar]

Pffft quad core,I have a 2.93GHz 8core!! oh yeah baby!!

[seva404]

@PracticalGuitar And I have a 8 core that I didn't spend 4000 dollars on. =)

[kylehulton]

@seva404 @PracticalGuitar 8 Cores? I thought Intel had only hit 6 Cores with the Highest Core i7 and with their Xeon Processors? I had assumed that with the Core i7 using multiple threads to each core, a bit like to the old old old Pentium 4 HT that it had 8-12 Threads showing 8-12 graphs in Task Manager? correct me if I'm wrong, Cos even I'm not sure

[seva404]

@kylehulton Its just 2 quad core CPU's.

[ThatKidWithTheMac]

@kylehulton proly has 2 quad core cpu's

[kylehulton]

@seva404 @ThatKidWithTheMac aah I think I get it now ^_^... I wonder what AMD's going to conjure up, perhaps a 12-core just to over compensate for something else ;)

[PracticalGuitar]

@seva404 I didn't spend a penny! I won a 2.93GHz 8-Core apple mac pro , 32GB (8x4GB) RAM, 4x2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb (8TB), NVIDIA Ge-force GT 120 512MB (4off) and two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays. All other upgrades done also, the best apple mac currently in production at full spec, approx £16500 worth off mac with all top software. which is around $25,000 worth. I know I'm damn lucky,and all i use it for is surfing the net and gaming lol. I'm learning video and music editing now though

[seva404]

@PracticalGuitar Right, you won a maxed out Mac Pro.... Obviously someone's savings went down the drain.

[sandiegoborn32]

@PracticalGuitar

4 GT 120s? Are you retarded? If you're going to get 4 GPUs to run in Quad SLI, get 4 GTX 480s. Although personally, I would prefer 4 5870s to run in 4-way CrossfireX, because they consume less energy and produce less heat.

But WHY 4 GT 120s? Is my main question...

[PracticalGuitar]

@sandiegoborn32 because i won it with a competition via Apple and it's what they put it,hey it was free so I can't complain,not run a program or game it can't handle yet so happy day's.

[PracticalGuitar]

Pffft .....quad core!! I have a 2.93GHz 8core!!! oh yeah!!!

[TheFireBeats]

Chris you have to look into the camera when your answering questions from viewers... just an observation.

[carloskillix]

2.2 ghz not 2.2hz in description

[W0lfbaneShikaisc00l]

yes but dual core is more suitable for gaming... then again he's a mac user =S

[GameBoy2036]

I'm disappointed that my Dell Dimension E521 Could only take 2 Cores. so now im with a AMD x2 at 3.0 GHz..... I will be building a system very soon.

[wan2do]

I have a Question. I am wondering how to piggy back 2 cpus as I have 2 computers with the same cpus in them and want to combine them into one faster computer. is there any way to do that?

[omi007]

Wheres your new 17inch laptop?

[4M321K0]

Crhis Rules!

[georgewig]

get an i7 , then you don't give a damn

[spudw2k]

I agree, even if software isn't designed to use multiple cores, having them avail makes multi-tasking better.

[VAR1UM]

Why on Earth would you spend $1,000 for a 3ghz 6 core when you can get the same through AMD for under $300? Craziness...

[costescuandrei1975]

I expected a dual with 3.2 vs a 2.2 quad..

[S1lv3rr0ck3r]

@chris: gigahertz is like you rpm meter in your car. FLOPS are more like your speedometer. Run a benchmark that tells you about the FLOPS and then compare

[feralkuriboh]

2.2 GHz quad or 2.5 GHz dual?

I'd go for teh 3.3 hexa (6) core!

[some307]

@feralkuriboh or a 73.8 ubercore

[arcanemaxp]

@feralkuriboh quad i7 is good :]

[feralkuriboh]

@arcanemaxp Yeah, but teh i7-980 extreme is hexa @ 3.33 GHz ;)

[asus3571]

what about a quad thats hyperthreaded vs a standered quad

[jorn89]

@asus3571 Hyperthreaded is better but if you overclock you neet to turn it off.

[asus3571]

@jorn89 thanks brother ? for ya thogh i recently built an i7920 rig and have oc it with ht on from 2.6 stock to 3400mhz so oceing with hyperthreading is possible my ? is to u would running that cpu with hyperthreading on at stock 2.6ghz be better than lets say 3.6ghz with it turned off

[bikerman9999]

QUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAADD!!!!!

