• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are you hard core?

How many CPU cores are you running in your main rig? (Round down)

  • 1

  • 2

  • 4

  • 6

  • 8

  • 10

  • 12

  • 16

  • More


Results are only viewable after voting.
Seems like there's a spurious demand all of a sudden for more cores when people are barely using the ones they have now. Also once you get to a certain number, you're better off running your software on the GPU.

So how hard core are you?

Poll.
 
4 PD cores (2 modules) @ 4.3Ghz. It offers peanuts power draw with great (burst) processing speed. More than I could use for what I need my PC. It costs ~77 dollars btw. All games and apps that I use work just great.
 
I think bulldozer modules should count as one core, personally.

not really, AMD calls a module 2 cores, and that's how they advertise their CPUs, and that's how people buy them,
also much of a core is duplicated and useless for single thread, a module to me looks like 2 cores sharing some resources, and the penalty to this sharing of resources is not that high.
 
not really, AMD calls a module 2 cores, and that's how they advertise their CPUs, and that's how people buy them,
also much of a core is duplicated and useless for single thread, a module to me looks like 2 cores sharing some resources, and the penalty to this sharing of resources is not that high.

It's basically a bad comparison, since people with AMD dual cores are running antiquated systems and almost all people running 8 cores will be using AMD with the few exceptions who have deep wallets.
 
It's basically a bad comparison, since people with AMD dual cores are running antiquated systems and almost all people running 8 cores will be using AMD with the few exceptions who have deep wallets.

it's irrelevant, dual core can be some 1GHz AMD C-60 or the i3 3240 the difference is bigger than 8350 vs 8 core sandy bridge-e (like the 2687w)
 
I too am of the opinion the AMD 4 module chips should count as 4 core. Many reasons why but having an 8350 isn't exactly hardcore, its basically quad core levels of performance.
 
I too am of the opinion the AMD 4 module chips should count as 4 core. Many reasons why but having an 8350 isn't exactly hardcore, its basically quad core levels of performance.

amd-fx-8350-piledriver-6.jpg


it doesn't perform like a quad core, it's not sold as a quad core.

simple example

Cinebench 11.5 with one core
8350 = 1.1
Phenom II X4 980 = 1.1

from a quad core you would expect 4 times (4.4) as much but, using all the available cores we get

8350 = 6.85
X4 980 = 4.37

it's around 80% of a core with no shared resources (in terms of performance), for HT it's probably more like 15-20%, but HT is hardly another core, it adds what? 5% of die space? (I don't really know),
 
My old twin Harpertown LGA771 E5472 Xeons beat the E3-1230 i borrowed in many different benchmarks, even gaming ones, oddly enough (they suck at single thread, of course). I think I need an overclocked 3770K to produce a decisive victory. So I'm staying with the old HP xw8600 for now.
 
A very legitimate and interesting question, but I guarantee you this thread will turn ugly in a hurry. I answered the poll, I am using a quad core, but I am going to try to control myself and not post further.
 
What about how many total cores in your house ? I have 68 cores in desktops in my house. Actually if you count threads, I have 42 more than that.
 
12 cores, 20 threads in this household in 4 devices if only counting PC.

Will go down to 12 cores, 16 threads when Haswell arrives.
 
Back
Top