Fastest single-thread CPU ?

[oktam]

Hello there. I am using some apps, which are overloading my CPU. Also they work only in single-thread...

So, what is current fastest CPU to run single-threaded application?

I was checking at CPU Benchmarks http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2 ... could you please suggest me, which benchmarks there run in single-thread only, so i can compare various CPUs with this criteria?

 

[zagood]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2081240

 

[Rifter]

Intel 980X i believe is the fastest, have your wallet ready though it aint cheap.

 

[Lonyo]

Core i5 680 is the fastest single thread processor at stock.
Stock 3.6GHz, Turbo up to 3.86GHz.

 

[aigomorla]

Core i5 680 is the fastest single thread processor at stock.
Stock 3.6GHz, Turbo up to 3.86GHz.

+1

Assuming we are ignoring the unlocked multi cpu's.

 

[oktam]

So, if i want single-thread and nothing else - dual-core i5 680 (3866 MHz; 2x1333=2666 memory) is best option ($294).

But as i was checking, quad-core i5 750 (3199 MHz; 2x1333=2666 memory) is in single-thread slightly slower than i5 680, but in every other aspect (double amount of cores and cache) it excels and it is cheaper too ($196).

And if i want advanced CPU, with HT, next good stage is quad-core i7 860 (3465 Mhz; 2x1333=2666 memory) ($284).

I guess that quad-core i7 930 (3066MHz) makes sense only if i need triple memory channel which is only 20% faster than dual-channel (3x1066=3198) ($294).

 

[IntelUser2000]

So, if i want single-thread and nothing else - dual-core i5 680 (3866 MHz; 2x1333=2666 memory) is best option ($294).

I'd say Core i7 980X is probably still the fastest. The lower latency memory and the greater L3 cache will help, but only a little bit. Of course, its overkill if you are using it exclusively for single thread.

You might also look for the i7 860. Triple channel does almost nothing for single thread.

 

[soccerballtux]

whats your current CPU? it's unlikely you need to buy an expensive overpriced intel chip to meet your needs.

 

[faxon]

i5 680 is definitely the best pick. people forget the 980X has a higher cache latency so there are some apps which will be faster on something else, but even single core turbo, it only matches the base clock speed of the i5 680 (@3.6ghz), while the i5 680 turbos up to 3.86ghz. for single threaded applications, this would definitely be the fastest cpu you can buy. i sell these things to autoCAD designers all the time who are looking for absurd single threaded performance since intel hasnt really thrown them a bone in a long time, increasing per core performance only marginally vs multicore since conroe came out

 

[oktam]

whats your current CPU? it's unlikely you need to buy an expensive overpriced intel chip to meet your needs.

My current CPU is in my laptop... Intel T7200.
980X may be best, but thats wasting of money. I think, i7-860 may have good performance for resonable money.

I need it for Java application, which is generating (calculating) and drawing graphs. It uses few MB of data, than makes various (simple, but recursive) calculations and than it creates nice colorfull graphs. I realized that while application is calculating one graph, everything else inside that aplication stops, so i made conclusion that it is purely single-thread application.

 

[Rifter]

I agree that the 980X is a huge rip off, you did however ask for the best and did not specify a price. And from all the benchmarks i have seen for single thread the 980x has been the best. I have not seen benchmarks for the new CPU's though(i5 680)

Based your current CPU anything from the new i5 or i7 family will be an big improvement.

 

[MeTechE]

If you are willing to overclock, a chip with an unlocked multiplier would allow you to easily tweak single threaded performance. You may not need the extra performance, so it's best to make a list of all the applications you will be using and checking out how they run on dual vs quad core processors.

There are only two unlocked processors for socket 1156, the Core i7 655K and the Core i7 875K (which I am selling here for $55 off the newegg price).

I would definitely recommend using Anandtech's own benchmark page to easily grasp all the performance differences.

 

[AircobraA]

Sorry to bump an old thread. Some might be interested in my experience. I was running an old single treaded app on Dual Xeon 2.4Ghz on a specific task, which took about 8.5 days to complete, this dropped to 2 days on a i3-520 clocked to 4Ghz. The task appears bottlenecked by the SATA HD. I sure if I used a SSD it would drop even further.

I tried a Dual, Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5503 and it took 4.5 days.

 

[Idontcare]

The task appears bottlenecked by the SATA HD. I sure if I used a SSD it would drop even further.

How big of a file space does the app require? If merely a gig or two then you could consider implementing a software based ram-drive and entirely remove storage speed from the equation for all practical purposes.

(I used a 5+ GB ramdrive for years to negate a log-file read/write performance limitation in an app I used, this was before flash-based SSD even existed, worked like a charm)

 

[AircobraA]

I tird squeezing it into a ram disk, I got it down to about 1.5GB, and it just fit on a 4GB machine (Win7/64). With a bit of free ram (couple hundred k) left when running, Still was heavy disk access. I'm assuming it could be how its coded, its an old Access application with lots of old VBA. I tried doing a quick fix by moving the data to SQL and linking the tables, but it won't work without rewriting it almost completely. Which I don't have the time to do.

I didn't have the funds to try more ram, or a ssd.

Frequent disk access is something I've never manage to eliminate with my W7 installs. Even when idle my Win7 installs have regular disk access even with nothing but the OS installed. I've turned off all indexing, and all services I can think of and never managed to get to the bottom of it.