500000 cool points to whoever guesses the reference lol

[sandiegoborn32]

Dude Chris, you should REALLY do your own TV show.

[stacked1000]

The clock speed is per core.

hz is a frequency measure is cycles per second.

Therefore you can multiply the number of cores by clock frequency to give a rough estimate of the power.

8.8 ghz vs 5 ghz essentially.

The quad core is clearly the better option.

~~~~~

Also other post that have referred to hyperthreading.

Hyper thread is when a core has both is split into 2. An actual core and a virtual one which both share the same clock frequency.

[teckim]

@stacked1000 Nice to see that some people knows what they are talking about.

Keep it up!

[MullenThomas1507]

@stacked1000 Wrong, Hertz is a frequency measurement, it has no sense to multiply per core because it will not increase the frequency the electricity is processed. Now, if an application is coded to work on multi-core systems it will use the full potential of the processor, otherwise it will run on a single core.

Today (2010) there are still a lot of applications coded to work on a single core, including many of the last games, so it is better to get the 2.5GHz dual core.

[daniel87980]

@MullenThomas1507 Bullshit haven't you heard of "Hyper-Transport" Makes use of all cores.

[stacked1000]

@MullenThomas1507

I don't know if you read my post correctly or not but I said it gives a ROUGH estimate.

Obviously there are situation where it won't fit to be true, such as a situation where an application only uses 1 core. In which case, most applications today are coded for multiple threaded processors.

Frequency/Hertz is a measure of cycles per second(check wikipedia). Meaning that if 2 cores run each at 200,000,000 cycles per second, or 200 mhz. They total to 400,000,000 cycles(400 mhz).

[stacked1000]

@stacked1000

Continued:

Though this is not true like you said, where a program is coded to use only one thread.

I was only using a rough estimater.

[MullenThomas1507]

@stacked1000 So, imagine a processor with 4 cores at 3.5GHz, how many minutes it will take tu burn? As I said, it is incorrect to multiply frequency per core. Greets.

[FrozenIceCweam]

@stacked1000 Only Diffrence is a Single core 10ghz can put 10 ghz to one app but a dual core 5ghz can only put 5ghz to a single app unless its multithreaded.

[facebag666]

@stacked1000 your argument is true if the program you are running uses four cores if not than you can divide that number by 50-25%

[TheMRamstaff]

@KiillWiithMe MAN IF IT HAS 2 CORES U DONT PUT THE SPEED ON BOTH CORES AND AD IT UP . THAT SPEED IS USED BY BOTH CORES BUT NOT 2.XX ON EACH CORE . IT HAS 2.XX AS HE SAID SO DUMB ANSWER

[cabokevin]

Yeah i've been wanting to know this for a while.

[triner157]

I would pick Quad-Core Offers better preformance. :)

[nickerless557]

@KiillWiithMe how do u figure that?

[pfjb123]

@1993gandy yes it does.

[Mongoosh]

i got an old xeon 3.6 pentium 4 and a newer core 2 duo with less 2.66 ghz. Since i got the machine with xeon. I didnt use my newer pc. Aldo it has a mutch faster FSB

(bye the way does anybody have an old 3.6 xeon procesor, i stil got an empty socket)

[philhalo66]

more cores is always better, plus you can always overclock

[masticina]

Troublesome, I always go for a combination of the number of cores and of course Cache. Cache is the lifestream, after all one has to remember that the memory is slower then the processor, Cache is the little area that makes up that problem.

But yeah cores, having more is nice how more cores how more can run in the "background" offering you still a nice running free core. That and yes many many applications these days are multi core.

[blankpaper66]

Different anount of cores = different ratings.

a 2.6 GHz dual core processor made a few yars ago compared to newer quad core processors rated at 2.6GHz would be quite slow.

Also, the fact that intel now has turbo boost so the ratings aren't static, they all change, mine is an i7 M 620 2.7GHz - 3.33 GHz.

so...

[Win7Geek1]

How can i call chris??

[kennyozakie]

what a noob question

[Greenadee]

@kennyozakie you don't have the right to say that. Just because you knew the answer doesn't mean he did.

[dakshinamurti]

@kennyozakie is that supposed to make people feel bad about their current level and endorsing not posing questions as an effective tactic to getting to non-noob status?

[ITsHardstyle]

it depends on what u are going to use it for.

[dragonrow3]

I5 750 I7 all kind are great processors

[pfjb123]

I see AMD has a new 6 core processor

---

Sent From lockergnome's Facebook Application

[1993gandy]

@pfjb123 doesn't i7 have 6 cores

[ikcti]

@1993gandy i7 920-975 is 4 cores, 980X is 6.

[bogieman987]

@ikcti Doesnt i7 have like hyperthreading or something which makes it seem like it has 8 cores?

[TheNitrohp]

i use phenom .....and don t have problems.......really faster with windows 7 and chrome.

[gamerguy12345]

that was such a dumb question

[dimaflour]

agree

[useurcamera]

oh so it means the quad core is better?

[buzzy0016]

@useurcamera duhh.

[useurcamera]

@buzzy0016 cmon i was justing making sure.

i take that as a yes :|

[PuzzleboxFilms]

@useurcamera better is relative.

[zlcoolboy]

Its good that Chris is only allowing short calls now, those long calls that were mainly rants were getting annoying.

[Scarlatch]

@zlcoolboy I actually rather enjoyed the discussion aspect of the longer calls. The shorter calls don't offer a lot of room for user discussion with Chris. Seems less personal to me. I might as well call someone with Intel sales if I just want them to tell me what's better.

[feedthefishy]

@zlcoolboy That may be true, But this is too short.

[jasebarone]

Youtube, help. Real world scenario I'm going through right now: Taking battery life AND power into consideration, which CPU do you think is "better". Core i7 620m (dual core 2.66) or the Core i7 720qm (quad core 1.60)

[Paolomondo]

@jasebarone Obviously the i7 620m. It has smaller die than the i7 720qm and produces less heat and consumes less electricity.

[MrROTD]

I like more cores so I get more buckets rendering graphics at one time lol

[YTBYlover]

He forgot about OverClocking! But by the sounds of it, this guy wont be doing to much of that.

[ahmadclk]

@YTBYlover overclocking sucks, i underclock my cpu so i can remove my fan and my computer will be silent.

[YTBYlover]

@ahmadclk lol

[FXKrait]

@ahmadclk dude its pretty hard to remove a fan on stock cooler, unless you bought an after market passive cooler.

[DrMu5tCh3at2W1n]

why do they always ask the most basic questions?

[dgm2006]

When comparing processor power, I take the number of cores times the speed times the number of bit processor if they are different, and if I understand right, this arbitrary number should give a comparison of raw processor power.

[falseaddress010]

quad cuz u can always oc :D

[CJCA915]

Well, it depends on what you plan on doing, FSX runs better on a high end dual core, than a quad core, until you get up to Core i7 Quad Cores.

For me, a Quad Core is better, since I do CG rendering, and stuff, so the more cores the better.

[TheMatt7000]

Thanks Chris, This will help allot seeing that I'll be buying a new pc soon :)

[dnave21]

ram is important also

[ViciousDave4Life]

More cores is better. Speed is beneficial, but it's been proven through time that speed can only go so far. Which is why Intel and AMD started making dual core, triple core, and quad core, and the new 6 core cpus. More cores is better. But, you will not need one of these new 6 core CPUs that Intel and AMD have both put out. Buy a quad core, the 6 cores cost a lot more, especially the Intel ones.

[davidenelson]

yes

[MrkelloJello]

fail x11

[Andorian25]

Quad without a doubt ^^

[BamBamBigellow]

fail x10

[shaytardsADDICT]

where's the new macbook pro?!?!

[alexb12kt]

@shaytardsADDICT Old video - he is away in D.C.

[DeltaPhi79]

Well I can tell you this much. If you wanted to consider some older processors, the 3.8GHz Pentium IV is still slower than the lowest end Pentium D money can buy... That's showing something there.

[unvacme]

fail x9

[DavinDaGeek]

Oh noes, what happen to Chris's new Macbookpro =0?

[unvacme]

@DavinDaGeek this is prolly an older video and he uploads overtime

[alexb12kt]

@DavinDaGeek Old video - he is away in D.C.

[DavinDaGeek]

@alexb12kt Thanks, yo =)

[sitsolve]

fail x8

[kbr247]

fail x7